Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Krynus Ogrebane 10-24-03, 07:56 AM	THE CREDITS There are alot of people who feel the sorcerer is... lacking. You may or may not be familiar with the effort started by Baron Von Shleppinstein on the old Classes boards. For reference, here are the links: The Ultimate Sorcerer Thread (old boards, 10 pages) (http://archivedboards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=110;t=006 968;p=) The Ultimate Sorcerer Thread (current boards, 7 pages) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44459&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) Alternate SORCERER, finally completed (current boards, 14 pages) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60596&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) (even though it wasn't quite "completed" yet :blush: ) Notice that this has been going on since April 29, 2003. Well, we want to present the current version of the product for anyone who would like to use it in their games. Also, reviews, opinions, and comments are welcome. Before I do, I'd just like to take a moment to thank everyone who contributed their opinions (both for and against), ideas (both accepted and rejected), and general comments: So my sincere thanks to: Baron Von Shleppinstein, KEB87, GrandTransmuter, Jaerom Darkwind, Master Morgan, Cauldrath, E_Planeswalker, sooperspook, Thot, Karlandanon, Talcoram Cyndar, Spyy22, Jaxxom, Cross Hatch, reddkey, Sephiroth-sama, Contactus the Bold, Tenerus, Dryden the Ranger, Aldym Nochnorien, Vamped One, Teh Lurv, Jaguar45, Ninja Joe, theldran, losu, Lia Nightdemon, Grayray, Salvatoria, Montieth, Monk of Mirth, numenarh, mellowship, DragonSorcerer, Edymnion, Thelon Fairblade, Baptor, Char9727, Talisen_Silvers, Daelen_Usamigarious, Norman's Golden Cow, Corinanthe, Automatic Flowers, Branduil, Voidsoul, Ser Jaden, loydsamthird, Zhou-sheng, Prophet of Chaos, Sorxores, Wolfvyn, Char9728, Caledonian, Chosen_of_Ao, BlaineTog, ConfusedUs, Evanta, SirisC, & spasheridan. An additional thanks to those of you who consistently and tirelessly worked to help shape this sorcerer into its current form. And a special tip of the hat to the playtesters: Coyote Skyheart, Servant, Israfel666, NestroEmichae, Frank the Vandal, Thot, Zombie Lord, Krystoff, & nrgle. -- Krynus ~~~~~ I'd like to reiterate that reviews, opinions, and comments are welcome.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-24-03, 07:57 AM	THE CLASS This is a v3.5-compliant alternative to the Player's Handbook Sorcerer core class. version 8.04 - Alignment: Any. - Hit Die: d4. - BAB: +1/2 levels. - Saving Throws: Fortitude low, Reflex low, Will high. - Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Sorcerers are proficient with all simple weapons. They are not proficient with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a sorcerer's arcane gestures, which can cause his spells with somatic components to fail. - Skill Points at 1st Level: (2 + INT modifier) × 4. - Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 2 + INT modifier. - Class Skills: The sorcerer's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Bluff (CHA), Concentration (CON), Craft (INT), Knowledge [arcana] (INT), Profession (WIS), and Spellcraft (INT). - Sorcerer Spell List: (as the PHB) SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 3/2 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/5 4/2 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/5 4/3 ²1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 5/3 3/1 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 5/4 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/7 5/4 4/2 3/1 - - - - - - 7 ¹6/7 5/5 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - 8 ¹6/8 5/5 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - - 9 ¹6/8 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - 10 ¹6/9 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - 11 ¹7/9 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - 12 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - 13 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - 14 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - 15 ¹8/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - 16 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - 17 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 3/2 ²1/- 18 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 4/2 3/1 19 ¹9/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 4/2 20 ¹9/12 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 5/3 ---- ¹ = In addition to the cantrip slots per day listed in this column, add the sorcerer's Charisma modifier to determine how many cantrip slots/day she has available. ² = Although the sorcerer does not know spells of the appropriate level at these points, available spell slots may be used to cast lower level spells, or metamagic may alter a lower level spell for casting at the higher slot. - Class Abilities... see the following table. lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 ¹Summon Familiar 2 ¹Special 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 Special - ¹Summon Familiar: (as the PHB class ability). As an alternative, a sorcerer may select Eschew Sorcerer Materials, instead of Summon Familiar, at character creation. If she does, the second level special ability for the sorcerer becomes Summon Familiar. This option is not available to characters with levels in another core class. - Spell Evolution: Upon reaching 4th level, and every two sorcerer levels thereafter (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer "loses" the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level sorcerer spell the sorcerer can cast. For instance, upon reaching 4th level, a sorcerer could trade in a single 0th-level spell (two spell levels below the highest-level sorcerer spell he can cast, which is 2nd) for a different 0th-level spell. At 6th level, she could trade in a single 0th-level or 1st-level spell (since she now can cast 3rd-level sorcerer spells) for a different spell of the same level. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level. - ¹Special: Upon reaching 2nd level, and every three sorcerer levels thereafter (5th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer may select an ability from the following list... Arcane Skill Enhancement Augment Familiar Eschew Sorcerer Materials Expeditious Metamagic Extra Slot Greater Eschew Materials Spell Secret Toughness ¹ = If Eschew Sorcerer Materials was selected at character creation, the special ability for a second level sorcerer is Summon Familiar. - Arcane Skill Enhancement: You can use your spells to enhance a skill for a short time. Prerequisites: Ability to cast arcane spells spontaneously. Benefit: You can use spell slots to temporarily increase one of your skill modifiers. To do this, select a particular skill and expend an available spell slot of any level (a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity). You gain a bonus to that skill equal to one plus the slot's level. This is an enhancement bonus with a duration equal to your Charisma modifier, in minutes. You may only enhance skills that can be used untrained, or in which you have at least two full ranks. You may only enhance skills for yourself (you cannot enhance a skill for another individual). If someone uses Detect Magic on an individual under the effects of this ability, they detect a faint aura of transmutation. - Augment Familiar: Your familiar is more powerful than normal. Prerequisites: Ability to summon a familiar. Benefit: When this ability is selected, the sorcerer adds +1 to her class level when referencing Table 3-19 for her familiar's abilities (scaling Natural Armor and Intelligence, should the effective level go above 20th). Furthermore, the range of effect for the Familiar Abilities Alertness and Spell Sharing is extended to 10 feet. Special: A character may gain this ability multiple times, adding another +1 to her class level and extending the ranges by 10 feet each time. Its effects stack. - Eschew Sorcerer Materials: You can cast spells without relying on material components. Benefit: You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as normal. Special: This ability is limited to spells cast as a sorcerer only. Multiclass sorcerers cannot eschew material components for another class' spells. - Expeditious Metamagic: Applying a particular metamagic effect to your spells doesn't require as much time. Benefit: Choose one metamagic feat you know. When you apply that metamagic effect to a spell, it is not necessary to extend the cast time. With the exception of Expeditious Metamagic [Quicken Spell], the spell slot required to cast it is not changed (i.e.- a Maximized Magic Missile still requires a 4th level slot to cast). A quickened spell cast spontaneously uses up a spell slot five levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Normal: Casting a standard-action spell with metamagic applied spontaneously is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast. Special: You may select this special ability multiple times. Each time you do, it applies to a different metamagic feat. In a situation where multiple metamagic effects have been applied to a single spell, the cast time must be extended (as normal) unless Expeditious Metamagic has been applied to each feat. - Extra Slot: You can cast an extra spell. Prerequisites: Spellcaster level 4th+. Benefit: You gain one extra spell slot in your allotment of sorcerer spells per day. This extra slot can be at any level up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. For example, a 4th-level sorcerer gains either an extra 0th or 1st level slot, allowing her to cast any known spell of the chosen level one more time per day. Once selected, the extra spell slot never migrates up or down in level. Special: You can gain this ability multiple times. Each time, you gain an extra sorcerer spell slot at any level up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. - Greater Eschew Materials: You can cast spells without relying on expensive material components. Prerequisites: Eschew Sorcerer Materials OR Eschew Materials, Knowledge[arcana] 12+ ranks. Benefit: If a listed material component is valued at 1 gp or more, the sorcerer may draw from her personal essence, expending 1/10th of the gp value in XP to complete the spell (minimum expenditure of 1 XP). If the sorcerer desires, and has the components on hand, she may use them instead of pay the experience point cost. For any spell listing a material component, and the sorcerer casting the spell eschews the materials, increase the Spellcraft DC to identify it by +2. This rule clarification originally appeared on page 19 of Tome and Blood, A Guidebook to Wizards and Sorcerers, under the subheading "Spells Being Cast". Focus or XP cost components are still required for spells that list them. Special: Greater Eschew Materials only applies to sorcerer spells. Multiclass sorcerers cannot eschew material components for another class' spells. Furthermore, due to the nature of the spell, Greater Eschew Materials does not work with Trap the Soul. - Spell Secret: You can modify your sorcerer spells. Benefit: Choose one sorcerer spell known to you up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. That spell becomes permanently modified as though affected by any metamagic effect where the feat description lists a fixed slot cost of +0 or +1, and provided the sorcerer meets all prerequisites listed in the actual feat's description. The spell's level and cast time do not increase (as if spontaneously applying metamagic). Once the spell and modification are chosen, they cannot be changed. As the sorcerer goes up in level, she can choose the same spell to be modified in different ways with multiple spell secrets, provided she again selects this as a special ability. She does not need to know the feat she applies to the spell. - Toughness: You are tougher than normal. Benefit: You gain +3 hit points. Special: A character may gain this ability multiple times. Its effects stack.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-24-03, 07:58 AM	THE DISSECTION Why change a perfectly "playable" class? For player enjoyment, of course. :) Actually, there are several reasons. Here are the biggest reasons that were mentioned by fans of "the idea of a sorcerer". "The PHB.sorcerer needs:" Flavor Out-of-combat utility and versatility A reason to NOT take a Prestige Class at the absolute earliest opportunity So, it was popular demand that was the real impetus for this (as it turns out) massive project. :ayyyy!: However, we didn't really think the sorcerer needed a "power-up". This meant that if we add abilities to the class, we have to take some things away (or nerf some things, at the very least), for balance reasons. What changes were made, and why? Here is a paraphrased summary of the changes, and the debates behind them, for your convenience. Anything not listed here is identical to the PHB.sorcerer. - Cantrips per Day Being a "creature of magic" was the main reason for this change. Way back in the beginning (somewhere around May 2003), the idea for Innate spell-like abilities, such as Prestidigitation, Detect Magic, and Arcane Sight being "always on" or usable "at will" was tossed around. What we have here turned out to have more favorable feedback, plus it allows a decent amount of out-of-combat utility. Another way to look at it is that cantrips are the sorcerer's "skills", which is why we didn't seriously entertain 4+ skill points per level. The sorcerer class is magic-based, not skills-based. - Cantrips Known This ties in with Cantrips per Day and the "creature of magic" theme, but also has one unique benefit -- if a player was to go the route of counterspeller... Improved Counterspell + Heighten Spell + Expeditious Metamagic [Heighten Spell] + diversifying Cantrips Known (among the schools) pretty much guarantees that you'll have a counter without worrying too much about accounting for this with higher level spells (assuming that you made a successful Spellcraft check and readied the counterspell action, of course). Expeditious Metamagic is necessary for this to work, because readying a counterspell is a standard action and applying Heighten Spell without Expeditious Metamagic is a full-round action. - NON-Cantrip Slots per Day Two changes here... 1) You have nine less than the PHB.sorcerer (one per spell level removed), and 2) you get higher level slots before you get higher level spells. The footnote (under the spells table) explains part of it. #1 is the "price" this ALT.sorcerer pays for seven specials. #2 is, quite simply, levelling the playing field compared to the other primary casters. There is a net loss on the slots per day at every level above 3rd (we didn't want to screw the class at early levels, where survivability is the biggest concern). NOTE: For those who would *still* look at Prestige Classes, specifically those that require you to be able to cast "Xth level spells"... gaining slots a level earlier (than the PHB.sorcerer) would satisfy this prerequisite, IF you had Heighten Spell (Heighten is unique in that respect, because it actually changes the spell's effective level, unlike other metamagic feats). For example, at 3rd level, you have one 2nd-level slot, but no 2nd-level spells. If you were looking to enter the Mystic Theurge PrC at that point (and assuming you also had three levels of cleric or druid), the highest-level spell you can cast is 1st level, and are not qualified to enter the PrC unless you have the feat Heighten Spell. - ¹Summon Familiar Because it costs 100 gp to summon a familiar, it's almost a certainty that a 1st-level character will not be able to afford one right away. Delaying it one level isn't going to break anything. Eschew Sorcerer Materials at 1st level accomodates the "innate spellcasting" (developed in adolescence) concept. By leaving Summon Familiar as the "default" 1st-level special ability, we aren't dictating that all sorcerers have no need for material components. In fact, most do use them (although I predict a sudden influx of sorcerers that don't, once we're done :cool: ). Also, by specifying that "characters with levels in another core class" do not have the Eschew option, it allows the DM to use the Eschew option when adding alt.sorcerer levels to monsters ("monster classes" are not core), without bending any rules to suit his needs. - Spell Evolution You may recognize this from the 3.5 sorcerer (this wasn't an option in 3.0), but there is a difference, when comparing the ALT.sorcerer to 3.5... by giving the ability to swap spells a name, and placing it on the Class Abilities table, a player cannot swap spells when levelling up in a Prestige Class (PrC). - Special At first glance at the Class Abilities Table, the first reaction from a lot of people is to say "over-powered", because you see much less white space. You see "special" and think "feat", which is generally not the case. OK, there is one actual feat on the list of specials (Toughness, see below), and some that look like feats at first glance, BUT those have been nerfed compared to the actual feat it resembles (usually a restriction that only allows it to work for spells cast as a sorcerer). This makes them under-powered, which is good, because that is what we were aiming for. Essentially, specials are feat-like in appearance and function, except that you probably wouldn't be inclined to select any of these specials with the painfully finite number of feats allotted to the sorcerer, without a very good reason (i.e.- needing it as a prerequisite for something else, such as another, more desirable feat, or a PrC). - Arcane Skill Enhancement This is an interesting way to give your skills a little extra "oomph", when the situation calls for it. Granted, it isn't the same as getting 4+ skill points per level, but seriously, the sorcerer is all about magic, not skill usage. This blends both magic and skills, at least temporarily. - Augment Familiar Regardless of whether the idea of a familiar appeals to you or not, a lot of people see the familiar as a liability... something that the DM can use to put the screws to a player. Here is a nice way to buff your familiar, making it even more useful, flexible, and survivable than before. An interesting thing... if you augment your familiar enough, you may find that it has become more intelligent than the character. A fun role-playing aspect, at the very least. Optimistically, it might even require the DM to use the familiar as a sock puppet, relaying game information to your character (that you might not have known otherwise), because of your familiar's augmented mental capacities. :) - Eschew Sorcerer Materials and Greater Eschew Materials If you haven't guessed, Monte Cook's alternate sorcerer from Malhavoc Press' Book of Eldritch Might II was the defining influence on this ability. The ability to forgo any material component is a nice benefit. Too nice, in fact. So, we broke it up into two abilities (one for cheap materials, one for the more expensive materials) and changed the XP cost to 1/10th, as a direct result of a thread on the Classes boards. The player (I forget the name... if you know who it was, let me know) was telling the story about how his DM ruled out the Monte-sorcerer's ability to eschew expensive material components because 1/25 was cheap for spells such as Stoneskin. Also, we made these abilities apply only to sorcerer spells to prevent the "one-level dip" that was made infamous with the 3.0 Ranger's Two-Weapon Fighting. - Expeditious Metamagic Arguably one of the biggest drawbacks of the class is the extended cast time of metamagic spells on the fly. Hence, Expeditious Metamagic was born. Each time it is selected, you aren't required to extend the cast time for applying that one metamagic feat. Multiple applications of metamagic would require that all feats are expedited, otherwise the cast time is indeed extended. Furthermore, instead of forcing a sorcerer to behave like a wizard and prepare quickened spells (burning two of his seven oh-so-valuable feats in the process, namely Arcane Preparation and Quicken Spell) this ability finally makes the ability to quicken spells on-the-fly a reality, at an unprecedented and expensive +5 slots (i.e.- no published feat designed for pre-epic play has a cost above +4 slots). What we originally had went something like this -- "divide your sorcerer level by five: metamagic feats with this slot cost adjustment no longer require you to extend the cast time when they are applied". Something like that is unbalanced... 1) it is too powerful, especially if you consider the sorcerer that grabs only +1 or +2 metamagic feats, 2) it requires you to wait until 20th level to be able to quicken, 3) having it increase every fifth level is a pretty long time to wait (i.e.- it does nothing to dissuade a player from grabbing a PrC), and 4) not everybody thinks that an extended cast time is a big deal. - Extra Slot Adding this ability (originally appeared in Tome & Blood) simply allows a player to re-create the PHB.sorcerer almost exactly, if you happen to like (pretty much) everything about it. Just snag Eschew Sorcerer Materials at 2nd (or whatever special you prefer) and the rest Extra Slots (can't acquire earlier than 4th caster level), and you're only missing out on three slots. Assuming a single-class 20th level sorcerer that grabs Extra Slot every time, and placement of each slot at the most advantageous position, you would be missing a 2nd, 5th, and 9th level slot, when compared to the PHB.sorcerer, but you'd have Eschew Sorcerer Materials as well (or some other special... I used Eschew as my example because it seems to be the most popular ability). NOTE: Similar to the situation described under NON-Cantrip Slots per Day (above), simply having higher level slots doesn't mean you can cast higher level spells, when determining the slot level you can get with an Extra Slot. For example, at 17th level, you have one 9th-level slot, but no 9th-level spells. If you chose Extra Slot as your special ability at that point, the highest slot you could acquire is a 7th level slot, unless you have the feat Heighten Spell. - Spell Secret This was unashamedly copied (almost verbatim) from the Wu Jen's class ability from Oriental Adventures. This is an excellent way to alter your spells (one at a time), making them very unlike a wizard's. This also helps with the situation where you may want a particular spell, and you may want a metamagic feat to alter that spell, but the feat may only be effective with that one spell. It's not worth a feat if you're going to use it for just one spell. Obviously, the rule about not applying metamagic effects to the same spell more than once applies (no double-extending, for example). NOTE: Similar to the situation described under NON-Cantrip Slots per Day (above), simply having higher level slots doesn't mean you can cast higher level spells, when determining what level spell you can modify with a Spell Secret. For example, at 11th level, you have one 6th-level slot, but no 6th-level spells. If you chose Spell Secret as your special ability at that point, the highest-level spell you could modify is 4th level, unless you have the feat Heighten Spell. - Toughness This one is for the "d6 Hit Die" crowd. Pick this one each (or most of the) time, and it works out to the same thing, mathematically.
Thot 10-24-03, 08:16 AM	And a Great Big Thank You, you rule, to Krynus Ogrebane, without whom this project would never have had the success it currently enjoys. :bow: :tiphat: Nitpicking : this ability finally makes the ability to quicken spells on-the-fly a reality, at an unprecedented and expensive +5 slots. IIRC, I saw it before as a house-rule suggestion on those boards. I think it's not exactly unprecedented.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-24-03, 08:27 AM	Editted, for clarification. Also, thanks for the kind words, although I can't take more credit than anyone else who has been in there for any length of time. *We* did a good job, if I do say so myself. :thumbsup:
Talcoram Cyndar 10-24-03, 10:16 AM	Krynus Ogrebane- Thank you again for doing the write-up of our sorcerer. I am quite happy and proud of this version. To everybody involved....Well Done! One question though... Don't know why I didn't catch this earlier- Magical Aptitude: You have a knack for magical endeavors. Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Spellcraft checks and Use Magic Device checks Emphasis mine- I thought we were trying to avoid UMD with this sorcerer, or is this simply an acknowledgement of the, IMO, bad desision to make UMD a closs-class skill for everyone in 3.5? -TC
d_nychus 10-24-03, 10:40 AM	Great, give the sorcerer bonus feats along with a slightly better spellcasting progression. If you're going to make it this overpowered, why bother playing a wizard? or any other class for that matter?
baoban sith 10-24-03, 11:03 AM	it looks like a slightly worse spellcasting progression. I think it's pretty nifty, guys.
Thot 10-24-03, 11:18 AM	TC : is this simply an acknowledgement of the, IMO, bad desision to make UMD a closs-class skill for everyone in 3.5? Yes, I think so. That's how I perceive it anyway. BTW, I caught it quite soon, believe me :P :D d_nychus : Please read it again fully. Specials are quite weaker than Feats, and they are paid for by a slightly different spellcasting progression. You are limited to 5 slots per day per level, at lvl 20. Many people don't see that. True, you now have slots of the same level as the other spellcaster, but you don't learn new spells any sooner. Overall, I think it's worse, but account for a perceived trouble. Baoban_sith : Thank you very much. You're welcome to help if you perceive troubles we would have overlooked, or have fresh ideas.
Prakhog 10-24-03, 08:35 PM	THe alternative sorc, is, of course, great. I think i will stick to the 7.2 version, however. Thanks for all your hard work -Prakhog
ConfusedUs 10-24-03, 09:04 PM	First off: Good work! I love this version of the sorc. It's a lot better than the core PHB version. I do, however, have one question. - Mask Spell This is a flavor ability that allows a sorcerer to completely conceal the fact that he is even using magic. The archtypical example was the charming fellow who kisses the fair maiden's hand, who then becomes completely smitten (read: charmed) by/with him. Obviously, this won't help with dramatic spells such as Lightning Bolt, anything that emanates from you, or is directly observable as magic. For subtle magic such as enchantments and illusions, however, this ability allows NO possiblity of detection, during casting. A successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level) will allow someone looking for magic to detect it, after the spell is already in effect. How does this tie in with AoOs for casting a spell? An attack of opportunity is provoked when a combatant does something to let his guard down (casting, drawing his bow, running past someone, etc) However, if there is nothing to outwardly show that the sorcerer is casting, how will the opponent know this, and therefore know that he has an AoO avaliable to him? With a wizard or standard sorc, it's obvious: there's the handwaving/chanting/pinch of bat guano...
BlaineTog 10-24-03, 10:03 PM	If i read it right, an AoO isn't prokoved because it's a spell, it's because the person has to let his/her gaurd down to cast the spell. This is the same thing: even if the enemy doesn't know that you are casting a spell, the still soo that you are letting your gaurd down, and thus, can take an AoO. Besides, this doesn't have much combat application. What do you care if they know you are casting a spell? I see it as being useful when the enemy has you at crossbow point and will shoot as soon as they think you are trying to attack them.
ConfusedUs 10-24-03, 11:05 PM	Yes, you're 'letting your guard down', but if there's nothing to SHOW that you're doing so, how will the opponent KNOW you let your guard down. It's a bit abstract, but that's the way I see it. Examples #1 DM: The man in peasant's clothing(the alt.sor), holding a dagger in one hand, points his finger at you and says "BURN" in a commanding voice. PC: Do I get an AoO? DM: Sure...I guess so, cuz he's casting. #2 DM: The man in peasant's clothing(a commoner), holding a dagger in one hand, points his finger at you and says "BURN" in a commanding voice. PC: Do I get an AoO? DM: Uh...why would you? He wasn't casting. However, both people did the exact same thing. If I'm reading Mask Spell right, then pointing a finger and saying 'burn' is a pretty typical way of applying it. Or holding your arms wide and saying 'Don't hurt me, I'm a friend" as you cast suggestion. Or for any other way you want to apply it. Casting a spell without this ability is an obvious act. The arm waving, the chanting, the pinch of bat guano all say "HOLY CRAP HE IS CASTING A SPELL!". The caster is distracted by focusing on his chants and making sure he has the correct component. A sorcerer who can cast with no more than his arms spread wide in peace, saying "Don't hurt me, I'm a friend" is not obviously casting. Even if it PROVOKES an AoO under the rules, how would the opponent KNOW that, and as such launch an attack?
Talcoram Cyndar 10-24-03, 11:13 PM	Originally Posted by Confused Us: A sorcerer who can cast with no more than his arms spread wide in peace, saying "Don't hurt me, I'm a friend" is not obviously casting. Even if it PROVOKES an AoO under the rules, how would the opponent KNOW that, and as such launch an attack? A very good question. As a DM I would probably allow for a Sense Motive check with a DC equal to that of the Spells Save DC. This is something we need to address and come up with a guideline for. -TC
Krynus Ogrebane 10-25-03, 01:36 AM	Originally posted by Talcoram Cyndar One question though... Don't know why I didn't catch this earlier- I thought we were trying to avoid UMD with this sorcerer, or is this simply an acknowledgement of the, IMO, bad desision to make UMD a closs-class skill for everyone in 3.5? Two things... first, Magical Aptitude is a core feat. An underpowered core feat (*coughcough*d_nychus*cough*), but still core. Second, have you seen a UMD DC? They start at, like, 20... and go up from there. Good luck getting it to work while purchasing cross-class ranks! :devil: Originally posted by d_nychus Great, give the sorcerer bonus feats along with a slightly better spellcasting progression. If you're going to make it this overpowered, why bother playing a wizard? or any other class for that matter? :nonono: Did you even bother to read THE DISSECTION? The preceding question is, of course, rhetorical. I already know the answer. ... Oh wait... I know what it is. Having more cantrips is broken! :rolleyes: Originally posted by baoban sith it looks like a slightly worse spellcasting progression. I think it's pretty nifty, guys. Someone gets it! Thanks for the compliment. Originally posted by Prakhog THe alternative sorc, is, of course, great. I think i will stick to the 7.2 version, however. Thanks for all your hard work -Prakhog Really? What about it appeals to you more than v8.0? (*crosses fingers* Please Please don't say it is Cannibalistic Casting, perhaps the most broken thing I've ever laid eyes upon) Originally posted by ConfusedUs First off: Good work! I love this version of the sorc. It's a lot better than the core PHB version. I do, however, have one question. <SNIP> Mask Spell dissection <SNIP> How does this tie in with AoOs for casting a spell? {IMO} No AOO, if there's nothing to give away that you're casting. Dramatic effects, emanations, or somebody using Detect Magic/Arcane Sight while looking at you are all ways that thwart your mask (and trigger the AOO). I dunno... I thought this was pretty intuitive. {/IMO} Let's take it from another, crunchier angle. In Tome & Blood (p. 19, under "Spells Being Cast"), Skip mentions that you can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if it has no verbal, somatic, or material components, because "there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires". {IMO: However, Mask Spell is a tool to hide the fact that you're concentrating.} Shall I confuse the issue even more? In Song & Silence, Disguise Spell was the model we based Mask Spell upon. In that splatbook, it specifically mentions that a silent, stilled spell can't be identified (p. 38, under the feat description for Disguise Spell). So, which one takes precedence? {IMO: Answer: whichever one you like better. :smirk: }
ConfusedUs 10-25-03, 03:18 AM	Also, with Mask Spell: If no specific movements are necessary, what about Arcane Spell Failure? ASF is based on the premise that arcane casters must make measured, deliberate movements that armor can impede. However, if the only somantic movement necessary with Mask Spell is a pointed finger/gesture of peace/<insert other generic movement>, does this negate ASF? As much as I like this idea, I believe that Contrived Casting from the previous incarnation of the alt.sor is more mechanically sound. - Contrived Casting: Sorcerers don't cast spells like wizards, exactly. When a spell's description lists a verbal (V) component, the sorcerer is not required to speak a specific incantation (the way a wizard would). As long as she is able to speak in a strong voice, the sorcerer may instead use everyday words, in any language the sorcerer knows, to fulfill the verbal component of a spell. The only thing that would indicate magic is being used is that a more perceptive ear might hear an otherworldly power behind the words, betraying the fact that magic forces were being brought to bear. When a spell's description lists a somatic (S) component, the sorcerer is not required to use measured and precise hand movements (the way a wizard would). The sorcerer may instead use everyday hand gestures to fulfill the somatic component of a spell. She must still have at least one hand free and unobscured. The only thing that would indicate magic is being used is that a more observant eye would recognize that the vigorous gestures are purposeful, rather than casual. For example, wearing gloves is not a problem, but mittens would be. Other examples that illustrate a lack of being "free and unobscured" include (but are not limited to) having your hands in your trouser pockets, tucked into the sleeves of a robe, or manacled. For any spell listing a verbal or somatic component, and the sorcerer casting the spell contrives either (or both), increase the Spellcraft DC to identify it by +1 for each component contrived. This is an extrapolation of the rule originally appearing on page 19 of Tome and Blood, A Guidebook to Wizards and Sorcerers, under the subheading "Spells Being Cast".
Thot 10-25-03, 07:50 AM	ConfusedUs : Mask Spell : How does this tie in with AoOs for casting a spell? An attack of opportunity is provoked when a combatant does something to let his guard down (casting, drawing his bow, running past someone, etc) However, if there is nothing to outwardly show that the sorcerer is casting, how will the opponent know this, and therefore know that he has an AoO avaliable to him? With a wizard or standard sorc, it's obvious: there's the handwaving/chanting/pinch of bat guano My ruling would be that, till you've proved you're a Magic User, you might as well be a rambling madman, not worthy of wasting an AoO upon. So, as a DM, if asked by a PC whether he has an AoO, I'd certainly say yes. Now, do you want to use it ? If I'm reading Mask Spell right, then pointing a finger and saying 'burn' is a pretty typical way of applying it. Or holding your arms wide and saying 'Don't hurt me, I'm a friend" as you cast suggestion. Or for any other way you want to apply it That's quite the way I see it too. The second more than the first though. The first would fall more under a Contrived Casting ruling, AFAIAC. Even if it PROVOKES an AoO under the rules, how would the opponent KNOW that, and as such launch an attack? IMHO, he would know because he would ask the DM (apart from the fact that "strange talk/behaviour" under dire circumstances is suspicious). As for launching it, it's fully up to him. He may as well be using it on the local fool, or on a powerful Sor... :smirk: TC : As a DM I would probably allow for a Sense Motive check with a DC equal to that of the Spells Save DC. Hmm... While it makes "some" sense, it kinda defeat the purpose of the Feat... I'd say leave it to the decision of the PC. ConfusedUs : If no specific movements are necessary, what about Arcane Spell Failure? ASF is based on the premise that arcane casters must make measured, deliberate movements that armor can impede. However, if the only somantic movement necessary with Mask Spell is a pointed finger/gesture of peace/<insert other generic movement>, does this negate ASF? Not in any way. I see it that way: Originally posted by Ser Jaden : As sorcerers concentrate on bringing their power forth, they need to use some sort of expressive gesture or gestures to channel that power. Like verbal components, their gestures will probably change each time they cast the spell. Nevertheless, in armor the Sorcerer would have a chance to fail at his casting. His gestures, though random are equally important in channeling his power as the precise gestures of a Wizard. Therefore, he would be stunted by the lack of flexibility granted by armor and thus it could potentially impede his casting. A Sorcerer would have a definite sense of claustrophobia while attempting to cast somatically while in armor, lacking the freedom to simply motion as he desires. This is where arcane spell failure would fit in. Discussion > HERE < (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44459&perpage=30&pagenumber=5) It's on the UST (new board), p5. The idea that eventually lead to Mask Spell originally appeared on p4. As for me , I don't see Mask Spell as an either / or proposition. I'll most probably use them both IMC. Hope this helps.
Frank the Vandal 10-25-03, 09:20 AM	First of all, great job on dissecting the changes Krynus! :bow: ConfusedUs Mask Spell: How does this tie in with AoOs for casting a spell? An attack of opportunity is provoked when a combatant does something to let his guard down... However, if there is nothing to outwardly show that the sorcerer is casting, how will the opponent know this, and therefore know that he has an AoO avaliable to him? IMO, even if the sorcerer's gestures and words don't immediately indicate spellcasting, they still require concentration and they have to be precise. So you can change the gestures, but within limits: gestures are still needed: this is not Still Spell, you can't cast when you can't move and normal penalties apply for wearing armor, being grappled etc.. Also, you can't concentrate on dodging your enemy (unless casting on the defensive) and you will provoke AoOs as normal. It says nowhere in the book that to make an AoO you have to know what your enemy is doing, so you can still take it. Readying an action is another matter, and you may rule that this is only possible if you know your enemy is a sorcerer (ready an action to attack when he starts talking/gesturing). I agree with BlaineTog that it's probably most useful out of combat. Exception: if you're up against a counterspeller. No identification means no counterspelling (just like Still & Silent spell). #1 DM: The man in peasant's clothing(the alt.sor), holding a dagger in one hand, points his finger at you and says "BURN" in a commanding voice. PC: Do I get an AoO? DM: Sure...I guess so, cuz he's casting. #2 PC: Do I get an AoO? DM: Uh...why would you? He wasn't casting. In both cases an AoO is provoked. The PC may or may not decide to take it. When in combat with someone you know is a spellcaster, you'd probably take it. [/QUOTE]...saying "Don't hurt me, I'm a friend"...[/QUOTE] This would be Bluff against Sense Motive, with some pretty hefty bonuses on the Sense Motive if the sorcerer has already shown that he's hostile. Knowing a little bit about sorcerers might help as well... Second try would probably fail 99,9% of the time. Casting defensively is usually easier, probably, so this is not unbalanced, I suppose. Casting defensively doesn't work against readied actions of course (archer keeping an eye on you, for example). Krynus Ogrebane: No AOO, if there's nothing to give away that you're casting. Dramatic effects, emanations, or somebody using Detect Magic/Arcane Sight while looking at you are all ways that thwart your mask (and trigger the AOO). AoOs are not provoked by the fireball flying from your finger, but before that by concentrating. Even a Still, Silent spell provokes an AoO.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-25-03, 11:47 AM	ConfusedUs, where were you before? :) You're making some excellent points (provoking AOO's and ASF). I'm glad that these hairy sticking points are about the one thing I won't be including in my campaigns. :D Anyway, back to your points... ASF isn't affected unless there is no S component (which includes Still Spell, but not Mask Spell, unless the spell had no S component to begin with). On second thought, even a masked spell would provoke an AOO. Casting on the defensive would be the proper way to go about avoiding it (just like normal).
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 10-25-03, 03:12 PM	It looks nice for powergaming, but the only way to make it balanced would be to buff up the other core classes. Just my two cents worth.
BlaineTog 10-25-03, 03:55 PM	Dude, why do you like to troll so much? Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek I have been playing Wizards since they first came out, and my spellbook wasn't readily targeted all the time. If you know how to play your Wizard good enough, then you can avoid these things. Also, Polaris is right about spells destroying things. A Fireball or Shatter spell will not destroy a spellbook just like that. You really need to go back and read up on the rules and the descriptions for these spells. Please take my advice and reread. You are aguing about something you seem to have limited info about. This is my opinion and what I see. This is a quote from this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1666836#post1666836). As you can see, he's a Grade-A troller. This is not for powergaming (note that the spell per day were decreased), it's for flavor. The sorcerer class was, if not definately underpowered, most certainly boring and bland. This is a nice litle addition that scipes things up. If you notice, none of these Specials are anywhere near as powerful as feats (athough some of them are, indeed, ports of official feats, they are the underpowered feats). Did just not read anything accept "Specials" before posting? Try looking over them. They arn't unbalacning. The other classes are all just fine. They get interesting bonuses along the way, and none of them need any help. The wizard (whom you are so fond of) get strait out bonus feats that the sorcerer can only get by useing there normal feat progresion. Not to mention that all of these changes MAKE LOGICAL SENSE! For instance, why should the sorcerer, who could theoretically be illiterate and as dumb as a doornob, have to cast spells exactly like a wizard? Why should the sorcerer have to waste a whole standard feat on a metamagic that can only really work on a single spell in his/her spell list AND spend a full round to cast it, when the sorcerer is, again, INHERENTLY MAGICAL! So no, these are not powergameing changes, they are a logical and flavorful extrapolation of the way the sorcerer SHOULD BE. :rant over: I admit, I took this persons bait. It would probably be better if we just ignore him. Anyway, back OT, thanks for the clarification about AoO. It makes much more sense now. :ayyyy!:
Talcoram Cyndar 10-25-03, 04:19 PM	It would probably be better if we just ignore him. Having seen the de-evolution of that 'other thread' I would tend to agree.:D -TC
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 10-25-03, 04:44 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Dude, why do you like to troll so much? This is a quote from this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1666836#post1666836). As you can see, he's a Grade-A troller. This is not for powergaming (note that the spell per day were decreased), it's for flavor. The sorcerer class was, if not definately underpowered, most certainly boring and bland. This is a nice litle addition that scipes things up. If you notice, none of these Specials are anywhere near as powerful as feats (athough some of them are, indeed, ports of official feats, they are the underpowered feats). Did just not read anything accept "Specials" before posting? Try looking over them. They arn't unbalacning. The other classes are all just fine. They get interesting bonuses along the way, and none of them need any help. The wizard (whom you are so fond of) get strait out bonus feats that the sorcerer can only get by useing there normal feat progresion. Not to mention that all of these changes MAKE LOGICAL SENSE! For instance, why should the sorcerer, who could theoretically be illiterate and as dumb as a doornob, have to cast spells exactly like a wizard? Why should the sorcerer have to waste a whole standard feat on a metamagic that can only really work on a single spell in his/her spell list AND spend a full round to cast it, when the sorcerer is, again, INHERENTLY MAGICAL! So no, these are not powergameing changes, they are a logical and flavorful extrapolation of the way the sorcerer SHOULD BE. :rant over: I admit, I took this persons bait. It would probably be better if we just ignore him. Anyway, back OT, thanks for the clarification about AoO. It makes much more sense now. :ayyyy!: I just gave my opinion is all. It seems that the class is unbalanced when compared to the others. It seems more like a PrC than a Core class.
ConfusedUs 10-25-03, 09:50 PM	My interpretation of the current Mask Spell and AoO's is this: If there is no outward sign that the alt.sor is casting, there is no AoO. AoO's are a result of "letting one's guard down". Letting down one's guard is something tangible that one's opponent can percieve and act upon. If there is no outward sign of the casting, there is no way that the opponent can see it, and therefore act upon it. Even if the AoO is PROVOKED by letter of the core rules, common sense says that if the opponent has no way of knowing of it, they cannot take advantage of the fact. Possible Solutions: a) Go back to Contrived Casting. I liked this mechanic, and it is currently more mechanically sound than Mask Spell. b) Give Mask Spell a new mechanic: When casting a Masked Spell, the Sorcerer must succeed in a Bluff check vs. opposed Sense Motive checks of all within 30 feet of the caster. Anyone who beats the alt.sor's bluff has full knowledge that the alt.sor is casting, and therefore may take his/her AoO. Anyone who fails is totally unaware of the casting, and therefore does not get an attack of opportunity. The wording is bad, but the base mechanic is there. My current interpretation of Mask Spell and ASF is this: Arcane Spells with somantic components, without Mask Spell, require deliberate, controlled movements of the arms and hands, perhaps even the legs and feet. However, under Mask Spell, no specific movement is necessary. A simple throwing motion, spreading one's arms wide, or a wave of the hand is sufficient to fulfill the somantic component of a spell. These types of movement are hardly restricted by armor. A fighter in fullplate can throw a javelin, embrace another person, or wave without problem**. With that in mind, Masked Spells should not be subject to ASF. **Historically, DENTED armor was a whole different story, and could lock up at the joints if hit just right. However, D&D has no mechanic for dented armor. Possible Solutions: a) ASF is reduced by (tentatively) 10% when using Masked Spells. b) Masked Spells have no ASF at all, however Masking a Spell is a full-round action. c) Both A and B: ASF is reduced, but Maskingi spells is a full-round action.
Toptomcat 10-26-03, 12:00 AM	Very, very, very, VERY good- if the Contrived Casting replaces Mask Spell. One of the two forumite-made core classes that I've bookmarked (the other is Jaerom Darkwind's Martial Artist)
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 12:18 AM	Although I would agree that logically, Mask Spell shouldn't have any arcane spell failure, it would overpoer the Special. Also, an AoO is provoked whenever "a combat in melee lets her gaurd down, and is not on the defensive as usual." Even casting a masked spell requires you to gesticulate and talk. Just becasue they don't have to be precise and the enemy can't possible know if you are casting a spell doesn't mean they can't notice that your defense has lapsed. In short, AoO should still be provoked (ie your defense is still elt down), and ASF probably COULD be eliminated (for logic) but that feels overpowering.
ConfusedUs 10-26-03, 01:49 AM	Even casting a masked spell requires you to gesticulate and talk. Just becasue they don't have to be precise and the enemy can't possible know if you are casting a spell doesn't mean they can't notice that your defense has lapsed. So when the fighter says "That one is MINE" while jerking his head in the direction of a pesky archer, he provokes an AoO? I don't think so... Under Mask Spell, there is no outward sign, as written, that one is casting a spell. There's nothing to separate the guard shouting 'STOP' while pointing at someone from an alt.sor doing the same thing while casting Hold Person. However, one, by the letter of the rules, provokes an AoO and the other doesn't. I'm not disputing the fact that an AoO is provoked, because 'casting a spell provokes an Attack of Opportunity'. I'm disputing the fact that the attacker will have any clue whatsoever that he has an AoO avaliable to him in the first place. It's a very fine line, but these kind of things bother me. Lets just say that if I took the alt.sor 8.0, as written, and introduced him into my campaign, an alt.sor using Masked Spell would never have to worry about AoOs in battle. I'm a bit **** (whoa, the word a-n-a-l is blocked? weird....) retentive sometimes. About ASF: Would totally removing ASF really be THAT overpowered? It depends on your point of view. I don't feel like arguing the points, but I do feel that totally removing ASF is a baaaaad move. However, I don't feel that a 10% reduction in ASF is overpowered at all. Of course, I feel that clerics and other divine casters should have a spell-failure rate as well for wearing more than medium armor. That's just my opinion though.
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 02:36 AM	That fighter didn't have to lower his defences to do that, though. He can talk quite easily while keeping his eyes on the enemy. The sorcerer, however, is going to have to talking, gesticulating, and (most importantly) concentrating, all at the same time. Even if there are no outward signs that he spell is being cast, the sorcerer still has to concentrate to cast it. Otherwise, they would have to concentrate all the time just to avoid accidentally setting their spells off. If you are actively trying to get your sword into you enemy, adnthat enemy suddenly starts talking and mvoing eraticaly, while simultaneaously removing his/her concentration from you, you are going to see an opening and (possibly) strike. Something just occured to me: just like the decision was made to split op Eschew Matrials into two Specials (one for less than 1gp and one for more than 1gp), split THIS up, too. Here's my idea: Mask spell: as it is (undetectable spell, unless Detect Magic is cast or something) Improved Mask Spell: Mask Spell metamagic now also removes 10% ASF and attacks of oportunity ar not triggered (perhaps the character would have to be holding a weapon for this to work. I can quite easily see the character swinging a spear around to satisfy the Somatic component and simultaneously disallow AoO.) Obviosuly, tihs would have higher requirements than Maks Spell (perhaps a Dex requirement and/or a BAB requirment). So, watcha think?
Evanta 10-26-03, 02:38 AM	Mask Spell, and Spell Secret seem to be too problematic to give to the Sorcerer. I think it's better to just take them off the list. Another is the special abilities looks like overkill. I don't think stuff like Expeditious Spell or Greater Eschew Materials(as well as the above-mentioned Mask Spell, Spell Secret) are what I would consider under-powered feats. I would also like to see Extra Learned Spell (same rules as Extra Spell Slot) to the list of special abilities. I think rather, the special abilities should be like those of the rogue: starts at say, level 8, then you gain a new ability every 4 levels or so, 'cos it's the higher levels where the sorcerer starts losing ground compared to the wizard, as well as PRCs. If you want an even progression, then think sincerely think about just a special ability every 4, or every 5 levels, and NOT at first and second level. Once every 3 levels seems way too much IMHO, while giving the special ability at level 1 gives more incentive for dipping into the sorcerer. Think about it this way. A fighter would juz love to take 2 levels of your sorcerer to take True Strike, Expeditious Retreat, and Ray of Enfeeblement. Then he picks both special abilities as toughness. So for the loss of +1 BAB and maybe +1/2 Fort save, he gains +3 Will save, SAME hitpoints on average, ability to cast 3 useful spells, ability to cast cantrips like there's no tomorrow, and a familiar which can give him a nice feat-like ability. Seems broken. That part needs to be fixed, but otherwise it's far more flavourful sorc than the boring thing we currently have.
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 02:56 AM	This has always seemed strange to me: why can anyone multiclass into Sorcerer? I've heard the "It was Latent!" argument and it just seems silly to me. I dunno. Just because they arn't perfect yet is no reason to take them of the list. Extra Learned Spell was decided agaisnt becasue it was considered over powered. 8 more known spells is just too much for a sorcerer. As it is, only 8 specials can be taken b4 epic, whereas many other classes (I'm thinking of the monk and Rogue here) get them practicalyl every level. Dipping is an old trick that can make any character much stronger. This does not exasperate the problem much more than it already was.
Evanta 10-26-03, 03:15 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog This has always seemed strange to me: why can anyone multiclass into Sorcerer? I've heard the "It was Latent!" argument and it just seems silly to me. I dunno. Just because they arn't perfect yet is no reason to take them of the list. Extra Learned Spell was decided agaisnt becasue it was considered over powered. 8 more known spells is just too much for a sorcerer. Ok. I'll accept. But I think Extra Learned Spell should be put in somewhere, maybe put a limit like 'you can only take this twice', or weaken the ability somewhat. As it is, only 8 specials can be taken b4 epic, whereas many other classes (I'm thinking of the monk and Rogue here) get them practicalyl every level. Dipping is an old trick that can make any character much stronger. This does not exasperate the problem much more than it already was. The thing is that the monk and rogue are non-casters. You can't really compare non-casters to casters. Wizards, Clerics and the normal Sorcerer have mostly empty levels, while the Druid is the only exception who, compared to the cleric, has sacrificed considerable spell versatility and number of spells to get what he has. So it's not a fair comparison. And I think given a choice, most people would rather have only 5 spell slots/level, 8 special abilities and the slightly better caster levels, rather than 6 spell slots/level. So I think you didn't do enough to compensate for the special abilities, at least at the very low levels where this sorc might actually feel overpowered. Yes, dipping is bad. But this alt. sorcerer does indeed exasperate it to the point where most non-spell casting classes will go 'why would I not take 2 levels of sorcerer?', when there is already the trend where the designers are attempting to reduce the advantages of dipping.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-26-03, 03:29 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek: It looks nice for powergaming, but the only way to make it balanced would be to buff up the other core classes. Just my two cents worth. <SNIP> I just gave my opinion is all. It seems that the class is unbalanced when compared to the others. It seems more like a PrC than a Core class. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you would please explain why you feel this way, I would appreciate it. Hopefully you read the dissection (third post in the thread), which contains complete explanations for each and every thing that is different from the PHB.sorcerer. If you are not specific with your answer, I can't take your posts seriously. Originally posted by ConfusedUs: RE: Mask Spell, AoO's, and ASF: Possible Solutions: a) ASF is reduced by (tentatively) 10% when using Masked Spells. b) Masked Spells have no ASF at all, however Masking a Spell is a full-round action. c) Both A and B: ASF is reduced, but Maskingi spells is a full-round action. You missed the one I'll be using in my games. d) "Forget Mask Spell and Contrived Casting. Silent Spell will allow you to say anything you want (or nothing at all) while casting, and Still Spell will remove any ASF worries." Originally posted by Toptomcat: Very, very, very, VERY good- if the Contrived Casting replaces Mask Spell. One of the two forumite-made core classes that I've bookmarked (the other is Jaerom Darkwind's Martial Artist) Thanks for the compliments (even though they're conditional)! Originally posted by Evanta: Mask Spell, and Spell Secret seem to be too problematic to give to the Sorcerer. I think it's better to just take them off the list. I agree about Mask Spell. What makes Spell Secret problematic? I would also like to see Extra Learned Spell (same rules as Extra Spell Slot) to the list of special abilities. There is a feat in Tome & Blood called "Extra Spell", which does just that. The only problem is that grabbing this one is a no-brainer. For a sorcerer, it is MUCH more powerful than "Extra Slot"... which is why we can't add it. If you want an even progression, then think sincerely think about just a special ability every 4, or every 5 levels, and NOT at first and second level. Once every 3 levels seems way too much IMHO, while giving the special ability at level 1 gives more incentive for dipping into the sorcerer. Think about it this way. A fighter would juz love to take 2 levels of your sorcerer to take True Strike, Expeditious Retreat, and Ray of Enfeeblement. Then he picks both special abilities as toughness. So for the loss of +1 BAB and maybe +1/2 Fort save, he gains +3 Will save, SAME hitpoints on average, ability to cast 3 useful spells, ability to cast cantrips like there's no tomorrow, and a familiar which can give him a nice feat-like ability. Seems broken. That part needs to be fixed, but otherwise it's far more flavourful sorc than the boring thing we currently have. :mymy: Seems like I was saying something similar to this on the previous thread. Nobody wanted to believe me about the potential for one-level dipping abuse (or two). I feel quite smug right now. :smirk: While I disagree about stretching the specials out to every four or five levels, I think that completely eliminating the special at level 1 is just what the doctor ordered. Look at it from another angle... if we removed the special at 1st level, is the ability to summon a familiar, plus one under-achieving feat worth it to the same fighter, when the ranger gets an extra feat at levels 1, 2, and 3 (plus gobs of class skills and skill points to boot)?
Krynus Ogrebane 10-26-03, 03:36 AM	About Spell Secret... Perhaps being able to adjust "any" spell you know might be too good, but what about adjusting any spell that is a level lower than the highest level spell you can cast?
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 04:00 AM	That makes sence, logically too! "Spell Secret" implies that you've learned soemthing special aboutthe spell and can now tweak it w/o penaties. If you can only do this to spells 1 level lower than your top, it's like saying "You can't learn something special about a brand new spell that you've just gotten, but an older spell that you are more familiar with is a candidate for such a change." Great solution. About the dipping, I would contend that it's not really any worse than taking a few levels in Monk, Fighter, Rogue, or Ranger gets access to some pretty strong stuff (2 levels in Fighter, for instance, gives you 2 full-blown feats along with numerous other comabt bonuses; levels in Rogue gives you Sneak Attack bonuses and Evasion; only 2 levels into Ranger and you get not only nice specials relating to Animals but you also get a favored enemy AND a combat style, which is essentailly a branch of a feat tree). Get rid of Mask Spell? NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! jp. Again, you could just make some rulings on it to level things out. Heck, you could outlaw it's use in combat if you want! It's not like it gives you any disticnt advantage in combat (accept for counterspelling). Personally, I think it's fine the way it is, and it should just tkae the AoO and ASP like any other spell. Then again, there's always my OTHER solution (an extension of it as another special). I would suggets that it always must prokove AoO unless casting on the defensive. Sadly, i seem to have a recurring problem with simplicity (or lack therof). :rolleyes:
Frank the Vandal 10-26-03, 06:37 AM	ConfusedUs If there is no outward sign that the alt.sor is casting, there is no AoO. AoO's are a result of "letting one's guard down". Letting down one's guard is something tangible that one's opponent can percieve and act upon. If there is no outward sign of the casting, there is no way that the opponent can see it, and therefore act upon it. Even if the AoO is PROVOKED by letter of the core rules, common sense says that if the opponent has no way of knowing of it, they cannot take advantage of the fact. I really don't see the problem. Casting a spell requires concentration, and thus requires you to let your guard down. You stop dodging the other's blows, which is certainly noticeable. If casting a Still, Silent Spell provokes an AoO, why would a Masked Spell not? What provokes an AoO is not gesturing or talking, but concentrating. It's not a new rule, it's simply the old ones... As for ASF, IMO the gestures still need to be precise, and are thus hindered by armor as normal. It's even harder to make your gestures fit both the spell and your plans of gesturing (+1 slot adjustment), not easier. So when the fighter says "That one is MINE" while jerking his head in the direction of a pesky archer, he provokes an AoO? I don't think so... No. But it doesn't stop you from concentrating on fighting. Casting a spell does. Under Mask Spell, there is no outward sign, as written, that one is casting a spell. There's nothing to separate the guard shouting 'STOP' while pointing at someone from an alt.sor doing the same thing while casting Hold Person. However, one, by the letter of the rules, provokes an AoO and the other doesn't. If the person I'm fighting with suddenly stops dodging to point at someone, this would provoke an AoO. (A sorcerer might be able to cast on the defensive and prevent this, but a fighter can't "Point on the defensive" ;)) BlaineTog:Improved Mask Spell I don't like it. It's a more powerful ability, so it should be a higher slot cost. Which makes it a lot easier to just use Still Spell instead. In combination with Mask Spell and casting on the defensive this gives your Improved Mask Spell ability without ANY ASF. Casting on the defensive is a perfect way of preventing AoOs and not hard to do. Besides, a sorcerer shouldn't be in melee combat. Evanta A fighter would juz love to take 2 levels of your sorcerer to take True Strike, Expeditious Retreat, and Ray of Enfeeblement. Then he picks both special abilities as toughness. I don't really think so. He still would have trouble to cast those spells in armor and he'd loose a bonus feat. But I still have no problem with turning the special ability at level one into Eschew Sorcerer Materials (not useful at all for other classes). Would that fix it, you think? Extra Spell is too powerful for a special, IMO. Krynus Ogrebane About Spell Secret... Perhaps being able to adjust "any" spell you know might be too good, but what about adjusting any spell that is a level lower than the highest level spell you can cast? Would make perfect sense.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-26-03, 12:24 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I don't really think so. He still would have trouble to cast those spells in armor and he'd loose a bonus feat. But I still have no problem with turning the special ability at level one into Eschew Sorcerer Materials (not useful at all for other classes). Would that fix it, you think? Putting ESM at 1st doesn't help other classes, per se, but it immediately helps out the character that dips in for one level by not requiring him to carry around a spell component pouch. I keep referring back to the adolescent would-be sorcerer that manifests certain effects, almost by accident. The key, though, is that these weird happenings are uncontrolled, which is why it is so freaky. In cases where there is no M component (Ray of Frost), he just thinks out loud it would be nice for his beverage to be cold, and suddenly it is. Against the bully in the schoolyard, telling his attacker to leave him alone while resting his hands on his knees, and he's wearing woolen britches, together are the trigger (Daze). ... I think there is something we all forgot (or didn't know about, if you're relatively new to the class design), and it is that we were pretty adamant about not adding any (full) metamagic feats to the list of specials, because the sorcerer does extremely well with them. Combine that with the AOO and ASF questions/points, perhaps it is time to put Mask Spell out of its misery. Bringing back Contrived Casting might be preferable, although if I'm not mistaken, it was shot down for very good reason too. I'll have to dig into the other thread and find out exactly why (I have to go to work now). I allow Contrived Casting for ALL casters in my games as a freebie... I just don't give it a name, and I don't allow any numerical benefit to Spellcraft DCs, etc. What's so difficult about that? ... Anyway, unless there is no complaint about that suggested change to Spell Secret, I'll go ahead and make it (once we settle a couple other points).
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 12:35 PM	Yeah, my solution was tentative at beast anyway. YOUR solution, however, is quite interesting. Taking 2 levels in Sorcerer could be crippling to a fighter, especially if the first special isn's something that could help him/her in there other classes. You also make a good point: the fighter could TRY to be a sorcerer, but then what about the 85% ASF (from Full Plate and Tower Shield)? Question: What was the difference between contrived castign and mask spell, anyway? I thought they were basically the same thing...
ConfusedUs 10-26-03, 01:37 PM	The wording of the two. They're essentially the same thing, but Contrived Casting is simply worded better.
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 03:15 PM	That's what I thought.
Frank the Vandal 10-26-03, 03:50 PM	There were a few more differences than that: - Contrived Casting didn't use up a higher slot. - It didn't make identifying impossible, it just added up to +2 to the Spellcraft DC to identify. So anyone with a bit of Spellcraft could still identify it, and therefore notice the spellcasting. So you would have to put in rules for noticing that the sorcerer is actually casting a spell as well, IMO. You can't identify a spell without noticing it's being cast. Also, we had similar discussions about Contrived Casting: about the effects of readying an action, for example. And I don't see how the discussion about AoOs would be any different with Contrived Casting (as well as the answer: AoOs are still provoked by casting if you're not on the defensive).
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 04:44 PM	The thing is, that doesn't make sense! If the somatic and verbal components are completely and totally original (ie random), then how could anyone even have the OPTION of anylazying what you are doing? Unless they had Arcane sight or detect magic or something (which would STILL only let them know the school from which you were casting), how could they even know enough to guess? As for even being able to guess if the spell is being cast, that would require a sense motive check with an astronimical DC. Pluss, it would be downright impossible if they didn't know you were a spellcaster; it might even be impossible if they didn't know aobut Mask Spell/Contrived Casting (ie even if they know that you can cast spells, they would also have to know that you can cast them Masked/Contrived. "Aw, let him talk. It's not like he can do anything!"). I'm just saying that logically, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And +2 to spellcraft? Are you kidding me? I realize that it was so low for the sake of balance, but come on! +2 to DC for a spell that the opposing caster has effectively never seen before and follows none of the methods he/she learned?!?!?!?. Nono, Maks Spell is fien the way it is. Another thing: Mask Spell is good, but it's not THAT good. I mean, really, what are it's possible applications? Sure, it makes counterspelling impossible, but it still uses a spell slot 1 level higher! Sure, you get to cast the spell unimpeded by counters, but it also means that a) you have one fews slot for more powerful spells, and b) the enemy didn't have to use a spell slot to stop you from casting, so that enemy now has an extra spell to throw at you. Out of combat, it can really only be used if the party is attacked and held at swordpoint, and even then, you can't use it if your are tied up/interrupted/gagged. I see it more as a last-chance for the party's freedom in a hostage situation, but even then, it's no where near a gaurenteed saftey for this uncommon situation. For simplicity's sake, just rule that Mask spell still prokokes AoO and is still affected by ASF.
Frank the Vandal 10-26-03, 04:51 PM	Agreed. Those were mostly the problems I had with Contrived Casting. I see masked spell as a metamagic feats that has some of the uses of a Still, Silent spell (no counterspelling, sneak in spells without anyone noticing), but not all (you can't cast if you can't move, or if you are silenced, and ASF applies). Therefore, it's a +1 instead of a +2. Sounds perfectly fine to me. My solution: just add that it doesn't prevent ASF, that it still provokes AoOs and use Bluff checks opposed by Sense Motive in case someone who knows or suspects you're a spellcaster has readied an action against you (adjusted by circumstances at DM's discretion).
Mazarick 10-26-03, 08:16 PM	I, personally, think this is a great build. It definitely makes the sorceror more...wild, in a way. *two thumbs up*
BlaineTog 10-26-03, 09:02 PM	How's this sound for modifiers (and yes, I know they are harsh, but we wern't gonna have any cheack at all before...): -20: If they don't know that your Sorcerer IS a sorcerer and don't have knowlegde of the existence of Mask spell -15: If They know you are a sorcerer but still don't know about mask spell OR they know about Mask Spell buy don't know you are a sorcerer -10: If they know you are a sorcerer AND know about the Existence of Mask Spell -5: If they know you are a sorcerer who has Mask Spell (eg they've seen you use it, or you've told them you have it, for some reasons) +/-0: If they know you are a sorcerer who has Mask Spell and have reason to suspect that you may be casting a spell (ie they are very suspicios, or have seen you act the same in previous encounters; if the BBEG has held you hostage before, and you've used this to get out, and now (s)he has you hostage again, for example, this would apply). +2 synergy bonus if they have 5 or more ranks in Spot [Edit:] +5 to any whichever DC applies if Mask Spell is used in battle (reason: if the sorcerer just starts randomly gesticulating ang talking, you are going to be a bit suspicious). This would be a Sense Motive Check agaisnt the Sorcerer's Bluff check. Although whether or not the character knows about Mask Spell could be a) simply DMs discretion, or b) a Knowledge: Arcana check/Intelligeligence Check if the character has no knowlegde:Arcana ranks. I'm gonna suggest a tentative 15 for the K:A DC, since that's the one in 3E PHB that is described as "basic questions." Note that a 20 on Sense Motive always means that they guess correctly that you are casting a spell, and a 1 means they always fail to guess correctly.
Evanta 10-27-03, 12:14 AM	I think it would be better if Mask Spell is restricted to Illusion, Enchantment and maybe Abjuration spells. Also, maybe you may allow no AOO and all that, and give a spellcraft &/or spot DC check of 15 to realise he might be casting a spell, but restrict the ability to be usable on just 1 spell (not at your highest level) per special ability.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-27-03, 01:07 AM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs The wording of the two. They're essentially the same thing, but Contrived Casting is simply worded better. Not entirely accurate. With Contrived Casting, there was no bump in spell level, and it gave a +1 to Spellcraft DC's to identify it for each contrived component (+1 for V, +1 for S, +2 for both). Furthermore, since contriving isn't metamagic, there is no extended cast time. Finally, if there is no bump in spell level, the ability to use everyday gestures and words to disguise the fact that you're casting is unbalanced. Which is why I'll be insisting on Silent + Still in my games, regardless of what happens here. ... Ah yes... here it is! Krynus: "Kissing a lady's hand while complimenting her on some trifle is good RP, but when that act is all that is needed for a sorcerer to cast Charm Person on her, requiring a 3rd level slot to do it is appropriate and not out of line." Thot: "That's where you may be right (balance-wise), and where my existencial troubles begin :( It should be IMO all that is required, yet, truly, it converts poorly in game mechanics balance-wise." The preceding exchange is from the other thread, page 8. Originally posted by Mazarick I, personally, think this is a great build. It definitely makes the sorceror more...wild, in a way. *two thumbs up* Thanks for the encouragement! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I like the impression you got. "Wild" is definitely a compliment in this case, since it demonstrates the difference between a spellcaster with natural talent (sorcerer) and the learned spellcaster (wizard). Originally posted by BlaineTog: How's this sound for modifiers (and yes, I know they are harsh, but we wern't gonna have any cheack at all before...): How about we stay with the KISS-method? It's worked great so far! (For those of you who aren't familiar with the last thread, it means "Keep It Simple, Stupid".) There already exists mechanics for this stuff. Silent and Still allow you to forgo both V and S components, but that doesn't mean you *have* to be quiet and unmoving. Ducks head in anticipation of flying rotten fruit.
BlaineTog 10-27-03, 01:27 AM	Those modifers were put down as a possible concession to the the "THIS IS WAY OVERPOWERED DO AWAY WITH IT" crowd. Yeah, I don't really go along with that method. I'm in the HICCUPS (How Incredibley Complex Can U People Script method, originally a reference to computer scripting, obviosuly) school of thought.
mellowship 10-27-03, 01:45 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane About Spell Secret... Perhaps being able to adjust "any" spell you know might be too good, but what about adjusting any spell that is a level lower than the highest level spell you can cast? Oh come on. It's not like Spell Secrets are a total slam dunk must-have. There's no need to nerf it.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-27-03, 01:55 AM	Originally posted by mellowship Oh come on. It's not like Spell Secrets are a total slam dunk must-have. There's no need to nerf it. Without the minor Spell Secret nerf, that fighter in Evanta's example would likely grab Shield and Spell Secret: Still (for Shield). That makes me cringe. With the nerf, what's he going to do, Spell Secret a cantrip? *shrug*
ConfusedUs 10-27-03, 02:03 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Those modifers were put down as a possible concession to the the "THIS IS WAY OVERPOWERED DO AWAY WITH IT" crowd. Yeah, I don't really go along with that method. I'm in the HICCUPS (How Incredibley Complex Can U People Script method, originally a reference to computer scripting, obviosuly) school of thought. I once wrote a 200 line program to calculate my gas milage on a road trip. My roommate re-wrote it with 28. In reference to KISS, the modifiers aren't really that necessary. Just make it sense motive vs bluff. Easy enough. I'll be using this sor if any of my players dies and wants to bring in a sor. If that doesn't happen, I'm gonna TRY to use it in the next game I play. I've wanted to do a sorc for awhile now. ;)
Krynus Ogrebane 10-27-03, 02:06 AM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs I once wrote a 200 line program to calculate my gas milage on a road trip. My roommate re-wrote it with 28. In reference to KISS, the modifiers aren't really that necessary. Just make it sense motive vs bluff. Easy enough. I'll be using this sor if any of my players dies and wants to bring in a sor. If that doesn't happen, I'm gonna TRY to use it in the next game I play. I've wanted to do a sorc for awhile now. ;) Hey cool! If you use the class, be sure to post feedback. We want to know how it works out for you! Funny story about your friend. :)
BlaineTog 10-27-03, 02:12 AM	Congratulations, people! :ayyyy!: We've made it onto out 2nd 50-post page!
Krynus Ogrebane 10-27-03, 04:20 AM	I'm curious to see what Thot and Talcoram have to say about the latest developments. I know how they both like Mask Spell/Contrived Casting. But, it's not looking promising. :blush: For v8.01, I'm looking at: 1) Remove the special at 1st 2) Remove Mask Spell 3) Include the limitation to Spell Secret about "one level lower than the highest level spell you can cast" ... and I think that's it. Did I miss anything? 1) Should help with the one- or two-level dip problem 2) Should be a house rule, if you don't like the idea of Silent+Still (we really aren't agreeing on anything about this, from rules ramifications to slot cost to identifying, after a dozen pages...) 3) Should also help with level-dipping. Also, consider that Spell Secret originally was a class feature of a caster that prepared spells, it should have a minor governor for a spontaneous caster ~~~ I will say one thing: I'm glad we re-started this topic in a fresh thread. The new blood has certainly brought great points to the table. We would have missed out on this excellent feedback, if we were still 14 pages deep (the other thread's length).
Thot 10-27-03, 04:23 AM	Arrrghhhh !!! My answer wasn't posted because there were too much smilies, and I couldn't get it back !!!!! It's lost !! :mad: Short answer, then, and to Ogrebane's above post only : sorry, but... 1) Why not ? I think though that sticking it to ESM is no real deal, and could solve the issue. 2) You'll have to walk on my dead body, then. ;) My long post (R.I.P) went into details about it, and I'll strike back. Tomorrow probably. :twitch: 3) OK. Thank you all for the feedback.
Bright Eyes 10-27-03, 05:50 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane For v8.01, I'm looking at: 1) Remove the special at 1st 2) Remove Mask Spell 3) Include the limitation to Spell Secret about "one level lower than the highest level spell you can cast" 1. Agree. I think the class has so many "specials". At the end, they are like feats or even better. 2. Agree too. It may be unbalancing (IMHO), or at least I would make the slot cost higher. 3. Agree too ^_^
Evanta 10-27-03, 06:08 AM	Originally posted by Bright Eyes 1. Agree. I think the class has so many "specials". At the end, they are like feats or even better. 2. Agree too. It may be unbalancing (IMHO), or at least I would make the slot cost higher. 3. Agree too ^_^ Make it 3 people on this thread who are in perfect agreement. ;)
Thot 10-27-03, 08:00 AM	Should be a house rule, if you don't like the idea of Silent+Still (we really aren't agreeing on anything about this, from rules ramifications to slot cost to identifying, after a dozen pages...) You're depicting a worst case scenario, here. It's actually not that bad. We're trying to understand each other POV, first, not yet to agree on rules. Besides, it's easier for you to house-rule it out than for us to house rule it in, were it to be suppressed. To give you feed for thoughts, here's one of my arguments pro MS/CC was casting time. 1) free action for a short sentence. 2) standard action for a spell with CC. Anyone knows the Sor is casting. 3) full-round action for a spell with MS. No one knows the Sor is casting (though it may be suspicious during, and obvious once finished). Though the action is the same, the time / behaviour during it are enough to give away most infos. Besides, IMHO, in a nutshell : CC = cast with everyday words / gestures, but still obvious display of Magic / concentration MS = cast while suppressing "give-away" displays of spellcasting (strange gestures / words / eerie aura) Have to go. Hope this helps. Back tomorrow.
ConfusedUs 10-27-03, 12:19 PM	Don't get rid of Mask Spell! Just word it better. ;) It's perfectly fine as long as it provokes AoO's and ASF isn't compeltely negated. It's just that, as worded, it's a bit fishy ;)
Krynus Ogrebane 10-27-03, 12:22 PM	Originally posted by Thot: Originally posted by yours truly: Should be a house rule, if you don't like the idea of Silent+Still (we really aren't agreeing on anything about this, from rules ramifications to slot cost to identifying, after a dozen pages...) You're depicting a worst case scenario, here. But Thot, we have to depict worse case scenarios, so that we can determine if it is balanced or not. It's actually not that bad. We're trying to understand each other POV, first, not yet to agree on rules. I don't think there's a problem with understanding everybody's point of view. I'd say that people are pretty clear about what they're saying. The problem comes in with rules interpretation, rules mechanics, establishing new rules precedents, and issues of balance. None of us are agreeing on what these items should entail. Besides, it's easier for you to house-rule it out than for us to house rule it in, were it to be suppressed. It's only easier for me because the complications are apparent and satisfactorily irreconcilable. We should feel obligated to present a quality product, instead of something that will have a bunch of holes punched through it. To give you feed for thoughts, here's one of my arguments pro MS/CC was casting time. 1) free action for a short sentence. 2) standard action for a spell with CC. Anyone knows the Sor is casting. 3) full-round action for a spell with MS. No one knows the Sor is casting (though it may be suspicious during, and obvious once finished). Though the action is the same, the time / behaviour during it are enough to give away most infos. You would think so, but we're not agreeing here. Besides, IMHO, in a nutshell : CC = cast with everyday words / gestures, but still obvious display of Magic / concentration MS = cast while suppressing "give-away" displays of spellcasting (strange gestures / words / eerie aura) Have to go. Hope this helps. Back tomorrow. ... and Silent + Still (+ Eschew, a forgone conclusion, methinks) requires only concentration. Points to consider about the triple threat combination and balance: a) it still provokes an AOO b) it does not circumvent a Concentration check to cast defensively c) the Spellcraft DC to identify it is (at most) +6 higher than usual d) there are no materials to handle, with Eschew e) ASF is a non-issue, with Still f) you can still say whatever you want, using Silent g) +2 slot cost The problem is that you and other people think that one or more of the preceding points should be circumvented or lessened. WOTC finds this balanced, and anything "better" (i.e.- somehow less costly) is not. Besides, there is not one, but three different methods for doing what you want. The second is to apply spell secrets to the spells that would be most useful in social situations. Apply Silent *AND* Still to a handful of individual spells. The slot cost does not increase. The third is a combination of the two. Apply Still Spell to a number of spells, and acquire Silent Spell to cover the other component (or vice versa). The slot cost is now only +1. Expeditious Silent would even cover the cast time increase. But in ALL THREE situations, AOO's, Concentration checks for avoiding AOO's, and the Spellcraft check to identify the spell are not avoided. You want alot more than this for a single ability, and that's wrong.
Frank the Vandal 10-27-03, 03:27 PM	I was under the impression that a Still, Silent (Eschewed) spell can't be identified. And I got that impression from the other thread originally, but I don't know who posted it. It seems to be in the PHB as well: from SRD, skills section You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components. So in my view: Still, Silent spell: a) still provokes an AOO b) does not circumvent a Concentration check to cast defensively c) no identification d) there are no materials to handle, with Eschew e) ASF is a non-issue, just like grappling, being held, etc. f) you can say whatever you want or be quiet, Silence doesn't matter g) +2 slot cost Mask Spell: a) still provokes an AOO b) does not circumvent a Concentration check to cast defensively c) no identification d) there are no materials to handle, with Eschew e) ASF is still an issue, just like grappling, being held, etc. f) you can say whatever you want but have to speak g) +1 slot cost The gains are a bit lower, as is the cost. So I don't have any problems with it. I also don't have any problems with throwing it out, as long as that doesn't mean Contrived Casting becomes an issue again. The reason I wouldn't mind loosing it, is that it stands out too much as a metamagic feat on our specials list. And you have a point, Krynus: if there's this much discussion about it, it may be too complicated. So, here's my suggestion: 1) Turn the special at level 1 into Eschew Sorcerer Materials. 2) Drop Mask Spell (turn it into a new feat if you want to) 3) Insert the limitation on Spell Secret (even if only to prevent someone from casting a metamagiced level 9 spell before Epic) 4) You can now drop all prerequisites from all specials, since you mostly already have them automatically. The only extra thing this would allow you is to take Extra Slot at level 2, allowing you one whole extra cantrip. 5) Add a minor clarification to Extra Slot that it only applies to sorcerer spells. 6) Drop Toughness :smirk: (All right, I know you won't) Eschew Sorcerer Materials is hardly a plus for someone who dips in, since you'd only have to carry the components with you for a very limited number of spells (if any of them even have material components). And I still don't think "dipping" will be powerful. Come on, a Ftr x/Sor 1? Shield won't help him, it lasts one round per level. He'd better spend his time attacking. Same goes for most damage spells. Mage Armor doesn't stack with his normal armor. The only useful thing I can think of is True Strike. And it costs him a whole round, wasting an attack that might have hit anyway. Also, if you make the changes above, applying Spell Secret to a spell so you can cast it Stilled requires 2 levels of sorcerer, so I think the cost is rather high.
ConfusedUs 10-27-03, 07:05 PM	Frank the Vandal has a very good arguement there, especially in his analysis of what Mask Spell should be. Mask Spell: a) still provokes an AOO b) does not circumvent a Concentration check to cast defensively c) no identification d) there are no materials to handle, with Eschew e) ASF is still an issue, just like grappling, being held, etc. f) you can say whatever you want but have to speak g) +1 slot cost Here's my responses a) As written, I have my doubts about it provoking an AoO. The 'look of concentration' that everyone throws in as their reason why doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe I'm a rare person, but I have NO difficulty focusing on two things at once. I could recite phone numbers pr addresses while playing a video game, or make appointments on my cellphone (i'm a salesman, haha) while driving. Mask Spell doesn't imply standing still with a blank look on your face, which is what I'm getting from previous discussion. I believe that a masked spell should require a Bluff check. If you succeed, people around you have NO clue you are casting. At least till the fireball explodes. It just makes sense to me. b) You still have to concentrate, obviously. But it is easily possible to concentrate on more than one thing. See a). c) No obvious identification of spellcasting. There's no precise hand waving, strange incantations, or odd materials present. However, previous arguments state that it is obvious the spellcaster is casting, in terms of an AoO. Another spellcaster (or anyone with spellcraft) should be able to identify that a spell is being cast as well, if you use previous arguments. I'd apply a +6 (or higher) modifier to spellcraft DCs. However, if you use the opposed bluff check alternative, an opposed caster wouldn't automatically get a chance to identify the spell. If, and only if, the wizard realized a spell was being cast could he use spellcraft at the above mentioned +6 DC. d) No materials, unless they're more than the listed amount of 1gp. e) ASF: I disagree. If no precise movement is necessary, then where does ASF come into play? If all that is needed for a spell is a general movement, such as a throwing motion for a fireball, armor would not impede that in any way. After all, a fighter can throw a javelin in fullplate, which arguably requires MORE precision than lobbing a tiny bead that blows up in a 20' blast. For balance sake, however, I'd say just lower ASF by 5-10% when using a masked spell. I doubt you'll see many sorcerers in Fullplate, and even Light armor would require casting every single spell as a full-round action. Not to mention never being able to use their highest spell-levels without risking a loss. And is allowing a sorc (who would have to spend a feat on it) to wear a mithral buckler without ASF that powerful? Nope. f) Yes you have to speak, that was fairly obvious. A Mask Spell does not function in a Silenced area. g) +1 cost: Mask Spell is, at the same time, both stronger and weaker than a Still or Silent spell. It offers some of the benefits of both, but not all. I'd say leave it at +1 unless someone can prove it's broken.
BlaineTog 10-27-03, 08:21 PM	As I mentioned before, I don't think Mask Spell is really all that powerful, although it could seriously help out when you've run out of choices.
Talcoram Cyndar 10-27-03, 10:10 PM	Just a quick reply, I will give more detail in a couple of days- 1) Remove the special at 1st 2) Remove Mask Spell 3) Include the limitation to Spell Secret about "one level lower than the highest level spell you can cast" 1) No. Double dipping for a ftrx/sorc/1 really is not that big a deal. As has been mentioned, shield has major time limits and true strike would arguabally take more time than its worth. 2) Rether not. Actuallym I would rather see CC come back. It is IMHO easier, better written and just cleaner in its application. If necessarry, I would support is returen w/o the +1/+1 modifiers to spellcraft checks, making it more of a flavor addition than anything else. 3) Again, no. Spell Secret really is fine the way it is. Yes it was originally written for a class that prepares spells, but I dnon't think that means that we need to modifiy it for a spontaneous caster. metamagic feats (with the exception of Quicken Spell :sad: ) have always been applied to wizards and sorcerers equally. I see no reason to change this now. I reallize that some of that might not make sense, I haven't spelt in like five days. Hopefully I will be more coherant after I get some sleep. I see you all then............................ -TC
Krynus Ogrebane 10-28-03, 12:11 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I was under the impression that a Still, Silent (Eschewed) spell can't be identified. And I got that impression from the other thread originally, but I don't know who posted it. It seems to be in the PHB as well: Your impression is mistaken (as was mine, until the following points were brought to my attention). There are (at least) three different sources that mention identifying spells as they are cast. The PHB, T&B, and S&S. The PHB has one parenthetical sentence in the Spellcraft chart (without further explanation), S&S mentions it in the feat description for Disguise Spell (basically quoting the PHB), and T&B goes into detail about the distances and circumstances involved in a Spellcraft check, and even cited the Silent+Still+Eschew scenario. Which one is right? Answer: T&B, because it was written by Skip Williams (aka The Sage), one of the original authors of the three core rulebooks, author of T&B, and considered *the* authority on all things D&D. Furthermore, this isn't the only place he's explained spell identification. He writes a column in Dragon Magazine every month (Sage Advice). So, here's my suggestion: 1) Turn the special at level 1 into Eschew Sorcerer Materials. 2) Drop Mask Spell (turn it into a new feat if you want to) 3) Insert the limitation on Spell Secret (even if only to prevent someone from casting a metamagiced level 9 spell before Epic) 4) You can now drop all prerequisites from all specials, since you mostly already have them automatically. The only extra thing this would allow you is to take Extra Slot at level 2, allowing you one whole extra cantrip. 5) Add a minor clarification to Extra Slot that it only applies to sorcerer spells. 6) Drop Toughness :smirk: (All right, I know you won't) 1) a) Consider this: we all agree that the sorcerer doesn't need a power-up. Because the non-cantrip spells known/slots are unchanged from the PHB.sorcerer at 1st level (and 2nd, for that matter), what is a special at 1st level, but a power-up? Of course, one might argue that because slots don't start to drop off (comparing the two classes) until after 3rd level, the special at 2nd should probably be dropped too, and I'd probably have to agree with that sentiment... :bigeyes: 1) b) A net loss of two slots (instead of one) is a fair price to pay for seven specials, don't you think? (refering to the fact that you lose nine slots from the PHB.sor, but the ALT.sor gains specials as compensation) 1) c) Now we're legislating that *all* sorcerers do not require M components? I don't buy it. :nonono: 2) Can do. 3) Indeed, yet another reason for the minor limitation. 4) Dropping the prereq from Extra Slot makes it even better than the regular feat (regardless of the minor degree, it would still be better). 5) Good catch. 6) Gotta mollify the d6 HD crowd! ;) And I still don't think "dipping" will be powerful. Come on, a Ftr x/Sor 1? Shield won't help him, it lasts one round per level. Actually, Ftr x/Sor 2 would be better min/maxed. Plus, Shield lasts one *minute* per level... long enough for an encounter to resolve, plus the whole immune to Magic Missile benefit. Originally posted by ConfusedUs: Frank the Vandal has a very good arguement there, especially in his analysis of what Mask Spell should be. See above. His theory is built on a foundation of sand. Here's my responses <SNIP> Most of these fly in the face of existing rules. You are reading more into this dubious ability than is actually there, and are therefore trying to squeeze as much out of it as possible. I'm afraid you're alone (or at least in a very small minority) on at least half of your suggestions. Which brings me to my point: this topic of discussion has now endured 14 pages of thread posts, and still no end in sight. I don't see any middle ground for this ability, without removing all numerical benefit (i.e.- relegated to fluff status, with possible house-rule applications).
Krynus Ogrebane 10-28-03, 12:58 AM	OK, I editted the first three posts of this thread, to reflect v8.01. Don't freak, if something's missing. I have everything on file. I wanted to change the thread's title before the forum locked me out of that option. Take a moment to peruse The Dissection again, if you would. You may find it interesting.
mellowship 10-28-03, 02:07 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane There are (at least) three different sources that mention identifying spells as they are cast. The PHB, T&B, and S&S. The PHB has one parenthetical sentence in the Spellcraft chart (without further explanation), S&S mentions it in the feat description for Disguise Spell (basically quoting the PHB), and T&B goes into detail about the distances and circumstances involved in a Spellcraft check, and even cited the Silent+Still+Eschew scenario. Which one is right? Answer: T&B, because it was written by Skip Williams (aka The Sage), one of the original authors of the three core rulebooks, author of T&B, and considered *the* authority on all things D&D. Furthermore, this isn't the only place he's explained spell identification. He writes a column in Dragon Magazine every month (Sage Advice). Enh. Skip's not infallible, you know. 1) a) Consider this: we all agree that the sorcerer doesn't need a power-up. You keep making the rather dubious assumption that the relative power of wizards vs. sorcerers is so finely balanced that one little nod in the sorcerer's direction will unbalance things. 'Tain't so. Because the non-cantrip spells known/slots are unchanged from the PHB.sorcerer at 1st level (and 2nd, for that matter), what is a special at 1st level, but a power-up? Of course, one might argue that because slots don't start to drop off (comparing the two classes) until after 3rd level, the special at 2nd should probably be dropped too, and I'd probably have to agree with that sentiment... :bigeyes: The 2nd sorcerer level is pretty weak. No harm in putting a special there. 1) b) A net loss of two slots (instead of one) is a fair price to pay for seven specials, don't you think? (refering to the fact that you lose nine slots from the PHB.sor, but the ALT.sor gains specials as compensation) 1) c) Now we're legislating that *all* sorcerers do not require M components? I don't buy it. :nonono: Some of your earlier builds did this, you know. And just about everybody thought it was fine. The thing is, except for a very few situations that may never come up in a sorcerer's career (or in specially house-ruled campaigns), Eschew Sorcerer Materials is a fluffy benefit that has no real mechanical effect. Makes a dandy 1st level special. 3) Indeed, yet another reason for the minor limitation. Which the wu jen does not have. And it's not like most 9th level spells are *really* made epic-worthy when you add +1 level metamagic to them. However, your point about the Fighter who dips in and uses a Secret to Still Shield is a good one. I'll go along with the nerf. 4) Dropping the prereq from Extra Slot makes it even better than the regular feat (regardless of the minor degree, it would still be better). Extra Slot is an awfully underpowered feat. Even without the restrictions and the prereqs, it's still an underpowered special. 6) Gotta mollify the d6 HD crowd! ;) How about mollifying the 4-skill point crowd, huh? Which brings me to my point: this topic of discussion has now endured 14 pages of thread posts, and still no end in sight. I don't see any middle ground for this ability, without removing all numerical benefit (i.e.- relegated to fluff status, with possible house-rule applications). Here's my take on Mask Spell: Make it a regular feat, not a special. If a sorcerer wants to Mask, let him burn one of his regular feats on it. Let it provoke an AoO (unless cast defensively) but make it impossible for observers to identify spellcasting (unless they've got Detect Magic or Arcane Sight up).
Krynus Ogrebane 10-28-03, 02:42 AM	Originally posted by mellowship: Enh. Skip's not infallible, you know. No, he's not. But he is almost always consistent, and has no problems recanting any mistakes he's made in prior Sage Advice "rulings". Plus, he's "the man", like it or not. You keep making the rather dubious assumption that the relative power of wizards vs. sorcerers is so finely balanced that one little nod in the sorcerer's direction will unbalance things. 'Tain't so. Close enough for government work. Have you seen the 50-pager elsewhere on this forum? I'm inclined to say that it *is* indeed that close... IMO, of course. The 2nd sorcerer level is pretty weak. No harm in putting a special there. Which is why I didn't suggest removing both 1st and 2nd. RE: Eschew at 1st: Some of your earlier builds did this, you know. And just about everybody thought it was fine. (emphasis mine) ... and *that* is what worries me. The thing is, except for a very few situations that may never come up in a sorcerer's career (or in specially house-ruled campaigns), Eschew Sorcerer Materials is a fluffy benefit that has no real mechanical effect. Makes a dandy 1st level special. YMMV. I find it extremely cool, and if not for the "only applies to sorcerer spells" limitation in Eschew Sorcerer Materials, I'd probably grab the full feat. Which the wu jen does not have. And it's not like most 9th level spells are *really* made epic-worthy when you add +1 level metamagic to them. However, your point about the Fighter who dips in and uses a Secret to Still Shield is a good one. I'll go along with the nerf. The Wu Jen doesn't have it because it's in his spellbook. He may not prepare it *every* day, while the sorcerer will have access to it at *any* time. But yeah, that Still Shield makes me cringe. That, plus another 1st level spell (Feather Fall or True Strike, neither of which has an S component), and the fighter is stylin' in his tin can (i.e.- full plate with no ASF). Extra Slot is an awfully underpowered feat. Even without the restrictions and the prereqs, it's still an underpowered special. Again, YMMV. The second-best thing going for the PHB.sor is his copious slots. We've cut 1/6th of them out (non-cantrip). So it is more valuable to the ALT.sor than it is to the PHB.sor. How about mollifying the 4-skill point crowd, huh? "- Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, and Persuasive These help with the "more skill points" crowd. Granted, it isn't the same as getting 4+ skill points per level, but seriously, the sorcerer is all about magic, not skill usage." Here's my take on Mask Spell: Make it a regular feat, not a special. If a sorcerer wants to Mask, let him burn one of his regular feats on it. Let it provoke an AoO (unless cast defensively) but make it impossible for observers to identify spellcasting (unless they've got Detect Magic or Arcane Sight up). Don't forget that ASF still applies. :) Anyway, it could be done.
Frank the Vandal 10-28-03, 03:07 AM	ConfusedUs I have NO difficulty focusing on two things at once. I could recite phone numbers pr addresses while playing a video game, or make appointments on my cellphone (i'm a salesman, haha) while driving. Yes, but can you cast a spell while playing a video game? :smirk: Slightly more difficult I think. And I have trouble really concentrating on two things at the same time. Can't listen to people when I'm reading a book, for example. If no precise movement is necessary, then where does ASF come into play? IMO, precise movements are still necessary, but you can change how they look. Your gestures have to answer to the laws of magic, as well as to what you want them to look like, which requires possible even more precise gestures than usual. Krynus: You could easily say the new PHB overrules all other books. It's also written by the writers of original core books and newer than T&B. However, if T&B mentions the Eschewed, Stilled and Silent spell explicitly, you're probably right. In that case, Mask Spell should still allow identification. And it shouldn't be harder to identify than a E,S,S Spell. So throwing it out might be better. 1) a) Consider this: we all agree that the sorcerer doesn't need a power-up. Because the non-cantrip spells known/slots are unchanged from the PHB.sorcerer at 1st level (and 2nd, for that matter), what is a special at 1st level, but a power-up? Of course, one might argue that because slots don't start to drop off (comparing the two classes) until after 3rd level, the special at 2nd should probably be dropped too, and I'd probably have to agree with that sentiment... 1) b) A net loss of two slots (instead of one) is a fair price to pay for seven specials, don't you think? (refering to the fact that you lose nine slots from the PHB.sor, but the ALT.sor gains specials as compensation) 1) c) Now we're legislating that *all* sorcerers do not require M components? I don't buy it. a) Wait a minute, you throw out the special at level one because of level dipping (so not because you thought there were too many specials), then don't want to put it back in because one extra special might power it up beyond the wizard??? And you say my theories are built on sand... b) Not sure what you mean here. c) Also, putting Eschew at level one has been an idea for a long time on the other thread, and was suggested not long ago by... you. 4) Dropping the prereq from Extra Slot makes it even better than the regular feat (regardless of the minor degree, it would still be better). "Yeah, cantrips will break the game." Weren't those your words? ;) But you can leave it in if you want, I just thought it'd be a little more simple without, and someone on the other thread had a problem with prereqs, IIRC. Shield lasts one *minute* per level Oops, sorry. I looked it up before I wrote it, but must have experience temporary blindness... Have to go now, will finish later.
mellowship 10-28-03, 03:24 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Have you seen the 50-pager elsewhere on this forum? I'm inclined to say that it *is* indeed that close... IMO, of course. I've seen bits of it. The thing is, balancing the wizard vs. the sorcerer depends more upon how the DM runs his campaign than upon how the classes' benefits are defined on paper. For instance, the relative weight of spontaneous casting changes depending on how often the party gets ambushed with no chance to prepare, the value of the sorcerer's extra spell slots depends on how many fights the party goes through each day before getting their spells back, and so on. The reason why there's no consensus is because everybody's arguing based on different campaign experiences. There isn't any single standard campaign to base class balance on. The closest approximation would be Living Greyhawk, and in that one, class balance all depends on which modules you're playing that week. Which is why I didn't suggest removing both 1st and 2nd. OK, fair enough. RE: Eschew at 1st: Some of your earlier builds did this, you know. And just about everybody thought it was fine.... and *that* is what worries me. ...except that the reason we all liked Eschew Materials wasn't about power but about flavor. After all, flavor was the whole *point* of our revisions. The thing is, except for a very few situations that may never come up in a sorcerer's career (or in specially house-ruled campaigns), Eschew Sorcerer Materials is a fluffy benefit that has no real mechanical effect. Makes a dandy 1st level special.YMMV. I find it extremely cool, and if not for the "only applies to sorcerer spells" limitation in Eschew Sorcerer Materials, I'd probably grab the full feat. It *is* cool. But coolness isn't about mechanical benefits. How about mollifying the 4-skill point crowd, huh? "- Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, and Persuasive These help with the "more skill points" crowd. Granted, it isn't the same as getting 4+ skill points per level, but seriously, the sorcerer is all about magic, not skill usage." Those don't quite do it for me. The main reason I'm pushing for the extra skill points is to correct for the fact that wizards get to use Int as their spellcasting stat AND get all Knowledge skills and Decipher Script as class skills while Sorcerers are stuck with Cha and get only one Cha skill (Bluff) as a class skill. Even with that paltry handful of feats available as specials, the sorcerer still gets shafted.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-28-03, 03:44 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Krynus: You could easily say the new PHB overrules all other books. It's also written by the writers of original core books and newer than T&B. However, if T&B mentions the Eschewed, Stilled and Silent spell explicitly, you're probably right. In that case, Mask Spell should still allow identification. And it shouldn't be harder to identify than a E,S,S Spell. So throwing it out might be better. T&B does specifically cite E+S+S spells, and details the +2 per missing component for Spellcraft DC's. About the 3.0 PHB, T&B, 3.5 PHB... Skip is the only author to have a hand in all three of these books. WOTC let Tweet and Cook go (IIRC). Actually, they let Williams go too, but they retain him as an independent contractor. Er... my point is that Skip is not only one of the original authors, he's also an author for the revised books too... or more accurately, he was a member of both Design Teams. His main focus was the Monster Manual, but of course he was involved in all three core books (from both editions), because of the inter-connected nature of the books. a) Wait a minute, you throw out the special at level one because of level dipping (so not because you thought there were too many specials), then don't want to put it back in because one extra special might power it up beyond the wizard??? And you say my theories are built on sand... b) Not sure what you mean here. c) Also, putting Eschew at level one has been an idea for a long time on the other thread, and was suggested not long ago by... you. a) You are jumping to conclusions. I also think that there are too many specials, after some more consideration. That was actually going to be my next argument, if it was necessary. Don't take that sand comment to heart. I was just referring back to the exchange we had in the other thread (about what exactly, I don't recall)about toppling buildings built on weak foundations. b) In the dissection, I refer to eliminating 9 spell slots from the PHB.sor and exchanging them in for specials for the ALT.sor. If there are 8 specials, the net loss is one slot, going on the premise that a special is worth approximately one spell slot. If there are 7 specials, the net loss is two slots. c) For previous builds, it was just that... a suggestion. Because *everybody* likes it, that makes me worry that it is too good (i.e.- over-powered). PLUS, I don't like classes with features that pigeon-hole them, unless it is an archtype staple (such as Summon Familiar). "Yeah, cantrips will break the game." Weren't those your words? ;) But you can leave it in if you want, I just thought it'd be a little more simple without, and someone on the other thread had a problem with prereqs, IIRC. I have no problem admitting that if we removed the prereq from Extra Slot, it wouldn't *really* affect anything, since nobody would grab it at 2nd for a lousy cantrip (watch someone prove me wrong about this :rolleyes: ). However, I don't even want to have the appearance of over-powering the ability, let alone the inconsistency that would be pointed out with the whole "under-powered feat" theme we've had so much success with (so far).
Krynus Ogrebane 10-28-03, 03:59 AM	Originally posted by mellowship: RE: Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, and Persuasive: Those don't quite do it for me. The main reason I'm pushing for the extra skill points is to correct for the fact that wizards get to use Int as their spellcasting stat AND get all Knowledge skills and Decipher Script as class skills while Sorcerers are stuck with Cha and get only one Cha skill (Bluff) as a class skill. Even with that paltry handful of feats available as specials, the sorcerer still gets shafted. We've been through this. We can't outright give more skill points to the sorcerer without giving them to all the classes, and that is beyond the scope of class design. I personally like skill points, but unless everybody gets more, then forget it. Also, skill points would supposedly accomodate the sorcerer's lack of out-of-combat utility. Instead of going the extra skill-point route, we went with gobs more cantrips (both slots and known), because the sorcerer is a creature of magic, not a skill hound. Do you have a solution besides more cantrips? We could take them out, and use whatever solution is more satisfactory to your sensibilities. BUT, are skill points (and doing something "by hand") really appropriate, for an individual whose whole existence revolves around bending magic to his will? *I* don't think so. Hence, the middle ground with those +2/+2 feats.
Thot 10-28-03, 04:56 AM	:mad: :tantrum: :fight!: OK, my main point will be about (surprise !) Mask Spell ! Originally posted by ConfusedUs : Don't get rid of Mask Spell! Just word it better. ;) It's perfectly fine as long as it provokes AoO's and ASF isn't compeltely negated. It's just that, as worded, it's a bit fishy ;) I fully second that, especially what I emphasized. Ogrebane : The problem comes in with rules interpretation, rules mechanics, establishing new rules precedents, and issues of balance. Not exactly, IMHO. It comes from unclear premises, foggy reasonment, hazy results. Which we are trying to solve. The complications are apparent and satisfactorily irreconcilable. We should feel obligated to present a quality product, instead of something that will have a bunch of holes punched through it. Disagreed, yet, though the second part is true (which is why CanC was put out of misery, but not yet MS if I can somehow help it). {end of p2, list of casting times cases} You would think so, but we're not agreeing here. I would like you to explain why, please. That would help, IMHO. in ALL THREE situations {to make up for a lack of MS}, AOO's, Concentration checks for avoiding AOO's, and the Spellcraft check to identify the spell are not avoided. You want alot more than this for a single ability, and that's wrong. Nope, we don't want more, IMHO. It's been explained quite thoroughly by Frank. We want it differently. More somewhere, less somewhere else. Of course, what you describe works, such as would a Wish for a Shield. A more powerful ability can be made to do lesser things. We simply think that a lesser tool could be tailor-made for the task at hand. It still wouldn't be a MW tool, cause it can only replicate one of the many features from the original MW tool. Don't know if that's clear ? :confused: Frank : The reason I wouldn't mind loosing it, is that it stands out too much as a metamagic feat on our specials list. And you have a point, Krynus: if there's this much discussion about it, it may be too complicated. I could agree to make it a Metamagic Feat. That's more or less how I was seeing it anyway, so... Still, I think it should be noted somewhere - list of possible house-rules, suggestions, etc ? And indeed some form of CC might make a come-back on the front of the scene (though I keep on thinking that we can have both of them at the same time). Turn the special at level 1 into Eschew Sorcerer Materials. Yes. And to answer one of Ogrebane's reservation (pigeon-holing), the fact that your Sor could cast without M components (were he to know it) doesn't mean that he does indee (he could be unaware of this ability of his). See what I mean ? :smirk: ~~~~ ConfusedUs : As written, I have my doubts about {MS} provoking an AoO. The 'look of concentration' that everyone throws in as their reason why doesn't make much sense to me. That's our main trouble then. (As it was for CanC, I do remember). I had an argument about casting time, that seemed fairly decent to me, how did it sound to you ? I believe that a masked spell should require a Bluff check. If you succeed, people around you have NO clue you are casting. At least till the fireball explodes. It just makes sense to me. Why not ? I don't really like it, but I could go with it... still, I think it's only (well, mainly), a one-time-trick. You use it once against someone, and then you're more or less toast if you redo it. OK, it could be of use in case of multiple castings, in a very diplomatic campaign... If we were to hardwire the adjuticating of the bluff check (not that I advise it, but we may have to), what about a check, with a +10 (20 ?) on the check, minus the level of the spell you're casting (modified or not ??) ? You still have to concentrate, obviously. But it is easily possible to concentrate on more than one thing Not in DD, as far as Spellcasting is concerned. After all, that's the only relevant paradigm here. *shrug* No obvious identification of spellcasting. Yes. Though as you said, there could be a way (Sense Motive), and if that one was succesful, then could come the identification, as per the guidelines given by T&B. I could go with it. ASF: I disagree. If no precise movement is necessary, then where does ASF come into play? If all that is needed for a spell is a general movement, such as a throwing motion for a fireball, armor would not impede that in any way. I'll redirect you to a post of mine, p1, where I quoted this : Originally posted by Ser Jaden : As sorcerers concentrate on bringing their power forth, they need to use some sort of expressive gesture or gestures to channel that power. Like verbal components, their gestures will probably change each time they cast the spell. Nevertheless, in armor the Sorcerer would have a chance to fail at his casting. His gestures, though random are equally important in channeling his power as the precise gestures of a Wizard. Therefore, he would be stunted by the lack of flexibility granted by armor and thus it could potentially impede his casting. A Sorcerer would have a definite sense of claustrophobia while attempting to cast somatically while in armor, lacking the freedom to simply motion as he desires. This is where arcane spell failure would fit in. That sums up quite nicely my views on it. Ogrebane : a) Consider this: we all agree that the sorcerer doesn't need a power-up. Because the non-cantrip spells known/slots are unchanged from the PHB.sorcerer at 1st level (and 2nd, for that matter), what is a special at 1st level, but a power-up? Of course, one might argue that because slots don't start to drop off (comparing the two classes) until after 3rd level, the special at 2nd should probably be dropped too, and I'd probably have to agree with that sentiment... While it is true, it {Special at 1st level, possibly sticked to ESM} is deemed more or less necessary to the definition of the class. So, if we prove it not to be unbalancing compared to the other classes at that level, I'd say we can go with it. If you fear unbalance, we can delay the access to the Familiar too, by one or two or three levels ? Gotta mollify the d6 HD crowd! ;) Don't you want to find a way to mollify the "natural casting" crowd, too ? ;) I know your position about CC and MS, but, still... Well, I'm nothing if not stubborn, so... *shrug* His theory is built on a foundation of sand. :confused: Unless I'm wrong, you just told us that even in the S+S+E case, identification of a spell is still possible. Good. Point taken. Now what about the identification of the spellcasting (which is quite the issue here, IMHO) ? Is it stated anywhere that in your S+S+E case, the fact that a spell is cast is not obvious ? That was the point of Disguise Spell, is the point of MS, and (I think) is not the point of SSE. To my knowledge, in the SSE case, you are not granted this benefit : "Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't. Unless the spell visibly emanates from you or observers have some other means of determining its source, they don't know where the effect came from." If you are granted that benefit while SSE casting, I might try and keep on playing along with it... You are reading more into this dubious ability than is actually there, and are therefore trying to squeeze as much out of it as possible. :confused: I know you answered to other points, but... Overall, we're pleading to keep AoO, ASF, the existence of all Components... We're about to add a bluff check, identification is still possible... Where exactly are we trying to "sqeeze as much out of it as possible." ? We're mainly trying to cover all possible issues, IMHO, to end up with a precise (hopefully concise) wording. That's it. this topic of discussion has now endured 14 pages of thread posts, and still no end in sight. I don't see any middle ground for this ability, without removing all numerical benefit (i.e.- relegated to fluff status, with possible house-rule applications). Of course, I disagree. We're IMHO closer to having (all ?) the main ramifications covered. The ability would be no different than the one you (reluctanly) agreed to put among the specials. Just possibly worded differently. That's all. Mellowship : except for a very few situations that may never come up in a sorcerer's career <SNIP>, ESM is a fluffy benefit that has no real mechanical effect. Makes a dandy 1st level special. I tend to agree. Let it provoke an AoO (unless cast defensively) but make it impossible for observers to identify spellcasting (unless they've got Detect Magic or Arcane Sight up). Yeah, but there's indeed the case when you're a known Sor, with the proved ability to MS. People would be on the look-out for your casting MS spell, which could grant them a chance to succeed. Indeed, Bluff check might be the way to go. Well... Ogrebane : {about ESM at 1st} and *that* is what worries me. Truly, I don't see why. I'll check which arbitrary "likely Sor spells" of 1st level have M components, and we'll see about there utility when dipped into Sor. Mellowship : The main reason I'm pushing for the extra skill points is to correct for the fact that wizards get to use Int as their spellcasting stat AND get all Knowledge skills and Decipher Script as class skills while Sorcerers are stuck with Cha and get only one Cha skill (Bluff) as a class skill. Even with that paltry handful of feats available as specials, the sorcerer still gets shafted. OK, they get shafted in the Skill department. I don't like it one bit either, but I can live with. Same as when I play a Pal, or a Monk. You have to learn to live with non maxed-out core (read Con / Spellcraft, K:A) skills. So long as they are playable, fun, and balanced... *shrug* Ogrebane : I also think that there are too many specials, after some more consideration. Would you mind expanding on it, please ? While he does indeed get "much" specials, I don't think he truly gains "too much". I am not sure, though. {about ESM at 1st} : I don't like classes with features that pigeon-hole them, unless it is an archtype staple (such as Summon Familiar). :confused: SF is mainly a staple for the Wiz, not for the Sor (though I still highly support it). Plus, it's more of a "sacred cow" as I see it. Last, I don't see it as "pigeon-holing", as compared to the "smite evil" of the Pal. And I see both of them as very useful to define the class ("natural" spellcaster / do-gooder). Do you have a solution besides more cantrips? We could take them out, and use whatever solution is more satisfactory to your sensibilities. BUT, are skill points (and doing something "by hand") really appropriate, for an individual whose whole existence revolves around bending magic to his will? I would like you to propose an alternative too. Otherwise, I'll keep on going with extra cantrips, which are doing the job "decently fine" by me. And that's all for this. EDIT - All that's below "~~~~". I didn't want to have my post lost as last time, so I did it in two phases...
Krynus Ogrebane 10-28-03, 05:13 AM	Originally posted by Thot: :mad: :tantrum: :fight!: This is the best part of your post! :rofl: OK, my main point will be about (surprise !) Mask Spell ! Don't get rid of Mask Spell! Just word it better. ;) I fully second that, especially what I emphasized. Ogrebane : Not exactly, IMHO. It comes from unclear premises, foggy reasonment, hazy results. Which we are trying to solve. RE: Mask Spell complications: Disagreed, yet, though the second part is true (which is why CanC was put out of misery, but not yet MS if I can somehow help it). RE: non-agreement: I would like you to explain why, please. That would help, IMHO. RE: AOO's, Concentration checks, and Spellcraft checks: Nope, we don't want more, IMHO. It's been explained quite thoroughly by Frank. We want it differently. More somewhere, less somewhere else. Of course, what you describe works, such as would a Wish for a Shield. A more powerful ability can be made to do lesser things. We simply think that a lesser tool could be tailor-made for the task at hand. It still wouldn't be a MW tool, cause it can only replicate one of the many features from the original MW tool. Don't know if that's clear ? :confused: Dude, what part of "14 pages and still no end in sight" didn't you understand? How many different ways must I say the same thing? Shall I throw in the fact that a Quickened spell is the *only* way to avoid an AOO, at a +4 slot cost (+5, if cast spontaneously)? Does the reality that there is no way to avoid the Concentration check required to cast defensively have any effect on your opinion? Did I mention that there are already THREE ways that you could accomplish what you want? (yes... yes I did) I don't think we spent this much energy on Cannibalistic Casting. Christ! Frank : I could agree to make it a Metamagic Feat. That's more or less how I was seeing it anyway, so... Still, I think it should be noted somewhere - list of possible house-rules, suggestions, etc ? And indeed some form of CC might make a come-back on the front of the scene (though I keep on thinking that we can have both of them at the same time). OK. I'll await what you and ConfusedUs come up with. I've spent too much time on it, for zero return. Actually, that's not entirely true. There are other ways to accomplish what you want, but you're not willing to invest more than a single feat or special to get them, because that would preclude you from using your feats or specials for other things, wouldn't it? Yes. And to answer one of Ogrebane's reservation (pigeon-holing), the fact that your Sor could cast without M components (were he to know it) doesn't mean that he does indeed (he could be unaware of this ability of his). See what I mean ? :smirk: :rolleyes:
Thot 10-28-03, 07:52 AM	Warning : Huge editing of former post. Ogrebane : This is the best part of your post! At least, there's one ! :cool: what part of "14 pages and still no end in sight" didn't you understand? I don't know, er... maybe the part that appeared as "AF 5E 3C 4B DD" on my computer ? Or those about "cooking fresh meat with onions" ? I'm not too keen either on hexadecimal nor cooking, sorry... :P ... OK, I'm done. It's especially the "no end in sight" part that I disagree with, for I have a different feeling. May be wrong, though. That would only turn out to be as usual ! :embarrass How many different ways must I say the same thing? Shall I throw in the fact that a Quickened spell is the *only* way to avoid an AOO, at a +4 slot cost (+5, if cast spontaneously)? Does the reality that there is no way to avoid the Concentration check required to cast defensively have any effect on your opinion? Now, please. I (we, IIRC) never wanted to get rid of the AoO, nor of the Con Chek. You know better. I am (We are) looking for a way to make it plain and clear in the definition of MS. Please do not put in my mouth words I did not say, nor do I intend to say (for now, and to the best of my current knowledge). Did I mention that there are already THREE ways that you could accomplish what you want? (yes... yes I did) You did (SSE or Spell Secret or some S+ some Secret). Still, I would like further explanation about it before making up my mind whether your proposals truly allow me to do "what I want", for I'm unsure as of now. Sorry. I think I've explained it more thoroughly in my edited post above. OK. I'll await what you and ConfusedUs come up with. Fair enough. There are other ways to accomplish what you want, but you're not willing to invest more than a single feat or special to get them, because that would preclude you from using your feats or specials for other things, wouldn't it? I repeat myself, but I'm no yet convinced about this. And your last part is blatantly false, IMHO. Please... :rolleyes: Yeah, OK, I know. I knew it before posting it, but well... I was still :mad: ... :embarrass Sorry.
ConfusedUs 10-28-03, 02:20 PM	Originally posted by that ogerbane guy ;) OK. I'll await what you and ConfusedUs come up with. I've spent too much time on it, for zero return. Actually, that's not entirely true. There are other ways to accomplish what you want, but you're not willing to invest more than a single feat or special to get them, because that would preclude you from using your feats or specials for other things, wouldn't it? I have no issues with anything on the alt.sor except the wording of Mask Spell. As it stands, I've repeatedely given my interpretation, and a couple of possible solutions that are an attempt to keep Mask Spell as stated in the alt.sor. I'm not out to harass, harm, or (dang, ran out of H words) insult anyone or anything. So if you're taking offense to anything I've said, please don't. That's not my intention. Originally posted by Ser Jaden : As sorcerers concentrate on bringing their power forth, they need to use some sort of expressive gesture or gestures to channel that power. Like verbal components, their gestures will probably change each time they cast the spell. Nevertheless, in armor the Sorcerer would have a chance to fail at his casting. His gestures, though random are equally important in channeling his power as the precise gestures of a Wizard. Therefore, he would be stunted by the lack of flexibility granted by armor and thus it could potentially impede his casting. A Sorcerer would have a definite sense of claustrophobia while attempting to cast somatically while in armor, lacking the freedom to simply motion as he desires. This is where arcane spell failure would fit in. If this were stated in the Mask Spell description, it would rob me of every arguement I've had so far. I'm all for a solution. The solutions that I've put forward are just propositions, and do not have to be taken seriously. And if you're going to get in an uproar about me giving feedback...what's the point of me even posting in this thread at all? So far I've ENJOYED this thread, but it's gotten down to nothing but a giant arguement and borderline flameware in the last 8 posts or so. Comments like "built on sand" and "What part of 14 pages don't you understand" do nothing constructive. So please be civil.
Frank the Vandal 10-28-03, 02:43 PM	Ok, time to finish my post... And answer to the ton of posts coming after that one. What I was going to say, was that if a fighter or another warrior dips two levels into a spellcasting class, it's hardly overpowering if he gains access to some spells. The ability to cast Shield and True Strike during battle is great, but it costs you the abilities you'd have gained if you hadn't multiclassed. Or you could get one or two levels monk for the extra feats and armor bonus if your Wis is high, a level of rogue for sneak attack and skill points, two levels of ranger for some extra feats. Dipping into another class is a perfectly fine strategy to add some power and flavor to your class, and sorcerer isn't the best choice out there. Nor is the alt. sorcerer much better than the PHB one. Most specials aren't really useful for non-sorcerers, and the spells are the same. Besides, if you want spells, then other spellcasters or items are often available to give the same bonusses. Krynus: a) You are jumping to conclusions. I also think that there are too many specials, after some more consideration. Well, you never told us, did you? But you may have a point. I've been fearing an overall powerup myself lately. Eschew at first level: The reason most people liked this was the flavor, I think. If we're going to throw things out of the window because we agree, this discussion will never end. Mask Spell: I'm dubious about this one. I like the idea, but I'd rather throw it out than have a badly worded ability in there. But, mostly since Thot seems to like it so much, I'll give it another try. (Also, I like discussing, and don't have any trouble with continuing for a while :)) The question about how to put it in, metamagic feat or special, can be worried about later. 1) From T&B You can identify a spell even if the spell has no V, S or M component - there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires. Apparently I was mistaken about identifying a Stilled, Silent Spell. Therefore, Spellcraft doesn't just look at the gestures, words, materials, but must tap into magic to accomplish the identification. It looks like the identifying mage observes the "flows of magic" or something like that. So, IMO, somebody well versed in Spellcraft should be able to pick up the spellcasting a sorcerer does. So my suggestion is, rule that a spellcraft check, can be normally made to identify the spell. To identify it, your check will need to beat about DC 21 + spell level (15 + 6 for components), as per T&B. If you fail the DC enough, you don't notice the casting going on. The main reason for this is that if even a Silent, Still, Eschewed spell can be identified and especially countered, then so should a masked spell. There are hardly any mechanisms in D&D to prevent counterspelling, and making one here isn't a good idea, I think. 2) To make it clear once more: Mask Spell does not, I repeat, not prevent ASF and AoOs. Nor does it work when Silenced. Thot's quote sums it up nicely, I think. 3) Bluff Checks: The ability is based on bluff skill, and in some cases, a bluff check might be needed. Enemy spellcasters can use their Spellcraft Checks, no Bluff will prevent that. Someone seeing someone he doesn't know is a spellcaster casting a masked spell without reason to suspect anything, will simply not notice it. (Afterwards, depending on the circumstances, they may figure it out, but no Bluff is needed.) The only cases in which it will come up are in combat or when guarded. In combat, the case has been mentioned where a sorcerer standing next to an enemy fighter spreads his arms and says he's a friend. With "guarded" I think of someone explicitly keeping an eye on the sorcerer (archers ready to shoot, for example). In both cases, the DC could be set by a DM, depending on how hostile the sorcerer has shown himself in the past and how much the enemy knows about magic. I think it's impossible to put a general value on it, since it's too dependent on the situation. Extra Skillpoints I'm firmly opposed to this. As Krynus said, the sorcerer relies on magic, not mundane skills. Same thing for hitpoints. He doesn't really need any extra. Actually, I'm also stil not in favor of the skillfeats as specials. Tell you what, I'll post a modified version of the alt. sorcerer, to reflect how I would make it at this moment if I didn't have to worry about whatever others think. Most of you will probably hate most changes, but it may be nice to clear a few things up. ~~~ Alignment, Hit Die, BAB, Saves, Proficiencies, Skill Points, Class Skills, Spell List: As PHB SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 3/2 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/5 4/2 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/5 5/3 ²1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 5/3 3/1 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 5/4 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/7 5/4 4/2 3/1 - - - - - - 7 ¹5/7 5/5 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - 8 ¹5/8 5/5 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - - 9 ¹5/8 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - 10 ¹5/9 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - 11 ¹5/9 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - 12 ¹5/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - 13 ¹5/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - 14 ¹5/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - 15 ¹5/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - 16 ¹5/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - 17 ¹5/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 3/2 ²1/- 18 ¹5/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 4/2 3/1 19 ¹5/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 4/2 20 ¹5/12 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 5/3 ---- ¹ = In addition to the cantrip slots per day listed in this column, add the sorcerer's Charisma modifier to determine how many cantrip slots/day she has available. ² = Although the sorcerer does not know spells of the appropriate level at these points, available spell slots may be used to cast lower level spells, or metamagic may alter a lower level spell for casting at the higher slot. - Class Abilities... see the following table. [CODE] lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 Eschew Sorcerer Materials 2 Special 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 Special - Spell Evolution: As 8.01 - Eschew Sorcerer Materials: This is basically the same as the feat Eschew Materials, but you can only applie it to sorcerer spells. - Special: Upon reaching 2nd level, and every three sorcerer levels thereafter (5th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer may select an ability from the following list... 1) Augment Familiar 2) Expeditious Metamagic 3) Extra Slot 4) Greater Eschew Materials 5) Spell Secret (one spell level below highest) 6) Summon Familiar ~~~ Changes: - Made Spell Progression slightly more consistent by adding a first level spell at level 3, and decreasing the cantrips. By level 20 the amount of Charisma runs in the high twenties at least, giving you well over 10 cantrips anyway. That should be enough. - Dropped the specials I dislike. You won't agree, I know, and it's not a big issue for me, just throwing out everything I think is "unsorcerish" Also, I thought the list of specials was a bit too long. - Put Eschew Materials at level 1 instead of Summon Familiar. Summon Familiar is made into a special. This differentiates the Sorcerer a little more from the wizard (familiar is more a wizard staple, Eschew more a Sorcerer one, IMO), and saves some people from learning an ability they never use. (Not everyone likes familiars) Less "pigeon-holing" too. :) Eschew Sorcerer Materials rewritten to point to the feat, turning it into a "virtual" feat, I think. This way it functions as a prerequisite for any feat that requires Eschew, but only when casting sorcerer spells, right? So, in total, you get one less special, and the amount of "pigeon-holing" is about the same at low levels. Now for Mask Spell: a metamagic feat: Mask Spell [Metamagic] You can disguise your spellcasting. Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells, Bluff 8+ ranks, Eschew Materials. Benefit: You have mastered the art of casting spells unobtrusively, altering verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't. You still have to provide verbal, somatical and (expensive) material components if the spell requires those, so Mask Spell does not allow you, for example, to negate arcane spell failure in armor or cast spells with verbal components when Silenced. It also does not prevent Attacks of Opportunity in combat. Identifying a masked spell is more difficult, adding a +2 to the DC to identify for any spell component that is hidden (verbal, somatic or material). If someone fails his Spellcraft check used to identify the spell by more than 4, he fails to even notice the spell being cast. A bluff check may be needed to cast a spell unnoticed when someone is paying special attention to you. Unless the spell visibly emanates from you, someone notices you're casting a spell, or observers have some other means of determining its source, they don't know where the effect came from. A masked spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. ~~~ Well, I'm eagerly awaiting your angry responses. ;)
mellowship 10-28-03, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal Now for Mask Spell: a metamagic feat: Mask Spell [Metamagic] You can disguise your spellcasting. Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells, Bluff 8+ ranks, Eschew Materials. Benefit: You have mastered the art of casting spells unobtrusively, altering verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't. You still have to provide verbal, somatical and (expensive) material components if the spell requires those, so Mask Spell does not allow you, for example, to negate arcane spell failure in armor or cast spells with verbal components when Silenced. It also does not prevent Attacks of Opportunity in combat. Identifying a masked spell is more difficult, adding a +2 to the DC to identify for any spell component that is hidden (verbal, somatic or material). If someone fails his Spellcraft check used to identify the spell by more than 4, he fails to even notice the spell being cast. A bluff check may be needed to cast a spell unnoticed when someone is paying special attention to you. Unless the spell visibly emanates from you, someone notices you're casting a spell, or observers have some other means of determining its source, they don't know where the effect came from. A masked spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. Enh. If the only real mechanical effect of Mask Spell is to raise the Spellcraft DC, I don't think it's worth +1 level. Here's a thought: drop the prereq, make it +0 level, but make it add your Bluff ranks to the Spellcraft DC to identify. That way, there's no point in taking it if you don't have any ranks in Bluff. If the Spellcraft check fails by more than 5, the observer doesn't even know a spell is being cast.
Frank the Vandal 10-29-03, 02:55 AM	Well, I think there is a little more to it than that. You can still use it to cast spells unnoticed, as long as a spellcaster isn't nearby who sees it. It's use in combat is extremely limited, but it may have some great uses in other situations when used creatively. And I'm not in favor of making it more difficult to counter masked spells (except for raising the DC of identifying because of hidden components). To counter the spell, the enemy mage has to know you're a spellcaster already (he has to ready an action), and he's paying special attention to you. There's no reason why a masked spell would be harder to identify than a silent, still, eschewed one, IMO.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-29-03, 03:28 AM	As a preface, let me say that I am not out to bash or insult anybody in my posts. When a post of mine comes out sounding like an "attack", it is an attack on a (IMO) bad idea, not an attack at the person. Please don't take them personally. Let's face it: we are all passionate about the sorcerer. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. As always, my goal here is to hammer out a quality product in the alt.sorcerer, not diminish an individual. Originally posted by Thot: RE: Bluff check for Mask Spell: Why not ? I don't really like it, but I could go with it... still, I think it's only (well, mainly), a one-time-trick. You use it once against someone, and then you're more or less toast if you redo it. OK, it could be of use in case of multiple castings, in a very diplomatic campaign... If we were to hardwire the adjuticating of the bluff check (not that I advise it, but we may have to), what about a check, with a +10 (20 ?) on the check, minus the level of the spell you're casting (modified or not ??) ? So, the opponent would be looking at an opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check to determine if he can make a Spellcraft check. It's awkward and inelegant. It's not KISS. I'll redirect you to a post of mine, p1, where I quoted this :Originally posted by Ser Jaden : As sorcerers concentrate on bringing their power forth, they need to use some sort of expressive gesture or gestures to channel that power. Like verbal components, their gestures will probably change each time they cast the spell. Nevertheless, in armor the Sorcerer would have a chance to fail at his casting. His gestures, though random are equally important in channeling his power as the precise gestures of a Wizard. Therefore, he would be stunted by the lack of flexibility granted by armor and thus it could potentially impede his casting. A Sorcerer would have a definite sense of claustrophobia while attempting to cast somatically while in armor, lacking the freedom to simply motion as he desires. This is where arcane spell failure would fit in. That sums up quite nicely my views on it. This just reinforces that there should be ASF and the requirement for gestures is not removed. Consequently, just because the gestures are different does not make them unidentifiable (or even more difficult to identify). In summary, fluff text... and I'm OK with that. Heck, this is how I currently run my games. However, if it's not providing any crunchy benefit, there's no point in writing it up as a "class ability". Before you go off half-cocked about this statement, please read my comments about Mask Spell, below. RE: a special at 1st level is a power-up: Ogrebane : While it is true, it {Special at 1st level, possibly sticked to ESM} is deemed more or less necessary to the definition of the class. So, if we prove it not to be unbalancing compared to the other classes at that level, I'd say we can go with it. If you fear unbalance, we can delay the access to the Familiar too, by one or two or three levels ? (emphasis mine) "Necessary to the definition of the class"? No it's not! Necessary to your *idea* of the class, maybe. RE: foundation of sand: :confused: Unless I'm wrong, you just told us that even in the S+S+E case, identification of a spell is still possible. Good. Point taken. Now what about the identification of the spellcasting (which is quite the issue here, IMHO) ? Is it stated anywhere that in your S+S+E case, the fact that a spell is cast is not obvious ? That was the point of Disguise Spell, is the point of MS, and (I think) is not the point of SSE. By the core rules, every spell (even quickened spells), allow a Spellcraft check to identify them. Recognizing that a spell is being cast is apparent to *everybody* who can see or hear the caster, without training, or a skill check of any sort. Let's really analyze what Skip is saying about the topic. Here is the quote from Tome & Blood, about spells being cast: The DC for identifying a spell as it is being cast is 15+ the spell level. You scrutinize the spellcaster, listening to the words used in the spell, observing the cster's gestures, and noting any material components or focus. For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4. You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no V, S, or M component -- there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster. Distance is also a factor. Under normal lighting and good visibility, you can see and analyze somatic gestures up to 90 feet away and material components up to 60 feet away. You can hear verbal components up to 30 feet away, assuming there is no auditory interference. Beyond these ranges, the requisite elements cannot be discerned. Likewise, if the prevailing conditions don't allow you to note an element of a spell, the DC increases. For example, if the spellcaster is completely concealed by darkness or fog, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4 (because you can't see his gestures or material components). (emphases mine) So, recognizing that a spell is being cast is not an issue. At *most*, what Mask Spell should allow is a Bluff v. Sense Motive check to determing if the Spellcraft DC increases. If the Bluff is successful, then the DC increases by +2, +4, or +6, depending on which components are listed in the spell description... and considering that Eschew is a prereq, you will get a +2 whether the Bluff succeeds or not (assuming the spell has an M component). This creates a bit of bookkeeping work for a player, but that is up to the player (of course). Now, in light of this new revelation, Mask Spell would be rather weak, and not worth a +1 slot cost. So, going on the premise that my analysis of Skip's words is accurate, a +0 slot cost seems more appropriate (although it is still metamagic, requiring an extended cast time... and also expeditable). To my knowledge, in the SSE case, you are not granted this benefit : "Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't. Unless the spell visibly emanates from you or observers have some other means of determining its source, they don't know where the effect came from." If you are granted that benefit while SSE casting, I might try and keep on playing along with it... After analyzing what it says in Tome & Blood, completely disallowing a spellcasting to be recognized as such is unreasonable. Mellowship :except for a very few situations that may never come up in a sorcerer's career <SNIP>, ESM is a fluffy benefit that has no real mechanical effect. Makes a dandy 1st level special. I tend to agree. Eschew is extremely useful, especially now that it is a general feat, and not metamagic. If you are restrained, or your gear is destroyed/damaged, it becomes invaluable. Plus, the fact that it is a prerequisite for Greater Eschew, Mask Spell (*if* we can agree on the mechanics of it), and Ignore Materials (in epic levels) indicates to me that it should be a conscious decision when selecting it. RE: too many specials: Ogrebane : Would you mind expanding on it, please ? While he does indeed get "much" specials, I don't think he truly gains "too much". I am not sure, though. Can do. What does the PHB.sorcerer lose? - nine slots (later in his career, when slots are plentiful... obviously, slots are useful, but the slot loss is staggered, and not very painful when all is said and done) What does the ALT.sorcerer get? - more cantrips known - more cantrips per day - a slot progression that acquires level 2+ spells one level earlier than before - eight specials (seven, in v8.01), which allow you to alleviate a number of the class' downsides (remove the cheap M components, reduce the expensive M components, skill bonuses, HD, selective metamagic for a single spell, unextending MM cast times, improve your familiar) Any nerfs? - can't swap a spell out, if levelling up in a PrC ~~~ Do you see a disparity here? I do. We know the reasons for most, but unless a player goes with six Extra Slots, specials are (forgive the pun) pretty special, IMO. :confused: SF is mainly a staple for the Wiz, not for the Sor (though I still highly support it). Plus, it's more of a "sacred cow" as I see it. The sorcerer (as we know it) didn't exist before 3.0. Prior to 3.0, wizards were alternately known as "sorcerers", as a player preference. The ability to summon a familiar was actually a spell. Hardly a sacred cow, but the archtype holds for primary arcane types. RE: more skills: I would like you to propose an alternative too. Otherwise, I'll keep on going with extra cantrips, which are doing the job "decently fine" by me. I *love* the extra cantrips. They reflect perfectly the creature-of-magic theme. Plus, because they're almost completely useless for combat scenarios, they adequately compensate for the lack of skill points (which was the point). Now, please. I (we, IIRC) never wanted to get rid of the AoO, nor of the Con Chek. You know better. I am (We are) looking for a way to make it plain and clear in the definition of MS. Please do not put in my mouth words I did not say, nor do I intend to say (for now, and to the best of my current knowledge). That wasn't directed at you so much, Thot. ConfusedUs shared his take on Mask Spell, and this response was a confusion on my part about mixing up who said what, and when... and why. I think I've explained myself more clearly (above) with my analysis of the "Spells Being Cast" text. RE: ... 3 ways to accomplish... : You did (SSE or Spell Secret or some S+ some Secret). Still, I would like further explanation about it before making up my mind whether your proposals truly allow me to do "what I want", for I'm unsure as of now. Sorry. I think I've explained it more thoroughly in my edited post above. Well, let's start here. What *exactly* do you want, complete with mechanics and rules ramifications? This question is not for Thot exclusively, but for everybody interested in Mask Spell/Contrived Casting. Perhaps I'm reading more into people's intentions than is actually there (quite possible :blush: ). Originally posted by ConfusedUs: I have no issues with anything on the alt.sor except the wording of Mask Spell. As it stands, I've repeatedely given my interpretation, and a couple of possible solutions that are an attempt to keep Mask Spell as stated in the alt.sor. I'm not out to harass, harm, or (dang, ran out of H words) insult anyone or anything. So if you're taking offense to anything I've said, please don't. That's not my intention. I am not taking offense to anything you've said thus far, and I sincerely hope that it is likewise for you and my posts. The wording does leave things open for debate (as if that's not obvious :) ), and I'm glad you pointed them out. RE: Ser Jaden's quoted post: If this were stated in the Mask Spell description, it would rob me of every arguement I've had so far. I'm all for a solution. The solutions that I've put forward are just propositions, and do not have to be taken seriously. And if you're going to get in an uproar about me giving feedback...what's the point of me even posting in this thread at all? So far I've ENJOYED this thread, but it's gotten down to nothing but a giant arguement and borderline flameware in the last 8 posts or so. Comments like "built on sand" and "What part of 14 pages don't you understand" do nothing constructive. So please be civil. I'll say it again, if you've decided to skim this post (understandable, since I'm unusually long-winded this time around)... we are all passionate about the sorcerer. Please don't take offense at my posts that seem like personal attacks, because they're not. They are attacks against the ideas, not the person. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Dipping into another class is a perfectly fine strategy to add some power and flavor to your class, and sorcerer isn't the best choice out there. Nor is the alt. sorcerer much better than the PHB one. Most specials aren't really useful for non-sorcerers, and the spells are the same. Besides, if you want spells, then other spellcasters or items are often available to give the same bonusses. True. What I do not want to do is make dipping into the ALT.sorcerer truly more desirable than dipping into the PHB.sorcerer. A special at 1st & 2nd will do just that. RE: too many specials: Well, you never told us, did you? But you may have a point. I've been fearing an overall powerup myself lately. "Lately" being the operative word, which is why I haven't mentioned it before that post. We agree then, I think. Tell you what, I'll post a modified version of the alt. sorcerer, to reflect how I would make it at this moment if I didn't have to worry about whatever others think. Most of you will probably hate most changes, but it may be nice to clear a few things up. Of course, I hate it. :D Changes: - Made Spell Progression slightly more consistent by adding a first level spell at level 3, and decreasing the cantrips. By level 20 the amount of Charisma runs in the high twenties at least, giving you well over 10 cantrips anyway. That should be enough. That slot at 3rd was deliberately pushed back because of the blatant numeric superiority of total slots compared to the PHB.sor, and that didn't even account for bonus spells from a high CHA (which makes the it even better). - Put Eschew Materials at level 1 instead of Summon Familiar. Summon Familiar is made into a special. This differentiates the Sorcerer a little more from the wizard (familiar is more a wizard staple, Eschew more a Sorcerer one, IMO), and saves some people from learning an ability they never use. (Not everyone likes familiars) Less "pigeon-holing" too. :) Eschew Sorcerer Materials rewritten to point to the feat, turning it into a "virtual" feat, I think. This way it functions as a prerequisite for any feat that requires Eschew, but only when casting sorcerer spells, right? If the wizard is saddled with Summon Familiar, then the sorcerer should be too. Neither class is forced to summon one, yet both are able to. What happens if a 20th level sorcerer finally decides to acquire Summon Familiar, then summons one? Will it have a +1 Natural Armor Bonus and 6 INT, or +10 Natural Armor Bonus and 15 INT? If the former, it's not worth it. If the latter, it's neither equitable nor satisfactory, from the wizard's POV. OTOH, Eschew Materials is immediately useful AND desirable enough to select on its own merits, PLUS it mandates that all sorcerers don't require material components, PLUS it is a prereq for one (if not two) other special abilities.
Thot 10-29-03, 08:20 AM	Frank : I've been fearing an overall powerup myself lately. Though I'm pretty sure we have nothing to fear about it, I can't help but to share this feeling. I guess our perceptions are wronged by the "quite long" list of specials available. I'll go back to it later. The reason most people liked this {ESM} was the flavor, I think. If we're going to throw things out of the window because we agree, this discussion will never end. Indeed. I like the idea, but I'd rather throw it out than have a badly worded ability in there.<SNIP but nice :) > The question about how to put it in, metamagic feat or special, can be worried about later. We're working on the wording. As for me, I already agreed it probably should be a Metamagic Feat, and as such could be removed from the Specials (though if we can iron things out about it, I'd like it to be included in a Misc part about the alt.Sor). If you fail the DC enough {SpC check}, you don't notice the casting going on. <SNIP> If even a Silent, Still, Eschewed spell can be identified and especially countered, then so should a masked spell. There are hardly any mechanisms in D&D to prevent counterspelling, and making one here isn't a good idea, I think. I quite like this interpretation. You don't prevent the counterspelling. You make it harder to notice the casting and (if at all) to identify the spell. You make it in one roll. I like it. Actually, I'm also stil not in favor of the skillfeats as specials. Neither am I, but : compromises & negociations. Mellowship : If the only real mechanical effect of Mask Spell is to raise the Spellcraft DC, I don't think it's worth +1 level. Here's a thought: drop the prereq, make it +0 level, but make it add your Bluff ranks to the Spellcraft DC to identify. That way, there's no point in taking it if you don't have any ranks in Bluff. If the Spellcraft check fails by more than 5, the observer doesn't even know a spell is being cast. That's adding another function to the many uses of Spellcraft, but I admit I like it. It's simple, and not exactly unprecedented (Spellcraft as a specific interpretation with reference to a spell : Detect Magic). Frank : You can use it to cast spells unnoticed, as long as a spellcaster isn't nearby who sees it. That would work for me. Fine, really. I'm not in favor of making it more difficult to counter masked spells (except for raising the DC of identifying because of hidden components). To counter the spell, the enemy mage has to know you're a spellcaster already (he has to ready an action), and he's paying special attention to you. There's no reason why a masked spell would be harder to identify than a silent, still, eschewed one, IMO. I think I could prove you partially wrong. To identify a SSE spell means that you've got to tap in the "flow of magic" or somesuch, and doing only that : focusing all your attention to the "flow". Now, a MSed spell does not allow you the luxury to focus only on the "flow", since you get in front of you someone gesturing / speaking. Besides, it might even confuse you, thus making the check no simpler. How do you make the difference between Charm Person, or Hold Person, with mere everyday words ? Furthermore, the more I think about it, the more I see MS not only as altering the components (which BTW we agreed about Contrived Casting were only +1 to DC by components), but too as creating spell with less display, notably with respect to the "flow". I mean, you are hiding your casting to commoners, right ? Hence you are working with your magic more subtly, going even below the commoner's radar. Still not enough for trained people (Wiz and such) maybe, but "quite some" nonetheless. Hence a higher spellcraft DC. Besides, IMX (limited), it's not like counterspelling is that usual anyway. I'll provide a take on MS later. Ogrebane : So, the opponent would be looking at an opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check to determine if he can make a Spellcraft check. It's awkward and inelegant. It's not KISS. Well, not KISS is perhaps a bit hard. I prefer the "one Spellcraft check version", though. just because the gestures are different does not make them unidentifiable (or even more difficult to identify). Unidentifiable, no. More difficult to identify, no. More difficult to link to the spell that is being cast (for lack of proper experience), yes. That's IMHO from where the +1 DC to identify checks stems. {ESM} "Necessary to the definition of the class"? No it's not! Necessary to your *idea* of the class, maybe. Fair enough. It seems widely shared, though. I have the (perhaps wrong) feeling that you are in minority on this one. "Analysis" of spellcasting from T&B : By the core rules, every spell (even quickened spells), allow a Spellcraft check to identify them {Yes, to the best of my knowledge, and I see no reason to prevent it}. Recognizing that a spell is being cast is apparent to *everybody* who can see or hear the caster, without training, or a skill check of any sort. {Yes, and to remove that limitation is the very point of MS, as Silent's point was to remove the need of Verbal component} The DC for identifying a spell as it is being cast is 15+ the spell level. You scrutinize the spellcaster, listening to the words used in the spell, observing the cster's gestures, and noting any material components or focus. For each of these elements you cannot discern, the DC increases by +2. For example, if a foe casts a still and silent spell, your Spellcraft check DC increases by +4. You can use Spellcraft to identify a spell even if the spell has no V, S, or M component -- there's no mistaking the concentration magic requires. However, you still must be able to see or hear the spellcaster. From Ogrebane, quoting S&S about "Disguise Spell" : The only way it will be recognized as a spellcasting is if "the spell visibly emanates from you, or observers have some other means of determining its source" In light of what we're saying, here's how I can interpret it... Concentration (on the "flow of magic" ?) is treated as a component, and it is what is used to recognize the spell. Mask Spell works more or less on this component as Silent does on Verbal components, and same for Still or Eschew. So... As such, MS "removes the Concentration component", that I interpret as hides/disguise it (as Silent allows to cast without the Verbal component), and has the added benefit to increases the DC to recognize the spell (as per Silent, I'd say +2 -though it would be subsumed in MS, see below). This hiding is then interpreted in mechanics terms as (suggestion of mine) : "You can add your Bluff ranks to the normal DC to recognize the spell. This is in addition to any modifier due to other altered/absent components. If this DC isn't beaten, the sheer fact that you've casted a spell hasn't been noticed. If it's beaten, the fact that you've casted a spell is known, and the spell is identified." Seen like this, I think it's worth +1 slot cost. So ?? So, recognizing that a spell is being cast is not an issue. At *most*, what Mask Spell should allow is a Bluff v. Sense Motive check to determing if the Spellcraft DC increases As you can guess, I want to disagree with your interpretation. For me, it is an issue, and MS has more consequences. Besides, how would you rationalize MS with this mechanism of yours ? It would be like a less-kiss version of ConC, if I'm right ? it is still metamagic, requiring an extended cast time... and also expeditable). Can you believe it ? We agree ! :D After analyzing what it says in Tome & Blood, completely disallowing a spellcasting to be recognized as such is unreasonable. It's not how I interpret it. I'm willing to admit I read much in it, and slightly bend the interpretation, but that's not IMHO that much of a stretch, it makes some sense (to me at least), and it allows to reconcile (sort of) S&S with T&B. I'll tell you what : if by next Monday, we haven't reached any understanding/agreement, we should mail the Sage about "Disguise Spell & T&B apparent discrepency about how obvious is the fact a spell is being cast". Sounds fair ? (*crosses fingers that his former interpretation of MS is decent enough to be agreed upon, so that he'll not have to go that far, for truly fears to be said wrong by the powers-that-be*):twitch: ~~~~ Eschew is extremely useful, especially now that it is a general feat, and not metamagic {should still be one, IMHO, regardless of niceness for the Sor}. <Bunch of things it's a prereq for> indicates to me that it should be a conscious decision when selecting it. Well... It's not IMHO "that" useful. Plus GESM has been proved IMHO to be not that useful either (See the list of spells with costly components here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60596&perpage=30&pagenumber=9) ). MS, well, is still being discussed, and Epic... I somehow see it like saying that SF should be a conscious decision because it's a prereq for Improved Familiar, and same goes for other class features (turning, bardic music, ...). I think I know why you say that, and I'm willing to accomodate it, but I disagree on this argument. What *exactly* do you want {about MS}, complete with mechanics and rules ramifications? Coming... What I do not want to do is make dipping into the ALT.sorcerer truly more desirable than dipping into the PHB.sorcerer. A special at 1st & 2nd will do just that. Unless we somehow take this trend into account. Sticking them to weak abilities may be one way. If the wizard is saddled with Summon Familiar, then the sorcerer should be too. Neither class is forced to summon one, yet both are able to. While debatable, I think it's fair enough. Eschew Materials is immediately useful AND desirable enough to select on its own merits {Yes, though they aren't that many}, PLUS it mandates that all sorcerers don't require material components{Yes. The main word being "require", instead of use. :embarrass plus it's IMHO a rather commonly accepted archtype, so... }, PLUS it is a prereq for one (if not two) other special abilities {Yes, but IMHO it's not a good enough argument since those abilities may or may not be liked and taken, as par the Familiar ones} Now, time to make myself hated, too :P My take on it would be : lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 Eschew Sorcerer Materials (including XP cost for costly components), Summon Familiar, Contrived Casting (very weak version) 2 ? (quite possibly nothing, or perhpas the Magic Sense ability suggested on another thread) 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 Bonus Feat 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 ??? Magic Sense (Su): Sorcerers have an innate sixth sense that affords them a chance to perceive magical auras, even if they are not aware of them. Any sorcerer who passes within 5 feet of a magical aura is entitled to a caster level check (DC 11 + caster level) to notice it as if they were actively looking for it. Any spell that blocks divination raises the DC of the check by a modifier equal to the spell’s level, but does not prevent a sorcerer from sniffing it out. At 15th level, the sorcerer’s range of perception increases to 10 feet, and he gains an insight bonus equal to his charisma modifier. by Chachi While the list of specials would be : Augment Familiar, Expeditious Metamagic, Extra Slot, Spell Secret And the list of the bonus Feat would be : Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Persuasive (some other +2/+2 Feat ?) Mask Spell would be a regular MetaMagic Feat. ??? would be : ?, or Improved Spell Capacity (= a 10th level slot), or Ignore Material Component. I know they are Epic Feats, so I'm very doubtful, but you get the idea... I don't really expect any feedback on it. It's more thinking out loud, so far. Now, Mask Spell (be kind, it's only a first try): Mask Spell [Metamagic] You can disguise your spellcasting, making it harder to merley know whether you're casting a spell or not. Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells, Eschew Materials. Benefit: You have mastered the art of casting spells unobtrusively, altering verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. Your concentration on the spellcasting is hidden behind a veil of normal, if weird, behaviour. Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't. You still have to provide verbal, somatical and material components if the spell requires those, since they are the required ways for you to focus your thoughts on the spell. They aren't any less important to the casting. You merely are able to trigger the spell through everyday gestures and sentences, and with a less apparent effort. So Mask Spell does not allow you, for example, to negate arcane spell failure in armor or cast spells with verbal components when Silenced, since the component required would still be perturbed. It also does not prevent Attacks of Opportunity in combat, though the characters may, as usual, elect not to use it on you, pending the circumstances. To notice that you are casting a masked spell, one has to make a Spellcraft check, DC 15 + Spell level + 1 per component altered (among V/S/M)+ whichever is higher of 1(Concentration component) or Bluff ranks. If someone notice you've casted a spell, they immediatly know which one it is. The hints you've tried to hide were enough to arouse their attention, and that attention allowed them to make up their mind on a likely casting, and confort that opinion. Up to the DM, opponents may have bonus to their Spellcraft check up to their Sense Motive ranks, when paying special attention to you (ex:they know or suspect you can use MS). Unless the spell visibly emanates from you, someone notices you're casting a spell, or observers have some other means of determining its source (Arcane Sight, ...), they don't know where the effect came from. Once in place, it can be identified as per the rules, as any other spell already in place (Spellcraft check, DC 20+Spell level). A masked spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. I know the wording is too long, and that's one likely target for next versions. Still, I hope I covered it all, and that it's quite comprehensive. It is, of course, based on my interpretation of T&B, which is currently being discussed, so you may not agree on it.
Frank the Vandal 10-29-03, 11:48 AM	Two long posts! Let's see if I can make one myself. :) Krynus: By the core rules, every spell (even quickened spells), allow a Spellcraft check to identify them. Recognizing that a spell is being cast is apparent to *everybody* who can see or hear the caster, without training, or a skill check of any sort. Agreed on the first sentence, and I am firmly opposed to anything that prevents such a Spellcraft check. There is the problem of Disguise Spell in S&S, however, that states it can't be identified (I know you said "core", but you're throwing in quotes from T&B yourself). In my opinion, yours, and according to T&B it can, so let's assume that for the rest of this discussion. However, the possibility of identifying a spell does not rule out the possibility of not noticing it. There should be, IMO, three possibilities: you notice and identify it, you notice (or strongly suspect) it, but can't identify it, or you don't notice it at all. The solution where one Spellcraft roll determines this should work nicely, I think. Eschew is extremely useful, especially now that it is a general feat, and not metamagic. If you are restrained, or your gear is destroyed/damaged, it becomes invaluable. Plus, the fact that it is a prerequisite for Greater Eschew, Mask Spell (*if* we can agree on the mechanics of it), and Ignore Materials (in epic levels) indicates to me that it should be a conscious decision when selecting it. Summon familiar can also be extremely useful, and is a prerequisite for Augment Familiar, so it should be a conscious choice if you want to learn it? I know you don't have to summon a familiar, but you can also still use material components if you have Eschew, so that's not an argument either. On mask spell: What *exactly* do you want, complete with mechanics and rules ramifications? I think the feat I wrote above sums it up nicely. Of course, I hate it. As I expected. :D That {first level spell} slot at 3rd was deliberately pushed back because of the blatant numeric superiority of total slots compared to the PHB.sor, and that didn't even account for bonus spells from a high CHA (which makes the it even better). Ah yes, I remember now. You're right, it's too much of an improvement. Too bad, I liked the added consistency. If the wizard is saddled with Summon Familiar, then the sorcerer should be too. Neither class is forced to summon one, yet both are able to. What happens if a 20th level sorcerer finally decides to acquire Summon Familiar, then summons one? Will it have a +1 Natural Armor Bonus and 6 INT, or +10 Natural Armor Bonus and 15 INT? If the former, it's not worth it. If the latter, it's neither equitable nor satisfactory, from the wizard's POV. OTOH, Eschew Materials is immediately useful AND desirable enough to select on its own merits, PLUS it mandates that all sorcerers don't require material components, PLUS it is a prereq for one (if not two) other special abilities. The fact that the wizard has it doesn't make it a must for a sorcerer, I think. You could put the same argument for a spellbook :). If you summon a familiar at a later level, it acts the same as when you had summoned it before, so like a high-level wizard's familiar. That's the normal rule for summoning familiars. How would you feel about fixing Summon Familiar at level two instead of a special? Thot: I think I could prove you partially wrong. To identify a SSE spell means that you've got to tap in the "flow of magic" or somesuch, and doing only that : focusing all your attention to the "flow". Now, a MSed spell does not allow you the luxury to focus only on the "flow", since you get in front of you someone gesturing / speaking. Besides, it might even confuse you, thus making the check no simpler. Well, we already agreed that both the words and the gestures still carry magic, so I don't think it would be harder to identify a masked spell than it is to identify a SSE spell. Besides, if a person is less "distracted" than usual by the altered components of a Masked Spell (for example, he is blind or deaf) would the check be any easier? Besides, IMX (limited), it's not like counterspelling is that usual anyway. True, which is why I want to make sure that it's not limited any further. It's a nice option, I think. Your take on the sorcerer: As you know, I don't like the bonus feat, especially not the epic one at 20. This would be the first class ever that's allowed an epic feat before epic levels. Magic Sense is nice. And it makes... well.. sense. But it may be a bit powerful, especially agains illusions and magical traps. Would it give any information about the aura, or does it just let you notice it? Your take on Mask Spell: You're raising the Spellcraft DC too much for my taste. A sorcerer maxing out Bluff will get this to pretty insane heights. At level 20, you can get 15 + 3 + 24 + Spell level + Cha mod, about 56 for a level 8 spell and a 22 Cha. A sorcerer specializing in Spellcraft would reach 1d20 + 24 + 2 synergy + Int mod, or at most 52 for a 18 int. Completely rules out counterspelling in this case. It's just too much.
mellowship 10-29-03, 11:50 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Eschew is extremely useful, especially now that it is a general feat, and not metamagic. If you are restrained, or your gear is destroyed/damaged, it becomes invaluable. And how often does that happen? My main character is a gnome sorcerer in Living Greyhawk. He's 5th level now and has gone through about two dozen modules. The only times he's been without access to his spell component pouch were in cases where the party was expected to talk, rather than cast, their way out of prison. Even where a sorcerer gets grappled (hasn't happened to my gnome so far; seeing as how he's Small with a Str of 10, he generally avoids melee), the optimum strategy is not to cast Stilled and Eschewed while restrained, but to Dimension Door (a V-only spell; if the grappler pins you and shuts your mouth, make it Silent) out and then unload on the bad guys next round. Plus, the fact that it is a prerequisite for Greater Eschew, Mask Spell (*if* we can agree on the mechanics of it), and Ignore Materials (in epic levels) indicates to me that it should be a conscious decision when selecting it. Enh. Mask Spell is a metamagic feat that you have to burn a regular feat slot for; even without any prereqs, it's not a must-have. And actually, I'm inclined to make Greater Eschew Materials a regular feat as well. It's good enough that it'd be worth burning a regular feat slot to get.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-29-03, 12:19 PM	Originally posted by Thot: Furthermore, the more I think about it, the more I see MS not only as altering the components (which BTW we agreed about Contrived Casting were only +1 to DC by components), but too as creating spell with less display, notably with respect to the "flow". What Contrived Casting provides is an "always on" Spellcraft DC increase of +2 (at most). What I'm suggesting Mask Spell does is provide a +4 increase, if you can sufficiently Bluff the observer. RE: your *idea* of the class: Fair enough. It seems widely shared, though. I have the (perhaps wrong) feeling that you are in minority on this one. Actually, it is my idea of the class too. However, it is not everybody's idea, meaning that we're not just interested in satisfying the opinion of those of us who are talking about it right now, but also those who may stumble across this thread, like what they see, and want to use it in their games. Now, Mask Spell (be kind, it's only a first try): I will try and restrain myself. ;) Your concentration on the spellcasting is hidden behind a veil of normal, if weird, behaviour. This is contradictory. To notice that you are casting a masked spell, one has to make a Spellcraft check, DC 15 + Spell level + 1 per component altered (among V/S/M)+ whichever is higher of 1(Concentration component) or Bluff ranks. Oof. This is far from KISS, and potentially sends the Spellcraft DC through the roof. Even if you only acquire a Bluff rank every other level, this gets ugly rather quickly. Also, you're introducing a completely foreign component to the Spellcraft formula. If someone notice you've casted a spell, they immediatly know which one it is. The hints you've tried to hide were enough to arouse their attention, and that attention allowed them to make up their mind on a likely casting, and confort that opinion. This just looks like you are trying to over-compensate the opposition for the huge benefit adding Bluff ranks to the DC. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Up to the DM, opponents may have bonus to their Spellcraft check up to their Sense Motive ranks, when paying special attention to you (ex:they know or suspect you can use MS). Bluff ranks (a sorcerer class skill) quickly and easily outstrip Sense Motive ranks (not a class skill for any primary caster). Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I know you don't have to summon a familiar, but you can also still use material components if you have Eschew, so that's not an argument either. You and I both know that will never happen. ~~~ More later. Gotta run!
Frank the Vandal 10-29-03, 01:31 PM	Well, if Thot is allowed to come up with new specials, than so am I! :P I was thinking about an alternative for the skill feats. How about something like this: Magically Skilled: You have learnt how to use your magic in combination with your other skills. Benefit: Whenever you consciously make a skill check for a skill you have at least 5 ranks in, you can choose to spend one (and only one) 0th or higher level slot to gain a +1 circumstance bonus on the check. You have to indicate that you're using this ability before rolling, and you can only use this ability if you're actively trying to achieve something. For example, you can't use it on Spot checks if you're unknowingly getting close to an enemy, only if you're actively looking for something.
Thot 10-29-03, 02:00 PM	Frank : the possibility of identifying a spell does not rule out the possibility of not noticing it. There should be, IMO, three possibilities: you notice and identify it, you notice (or strongly suspect) it, but can't identify it, or you don't notice it at all. The solution where one Spellcraft roll determines this should work nicely, I think. If we can make one, yes. I don't think it would be harder to identify a masked spell than it is to identify a SSE spell. Er... I don't know for sure anymore. I'd say you're right, but see below. Still, the way I now see what I'd call a "Concentration" component may slightly alter it, depending on its importance. I would sum it up like this (for a spell with VSM components, and a Sor without ESM) : EES : +6 to DC to recognize the spell, you know it is being cast MS : +1 to DC for each of the VSM component in the initial spell, +2 (?) for a "Concentration" component = +5 DC to recognize the spell. You don't know (automatically) that a spell is being cast. In the end, it is this "Concentration" component (meaning the instant when you tap into the "flow of magic", you disrupt it, you model it to your whim) that is the be-all end-all proof of your spellcasting. Anything else, you're just playing the part, without the real effects (ex : a low level Wiz, 13 Int, trying his very best to cast a 4th level spell - he does everything right, yet, nothing happens). So, MS is a MetaMagic Feat that allows you to "less disrupt the flow", too cast more smoothly, more discreetly, as far as anyone's "magical sensor" is concerned. Does it make sense ? Can we agree on this interpretation ? As you know, I don't like the bonus feat, especially not the epic one at 20. This would be the first class ever that's allowed an epic feat before epic levels The Bonus Feat could be debatable, if we didn't want to clutter the specials. Same goes for putting back in one ESM and GESM (though I've little hope on this). The Epic One... I don't like it either, I was just wondering what kind of "20th level ability" I would give to a Sor, if I deemed he needed any. But they are indeed too much. You're raising the Spellcraft DC too much for my taste. A sorcerer maxing out Bluff will get this to pretty insane heights. <SNIP> Completely rules out counterspelling in this case. It's just too much. :embarrass Yes. Believe or not, I didn't even think about it before... :embarrass Well, we'll see if I can fare any better with "take two". :P Mellowship : Mask Spell is a metamagic feat that you have to burn a regular feat slot for; even without any prereqs, it's not a must-have. And actually, I'm inclined to make Greater Eschew Materials a regular feat as well. It's good enough that it'd be worth burning a regular feat slot to get. MS, yes, though we still have to agree on an interpretation and a wording. GEM, no, IMHO. Why : because by the time it gets interesting, you'do better to wait a bit more, and burn the Epic Feat on IMC, and because the spells you might want to use it on aren't many, and aren't ones worth having for the Sor, IMHO (exceptions : Stoneskin, True Seeing). See p9 of the alt.Sor Finally completed thread, IIRC, I went wild about it... Ogrebane : What Contrived Casting provides is an "always on" Spellcraft DC increase of +2 (at most) {Yes}. What I'm suggesting Mask Spell does is provide a +4 increase, if you can sufficiently Bluff the observer. 1) Not Kiss : Bluff check to see whether you raise the DC for another Spellcraft Check ? 2) You'd have guessed, that's not the heart of the matter (IMHO)... Noticing that spellcasting is occuring. it is not everybody's idea True. We face a choice : a) making it a special (to take if it fits your idea) that can be abused by dips, b) sticking it (less abuse / more restrictive), c) remove it (no abuse / cannot fit the class from 1st level, unless house-ruled). If we stick it, truly, I've still to find someone who doesn't think it fits the Sor. It's one of the most common house-rule I know of. It still is restriction, yes, but if we agreed to stick it, we could make a note in the (decidedly increasingly useful, not to say full, IMHO) Misc. section of the comments, saying it could be replaced for a special, and, voilà ! Now, as far as dips are concerned, we're talking about it with respect to one/two level dips. Right ? Mainly as far as combatants go, right ? (no sane spellcaster should do dips anyway). I'll then provide an arbitrary list of "likely (1st lvl) spells" for such dips, and we'll see how much of a benefit is ESM. Shield : VS Grease : VSM (1 rd/lvl) Mount : VSM Obscuring Mist : VS SM 1 : VSF (+ last only 1 round/lvl) True Strike : VF Sleep : VSM (though it sooo doesn't scale... and Will negates) Burning Hands : VS Magic Missile : VS Shoking Grasp : VS Color Spray : VSM (Will negates) Cause Fear : VS Chill Touch : VS Ray of Enfeeblement : VS Enlarge Person : VSM (1min/lvl) Expeditious Retreat : VS Feather Fall : V Jump : VSM (1min/lvl) Reduce Person : VSM (1min/lvl, Fort negates) My conclusion : most likely abuse (from ESM) : Color Spray, Enlarge Person. Danger as level increase : close to none, IMHO. Danger of abuse of ESM : close to none. Once done, those things help set one's mind : I vote for sticking ESM at first level. IMHO, your best argument then would be to say that there already is so much specials / a risk of overpowering. I'm undecided upon it, to say the truth. It might be true... I will try and restrain myself. Much appreciated. :) Me : Your concentration on the spellcasting is hidden behind a veil of normal, if weird, behaviour. You : This is contradictory Well, yes and no... Don't you ever succesfully pretend doing s/t while really thinking about s/t else ? I think I know what you mean, but I don't think it's that contradictory... This is far from KISS {Truly ? Not so, I think}, and potentially sends the Spellcraft DC through the roof.{See my answer to Frank :embarrass } Even if you only acquire a Bluff rank every other level, this gets ugly rather quickly. Also, you're introducing a completely foreign component to the Spellcraft formula. Now here's a most interesting comment : "A completely foreign Component to the Spellcraft formula." True, I do. Yet, this is the only way I can rationalize the ability to identify SSE spells. It is to postulate the existence of an insinuated, very basic Component (so basic, in fact, that everybody consider it a given), that still allow you to recognize a spell when all the others are gone. That shouldn't be possible at all if you were just looking at someone not moving, not speaking, holding nothing, and just concentrating. A look of concentration on s/o's face gives no information regarding the nature of his thoughts (read : spell he's preparing to cast). Hence my postulate / interpretation. I know it's going far, and that I tread on treacherous ground, but, well... I think it makes sense, and allows to explain things. Does it not ?*shrug* This just looks like you are trying to over-compensate the opposition for the huge benefit adding Bluff ranks to the DC. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yeah, maybe. OK, right. I'll try again. Modification from V1 are in bold or italic (except the title !): Mask Spell [Metamagic] You can disguise your spellcasting, making it harder to merely know whether you're casting a spell or not. Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells. Benefit: You have mastered the art of casting spells unobtrusively. You alter verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. You seem to toy- or hide- any materials. You do not display the look of concentration other spellcaster might, having mastered the trick to do something while focusing on another. And more than anything else, you've learned how to cast a spell with minimal disruption of the "flow of magic", which enables you to sometimes fool even other experienced spellcaster Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't. You still have to provide verbal, somatical and material components if the spell requires those, since they are the required ways for you to focus your thoughts on the spell. They aren't made any less important to the casting. You merely are able to trigger the spell through everyday gestures and sentences, and with a less apparent effort. So Mask Spell does not allow you, for example, to negate arcane spell failure in armor or cast spells with verbal components when Silenced, since the component required would still be perturbed. It also does not prevent Attacks of Opportunity in combat, though the characters may, as usual, elect not to use it on you, pending the circumstances. To notice that you are casting a masked spell, one has to make a Spellcraft check, DC 15 + Spell level + 1 per component altered (among V/S/M) + 2(Concentration component) + CHA mod. If someone notices you've casted a spell, they automatically know which one it is, though, for they aren't fooled in the least by your trick, and have been far more aware than you'd have thought. If they fail by less than 2+CHA mod, their suspicion is aroused, and they'll get a +2 (or WIS mod, whichever is higher) circumstances bonus on their next check against you, when they suspect something. Up to the DM, opponents may instead elect to have a bonus to their Spellcraft check up to their Sense Motive ranks, when paying special attention to you (ex:they know or suspect you can use MS). Unless the spell visibly emanates from you, someone notices you're casting a spell, or observers have some other means of determining its source (Arcane Sight, ...), they don't know where the effect came from. Once in place, it can be identified as per the rules, as any other spell already in place (Spellcraft check, DC 20+Spell level). A masked spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. Any better ?? Frank : if Thot is allowed to come up with new specials, than so am I Yes indeed, as does anyone else. The hard par tis to have them Ogrebane-validated :P If you refer to Magic Sense though, it's not from me. It's from Chachi. Magically skilled : OK, I like. Still, I got remarks : 1) Don't we already have enough "specials" ? 2) What would be the rationalization behind ? 3) Many relevent checks (Con, K:A, SpC) are conscious, and the alt.Sor gains much in the cantrips department. I'm close to seeing this as a "masked skill boost of +5" ;) 4) regardless, I don't think it would be exactly overpowered, so long as you ban Int based skills (which are IMHO the less magically boostable) from it.
Frank the Vandal 10-29-03, 04:50 PM	So, MS is a MetaMagic Feat that allows you to "less disrupt the flow", too cast more smoothly, more discreetly, as far as anyone's "magical sensor" is concerned. Does it make sense ? Can we agree on this interpretation ? Yes, I could go with that, though the wording seems a little vague. I'll rephrase what I think you mean to make sure I get it. - An ESS Spell has no visible or audible components, but can still be identified, so there must be some kind of component that gives it away, probably magical. (Same thing I claimed, I think) - An ESS Spell is always noticed by someone making a Spellcraft Check, and a Masked Spell isn't, so Mask Spell makes it even harder to spot. So, Mask Spell must also slightly alter this last component. Therefore, the DC should be increased. Is that about it? I vote for sticking ESM at first level. Me too. Actually I vote for ESM at first, Summon Familiar at second. Krynus: You : This is contradictory Thot: Well, yes and no... :rofl: Mask Spell: <snip> To notice that you are casting a masked spell, one has to make a Spellcraft check, DC 15 + Spell level + 1 per component altered (among V/S/M) + 2(Concentration component) + CHA mod. If someone notices you've casted a spell, they automatically know which one it is, though, for they aren't fooled in the least by your trick, and have been far more aware than you'd have thought. If they fail by less than 2+CHA mod, their suspicion is aroused, and they'll get a +2 (or WIS mod, whichever is higher) circumstances bonus on their next check against you, when they suspect something. Up to the DM, opponents may instead elect to have a bonus to their Spellcraft check up to their Sense Motive ranks, when paying special attention to you (ex:they know or suspect you can use MS). Well, it's better... But not really KISS, is it? How about this: - I don't see any reason why it'd be harder to mask a spell with less components, so you could just assume all components are altered or removed, giving a flat +5 boost to the Spellcraft DC to identify (becomes 20 + Spell level) - I also don't see any reason why it'd be harder to notice a high level spell than a lower, so a high level spell should get the same chance of being noticed as a low level one. - I DO see your point in adding the Cha mod, but I don't really want to add the Cha mod to the identification DC, since I don't want to let it run too high. At low levels, say level 3, a masked first level spell (two components, 18 Cha), would require a Spellcraft check DC 24 to identify. That's pretty steep, I think. Not impossible, with a +8 to Spellcraft, but still... I'd prefer not to. So my suggestion is: Spellcraft DC is 20+Spell level to identify, if the Spellcraft result is lower than 20, you fail to notice it. This will let any peasant with a little magical skills fail on most occasions, but a trained wizard or sorcerer will usually succeed, which makes sense, I think. And it's very simple... Also, I'd like to see the requirements back in, especially Bluff. Magically skilled : OK, I like. Still, I got remarks : 1) Don't we already have enough "specials" ? 2) What would be the rationalization behind ? 3) Many relevent checks (Con, K:A, SpC) are conscious, and the alt.Sor gains much in the cantrips department. I'm close to seeing this as a "masked skill boost of +5" 4) regardless, I don't think it would be exactly overpowered, so long as you ban Int based skills (which are IMHO the less magically boostable) from it. 1) Well, it would replace the three +2/+2 skill feats, lessening the total amount of specials by 2. 2) As has often been stated, the sorcerer is a creature of magic. So it's logical to assume that he uses it for more than just combat, which is one of the reasons cantrips were increased. Also, the sorcerer, more than the wizard, is supposed to be able to let magic work in ways that are not exactly "by the book", ie. to use it without a preset spell. If you want, you can get back again to the sorcerer-to-be, using his magic unconsciously at crucial moments to give just a little extra push, or using his magical intuition to accomplish something. 3) The bonus on any skill check would be only +1, which is the same as would be granted by a "Guidance" spell (an Orison for a Cleric, though that one applies to one attack roll, skill check or saving throw). So it's about 0th-level power for a cantrip I think. 4) Well, the bonus to Knowledge Skills could be explained by magical intuition. Spellcraft would make sense, since we already determined that it involves tapping into the flow of magic, a little extra magic to accomplish that could help. Any other skills that are a problem? All in all, I don't really see it as overpowering, unless maybe when talking about level dipping. A rogue would get quite a lot from this skill, but OTOH, if he can get it at level two, it'd still cost him 12 (?) normal skill ranks, usable an unlimited number of times per day. And if we put Summon Familiar at two, then this isn't a problem at all...
Krynus Ogrebane 10-29-03, 07:20 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: If you summon a familiar at a later level, it acts the same as when you had summoned it before, so like a high-level wizard's familiar. That's the normal rule for summoning familiars. That's the normal rule for summoning familiars when the ability is a feature of the class at 1st level. I think that making it completely optional (rather than it being an inherent characteristic that may or may not be used) changes it's very nature, IMO. Sort of how a paladin turns undead as a cleric 3 levels lower... if you push back Summon Familiar, you push back the ability's progression/effectiveness. Personally, I don't want to make an already under-used ability worse than it already is. In fact, so that its use was "encouraged", Summon Familiar needed a little boost... and the story of the origin of Augment Familiar comes full circle. :thumbsup: Originally posted by mellowship: RE: Eschew is a prereq for Greater Eschew and Mask Spell: Mask Spell is a metamagic feat that you have to burn a regular feat slot for Possibly. We haven't really finished the Mask Spell debacle yet. See below for a *possible* solution. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Well, if Thot is allowed to come up with new specials, than so am I! :P I was thinking about an alternative for the skill feats. How about something like this: Magically Skilled Why not just add Guidance to the list of sorcerer spells, instead of this? He's got an abundance of them, now... (I'm not advocating adding divine spells or changing the wiz/sor spell list, by the way. Just pointing out that this exists.) Originally posted by Thot: Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: the possibility of identifying a spell does not rule out the possibility of not noticing it. There should be, IMO, three possibilities: you notice and identify it, you notice (or strongly suspect) it, but can't identify it, or you don't notice it at all. The solution where one Spellcraft roll determines this should work nicely, I think. If we can make one, yes. I'VE FREAKING GOT IT! (I think :) ) Premise (correct me if I'm wrong): - an ability that allows a chance for you to disguise your spellcasting (and ONLY disguise) - KISS - Spell Masking [Special] (i.e.- not a feat, not metamagic, but on the list of specials): You can disguise your spellcasting. Prerequisite: Bluff 8+ ranks, Eschew Sorcerer Materials OR Eschew Materials. Benefit: You have skill in the art of casting spells unobtrusively, altering verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't, necessarily. To successfully mask your spellcasting, you must make a Bluff check opposed by the Spellcraft check of an opponent attempting to identify your spell. If you exceed the Spellcraft check result, you have successfully masked your spell. If you fail to exceed it, the Spellcraft result is used to resolve the identification of your spell normally (DC 15 + spell level + 2 per undiscernable component). Spell Masking automatically fails if you are attempting it in a threatened area, unless you first make a successful Concentration check to cast on the defensive. Furthermore, this ability does not enable the caster to avoid arcane spell failure checks, nor does it remove any component of the spell you are casting. Special: Mask Spell only applies to sorcerer spells. Multiclass sorcerers cannot mask another class' spells. Does this do what you want, in a KISS-simple way? Is it good enough for a real feat, or is it adequately under-powered enough to be a special?
BlaineTog 10-29-03, 08:05 PM	:confused: :bigeyes: :mymy: :weep: :twitch: :uh-huh: :eek: In short: Oy vey! And you ppl think I trample KISS... For the Spellcraft DC, I'd suggest 20+CHA mod. It goes along with the "experienced spellcaster (read: has many ranks in Spellcraft) detects ripples in cosoms" train of thought. That chararisma componet seems kinda vital. But the spell level part... it just doesn't seem right. Think about it: a more powerful spell is harder to notice than a weakling? It's easier to notice a cantrip (with effectively nil power) than it is to notice a huge magic displacement of a level 9 spell? It's easier to notice "Read Magic" is being cast than Wish?!?!?! (I know,I know, you can't actually CAST a Masked wish, but bear with me) Nonono. If anything, it's 20+CHA mod-SL. It makes sense for a high-level spell to be noticed when there are V/S/M components because higher-level spells are more complex, but in tihs case, it's totally differnet. A side effect of this is that it lessens the power of the special, but not substantially. It means that the Caster is less likely to cast a high-level spell in a do-or-die situation where this could be helpful. It forces the player to cast a smaller, more creative spell. On a differnt note, I like the Magic Sense idea. Very cool. Mabye nix it for magical traps (since they are supposed to be hidden) until a really high level, though. Ciao!
-Defiler of Souls- 10-29-03, 08:19 PM	way overpowered giving bonus feats is one of wizards few real advantages over sorcerer's spontaneuos casting not to mention any metamagic cheapening ability better then sudden metamagic is no-go in my campaigns for god sake thats almost too good basicly only way this is balance is if you takewo out bonus feats they make this clearly superior to wizard(especially since the secret spell and Expeditious Metamagic are incredibly ovepowered) cllosest real feat sudden metamagic is same as Expeditious Metamagic only only usuabl once a day simple fact is if you want mastery of magic go wizard and if you want flexibility go sorcer, sorcerer isnt meant to be a master of magic juat a taskmage that trades power for versatility, and giving the power of a wizard and versatility of a sorcerer is just plain overpowered
BlaineTog 10-29-03, 08:23 PM	2 things: 1) slow down. Run on sentences arn't pretty to watch. 2) you obviously haven't read the thread. Those arn't bonus feats, they are specials. THey are so incredibly underpowered that anyone who took one as a feat would be the laguhinstock of the party. SOme of them still need calibration, yes, but they are not anywehre NEAR the strength of the wizard's bonus feats. In short, read before you post, please.
-Defiler of Souls- 10-29-03, 08:35 PM	weak? are you on ****ing crack the ability to cast all of one metamagic type without increasing the level of spell(Expeditious Metamagic) thats incredibly over powered far more powerful then the contrevershal feat sudden metamagic which allows you to fo the same thing once a day anyway like i said wizards are supposed to be based on mastery of magic where sorcerers are supposed to be based on versitility, i'd feelthis were perfectly balced if Expeditious Metamagic and secret sepll were taken out lets look at these seperately Expeditious Metamagic you take this for maximize spell and EVERY spell you ever cast is maximized w/ no spell level increase. -way overpowered- secret spell k you take sercret spell maximize fireball and as a 3rd level spell you get a 120 damage spell no matter how many times you use it, sorry way too powerful take thos out and add some abilities that make more sence sor sorcerers like ability to sacrifice 2 lower level spell slots for a higher level one or an ability like those of the 2nd edition wild mage also some people say the spell progression was brought down...big wup its still higher then a wizards seriously with this what the point of being a wizard this give spontanios casting, nonus abilities every 3 levels(many of them actual feats or more powerful then feats) where the wizard gets a worse spell progression no spontanious magic and a bonus feat ever 5 levels this is a joke its nowhere near balaced
BlaineTog 10-29-03, 09:03 PM	No, YOU are the one who is ****ing on crack (*'s added be me :D)! You simply misunderstand the specials, probably becuae you didn't bother to read past the first line. I will now re-post the ones to whihc you have refered. - Expeditious Metamagic: Applying a particular metamagic effect to your spells doesn't require as much time. Benefit: Choose one metamagic feat you know. When you apply that metamagic effect to a spell, it is not necessary to extend the cast time. With the exception of Expeditious Metamagic [Quicken Spell], the spell slot required to cast it is not changed (i.e.- a Maximized Magic Missile still requires a 4th level slot to cast). A quickened spell cast spontaneously uses up a spell slot five levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Normal: Casting a standard-action spell with metamagic applied spontaneously is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast. Special: You may select this special ability multiple times. Each time you do, it applies to a different metamagic feat. In a situation where multiple metamagic effects have been applied to a single spell, the cast time must be extended (as normal) unless Expeditious Metamagic has been applied to each feat. All this does is make one metamagic feat that you know work faster. That's ALL! You pick 1 single metamagic feat THAT YOU KNOW and instead of of traking a full-round actriuon to cast, it takes a standard action. Get it? I was redundant on puerpose you you would. You still have to expend the regular higher slot. - Spell Secret: You can modify your sorcerer spells. Benefit: Choose one sorcerer spell known to you at any level up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. That spell becomes permanently modified as though affected by any metamagic effect where the feat description lists a fixed slot cost of +0 or +1, and provided the sorcerer meets all prerequisites listed in the actual feat's description. The spell's level and cast time do not increase (as if spontaneously applying metamagic). Once the spell and modification are chosen, they cannot be changed. As the sorcerer goes up in level, she can choose the same spell to be modified in different ways with multiple spell secrets, provided she again selects this as a special ability. She does not need to know the feat she applies to the spell. Maximize Fireball is IMPOSSIBLE with this special! You can ONLY apply ONE metagamis that is ONLY a +0 or +1 level enhancement to ONLY one spell! This is a heavy restriction that prevents powergameing. It's purpose? Sorcerers only know a few spells, and in most cases, a metamagic feat can only help one or two of your spells. This special fixes that. Like I said: try READING a little. :rolleyes:
Krynus Ogrebane 10-29-03, 11:40 PM	Yeah, BlaineTog, set him straight! :D :thumbsup: :fight!:
-Defiler of Souls- 10-29-03, 11:57 PM	ahh well i found my problem my response came from a version of this my friend printed out and broght to show me at school....the righ hand margin wasn't far enoughout cutting out a bunch of words, that deffinantly seems alot more reasonable...personally i think i'd have a few different things, but this isn't nearly as overpowered as i once thought
Krynus Ogrebane 10-30-03, 12:04 AM	Originally posted by -Defiler of Souls- ahh well i found my problem my response came from a version of this my friend printed out and broght to show me at school....the righ hand margin wasn't far enoughout cutting out a bunch of words, that deffinantly seems alot more reasonable...personally i think i'd have a few different things, but this isn't nearly as overpowered as i once thought Understandable, how missing a few words (because they didn't print) could lead to serious misconceptions. Just curious... what different things would you have?
-Defiler of Souls- 10-30-03, 12:43 AM	well i might implement something kinda like the wild mage in 2e ie spells have like a 10% chance of back fireing and a 15% change of double effect...not all that powerful but can be alot of fun also since sorcerer powers are said to come from dragon blood maybe some ability that allows you to take damage(ie bleeding yourself) to slightly improve spells(lightly increase save dc ordecrease lvl cost of a metamagic feat by 1) and like i said before since sorcer is based around versitility maybe an ability that lest you sacrifice multiple lower level spell slots for a higher level spellslot(like the ur-priests ability) I just think abilities like that would fit the rp factor of sorcer alittle better then say toughness
Krynus Ogrebane 10-30-03, 01:01 AM	Originally posted by -Defiler of Souls-: well i might implement something kinda like the wild mage in 2e ie spells have like a 10% chance of back fireing and a 15% change of double effect...not all that powerful but can be alot of fun *rolls eyes in dubious incredulity* I hope you don't take this as an insult, but I will never understand the fascination with wild magic. I mean, using your main class ability (i.e.- spellcasting) and risk a possibility ranging from wasting the spell slot (at the very least) to *death* (worst case) seems... ludicrous. Now, observing these mishaps might be hilarious to behold :D , but I wouldn't want to be near a spellcaster, let alone actually play one, if these were rules. also since sorcerer powers are said to come from dragon blood maybe some ability that allows you to take damage(ie bleeding yourself) to slightly improve spells(lightly increase save dc ordecrease lvl cost of a metamagic feat by 1) The problem with this is if you have a cleric as your friend (read: a party member that can cure wounds), this becomes almost scary-powerful. ... and frankly, what adventurer doesn't have access to healing? and like i said before since sorcer is based around versitility maybe an ability that lest you sacrifice multiple lower level spell slots for a higher level spellslot(like the ur-priests ability) I've heard that the Ur-Priest is a broken class, and from what you're saying here, my impression isn't incorrect. I just think abilities like that would fit the rp factor of sorcer alittle better then say toughness Well, RP is one thing... balance is another. I tend to favor balance.
SirisC 10-30-03, 01:21 AM	Originally posted by -Defiler of Souls- well i might implement something kinda like the wild mage in 2e ie spells have like a 10% chance of back fireing and a 15% change of double effect...not all that powerful but can be alot of fun maybe have that as a special ability to choose for a sorcerer, the ability to cast a spell with a lower level slot to cast it wildly. (think wildmage with mostly weakened effects, and a boost on a nat 20) also since sorcerer powers are said to come from dragon blood maybe some ability that allows you to take damage(ie bleeding yourself) to slightly improve spells(lightly increase save dc ordecrease lvl cost of a metamagic feat by 1) "The problem with this is if you have a cleric as your friend (read: a party member that can cure wounds), this becomes almost scary-powerful. ... and frankly, what adventurer doesn't have access to healing?" make it so that the damage done in this method can only be done naturally. and like i said before since sorcer is based around versitility maybe an ability that lest you sacrifice multiple lower level spell slots for a higher level spellslot(like the ur-priests ability) i wouldnt reccomend that since that starts to encroach upon a psion's uniqueness. I just think abilities like that would fit the rp factor of sorcer alittle better then say toughness
-Defiler of Souls- 10-30-03, 01:26 AM	*rolls eyes in dubious incredulity* I hope you don't take this as an insult, but I will never understand the fascination with wild magic. I mean, using your main class ability (i.e.- spellcasting) and risk a possibility ranging from wasting the spell slot (at the very least) to *death* (worst case) seems... ludicrous. Now, observing these mishaps might be hilarious to behold , but I wouldn't want to be near a spellcaster, let alone actually play one, if these were rules. i like things like that in my campaign but if you dont thats your decision The problem with this is if you have a cleric as your friend (read: a party member that can cure wounds), this becomes almost scary-powerful. ... and frankly, what adventurer doesn't have access to healing? could be con damage then I've heard that the Ur-Priest is a broken class, and from what you're saying here, my impression isn't incorrect. ur priest was over powered since it was a prc w/ 9th lvl spells at 10th level and a fighetr could get in at level 2 so youd characters casting 9th lvl spells at lvl 12 this ability had nothing to do with it:D
Krynus Ogrebane 10-30-03, 01:32 AM	Originally posted by -Defiler of Souls- oki well the bleeding thing could be con damage... That just moves the healing from "cure" spells to "Restoration". Trust me on this one... we've been there with this sort of scenario (Cannibalistic Casting) and it's impossible to balance.
Thot 10-30-03, 05:58 AM	Frank : An ESS Spell has no visible or audible components, but can still be identified, so there must be some kind of component that gives it away, probably magical. - An ESS Spell is always noticed by someone making a Spellcraft Check, and a Masked Spell isn't, so Mask Spell makes it even harder to spot. So, Mask Spell must also slightly alter this last component. Therefore, the DC should be increased. :thumbsup: :tiphat: You got it (or so close that it's not even worth mentioning) ! I vote for ESM at first, Summon Familiar at second. Make it two, then, please. I don't see any reason why it'd be harder to mask a spell with less components, so you could just assume all components are altered or removed, giving a flat +5 boost to the Spellcraft DC to identify (becomes 20 + Spell level) Well, it's not harder. If there's no component of a given type, you get +2. If there's one masked, you get +1. Wasn't yet clear enough. But for simplicity's sake we could agree to go with yours. I also don't see any reason why it'd be harder to notice a high level spell than a lower, so a high level spell should get the same chance of being noticed as a low level one. Yes, true. Didn't see that. They should be harder to identify (not many people have the required knowledge & they are more complex), but certainly not to notice. No, indeed. I DO see your point in adding the Cha mod, but I don't really want to add the Cha mod to the identification DC, since I don't want to let it run too high. At low levels, say level 3, a masked first level spell (two components, 18 Cha), would require a Spellcraft check DC 24 to identify. That's pretty steep, I think. Not impossible, with a +8 to Spellcraft, but still... I'd prefer not to. We indeed have to make it clear how we deal with noticing and identifying. For Noticing, CHA should be added. For identifying, I agree it might not be the best idea, but still, I'm partial to it... Spellcraft DC is 20+Spell level to identify, if the Spellcraft result is lower than 20, you fail to notice it. I'll have to ponder that. I'd like to see the requirements back in, especially Bluff Will do. Magically skilled : I did as I want people not to do. I didn't read it well enough, sorry. OK, I could go with it. Ogrebane : That's the normal rule for summoning familiars when the ability is a feature of the class at 1st level. I think that making it completely optional (rather than it being an inherent characteristic that may or may not be used) changes it's very nature, IMO. While that may be true, we're not suggesting to make it completly optional, but rather to stick it at lvl 2 (I'd even vote : instead of the special if need be). That would grant you ESM at 1st, SF+Special at 2nd (or SF alone, and specials would begin at 5th level, when you're about to multiclass...). Sort of how a paladin turns undead as a cleric 3 levels lower... if you push back Summon Familiar, you push back the ability's progression/effectiveness. If we suppress one special, and stick the first two, I think we have enough of a margin, as far as balance is concerned. Besides, a Familiar means 100 gp. How many times have you played 1st level Char with Familiars ? As for me, none. Basic gear is already way enough of my gold. Why not just add Guidance to the list of sorcerer spells, instead of this? Because we don't want to tamper the lists anymore ? ;) (I still do, btw). And this ability is fairly decent. I'VE FREAKING GOT IT! (I think :) ) YOU'VE FREAKING GOT IT! (I think :) ) Premise (correct me if I'm wrong): - an ability that allows a chance for you to disguise your spellcasting (and ONLY disguise) - KISS You're wrong ;) . I don't want the ability to ONLY disguise, it just happens it will be by far it's main use (no impact on AoO, ASF, etc though). It will too slightly increase the DC to identify a spell, since this ability will tamper with Wizards's average incantations of words/gestures/... I think that's it. Spell Masking : :eek: I... I... I like it :) Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't, necessarily. To successfully mask your spellcasting, you must make a Bluff check opposed by the Spellcraft check of an opponent attempting to identify your spell. Well, the opponent isn't actively attempting to identify your spell, since he doesn't even know you're casting a spell. It's more like he's in the vicinity, and he happens to feel / guess what you're doing. Spell Masking automatically fails if you are attempting it in a threatened area, unless you first make a successful Concentration check to cast on the defensive I don't see the need, but OK. this ability does not enable the caster to avoid arcane spell failure checks {OK}, nor does it remove {by itself} any component of the spell you are casting. Does this do what you want, in a KISS-simple way? Is it good enough for a real feat, or is it adequately under-powered enough to be a special? Let me see... It indeed does what I want (though not exactly the way I want), and is KISS enough for me. Now, I agree you've probably weakened it enough (by making this a Bluff (not maxed out) vs Spellcraft (maxed out) check, IMHO) to make it worth only a special. Last, let me say I'd rather have it as a full-blown Feat (at +1 slot cost), and with an increased chance of succes for the Sor. Perhaps, make it a Bluff check, but with the Sor level as an unnamed Bonus ? Or just the Sor level, not to through the roof ? Next, we don't take into account the level of the spell a Sor might try to Mask. Can it be helped somehow (in a KISS like fashion I mean) ? It should indeed be easier to mask a low level spell than a high one . That's taken into account if we give a slot cost, since the "value" of slots increase exponentially. So the DC is not changed, but the effort of the Sor is increased. Fine by me. BTW, by making it a Spellcraft check, you insure that only spellcaster have a chance to detect for sure a masked spell (which is fine by me). Fighters and their ilk will never know for sure if the man in robes in front of them they've smashed - because he looked "weird"- was indeed or not trying to charm them :P ... I quite like it. Yes. BlaineTog : Your point about the Spell Level importance is valid. See above : that's why I suggest a slot-cost. Is it to your satisfaction ? I like the Magic Sense idea. Very cool. Mabye nix it for magical traps (since they are supposed to be hidden) until a really high level, though. It's from Chachi. I don't even know what to do with this ability. I really like it, for sure, but what. Make it a special ? Don't know... As for traps, well, the higher the caster level, the harder they are to detect if I read right. I'm rusty on traps though, so... Defiler of Souls : i might implement something kinda like the wild mage in 2e ie spells have like a 10% chance of back fireing and a 15% change of double effect...not all that powerful but can be alot of fun I second Ogrebane. I don't like one bit this kind of stuff myself. OTOH, I got a friend of mine who loves every bit of it. Go figure... maybe some ability that allows you to take damage(ie bleeding yourself) to slightly improve spells(lightly increase save dc ordecrease lvl cost of a metamagic feat by 1) First, I fail to see the relation with dragons. Second, we've tried stuff with "some self-inflicted damage" vs "some gain". They're so hard as hell to balance that we couldn't agree on it once, and that's not for lack of trying, believe me ! So, unless you come with a darn darn good idea, plainly written and all, I don't think we'll go that way again. Sorry. maybe an ability that lest you sacrifice multiple lower level spell slots for a higher level spellslot As said by SirisC, that would indeed be Psionics domain. And they pay this power with an even decreased spell known list ! IIRC, there's a feat that allows Wizards to prepare spells like that, and even that is deemed very close to overpowered. I would never allow it to Spontaneous caster. SirisC : the ability to cast a spell with a lower level slot to cast it wildly. (think wildmage with mostly weakened effects, and a boost on a nat 20) ?? Well, I'd never cast Wish that way, I tell you. Besides, we would have to depict the decreased effects for each spell, and all (anything less leaves room to abuses). I'm very unsure about it. make it so that the damage done in this method can only be done naturally. How do you rationalize it ? Besides, see above. Those kind of abilities are cans of worms, IMHO. Yeah, I'm convinced, now, at last, though I'm still unsatisfied about it. Defiler of Souls : could be con damage then See above. Read former thread about Canibalistic Casting (p8 to 13 IIRC). We've tried and didn't succeed. Ogrebane : Trust me on this one... we've been there with this sort of scenario (Cannibalistic Casting) and it's impossible to balance We've indeed been through this, and while it might not be impossible per se, we certainly couldn't do it. In the end, we had to give up. Last : Mask Spell [MetaMagic] You can disguise your spellcasting. Prerequisites : Bluff 8+ ranks. (Eschew Materials ??) Benefits : You have skill in the art of casting spells unobtrusively, altering verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't, necessarily. To successfully mask your spellcasting, you must make a Caster level check opposed by the Spellcraft check of an opponent likely to see through your masking. You add your CHA bonus as an unnamed bonus to this CL check. If you exceed the Spellcraft check result, you have successfully masked your spell. If you fail to exceed it, the Spellcraft result is used to resolve the identification of your spell normally : DC 15 + spell level + 1 per undiscernable component (+2 if absent). Casting a Masked spell automatically fails if you are attempting it in a threatened area, unless you first make a successful Concentration check to cast on the defensive. Furthermore, this Feat does not enable the caster to avoid arcane spell failure checks, nor does it remove by itself any component of the spell you are casting. A Masked Spell uses up a spell slot cost one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
Utumno 10-30-03, 12:20 PM	You ever thought about being a career game designer? Great class. I will use it in my campaigns. Keep up the good work
Thot 10-30-03, 12:25 PM	:cool: Many thanks to you, and enjoy it ! Chime in if you wish, we're not yet done ! Still, the "You" refering to over 50 people, I think it would prove quite expensive a design team ! :D
Krynus Ogrebane 10-30-03, 12:33 PM	Originally posted by Thot: Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I vote for ESM at first, Summon Familiar at second.Make it two, then, please. :nonono: If there is a special at 1st level, the ALT.sorcerer becomes more powerful than the PHB.sorcerer, because a special is immediately useful (i.e.- better; more powerful), while Summon Familiar requires the cost of 100 gp and 1 day to summon it. Plain and simple. RE: harder to mask a spell with less components: Well, it's not harder. If there's no component of a given type, you get +2. If there's one masked, you get +1. Wasn't yet clear enough. But for simplicity's sake we could agree to go with yours. The +1 for "masked" components is our creation, not core. See below for more. RE: notice high level spells compared to lower level spells: Yes, true. Didn't see that. They should be harder to identify (not many people have the required knowledge & they are more complex), but certainly not to notice. No, indeed. Key point. That makes three who agree with that sentiment. RE: pushing Summon Familiar back to level 2: While that may be true, we're not suggesting to make it completly optional, but rather to stick it at lvl 2 (I'd even vote : instead of the special if need be). That would grant you ESM at 1st, SF+Special at 2nd (or SF alone, and specials would begin at 5th level, when you're about to multiclass...). This is a power-up, and we don't want a powered-up class. Frank, me, and even you have started to ponder that we may have gone too far with the class. A special at 2nd is OK, because 2nd nets you a whopping 1st-level slot (remember, extra cantrips are the ALT.sorcerer's "skills", plus they're weak, so I don't really count them). If we suppress one special, and stick the first two, I think we have enough of a margin, as far as balance is concerned. Besides, a Familiar means 100 gp. How many times have you played 1st level Char with Familiars ? As for me, none. Basic gear is already way enough of my gold. ... and the wizard is in the same situation, except he has TWO abilities that he really can't make use of until he gains both money and XP. Leaving Summon Familiar at 1st is equitable, from the wizard's point of view (i.e.- they both have the same issue). ... unless you are actively seeking for a power-up, it can't happen (surprise, I was wrong to have EM at 1st, in previous builds). RE: Premise (correct me if I'm wrong): You're wrong ;) . I don't want the ability to ONLY disguise, it just happens it will be by far it's main use (no impact on AoO, ASF, etc though). It will too slightly increase the DC to identify a spell, since this ability will tamper with Wizards's average incantations of words/gestures/... I think that's it. Ah, but with ESM as a prereq, the DC does go up, for spells that list M components. Besides, "tampering" with words/gestures isn't an issue, because the Bluff check determines if you did so successfully (for V and S components). Well, the opponent isn't actively attempting to identify your spell, since he doesn't even know you're casting a spell. It's more like he's in the vicinity, and he happens to feel / guess what you're doing. That's your interpretation, and not core. By the rules, *every* individual (with ranks in Spellcraft) that can see OR hear you gets a Spellcraft check to identify your spell, as a free action. RE: Spell Masking fails if in a threatened square: I don't see the need, but OK. Here's why... by the rules, spellcasting triggers an AOO. They are inexplicably linked. Logically, why would a fighter (for example) be entitled to, and take, an AOO, if he didn't notice that you had cast a spell in the first place? It's a logical necessity, for rules mechanics and balance. If you want spell masking to circumvent the need to make a Concentration check to cast on the defensive, then we'll never agree. Besides, didn't you say that this should really have limited combat application (or was it someone else...)? Last, let me say I'd rather have it as a full-blown Feat (at +1 slot cost), and with an increased chance of succes for the Sor. Perhaps, make it a Bluff check, but with the Sor level as an unnamed Bonus ? Or just the Sor level, not to through the roof ? If you add sorcerer levels to your Bluff check, the DC rises dramatically (too high). If you make it a caster check, it actually makes it pretty weak (no CHA bonus). If you make it a a caster check with CHA modifier added in, it is still weaker than a Bluff check, because the max ranks on Bluff (and Spellcraft, for the opponent) is level+3. Next, we don't take into account the level of the spell a Sor might try to Mask. Can it be helped somehow (in a KISS like fashion I mean) ? It should indeed be easier to mask a low level spell than a high one . Wait a minute. I quoted you and Frank both saying that a masked spell, regardless of level, should be no more difficult to notice, but they should be more difficult to identify. Please make up my mind. ;) BTW, by making it a Spellcraft check, you insure that only spellcaster have a chance to detect for sure a masked spell (which is fine by me). Indeed, Spellcraft checks can only be made trained. By forcing an auto fail in a threatened square, we don't screw the non-caster types (so make good use of those 5-foot steps!). I quite like it. Yes. Hallelujah! RE: magic sense: It's from Chachi. I don't even know what to do with this ability. I really like it, for sure, but what. Make it a special ? Don't know... As for traps, well, the higher the caster level, the harder they are to detect if I read right. I'm rusty on traps though, so... *cough* Detect Magic *cough* gobs more cantrip slots *cough* Originally posted by Ultumno: You ever thought about being a career game designer? Great class. I will use it in my campaigns. Keep up the good work High praise, indeed! Many thanks! ~~~ Nobody else? Where are you folks? :D
Thot 10-30-03, 01:35 PM	If there is a special at 1st level, the ALT.sorcerer becomes more powerful than the PHB.sorcerer, because a special is immediately useful (i.e.- better; more powerful), while Summon Familiar requires the cost of 100 gp and 1 day to summon it. Better, yes. Slightly. On paper. Now, how much does the gift of ESM at 1st lvl risk of unbalancing the game ? I mean, I think we've gone through this. It's a nice ability, but is nowhere near dangerous, in my reckoning at least. Besides, if that's a concession to power-uping :rolleyes: the class, then I'm ready to made it. The +1 for "masked" components is our creation, not core. Correct. and the wizard is in the same situation, except he has TWO abilities that he really can't make use of until he gains both money and XP One of which helps him much more as he gains levels, while remaining minor enough in the case of the Sor. unless you are actively seeking for a power-up, it can't happen (surprise, I was wrong to have EM at 1st, in previous builds). Please, again. There's power-up, and overpowered power-up. I think that ESM hardly falls into the first one, and not at all into the second. Such a "power-up" at first level will not make people change their mind if they prefer the PHB one. If they go the PHB one, it's for the slots they'll get later, and it's highly unlikely IMHO that ESM would change their mind, for it's highly unlikely that they'll be much bothered by M components at high levels, while they would lose slots with our alt.Sor. with ESM as a prereq, the DC does go up, for spells that list M components Yes, but I'm pondering ESM as prereq. Many spells have only VS components, and this ability should be viable for those Sor too that have chosen their spells wisely so as not to need ESM at all. Less "pigeon holing", you see. Besides, some components can be handled in front of anyone (tiny enough), or we may grant the Sor cunning enough to hold them in his pocket (any DM would apply as needed a Con check, or grant bonus to opposed checks, or else, without our explicit ruling, I hope). "tampering" with words/gestures isn't an issue, because the Bluff check determines if you did so successfully (for V and S components). True enough, but I was thinking of other ways to do it. That's your interpretation, and not core. By the rules, *every* individual (with ranks in Spellcraft) that can see OR hear you gets a Spellcraft check to identify your spell, as a free action. Yes, indeed. Did I say the contrary in my sentence ? Logically, why would a fighter (for example) be entitled to, and take, an AOO, if he didn't notice that you had cast a spell in the first place? Because he knows you to be a spellcaster able to cast in mundane guise, and you explictly declare that you're casting a spell (be it Masked) ? I think you get AoO on anyone not "actively trying to avoid being hit"., but I can't get my hand on it. Still : From the SRD : Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.<SNIP> Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Since you are performing a full-round action speech (unless ExpMMed), I think I'd qualify this in and of itself as "letting one's guard down". If you want spell masking to circumvent the need to make a Concentration check to cast on the defensive, then we'll never agree. I explicitly stated such not to be the case. I simply thought the added precision unnecessary. didn't you say that this should really have limited combat application I did. I think it would be in the best interest of the Sor if used outside of combat situations. I didn't say that he should be specially penalized to try or banned from it at all. If you add sorcerer levels to your Bluff check, the DC rises dramatically (too high). If you make it a caster check, it actually makes it pretty weak (no CHA bonus). If you make it a a caster check with CHA modifier added in, it is still weaker than a Bluff check, because the max ranks on Bluff (and Spellcraft, for the opponent) is level+3. Yes, but you don't have to spend much of your precious skill points in Bluff to get some mileage from this ability, hence a more overall useful ability IMHO. *shrug* I quoted you and Frank both saying that a masked spell, regardless of level, should be no more difficult to notice, but they should be more difficult to identify. Please make up my mind. ;) Well. I'll first state my mind : it should be harder to hide a high level spell, hence my suggestion of a slot-cost (embodies a more expensive solution to get the same result). It should be harder to identify it, too. Does it enable you to make up your mind ? By forcing an auto fail in a threatened square, we don't screw the non-caster types (so make good use of those 5-foot steps!). :confused: I fear the worst... could you please expand on it ? I want the Sor to be able to try Masking a spell in a threatened square if he so wishes. I'd consider it suicidal in most cases, but that's beyond the point. *cough* Detect Magic *cough* gobs more cantrip slots *cough* Yes indeed. But they're active, while this ability is always on (but a bit less precise). That's a difference. Oh, well... I don't really care.
Talcoram Cyndar 10-30-03, 01:35 PM	Nobody else? Where are you folks? Here I am, the last four time Itried to post, my message got lost in the erther somewhere. I needed to take a couple of days off to figure out what the hell was happening. Well, let's start here. What *exactly* do you want, complete with mechanics and rules ramifications? This question is not for Thot exclusively, but for everybody interested in Mask Spell/Contrived Casting. I'll get into this later. Lots of discussion going on here. Especiall regarding mask spell/contrived casting. There are also seems to be concern about this sorcerer being too powerful, summon familiar v. no summon familiar, more skil points, etc. Interesting. I am going to reach back into the depths of time and these threads and re-post a version of this Alt.Sorcerer that I am wsing IMC that I feels addequately addresses all of these concerns. Some of you will like it, some of you will hate it, thats OK, I don't game with any of you. :D I have bees useing this sorcerer for several months and seen it progress from level three to level eight w/o any problem regarding balance/overpowering, either with the party's wizard, or against the BBEG. Take it for what its worth.... Alignment...as PHB Hit Dice...as PHB Weapons & Armor...as PHB Class Skills...as PHB Skill Points...4+INT/Level Spells per Day/Known...as Alt.Sorcerer 8.xx. In addition at ninth level the sorcerer has knowledge and access to all arcane cantrips in the campaign world. Special Ability Progression Level 1- Eschew Sorcerer Materials, Special Ability Level 5- Special Ability Level 10- Special Ability Level 15- Special Ability Level 20-Special Ability Special Abilities -Augment Familiar -Contrived Casting -Expiditous MetaMagic -Spell Secret -Spell Thematics -Summon Familiar -Toughness -Any MetaMagic Feat ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Defence/Explanation ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Skill Points- This was put in for all the reasons already stated. It gives the sorcerer a little more versatility outsinde of combat, make up for the disparity between the wizard and the sorcerers SPs, and helps the character to qualify for a PrC a little sooner if he so chooses. Knowledge of all Cantrips- As Krynus Ogrebane said, they are powerless and have limited utility outside of combat. This just seemed a logical extention of the 'creature of magic' idea. Augment Familiar- Identical to the ability already posted in this thread. Contrived Casting- Character gains a +1 to the spellcraft DC for identification purposes for each component contrived. (+2 max) The canster attemptig to ID the spell must first make a Sense Motive roll vs. the save DC of the spell cast to determine if they even recognize that a spell is being cast. AoO apply if the caster is seen casting a spell. ASF also applies. Expititous MetaMagic/ Spell Secret- These are identical to the abilities origiall posted at the beggining of this thread (not including the -1 level nerf to spell secret) Spell Thematics- A relatively powerless and colorful ability, so I thought why not? Summon Familiar- Not everyone wants a familiar. I also agree with Frank on this, the familiar just seeme more appropiate for a wizard. In the original thread, we disscussed removing 'ritual's from the sorcerer spell list as he would probably not had an opportunity to learn the ritual. I argued (unsucessfuly) that Summon Familiar was a ritual as well and shoud be relaged to a secondary ability of the sorcerer. Toughness- For the d6 crowd. Nuf' said Any MetaMagic Feat- I know I am going to take heat for this one, but it is if its god enough for the wizard, then its good enough for the sorcerer. Oh,wait, that's Krynus Ogrebane's argument for summon familiar at level one....sorry.... ;) (JK Ogrebane) Wrap Up- I changed the special ability progression to mimic that of the wizard, the only other primary arcane spellcaster. I think it is a good place to start and use as a template for canges to the sorcerer. If we were to take a PHB sorcerer and add special abilities every five levels, he would still be, IMHO, on par with the PHB wizard. Now their only differance is spontaneous spellcasting v. prepared spellcasting. Take away 9 spell slots from the sorcerer and give him 2 extra skillpoints, knowledge of all cantrips at level 9 and a set of unique special abilities. IMO you still have two classes that are relatavely balanced With this version, everybody gets something -more skill points -more hit points (with Toughness) -natural casting -a Familiar for those who want it, and an option for those who don't. Like I said, This is the version we use IMC. It works very well. Love it, hate it, take it, leave it...... Flame away........... -TC
Frank the Vandal 10-30-03, 05:57 PM	Whew... I can hardly keep up with all those posts. Going to try anyway: Krynus, on Magically Skilled: Why not just add Guidance to the list of sorcerer spells, instead of this? He's got an abundance of them, now... Fine by me, if that's enough to drop the +2/+2 skill feats from the specials list. I rather like this new one, but I'd be fine with this as well. I'VE FREAKING GOT IT! Hmmm... I'd rather have it as a metamagic feat, actually. As Thot said, it makes sure the cost increases with Spell level: the difference in power between an 9th and 8th level slot is greater than the one between 2nd and first. Since it would logically be harder to mask a high level spell, this makes sense. Plus, I think casting a Masked Spell would be harder than casting a normal one. Spell Masking automatically fails if you are attempting it in a threatened area I don't like this. Being in a threatened area doesn't have any effect on you, unless you provoke an Attack of Opportunity. Casting any spell (except quickened) provokes, so this includes Mask Spell (you drop your guard, it has nothing to do with wether or not the guy next to you knows why). Also, it's a bit vague: I suppose you mean threatened by an enemy (though you don't say so), but nowhere in the rules is there any guideline on who is an enemy and who is not. It's always up to the caster or up to the enemy to show their intentions, and in this case the only thing the enemy can do is take an AoO. Autofail in a "threatened" area leaves a lot of room for discussion: what if you don't know it's threatened, because the enemy is invisible, or you thought he was a friend? What if the enemy can't take an AoO anymore this turn? Thot's Mask Spell you must make a Caster level check opposed by the Spellcraft check of an opponent likely to see through your masking. You add your CHA bonus as an unnamed bonus to this CL check I still don't like the way this makes spell identification a lot harder at high levels. At level 20, the caster would have 1d20 + 20 + 7 (24 Cha), and the person identifying 1d20 + 24 (max ranks) + 3 (16 int, assuming a sorcerer). So you'd fail about half the time, and that's a bit much I think. It gives you a 50% chance to prevent counterspelling. Since it's already an ability that's used only rarely, I don't see the need to nerf it. Also, it's a bit weird that's it a lot harder to notice the spell than to identify it (there's only a 50% chance of noticing, but if you notice it, then you automatically identify?), and I think a high level spellcaster would usually notice spellcasting more than half of the time. For now, I still prefer a Spellcraft DC 20 + spell level to identify, 20 to notice. Simpler as well. Krynus: If there is a special at 1st level, the ALT.sorcerer becomes more powerful than the PHB.sorcerer, because a special is immediately useful (i.e.- better; more powerful), while Summon Familiar requires the cost of 100 gp and 1 day to summon it. ... A special at 2nd is OK, because 2nd nets you a whopping 1st-level slot (remember, extra cantrips are the ALT.sorcerer's "skills", plus they're weak, so I don't really count them). So you're ok with: 1 - Summon Familiar 2 - Special So also with (less powerful): 1- Summon Familiar 2- Eschew Materials with: 1- Eschew Materials 2- Summon Familar Right? I don't see the huge difference in power. At first level, you know 2 first level spells, so that's at most two spell components you have to take with you. Regarding Thot's breakdown of spells with material components, what are you afraid of? What I DO see, is that the second and third options make a lot more sense, since the sorcerer doesn't first learn to cast spells with M components, and then suddenly without. Since you wanted to power things down a little, and prevent abuse from dipping, fixing the first two seems a good idea. Logically, why would a fighter (for example) be entitled to, and take, an AOO, if he didn't notice that you had cast a spell in the first place? Because you're letting your guard down. That's the only reason you ever provoke an AoO. Thot: Well. I'll first state my mind : it should be harder to hide a high level spell, hence my suggestion of a slot-cost (embodies a more expensive solution to get the same result). It should be harder to identify it, too. Does it enable you to make up your mind ? Agreed. Talcoram Cyndar: A lot of things I don't like, I'm afraid: Skill Points: I see your point, but disagree. Discussion has been done plenty of times. Knowledge of all Cantrips: Ok, though I like slowly learning more better. Makes more sense than suddenly learning every cantrip in the world, even those you never even heard about. Contrived Casting: Pretty powerful (too powerful, IMO) in this version, you suddenly need Sense Motive to identify a spell. No costs involved, except the special. Any MetaMagic Feat: Ouch. Too much, I think. Definately. Toughness- For the d6 crowd. Nuf' said Always that alledged "d6 crowd". Is there anyone here who is actually a member of that accursed group? I always see people saying they want this ability in because of them, but I don't think I ever heard someone say they wanted it in themselves. One wonders... does it even exist? PS.: I may have skipped over some parts of posts, since I need my sleep. ;) If there's anything in particular you'd like me to comment on, ask. FtV
Talcoram Cyndar 10-30-03, 10:01 PM	A lot of things I don't like, I'm afraid: not a suprise. Like I said, this work well in my campaign. I still feel it is fairly balanced and give something for everyone. Knowledge of all Cantrips: Ok, though I like slowly learning more better. Makes more sense than suddenly learning I understand. This sorcerer does continue to gain knowledge of cantrips through level 1-8, by level nine however, he can pretty much create any minor magical effect that he wants, thus knowledge of all cantrips. Note- this dosen't give him any more slots to use, just more choices. Any MetaMagic Feat: Ouch. Too much, I think. Definately. Yeah... I know, easy enough to drop. Its really not a big deal. Always that alledged "d6 crowd". Is there anyone here who is actually a member of that accursed group? I always see people saying they want this ability in because of them, but I don't think I ever heard someone say they wanted it in themselves. One wonders... does it even exist? Is there anyone here? Probably not, however, they do exist and are a sizeable minority (like the 4+SPers) even if not vocal n this thread. I think it probably started with Monte Cooks variant sorcerer that had a d6. A lot of people really liked that and still think the sorcerer should have a d6. I p[ersonally do not agree with this school of thought. Like I said before, this work IMC. I just thought I would throw it out as an example of an AltSorcerer that has worked so far in real campaign. Later- -TC
Krynus Ogrebane 10-31-03, 03:01 AM	Originally posted by Thot: Better, yes. Slightly. On paper. Now, how much does the gift of ESM at 1st lvl risk of unbalancing the game ? I mean, I think we've gone through this. It's a nice ability, but is nowhere near dangerous, in my reckoning at least. Besides, if that's a concession to power-uping :rolleyes: the class, then I'm ready to made it. So you want a powered-up sorcerer. That's a shame, because the class was coming along so well, by sticking to the premise that the sorcerer doesn't truly need a power-up. ESM at 1st sends the message that sorcerers don't use M components, and I disagree with that idea. In fact, most sorcerers do, in fact, use them. Heck, I'd rather remove ESM entirely, if it came down to it. If you want it that badly, it must be so good that it's worth a feat. ... Hmm... after seeing that statement in writing, it's not a bad idea. I'll be honest, even I want ESM, from a player's point of view. Maybe it should be removed... One of which helps him much more as he gains levels, while remaining minor enough in the case of the Sor. We're not talking about anything but levels 1 and 2, right now. At level 1, the ALT.sorcerer with Eschew will be better than both the PHB.sorcerer with Summon Familiar AND the wizard with Summon Familiar + Scribe Scroll. At level 2 (going on your premise of placing Summon Familiar at 2nd), the ALT.sorcerer with Eschew and Summon Familiar will be better than the PHB.sorcerer with Summon Familiar, and on par with the wizard with Summon Familiar + Scribe Scroll. Let me say that again... at 2nd level, the ALT.sor is on par with the wizard. Scribe Scroll is a full feat. Eschew is a full feat, except for the (in hindsight) rather weak attempt at a nerf by having it only apply to sorcerer spells. All that nerf does is limit the multi-class abuse, but it does nothing to weaken it for a player who has no intention of multi-classing (I'm not referring to +1 caster level prestige-classing here... I would hope that's obvious). Now, because 2nd level is a weak spot for the PHB.sorcerer, due to the fact that he only gains that one lousy spell slot, I don't have a problem putting a special (of the player's choosing) at 2nd. Please, again. There's power-up, and overpowered power-up. I think that ESM hardly falls into the first one, and not at all into the second. Such a "power-up" at first level will not make people change their mind if they prefer the PHB one. If they go the PHB one, it's for the slots they'll get later, and it's highly unlikely IMHO that ESM would change their mind, for it's highly unlikely that they'll be much bothered by M components at high levels, while they would lose slots with our alt.Sor. See above. If everybody wants it that much, then it's worth a regular feat. Yes, but I'm pondering ESM as prereq. Many spells have only VS components, and this ability should be viable for those Sor too that have chosen their spells wisely so as not to need ESM at all. Less "pigeon holing", you see. Besides, some components can be handled in front of anyone (tiny enough), or we may grant the Sor cunning enough to hold them in his pocket (any DM would apply as needed a Con check, or grant bonus to opposed checks, or else, without our explicit ruling, I hope). Fair enough, although I tend to think that ranks in Bluff is an essential criteria of what masking is supposed to accomplish. RE: Bluff check for masking: True enough, but I was thinking of other ways to do it. If you've got something KISS, let's hear it. I did. I think it would be in the best interest of the Sor if used outside of combat situations. I didn't say that he should be specially penalized to try or banned from it at all. Where's the penalty? Would you really try to mask a spell without casting defensively? If you did, then it's not really masked after all, is it? Obviously, something is afoot when you draw an AOO. Yes, but you don't have to spend much of your precious skill points in Bluff to get some mileage from this ability, hence a more overall useful ability IMHO. *shrug* Spell Masking and Bluff seem inseparable, by the very nature of what you are trying to accomplish. Well. I'll first state my mind : it should be harder to hide a high level spell, hence my suggestion of a slot-cost (embodies a more expensive solution to get the same result). It should be harder to identify it, too. Does it enable you to make up your mind ? It's kinda tough to put an ability into precise text when the feedback one receives changes every other post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because English isn't your first language, but it's a tad frustrating to work on precise phrasing for an ability that accomplishes what one thinks is wanted... when it isn't what was wanted after all. Re: non-caster types and masking: :confused: I fear the worst... could you please expand on it ? I want the Sor to be able to try Masking a spell in a threatened square if he so wishes. I'd consider it suicidal in most cases, but that's beyond the point. posted by Frank: I don't like this. Being in a threatened area doesn't have any effect on you, unless you provoke an Attack of Opportunity. Casting any spell (except quickened) provokes, so this includes Mask Spell (you drop your guard, it has nothing to do with wether or not the guy next to you knows why). 1) A person is entitled to an AOO if an opponent lets their guard down. 2) You are trying to disguise the fact that you are casting, with spell masking. 3) Spellcraft checks cannot be made untrained. 4) If your spellcasting is masked successfully, then the opponent has no reason to think that you let your guard down. 5) Consequently, the opponent is denied his AOO, without the requisite Concentration check from the caster. Re: Magic Sense: Yes indeed. But they're active, while this ability is always on (but a bit less precise). That's a difference. Oh, well... I don't really care. My point was that with copious cantrip slots, having Detect Magic on more often isn't as painfully draining to your resources. Originally posted by Talcoram Cyndar: Lots of discussion going on here. Especiall regarding mask spell/contrived casting. Heh. What else is new? Ready to give up yet, Thot? We've now been at it for eighteen pages, and no closer to a solution. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Hmmm... I'd rather have it as a metamagic feat, actually. As Thot said, it makes sure the cost increases with Spell level: the difference in power between an 9th and 8th level slot is greater than the one between 2nd and first. Since it would logically be harder to mask a high level spell, this makes sense. Plus, I think casting a Masked Spell would be harder than casting a normal one. Ah... so you can't make up your mind either, eh? *BIG FREAKIN' SIGH* See my reply about this to Thot, above. I assume that English isn't your first language either, so I also give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, it's a bit vague: I suppose you mean threatened by an enemy (though you don't say so), but nowhere in the rules is there any guideline on who is an enemy and who is not. It's always up to the caster or up to the enemy to show their intentions, and in this case the only thing the enemy can do is take an AoO. Who is and is not an enemy is a mindset relevant to the indivdual. Autofail in a "threatened" area leaves a lot of room for discussion: what if you don't know it's threatened, because the enemy is invisible, or you thought he was a friend? What if the enemy can't take an AoO anymore this turn?[/ Good points. Do you have any interpretations? RE: ESM as a fixed ability: So you're ok with: 1 - Summon Familiar 2 - Special So also with (less powerful): 1- Summon Familiar 2- Eschew Materials with: 1- Eschew Materials 2- Summon Familar Right? I don't see the huge difference in power. At first level, you know 2 first level spells, so that's at most two spell components you have to take with you. Regarding Thot's breakdown of spells with material components, what are you afraid of? I am fine with your first example, because it doesn't dictate that all sorcerers eschew. I'm also of the mind that Eschew has to go. EVERYBODY wants it at some point (including me), and that says (to me) that it is worth a regular feat (i.e.- it is not under-powered, and therefore not weak enough to be a special). Because you're letting your guard down. That's the only reason you ever provoke an AoO. Repeat from above: 1) A person is entitled to an AOO if an opponent lets their guard down. 2) You are trying to disguise the fact that you are casting, with spell masking. 3) Spellcraft checks cannot be made untrained. 4) If your spellcasting is masked successfully, then the opponent has no reason to think that you let your guard down. 5) Consequently, the opponent is denied his AOO, without the requisite Concentration check from the caster. Always that alledged "d6 crowd". Is there anyone here who is actually a member of that accursed group? I always see people saying they want this ability in because of them, but I don't think I ever heard someone say they wanted it in themselves. One wonders... does it even exist? To me, it's almost a joke anymore. I've seen *alot* of people say "the sorcerer isn't a bookworm, sequestering himself in a gloomy library, reading musty tomes. He's out in the world, socially and physically active compared to the wizard." The joke, though, is that here is a perfectly good way to make the d6 sorcerer (on average, mathematically), but because of how cool the other specials are, plus the class had to give up nine slots to balance out a d6 HD, it suddenly doesn't look so essential to the player's concept of the class. :D But hey, at least it's an option for the diehard proponent. It's also a nice little thing to grab, at let's say 2nd level, to make survivability more likely.
BlaineTog 10-31-03, 03:34 AM	Escew Materials is not overpowered. I would never take it as a standard feat. You want to know why? Because it effectively saves you 5 gp!!! Sure, you don't rely on the SCP anymore, but come on: how often are you going to be in a situation where you need to cast a spell and you don't have your SCP? Not very often. And even then, it's not like your spells woulbe be TOTALLY crippled. You could probably find the components just by looking around (in many places), not to mention the fact that not all spells need mateiral components costing less than 1gp. And for the spontaneously casting Sorcerer, this just means his/her options are slightly more limited. I think you are mistaking a compromise for over-eagerness. It's not that everyone wants Eschew Materials, its more like some people dispute the possible dipping-abuse that could occure with a special at 1st and second. I see two possible solutions. a) fix the first special into a limited list (like before). Not totally KISS, but it's not really all that bad, and it's not lke the player needs to choose a special at 1st all that often (read: once). b) nix the special. I don't like this, if for no other reason because it seems less powerful than the Wizard at this level. I see your point about Mandatory ESM at any level. It DOES give the worng impression. Again, i think the suggestion was made as a way of cutting out dip-abuse. I have a question that's been buggin me, so I might as well aski it here: why does the game allow you to multiclass into sorcerer? I here the "latent" argument and think "munchkin BS." "I have enough XP for a new level? Cool. Oh yeah, i just discovered I have latent Sorcerer powers, so I'm gonna do that for a few levels." Sure, latency COULD work, but I just don't see how. The character should be required to come to that reveletion either at 0 level (ie starts as a sorcerer) or during actual gameplay (DM: "As you swing your sword down on the young wyrm, your eys start glowing and your haird staqrts sparking." Player 1 (fighter):"What's going on?" Player 2 (Wizard):"Spellcraft check! i roll a... 16+12=28!" DM:"[to P1] You are under limited effects of the Presdigitation spell. Apparently you cast it." P1: "Holy ****! So I'm a sorcerer? Cool." DM:"Yeah. you can now multiclass into sorcerer."). I dunno. Just one of my pet peaves that I could have *liked* to have seen integrated into 3.5... oh well...
Krynus Ogrebane 10-31-03, 03:39 AM	*YAWN* - Mask Spell [Metamagic]: You can attempt to disguise your spellcasting. Prerequisite: Bluff 8+ ranks. Benefit: <SNIP> {Never mind... what I had here actually made masking a higher level spell easier than a lower level spell.} Normal: The Spellcraft DC to identify a spell being cast is normally 15 + the spell's level. ~~~ :rolleyes: I am *so* glad I gave up on MS/CC for my games a loooong time ago. I'm going to give this concept a rest. Anybody else who cares enough to try, I'll review and attempt to find flaws in your mechanics/balance, but I've had enough of it. 18 pages... nobody can say I didn't try.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-31-03, 03:53 AM	Originally posted by Talcoram Cyndar: I see your point about Mandatory ESM at any level. It DOES give the worng impression. Thank you! Somebody finally gets it.
hieratical 10-31-03, 09:47 AM	I agree with Krynus. Get rid of Eschew as a special. Many campaigns don't use spell components anyway. If it's importanat, the player can take it as a feat. Also get rid of the Second level special. The reasoning is that if we're "paying" for specials with spell slots, by second we have paid nothing and get something. This is strictly a power-up, and should therefore be struck down. As a flavor thing I also think the spell slot progression after first should go 12345 not 1345. So the chart would look like this: SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 3/2 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/5 4/2 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/5 4/3 ²1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 5/3 2/1 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 5/4 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/7 5/4 4/2 2/1 - - - - - - 7 ¹6/7 5/5 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - 8 ¹6/8 5/5 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - - - - 9 ¹6/8 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - 10 ¹6/9 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - - - 11 ¹7/9 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - 12 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - - 13 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - 14 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - 15 ¹8/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - 16 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - 17 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 3/2 ²1/- 18 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 4/2 2/1 19 ¹9/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 4/2 20 ¹9/12 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 5/3 Hieratical
hieratical 10-31-03, 10:17 AM	Is a spell modified by spell secret still modifiable by the metamagic feat use in the secret? Example: I use Spell Secret to modify Summon Monster IV to be extended. I have the Extend Spell metamagic feat. Can I use that feat on my new-and-improved Summon Monster IV ? And if I do, is the old duration tripled, or the new duration doubled? Thanks, Hieratical ps. Forget all this Mask spell stuff. Just Expidite Still and Silent metamagic and do it like other spellcasters do.
Krynus Ogrebane 10-31-03, 10:57 AM	Originally posted by hieratical: Also get rid of the Second level special. The reasoning is that if we're "paying" for specials with spell slots, by second we have paid nothing and get something. This is strictly a power-up, and should therefore be struck down. While that is true about 2nd level, in a sense, 2nd level is awfully weak for the PHB.sorcerer because the class really only gets one 1st-level slot. As a flavor thing I also think the spell slot progression after first should go 12345 not 1345. The places where you have 2's for slots is where the PHB.sorcerer has 3's. We don't want an overall class power-up, but we don't want a class nerf either.
Thot 10-31-03, 11:20 AM	Frank : if that's enough to drop the +2/+2 skill feats from the specials list. I rather like this new one, but I'd be fine with this as well. Well, adding Guidance to the Sor list is not a good idea. Now, I quite like your special, indeed. But I'd go even further (probably making it a feat, though) : Magically skilled : You have learnt how to use your magic in combination with your other skills. Benefit: Whenever you consciously make a skill check for a skill you have at least 5 ranks in, you can choose to spend one (and only one) spell slot of any level, to gain a circumstance bonus equal to one plus the level of the slot you're expanding on the check. Cantrips count as 0th level slot. You have to indicate that you're using this ability before rolling, and you can only use this ability if you're actively trying to achieve something. For example, you can't use it on Spot checks if you're unknowingly getting close to an enemy, only if you're actively looking for something. Only possible problem I see with this tweaking of mine would be during downtime... So in the end your special might be KISSer, and good enough, to drop the other +2/+2 feats. Truly, they don't really belong there (nor does toughness). I'd rather have it as a metamagic feat, actually. Me too, so we'll try to make it Metamagic. For clarity's sake, a slight bit of history : when first mentioned, I was a huge proponent of an ability "of this kind" (Contrived Casting), but I deemed that CC cas weak enough to be a mere "special". I may well have been wrong. Since we couldn't agree on its function, and mechanics, it was cut out. I'm now of the opinion that what I had in mind then is more cleanly explained if "cut" into CC and Mask Spell. They have different functions, mechanisms, and goals (though they are close, and mix well). And it's fine. I still don't like the way this makes spell identification a lot harder at high levels. At level 20, <SNIP> you'd fail about half the time, and that's a bit much I think. It gives you a 50% chance to prevent counterspelling. <SNIP> Also, it's a bit weird that's it a lot harder to notice the spell than to identify it (there's only a 50% chance of noticing, but if you notice it, then you automatically identify?), and I think a high level spellcaster would usually notice spellcasting more than half of the time. We'll have to agree on what makes sense first, then on the mechanisms. I think that Masking a given level spell (say, Charm Person) would be easier as you are a higher level caster (mastery of magic, less disruption in the flow, yadda, yadda...). Now you could counter that it would be true with a Bluff increase at level up. Fair enough, but that’s what I’d ideally like to avoid, since I think it would be even more inherent to the Sor – and he’s got better things to do with his SP without us making it necessary for him to max out Bluff in order to still gain some mileage from MS at high level. You’re free to disagree. Now, indeed, it gives around 50% of success against a high level Wiz. That’s what I was looking for, I thought it was fair enough. Besides, a trained counterspeller will have increased Spellcraft through feats or such anyway, so he’ll keep all his chances, IMHO. A trained Wiz vs a trained Sor : 50 % for each. *shrug* It’s admittedly a bit weird that it’s a lot harder to notice the spell (DC = 1D20+CL+CHA) than to identify it (DC = 15+Spell level+Misc. mod). Still, not that much, IMHO, since there’s only so much ways you could cast it normally (this number increases with CC or MS), and a Wiz is trained in knowing them or their variations. OTOH, a spell can be hidden by a Sor in as many ways as the situation warrants / allows. Once you recognize an action as spellcasting ( how many times a guy kissing a lady’s hand is likely to be casting a spell ?), it’s way easier to recognize the spell (how many spells are there at all ? How many are relevant to the case at hand ?) since you know the likely intent behind the action. I still prefer a Spellcraft DC 20 + spell level to identify, 20 to notice. Simpler as well. Simpler indeed, though it doesn’t seem more logical at all to me. If we can’t agree on what we want (meaning what each of us deem logical), I could agree to go with it, if I really have to. *groans* Regarding ESM : If we fear overpowering the Sor, let it not be said that I didn’t propose an alternative : Lvl 0 1 2 1 ¹3/4 2/2 - Summon Familiar , Special 2 ¹4/5 3/2 - Special 3 ¹5/5 4/3 ²1/- - By further (probably too much) delaying the crop of the cream, the huge spellcasting capacity, we make dip more unlikely, while leaving room for a Special at 1st level. It doesn’t solve the problem if that’s one of balance at 20th level, though. And though this problem may well exist, I’m not yet sure about it. Always that alledged "d6 crowd". <SNIP> One wonders... does it even exist? Yes it does. It was a hard point at the very beginning of the UST, on the old board. Ogrebane : So you want a powered-up sorcerer. That's a shame, because the class was coming along so well, by sticking to the premise that the sorcerer doesn't truly need a power-up. See above. Besides, I know you do not post insults to people (you’ve repeated it enough times, and I believe it), but lately I found your posts overall more offensive (may be me though), and I thought only fair to tell you, before I one day post in a rush s/t I’d regret. That quote being one example. You know better about my overall stance, I guess, so please be more wary of how you formulate your comments, and I’ll be wary not to take things personnaly, nor to post things that beg for offensive answers. :) Thank you. ESM at 1st sends the message that sorcerers don't use M components, and I disagree with that idea. In fact, most sorcerers do, in fact, use them. Well, :embarrass , it will have taken quite some time (can you say I’m stubborn ;) ), but I now agree that it should not be sticked. I still wish for it to be available, though. See above. I'd rather remove ESM entirely, if it came down to it. If you want it that badly, it must be so good that it's worth a feat. I don’t think it’s that good. I had hoped I would have already proved it, but it looks like I will soon have to be more thorough. Well, I’ll try… It’s more a question of perception of what should be a Sor’s abilities, and having the possibility to stick them to the PC, IMHO. At level 1, the ALT.sorcerer with Eschew will be better than both the PHB.sorcerer with Summon Familiar AND the wizard with Summon Familiar + Scribe Scroll. At level 2 (going on your premise of placing Summon Familiar at 2nd), the ALT.sorcerer with Eschew and Summon Familiar will be better than the PHB.sorcerer with Summon Familiar, and on par with the wizard with Summon Familiar + Scribe Scroll. That’s your opinion. Mine is that at lvl 1 : AS on par with W, slightly superior to S. At lvl 2, AS on par with W, superior to S. IMX, I’ve played first level scrollers, and already got some bang from it. Eschew is a full feat, except for the (in hindsight) rather weak attempt at a nerf by having it only apply to sorcerer spells. All that nerf does is limit the multi-class abuse, but it does nothing to weaken it for a player who has no intention of multi-classing I agree it’s not that much of a nerf, though it is one (MT anyone). But, as for me, I’d qualify EM as a weak Feat, to begin with. The main example (though rare) is when imprisoned, right ? A spontaneous caster can still elect to cast all his spells that doesn’t depend on a M component (and there’s a plentiful of useful ones). A Wizard does have to have EM AND Spell Mastery if he is to even hope doing s/t. It is a a weak feat. A fighter/Sor would have way better things to do with his feats to make up for the lack of synergy between his classes, and so on, IMHO. It’s a handy feat, but, that’s it. And as it fits the flavor of the Sor, we wanted it in (because we all agreed it wasn’t a powerful add up). I tend to think that ranks in Bluff is an essential criteria of what masking is supposed to accomplish. I agree it should be a prereq. It should have some impact in the mechanics. But I’d like to see either CHA, or Caster Level go in the equation, too, to represent the increased mastery of the Sor at this sort of things. I think this mastery would go up independantly of Bluff, even though Bluff couldn’t hurt it. What’s more, I think that Being a spontaneous caster should be a prereq. How could a Wiz prepare a spell for an application (masking with everyday words / gestures) that depends on the circumstances ? He could well go the SSE way, though. Suits him more than the Sor IMHO. Would you really try to mask a spell without casting defensively? If you did, then it's not really masked after all, is it? Obviously, something is afoot when you draw an AOO. I wouldn’t try to mask a spell without casting defensively. Nonetheless, nothing that I know of per the rules explicitly forbid it. And yes, if I do, I still mask my spell, it’s just that I provoke an AoO, that may or may not be elected to be used, back to what we were saying. Your last sentence is I think where we differ. I don’t see any contradiction between drawing an AoO, and masking a spell, while you seem to do. Mechanically, it works, IMHO. Player : “hey, DM, I’m a sentry. Then there’s this guy that poped out from nowhere, and he’s now in front of me, and he is telling me he’s a friend, he’s playing nice with me, and all. What’s it is he wants ?” DM : “He’s asking for you to guide him to the leader of the camp. He’s not in a fighting position, you see holes in whatever guard he may have. You can elect to attack him as an AoO if you wish. What do you do ?” :smirk: What’s wrong with this case ? Spell Masking and Bluff seem inseparable, by the very nature of what you are trying to accomplish They are indeed linked. It’s just that my perception of the fluff of this ability makes it so that Bluff should’t be the only (if perhaps the main) part of it. Heck, I’d throw in Spellcraft too if I could KISS it. It's kinda tough to put an ability into precise text when the feedback one receives changes every other post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because English isn't your first language Thank you. :eek: Crap ! Is it indeed that bad ? I have changed my mind now and there, of course, but mainly I hope I only try to formulate the same things in different ways, to make up for a lack of more accurate words in the first place. And I hoped my English to be fluent enough not to be too much of an hindrance in the formulating of abilities (though I’ve admitedly already reached my limits sometimes :embarrass ) 1) A person is entitled to an AOO if an opponent lets their guard down. 2) You are trying to disguise the fact that you are casting, with spell masking. 3) Spellcraft checks cannot be made untrained. 4) If your spellcasting is masked successfully, then the opponent has no reason to think that you let your guard down. 5) Consequently, the opponent is denied his AOO, without the requisite Concentration check from the caster. 1, 2, and 3, are right by me. Now, IMHO, 4 is where one of us is wrong, and what we’re debating. I would put it more like “if you’re masking your spellcasting succesfully, then the opponent has no reason to think that you’re spellcasting”. Meaning that your spellcasting can indeed be identified as a guard down (heck, especially by warrior types!), while not necessarily being linked by your opponent to spellcasting (here’s perhaps where a clarification is required). For all he knows, it might be an effect of a spell from the spellcaster on his side, or a trick of yours ( be it a contingency with the trigger being : someone makes an AoO on me; or you want him to use his AoO on you, so that other people may do things without drawing others AoO; or whatever…) And as a consequence, I see 5 as wrong. Ready to give up yet, Thot? We've now been at it for eighteen pages, and no closer to a solution. What are you talking about ? I’ve been striken by a sudden deafness spell, and I just can’t make out your words. Plus, they are in English. It’s desperate I think, I don’t understand a thing ! ;) :P That said, I hope we are closer to a solution, and though I didn’t double-check, I think it’s not that bad as far as length goes. Whatever, I fear I’m not yet ready to give up, no. Though it may indeed be more producive (and less taxing for you) if I try first to agree with Frank and the others on what this ability should do, and only then come back with/for suggestions on how to translate it into mechanics… BlaineTog : It's not that everyone wants Eschew Materials, its more like some people dispute the possible dipping-abuse that could occure with a special at 1st and second. True enough. Well, see my answer above. a) fix the first special into a limited list (like before). b) nix the special. Don’t like any (prefer first). why does the game allow you to multiclass into sorcerer? I here the "latent" argument and think "munchkin BS." <SNIP> Just one of my pet peaves that I could have *liked* to have seen integrated into 3.5... oh well... I think you answered it yourself, and very well at that. *shrug* Besides, same could be said about most of the other classes DM : Well done, you successfully rescued the baron’s daughter. You level up to third level, folks ! Player : Yeah ! DM : So, what do you do ? Player : I jump into “Class X” ! DM : Did you spend some years learning the basics of “signature ability of class X” ? Player : Hey ! I was a Fighter, so, please… I was doing my job, on the battlefield ! And I don’t want to be stuck to Fighter anymore, now ! Ogrebane : Anybody else who cares enough to try, I'll review and attempt to find flaws in your mechanics/balance, but I've had enough of it. 18 pages... nobody can say I didn't try. Thank you, I can not ask for more, especially regarding an ability you don’t like, nor plan to use. You’ve been very helpful so far, and am sure you’ll still be, even given this (very limited and understandable) restriction. :bow: Hieratical : get rid of the Second level special. The reasoning is that if we're "paying" for specials with spell slots, by second we have paid nothing and get something. This is strictly a power-up, and should therefore be struck down. See my suggestion above. As a flavor thing I also think the spell slot progression after first should go 12345 not 1345. Then, it’s a power down at every level till 20th, in my reckoning. (I didn’t check though, so I may be wrong). It then leaves margin for the specials, especially if combined with my suggestion. And the specials at first and second level would be paid for. Is a spell modified by spell secret still modifiable by the metamagic feat use in the secret? Very good question ! In 3.0, since you could use the same feat multiple times on the same spell, I’d say yes. In 3.5, since you can’t, I’d say no. A spell secret is nothing more than a feat applied permanently at no cost to a given spell. So this spell is already under the effect of the feat. And therefore can not be modified anymore by it. Forget all this Mask spell stuff. Just Expidite Still and Silent metamagic and do it like other spellcasters do. Could you please explain why you support this ? Oh, and allow me to say (really no offense meant !), that you really sound like you could be an Ogrebane’s MuP ! :embarrass Ogrebane : The places where you have 2's for slots is where the PHB.sorcerer has 3's. We don't want an overall class power-up, but we don't want a class nerf either. Devil’s advocate : that would levy any doubt about our potential “power-upping” of the Sor, while getting the same end result… And now, what you’ve all been eagerly waiting for all along your reading of this (long) post, the “take of the day” about Mask Spell : Mask Spell [MetaMagic] You can disguise your spellcasting. Prerequisites : Bluff 8+ ranks. Ability to cast spells spontaneously Benefits : You have skill in the art of casting spells unobtrusively, altering verbal and somatic components into normal words and gestures so that others rarely catch you in the act. Your demeanor is obvious to everyone in the vicinity, but the fact that you are casting a spell isn't, necessarily. To successfully mask your spellcasting, you must make a Spellcraft check. You get a +2 synergy bonus to this check per 5 ranks in Bluff. DM may elect that specials circumstances grants modifiers to this check (fog, …). This check is opposed by a Spellcraft check of any opponent that could potentially see through your masking. If you exceed his Spellcraft check result, you have successfully masked your spell. If you fail to exceed it, the Spellcraft result is used to resolve the identification of your spell normally : DC 15 + spell level + 2 per undiscernable component. If you attempt to mask a spell while in a threatened area, you automatically draw an AoO –as per any other casting, unless you succesfully cast on the defensive (CON check). Whenever an opponent could be in doubt as to whether he is entitled to an AoO against you or not, throw a D20. On any other result than a 1, he knows he is entitled to an AoO.. Furthermore, this Feat does not enable the caster to avoid arcane spell failure checks, nor does it remove by itself any component of the spell you are casting. A Masked Spell uses up a spell slot cost one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
ConfusedUs 10-31-03, 01:47 PM	Let's not get rid of Eschew Materials. It just doesn't make sense for a caster who casts innately to have to find a pinch of bat guano to do what is natural. Unless you play a sorcerer as a person who gets the sudden urge to go roll in bat turds then comes home and burns things down...
hieratical 10-31-03, 02:45 PM	quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a flavor thing I also think the spell slot progression after first should go 12345 not 1345. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, it’s a power down at every level till 20th, in my reckoning. (I didn’t check though, so I may be wrong). It then leaves margin for the specials, especially if combined with my suggestion. And the specials at first and second level would be paid for. Hmm. Looking at the quote I see I made a typo. It should read "12345 not 13345" in the quote above. If you look at the table I included you'll see what I mean. Actually it's a slight power-down only at the even levels. It balances the extra slot that comes in one level earlier on the new chart. The 8.01 chart goes 13345, my suggestion is to move it to 12345. I should point out that a 1/- on a level isn't just one spell slot, if they get additional slots from a high CHA, they get them at this level too. One level earlier than otherwise. quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forget all this Mask spell stuff. Just Expidite Still and Silent metamagic and do it like other spellcasters do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you please explain why you support this ? Simplicity mostly. I seems like the effect that people want can be acheived by either expiditious metamagic applied to Still and Silen Spell, or by Secret Spell incorporating Still and Silent Spell into a given spell. And if it's too complicated the gamemaster might not go for it. quote: Oh, and allow me to say (really no offense meant !), that you really sound like you could be an Ogrebane’s MuP ! MuP? I haven't the faintest idea what MuP stands for. Except for reading many pages of posts on this thread, I have no connection to Ogrebane. I do respect and agree with the goals of this thread though. The sorcerer needs more flavor and a reason not to take a prestige class as soon as possible. Hieratical PS. Regarding Eschew Materials: I think that EM is clearly innapropriate for some kind of sorcerers. For example the ones mentioned in the DMG that get their arcane knowledge from a patron of some sort. Therefore if a player wants to take it they should take the feat.
Talcoram Cyndar 10-31-03, 03:31 PM	Eschew Sorcerer Materials is not that powerful! It does not need to be kept off of first level and especially not removed entirely. ESM replaces a spell component pouch. Big deal! Krynus Ogrebane- Let me see if I understand your argument here... a) ESM is to powerful for first level b) ESM mandates that a sorcerer eschews Because of this it should be- 1) removed from 1st level 2) relagated to feat status 3) removed in its entirety My answer- a) It saves a sorcerer 5 GP. The cost of a spell component pouch. b) This is just not true and you know it. Likewise Summon Familiar dosen't mandate that every sorcerer have a familiar. 1) no 2) no 3) no IMO summon familiar is the more powerful of the two abilities. Not only do you get a creature/companion who gets more powerful as you level up, but you also gain a bonus feat. All at first level. I don't want to be stuck with an ability that I don't want (summon familiar). Your response is don't use it. You don't want to be stuck with an ability you don't want. Fine...don't use it. SF and ESM really are on par as ar as abilities go. This argument will come down to a simple vote on who wants what at first level. I am willing to have both. Contrived Casting/ Mask Spell- I give up. I think everybody is making this more complicated than it needs to be. However, I recognise that there are some serious questions regarding this ability. Lets just drop it already. -TC
Frank the Vandal 10-31-03, 04:39 PM	ESM at 1st sends the message that sorcerers don't use M components, and I disagree with that idea. In fact, most sorcerers do, in fact, use them. Most PHB sorcerers do, but that doesn't mean our alt. sorcerer should. Most PHB sorcerers didn't quicken spells either... I'll comment more on ESM below. 1) A person is entitled to an AOO if an opponent lets their guard down. 2) You are trying to disguise the fact that you are casting, with spell masking. 3) Spellcraft checks cannot be made untrained. 4) If your spellcasting is masked successfully, then the opponent has no reason to think that you let your guard down. 5) Consequently, the opponent is denied his AOO, without the requisite Concentration check from the caster. 1) Yes 2) Correct 3) True 4) No, if you mask succesfully, the opponent has no idea why you're letting your guard down. 5) Consequently, he can still make an AoO, but may not take one if he chooses not to. Ah... so you can't make up your mind either, eh? *BIG FREAKIN' SIGH* See my reply about this to Thot, above. I assume that English isn't your first language either, so I also give you the benefit of the doubt. Well, I admit I do change my mind sometimes during this discussion. That's what discussions are for, aren't they. We're trying to convince eachother of our own viewpoints? And you have changed your mind on ESM quite a number of times (in as a special->fixed at lvl 1->a special again->not in at all...). But in this case I'm afraid I don't see where I'm contradicting myself. It may be my English, but I doubt it. It's not perfect, of course, but I think I usually manage to convey my opinion (same goes for Thot, IMO). The opinion itself might be a little fuzzy, of course. :) Maybe I just made a mistake somewhere. I have a question that's been buggin me, so I might as well aski it here: why does the game allow you to multiclass into sorcerer? Well, I don't think it'd be fun if you could never multiclass into a sorcerer. That'd be quite a severe limitation. If you want to do it with a story, you can make it up, or have the DM help you write it into the campaign, but in general, the "latent" story would work. The idea that you have a knack for magic doesn't mean you have to train it, I think. As a flavor thing I also think the spell slot progression after first should go 12345 not 1345. I've been thinking the same thing. Would be nicer, wouldn't it. It is quite a big power-down, however. But if you did it, it might be better to do the same thing at level 1 (see below). This is the same as combining it with Thot's suggestion, I think. That way you have the same progression for every level (except ninth, but it's about the same as a wizard's). It is enough of a powerdown to allow an extra special at a low level, I think. Or... to put ESM at first. Is a spell modified by spell secret still modifiable by the metamagic feat use in the secret? No, I wouldn't think so. Would be useful to put this in there, I think. "This ability still does not allow you to apply the same metamagic feat to a spell more than once." Or something like that. Magically skilled : You have learnt how to use your magic in combination with your other skills. Benefit: Whenever you consciously make a skill check for a skill you have at least 5 ranks in, you can choose to spend one (and only one) spell slot of any level, to gain a circumstance bonus equal to one plus the level of the slot you're expanding on the check. Cantrips count as 0th level slot. You have to indicate that you're using this ability before rolling, and you can only use this ability if you're actively trying to achieve something. For example, you can't use it on Spot checks if you're unknowingly getting close to an enemy, only if you're actively looking for something. I'd prefer a special, since it could throw out the +2/+2 feats. Also, for example a +5 on a skill check is quite a lot under some circumstances, and allows you to do a lot more than normally possible. Even for a fifth level spell slot, this can have quite an impact. OTOH, Moment of Prescience (8th level spell) offers a bonus equal to your caster level to a skill check (or attack roll, saving throw or opposed ability) which is a lot higher than a +9. So it might be balanced. Not sure. I thought about the same thing, but was considering to allow the sorcerer to take the ability more than once. Second time, you could spend a 1st level slot for a +2 bonus, third time a 2nd level slot for a +3 etc. But I didn't put it in because I thought it was too complicated. Truly, they {the +2/+2 feats} don't really belong there (nor does toughness). Sorry, just wanted to quote this. :) Mask Spell: I'm now of the opinion that what I had in mind then is more cleanly explained if "cut" into CC and Mask Spell. You mean, make it two specials. We'd have to agree on two wordings instead of one... But if you can do it in a simple way, that seems balanced, I don't have anything against the idea of splitting it up. (Added later: my latest version resembles this, see below) We'll have to agree on what makes sense first, then on the mechanisms. True. I'll try to make clear what I think makes sense: 1) Casting a masked spell is harder than casting a spell that isn't masked, so in cases where it doesn't matter casting an unmasked spell should be better, in game terms than casting a masked spell. (=> either a slot cost (+1) or a chance of failure of the spell, not the masking) 2) Casting a masked spell let's you fit your verbal component into normal speech, and somatic components roughly into normal gestures, but difficult movement that needs focus is out, and your exact movements still have to obey the "laws of magic". So pointing would be alright, but no matching your somatic components to dodging a fighter to avoid an AoO, no avoiding ASF and no casting if you can't move. (=>No preventing AoOs, no effect on the limits of somatic components) 3) Masking has no effect on material components. If you want to try to hide the fact you're using a material component, try Sleight of Hand, which specifically mentions "palming a small object". 4) There's no reason why masking wouldn't work if you could draw an AoO, but it's more dangerous. It could be combined with Casting on the Defensive, however. 5) It's not harder to mask a low level spell than to mask a high level spell. I could go with the same difficulty, but if difficulty increases with slot level would be fine as well. (=>+1 slot cost increases in significance with spell level) 6) It's harder to identify a masked spell than an unmasked spell. 7) Masking a spell benefits from Bluff. This makes sure your "acting normal" is believeable. 8) Masking a spell should not make counterspelling impossible. 9) You can identify the spell if and only if you notice the spellcasting going on. 10) If Mask Spell is a feat, it should be available to other spellcasters as well. Not having Bluff as a class skill may delay this, but it should eventually be possible. 11) It might be easier to mask a spell if your Charisma is high. 12) For simplicity's sake, it'd be easier if the difficulty in masking or the effect wouldn't depend on the amount of components normally in the spell. Quite a long list, and I may have forgotten something. Regarding your "take of the day" on Mask Spell: A bit complicated, and I'm not really fond of putting Spellcraft in there. Spellcraft usually applies to spells cast by others, not by you. Also, the 1/20 chance of not drawing an AoO isn't really necessary, I think. It just complicates things, and I think a fighter in melee with you has quite an easy time to notice you're not dodging. I'm going to attempt a whole new take on this ability, just to try it from a different angle. Your Contrived Casting gave me an idea (and I think some people are going to hate me for it). Two Specials: Contrived Casting As a sorcerer, you haven't learnt your spells "by the book". Therefore, the verbal and somatical components of the spells you cast don't match those of wizards or other sorcerers and can't be used to identify your spells. Benefit: A +2 bonus to the spell identification DC if the spell has a somatic component, and another +2 bonus to the DC if the spell has a verbal component. These stack with eachother, and with a possible +2 bonus for an Eschewed material component. Special: This only applies to sorcerer spells. Mask Spell: You have learned to alter your verbal and somatical components to fit the situation when casting a spell. Benefit: When you cast a spell, you can make a concentration check vs. DC 15 + spell level + 2 for any component that needs to be changed (verbal or somatical). If you fail, you lose the spell. If you succeed, your manage to hide your concentration, and people around you will have a hard time noticing you're actually casting a spell. You have to make a Bluff check, which is opposed by a Sense Motive check from anyone who sees or hears you casting. Anyone who fails to beat your Bluff check, will fail to notice your spellcasting. However, anyone who is skilled in the ways of magic can not be so easily fooled. Anyone who manages to identify your spell as normal using a Spellcraft check will still notice the spell. However, the DC to identify increases by +2, because you're hiding your concentration. Special: Masking a spell does not prevent AoOs in combat, though you can still attempt to cast on the defensive. This ability only applies to sorcerer spells. ~~~ Well, what do you think? I'll go check if I didn't contradict my own list... Well, I'm not obeying number 12, but that shouldn't be much of a problem. Wasn't a very strict rule anyway, and way at the bottom of the list. :) The first special, Contrived Casting, is pretty weak, I think, and would (and I know I'm getting in the danger zone here) be nice to fix at first level. For the people who haven't smashed their computer yet, thanks for hearing me out. The reason I like it at first level is basically stated in the special itself. It makes a lot of sense for a sorcerer. Now, last but not least: Eschew: The main reason I want it fixed is worded perfectly by ConfusedUs: Let's not get rid of Eschew Materials. It just doesn't make sense for a caster who casts innately to have to find a pinch of bat guano to do what is natural. Unless you play a sorcerer as a person who gets the sudden urge to go roll in bat turds then comes home and burns things down... How can you not love this quote?! And I'd like to be able to get it at first level, because it makes a lot more sense to be able to start learning to cast spells without material components than to suddenly stop using them at higher levels. But it looks like we're a minority, especially now Thot has crossed over to the dark side. So no I'm going to try to get a special back at level one. Since this would be a powerup at first level, I suggest the following. Spell progression: Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 2/2 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/5 3/2 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/5 4/3 ²1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 5/3 2/1 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 5/4 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/7 5/4 4/2 2/1 - - - - - - 7 ¹6/7 5/5 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - 8 ¹6/8 5/5 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - - - - 9 ¹6/8 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - 10 ¹6/9 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - - - 11 ¹7/9 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - 12 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - - 13 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - 14 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - - 15 ¹8/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - 16 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 2/1 - 17 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 3/2 ²1/- 18 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 4/2 2/1 19 ¹9/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 4/2 20 ¹9/12 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 5/3 This nicely resembles the old sorcerer's spell progression, and weakens our alt.sorcerer a little at the even levels and at level one. Class Abilities: lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 Special, Summon Familiar (, Contrived Casting?) 2 Special 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 Special At first level, an extra special to compensate for the loss of the spell slot. I would prefer to fix it at Eschew Materials, of course. EDIT: It looks like more and more people are saying that the Mask Spell discussion should be stopped. Thot (and anybody else who is still interested), maybe we should continue the discussion on another thread to make sure we don't annoy other people. When (if) we agree we can come back and present the result. Unless you want to give up as well, of course (though I'm still enjoying it). Or you could agree completely with my version. ;)
ConfusedUs 10-31-03, 07:57 PM	I don't understand why people are thinking that ESM is overpowered. 1) it only works on materials of less than 1gp 2) the spell component pouch does essentially the same thing 3) many games don't even bother with M components to begin with, other than to acknowledge that they exist. Casters in every game I've played are assumed to just HAVE their materials. ESM has virtually no effect on gameplay, except in very certain circumstances, like in a grapple. A sorc could cast a spell in a grapple if it had no somantic components. A wizard would have to have the materials in hand to do so. This also fits in with the fact that sorcs are supposed to be SLIGHTLY better at combat than a wizard (I.E. weapon proficiencies). I currently don't have a sorc in my campaign, but if I did, they'd get ESM for free anyway. As I said above, it just makes no sense for a 'creature of magic' to have to hunt down components for his innate, natural abilities. Wizards cast through specific, applied spells that, IMO, mimic the natural abilities of the sorcerers. So a sorc can cast a fireball by pointing his finger and shouting 'BURN!', while a wizard must find a pinch of guano, move his hands in specific, controlled motions, all while chanting a special incantation.
BlaineTog 10-31-03, 08:38 PM	This is essentialyl a grapple between logic and balance. Both have a strength of 18.
ikkonoishi 10-31-03, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog This is essentialyl a grapple between logic and balance. Both have a strength of 18. I backstab balance. How much EXP is balance worth? :smirk:
Talcoram Cyndar 10-31-03, 10:56 PM	[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Frank the Vandal: Contrived Casting As a sorcerer, you haven't learnt your spells "by the book". Therefore, the verbal and somatical components of the spells you cast don't match those of wizards or other sorcerers and can't be used to identify your spells. Benefit: A +2 bonus to the spell identification DC if the spell has a somatic component, and another +2 bonus to the DC if the spell has a verbal component. These stack with eachother, and with a possible +2 bonus for an Eschewed material component. Special: This only applies to sorcerer spells. Mask Spell: You have learned to alter your verbal and somatical components to fit the situation when casting a spell. Benefit: When you cast a spell, you can make a concentration check vs. DC 15 + spell level + 2 for any component that needs to be changed (verbal or somatical). If you fail, you lose the spell. If you succeed, your manage to hide your concentration, and people around you will have a hard time noticing you're actually casting a spell. You have to make a Bluff check, which is opposed by a Sense Motive check from anyone who sees or hears you casting. Anyone who fails to beat your Bluff check, will fail to notice your spellcasting. However, anyone who is skilled in the ways of magic can not be so easily fooled. Anyone who manages to identify your spell as normal using a Spellcraft check will still notice the spell. However, the DC to identify increases by +2, because you're hiding your concentration. Special: Masking a spell does not prevent AoOs in combat, though you can still attempt to cast on the defensive. This ability only applies to sorcerer spells.[QUOTE] Contrived Casting- This is almost identical to the ability by the same name that we originally included in the sorcerer 7.xx. The differance being that we allowed for only a +1 to the spellcraft DC per component contrived. Thus if a character were to contrive both a verbal and somantic component, the DC to identify the spell would be at +2. Mask Spell- I like it. Does the modifiers to the spellcraft DC stack with Contrived Casting? I would suggest keeping CC at +1 per contrived component and allow Mask Spell to add an additional +1 per contrived component if the casting is sucessful. Otherwise... I still like it. ConfusedUs- I agree with you completely. Gotta go for now... -TC
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 01:38 AM	Originally posted by hieratical: Is a spell modified by spell secret still modifiable by the metamagic feat use in the secret? Example: I use Spell Secret to modify Summon Monster IV to be extended. I have the Extend Spell metamagic feat. Can I use that feat on my new-and-improved Summon Monster IV ? You can't apply the same metamagic feat to a spell more than once, and the secret counts as applied metamagic (even though the slot isn't increased). You can use the feat Extend Spell, or the Spell Secret [Extend] on summoning spells without a problem, but not both. In fact, we have a playtester who has done exactly that (extend secrets). It's quite a boon, really, even if it only applies to that one spell. Originally posted by Thot: RE: powered-up alt.sorcerer is a shame: See above. Besides, I know you do not post insults to people (you’ve repeated it enough times, and I believe it), but lately I found your posts overall more offensive (may be me though), and I thought only fair to tell you, before I one day post in a rush s/t I’d regret. That quote being one example. You know better about my overall stance, I guess, so please be more wary of how you formulate your comments, and I’ll be wary not to take things personnaly, nor to post things that beg for offensive answers. Thank you. :confused: I didn't realize that comment could be taken offensively. My tone wasn't meant to be insulting... I meant it to sound saddened (that you wanted a power-up, from my point of view). Well, :blush: , it will have taken quite some time (can you say I’m stubborn ;) ), but I now agree that it should not be sticked. I still wish for it to be available, though. See above. Hoody-hoo! Player : “hey, DM, I’m a sentry. Then there’s this guy that poped out from nowhere, and he’s now in front of me, and he is telling me he’s a friend, he’s playing nice with me, and all. What’s it is he wants ?” DM : “He’s asking for you to guide him to the leader of the camp. He’s not in a fighting position, you see holes in whatever guard he may have. You can elect to attack him as an AoO if you wish. What do you do ?” :smirk: What’s wrong with this case ? Nothing's "wrong" with it, per se, but it's obvious that something *is* afoot, like I was saying earlier. Thank you. :eek: Crap ! Is it indeed that bad ? I have changed my mind now and there, of course, but mainly I hope I only try to formulate the same things in different ways, to make up for a lack of more accurate words in the first place. And I hoped my English to be fluent enough not to be too much of an hindrance in the formulating of abilities (though I’ve admitedly already reached my limits sometimes :blush: ) Actually, you (and Frank) do remarkably well with your English... MUCH better than me with French. The one that sticks out the most, for me, is the recent 180-degree turnaround about masking and higher-level spells. Within one or two posts, both you and Frank agree that it shouldn't be more difficult, then again agree that it should. (?!) What are you talking about ? I’ve been striken by a sudden deafness spell, and I just can’t make out your words. Plus, they are in English. It’s desperate I think, I don’t understand a thing ! ;) :P Har! :D That said, I hope we are closer to a solution, and though I didn’t double-check, I think it’s not that bad as far as length goes. Whatever, I fear I’m not yet ready to give up, no. Though it may indeed be more producive (and less taxing for you) if I try first to agree with Frank and the others on what this ability should do, and only then come back with/for suggestions on how to translate it into mechanics… Yeah, I'll just sit back and watch it unfold for a while. ;) Thank you, I can not ask for more, especially regarding an ability you don’t like, nor plan to use. You’ve been very helpful so far, and am sure you’ll still be, even given this (very limited and understandable) restriction. :bow: Muchos gracias, senor. (That is just about where my Spanish meets the limit. :) )
mellowship 11-01-03, 02:53 AM	Remember, people: just because something looks like a power-up on paper doesn't mean it actually is in real play. Also: if you've spent a feat slot on something that'll only make a game-mechanical difference once or twice in your career, you've pretty much wasted that slot. For the standard campaign assumed by the core rules, Eschew really isn't good for much except flavor. By giving it to sorcerers at 1st level, you're not really powering the class up. You're just adding a bit flavor. Eschewing minor material components fits nicely with the concept of an innate, intuitive caster. Re: Mask Spell/Contrived Casting I think the mechanic of altering the DC based on which components are being "contrived" violates the KISS principle. If you're going to have a Contrived Casting-type special that gives a Spellcraft DC boost, don't make it a metamagic feat. Just have it add your Cha mod to the Spellcraft DC, with an extra +2 synergy bonus if you have 5+ ranks of Bluff. If you're going to have a Mask Spell metamagic feat, then just make it a sorcerer-ish version of Disguise Spell: for +1 level slot cost, you make it flat-out impossible to identify your spell as it's being cast. However, the spell can still be identified after it's been cast (at the higher Spellcraft DC for identifying an in-place magical effect), and it will still show up under Detect Magic or Arcane Sight. Masked spells can still be countered by Reactive Counterspell or a Ring of Counterspells. Remember: Mask Spell is only good for hidden-in-plain-sight casting. Unlike Silent and Still, you can't use it when Silenced or grappling (or Polymorphed), and you can't use it to get around ASF. It'll give away your position if you're trying to be really stealthy. And you have to spend a regular feat slot on it. This is not something that every sorcerer is going to want to take. My gnome sorcerer, for instance, would much rather go for Empower.
ConfusedUs 11-01-03, 03:13 AM	Re: Mask Spell/Contrived Casting I think the mechanic of altering the DC based on which components are being "contrived" violates the KISS principle. If you're going to have a Contrived Casting-type special that gives a Spellcraft DC boost, don't make it a metamagic feat. Just have it add your Cha mod to the Spellcraft DC, with an extra +2 synergy bonus if you have 5+ ranks of Bluff. If you're going to have a Mask Spell metamagic feat, then just make it a sorcerer-ish version of Disguise Spell: for +1 level slot cost, you make it flat-out impossible to identify your spell as it's being cast. However, the spell can still be identified after it's been cast (at the higher Spellcraft DC for identifying an in-place magical effect), and it will still show up under Detect Magic or Arcane Sight. Masked spells can still be countered by Reactive Counterspell or a Ring of Counterspells. Remember: Mask Spell is only good for hidden-in-plain-sight casting. Unlike Silent and Still, you can't use it when Silenced or grappling (or Polymorphed), and you can't use it to get around ASF. It'll give away your position if you're trying to be really stealthy. And you have to spend a regular feat slot on it. This is not something that every sorcerer is going to want to take. My gnome sorcerer, for instance, would much rather go for Empower. I LIKE IT! :) :) :mage:
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 03:33 AM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs: Let's not get rid of Eschew Materials. It just doesn't make sense for a caster who casts innately to have to find a pinch of bat guano to do what is natural. Truly, I don't want to discard it completely, but I don't want it fixed as a class feature, at any level. Originally posted by Talcoram Cyndar: Krynus Ogrebane- Let me see if I understand your argument here... a) ESM is to powerful for first level b) ESM mandates that a sorcerer eschews Because of this it should be- 1) removed from 1st level 2) relagated to feat status 3) removed in its entirety a) No, it is too powerful (i.e.- nothing was sacrificed) at 1st level if we plug it in v8.01. b) Mandates, no. Implies that they all do, it does, when we know that is untrue. 1) See the end of this post. TANSTAAFL. 2) Adequate, but unsavory. 3) as #2. My answer- a) It saves a sorcerer 5 GP. The cost of a spell component pouch. b) This is just not true and you know it. Likewise Summon Familiar dosen't mandate that every sorcerer have a familiar. 1) no 2) no 3) no a) ... AND is useful if your gear is stolen/destroyed, AND when you are imprisoned, AND while grappling (forgot about this last one). b) Bull. If you have an ability with zero cost attached, it gets used, and liberally. Summon Familiar has costs attached (not just time and money either), and not everyone is willing to pay them. 1) See below. 2) See above. 3) See above. IMO summon familiar is the more powerful of the two abilities. Not only do you get a creature/companion who gets more powerful as you level up, but you also gain a bonus feat. All at first level. Summon Familiar is more powerful (as if I debate this?). It also has time, money, and "liability" costs (of which I'm sure you are aware). All of which is a (generally) moot point for most 1st level characters (100 gp doesn't grow on trees, so you almost certainly won't start the game with one). I don't want to be stuck with an ability that I don't want (summon familiar). Your response is don't use it. It is my response, and you lose nothing by not using Summon Familiar. Keep your hundred gold, your day's time to summon. You don't want to be stuck with an ability you don't want. Fine...don't use it. Here's where you have it wrong. As a player, I would want it and use it if it was "free". As a DM, and one of the class designers here, I don't want all sorcerers to not require M components, unless it was a conscious decision by the player. No free lunches. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Most PHB sorcerers do, but that doesn't mean our alt. sorcerer should. Most PHB sorcerers didn't quicken spells either... I'll comment more on ESM below. *sigh* Do you know what I think is the best thing about this class? For the most part, it is backward compatible (darn close, anyway). See below. I hope I have a satisfactory proposal to this. Well, I admit I do change my mind sometimes during this discussion. That's what discussions are for, aren't they. We're trying to convince eachother of our own viewpoints? And you have changed your mind on ESM quite a number of times (in as a special->fixed at lvl 1->a special again->not in at all...). Yes you have, yes it is, and yes I have. However, I always offer explanations (IIRC), while you and Thot did not, on that last time around with masking and higher-level spells. It's a moot point now, because you both will be working on what you want the ability to accomplish in exacting detail (which is how it should have been from the beginning... it would have saved a lot of time). Truly, they {the +2/+2 feats} don't really belong there (nor does toughness).Sorry, just wanted to quote this. :) See below, although Toughness should stay, if for no other reason than to accomodate the d6 HD crowd (i.e.- shut them up :devil: ). And I'd like to be able to get it at first level, because it makes a lot more sense to be able to start learning to cast spells without material components than to suddenly stop using them at higher levels. Here's an idea to consider for those who think it is essential to start out with Eschew. To clarify, I have nothing against ESM, per se, but it should not be handed out freely. So, here is how I think the piper should be paid... SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 ²3/2 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/5 ²4/2 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/5 ²4/3 ³1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 ²5/3 3/1 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 ²5/4 3/2 ³1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/7 ²5/4 4/2 3/1 - - - - - - 7 ¹6/7 ²5/5 5/3 3/2 ³1/- - - - - - 8 ¹6/8 ²5/5 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - - 9 ¹6/8 ²5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ³1/- - - - - 10 ¹6/9 ²5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - 11 ¹7/9 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ³1/- - - - 12 ¹7/10 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - 13 ¹7/10 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ³1/- - - 14 ¹7/10 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - 15 ¹8/10 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ³1/- - 16 ¹8/11 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - 17 ¹8/11 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 3/2 ³1/- 18 ¹8/11 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 4/2 3/1 19 ¹9/11 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 4/2 20 ¹9/12 ²5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 5/3 ---- ¹ = In addition to the cantrip slots per day listed in this column, add the sorcerer's Charisma modifier to determine how many cantrip slots/day she has available. ² = Alternately, a player may choose to have her sorcerer start with the ability to Eschew Sorcerer Materials. If so, reduce the number of 1st-level slots by one (two slots at 1st level, three slots at 2nd and 3rd levels, and four slots at 4th level and up). ³ = Although the sorcerer does not know spells of the appropriate level at these points, available spell slots may be used to cast lower level spells, or metamagic may alter a lower level spell for casting at the higher slot. Points: - except for the added footnote, this table is identical in v8.01 - if you want ESM to start out, you sacrifice one 1st-level slot - you won't get that 1st-level slot back without acquiring Extra Slot sometime later - three people have indicated that starting out with two slots is acceptable, if you get ESM in the bargain - by the time you would get that fifth 1st-level slot back (had you not sacrificed it for ESM), you have 2nd-level slots to play with - most importantly, nobody's concept of a sorcerer suffers ~~~~ Also, here's something that might be a suitable replacement for Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, and Persuasive... - Arcane Skill Enhancement [Special] : You can use your spells to enhance a skill for a short time. Prerequisites: Ability to cast arcane spells spontaneously. Benefit: You can use spell slots to temporarily increase one of your skill modifiers. To do this, select a particular skill and expend an available spell slot of any level (a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity). You gain a bonus to that skill equal to one plus the slot's level. This is an enhancement bonus with a duration of one minute per caster level. You may only enhance skills that can be used untrained, or in which you have at least one full rank. You may only enhance skills for yourself (you cannot enhance a skill for another individual). If someone uses Detect Magic on an individual under the effects of this ability, they detect a faint aura of transmutation.
ConfusedUs 11-01-03, 04:22 AM	I still don't understand WHY you think ESM is overpowered. It just boggles my mind, especially when you don't complain about summon familiar. A familiar can be a scout, deliver touch attacks, and gives you nifty bonuses. It CAN be a liability if you have a sadistic DM who likes to tortue his casters, but a caster who treats his familiar as carefully as he does himself should have little to worry about. And what do you gain by NOT summoning a familiar? 100gp that you wouldn't have had otherwise, and no need to spend a day doing nothing. It's far more powerful to summon the familiar than not. ESM has a few uses, true. However, with a bit of intelligence, these situations can be avoided, or if they can't be, they're bad enough it doesn't matter anyway. Captured: Many components are common, so it's possible that the caster may find an improvisational component. Not likely, but possible. Otherwise, a captured, weaponless group is probably screwed anyway. Fighter, rogue, and sorcerer, all screwed. Grappled: I always pull out my components for my next spell, if I know what I want, with a wizard (or sorc if we had to use M components) as a free action as soon as the first is cast. The components are always in hand. And a smart caster shouldn't be getting grappled in the first place. They can blur/mirror image/displace/fly/invisible for a reason. A caster who wants to get within 60' of a fight should be protected, or he's ASKING for trouble. Stolen Gear: My wizards (my sorcs would too, if my DM actually made me use components.) use their packs for a pillow, which contains their components and spellbook. That's not gonna get stolen either waking or sleeping, especially since its a 'backpack' type pack. If it does happen to get stolen, the sorc's already 1000x better off than the wizard, as he doesn't have a spellbook to rely on. Not all spells have a M component anyway. In short, for a prepared player, ESM has VERY little effect game-play wise. For me, it would mean I don't have to use my pack for a pillow or have the second shoulder strap on the pack. Huge difference there...
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 04:41 AM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs: I still don't understand WHY you think ESM is overpowered. It just boggles my mind, especially when you don't complain about summon familiar. I don't think that ESM is over-powered, it just shouldn't be free. Why would I complain about Summon Familiar? - It costs 100 gp - It costs 1 day - Most importantly, WOTC finds it balanced. There's no reason why *we* shouldn't find it balanced. A familiar can be a scout, deliver touch attacks, and gives you nifty bonuses. It CAN be a liability if you have a sadistic DM who likes to tortue his casters, but a caster who treats his familiar as carefully as he does himself should have little to worry about. As if you have control over the circumstances (read: the campaign setting) surrounding your character and his familiar... :rolleyes: And what do you gain by NOT summoning a familiar? 100gp that you wouldn't have had otherwise, and no need to spend a day doing nothing. It's far more powerful to summon the familiar than not. This is a great case to keep Summon Familiar at 1st level! ESM has a few uses, true. However, with a bit of intelligence, these situations can be avoided, or if they can't be, they're bad enough it doesn't matter anyway. Repeat -- As if you have control over the circumstances (read: the campaign setting) surrounding your character... :rolleyes: Captured: Many components are common, so it's possible that the caster may find an improvisational component. Not likely, but possible. Otherwise, a captured, weaponless group is probably screwed anyway. Fighter, rogue, and sorcerer, all screwed. Grappled: I always pull out my components for my next spell, if I know what I want, with a wizard (or sorc if we had to use M components) as a free action as soon as the first is cast. The components are always in hand. And a smart caster shouldn't be getting grappled in the first place. They can blur/mirror image/displace/fly/invisible for a reason. A caster who wants to get within 60' of a fight should be protected, or he's ASKING for trouble. Stolen Gear: My wizards (my sorcs would too, if my DM actually made me use components.) use their packs for a pillow, which contains their components and spellbook. That's not gonna get stolen either waking or sleeping, especially since its a 'backpack' type pack. If it does happen to get stolen, the sorc's already 1000x better off than the wizard, as he doesn't have a spellbook to rely on. Not all spells have a M component anyway. All of which is DM-dependent. YMMV. In short, for a prepared player, ESM has VERY little effect game-play wise. For me, it would mean I don't have to use my pack for a pillow or have the second shoulder strap on the pack. Huge difference there... Preparedness is a good way to increase the odds of survival for your character, no question about it. Every successful adventurer should be prepared. ESM removes your reliance on M components. This is better than prepared, which is fine, if it has a cost. In 3.5, Eschew costs a feat. Here, it is either a special (after 1st level) or a spell slot (at 1st level), both decidedly cheaper than burning a feat on it. Are we agreeing here? It sure seems that way.
Talcoram Cyndar 11-01-03, 11:47 AM	- except for the added footnote, this table is identical in v8.01 - if you want ESM to start out, you sacrifice one 1st-level slot - you won't get that 1st-level slot back without acquiring Extra Slot sometime later - three people have indicated that starting out with two slots is acceptable, if you get ESM in the bargain - by the time you would get that fifth 1st-level slot back (had you not sacrificed it for ESM), you have 2nd-level slots to play with - most importantly, nobody's concept of a sorcerer suffers Cute. All you have done now is change which feat you have to spend for the ability. Instead of spending a feat for ESM, I can now get ESM for the cost of a spell slot- the equilivant of the feat extra slot. I'm still spending a feat for a weak feat. Sorry, no. Truly, I don't want to discard it completely, but I don't want it fixed as a class feature, at any level. This is how I feel about Summon Familiar. Lets compromise. Remove both from first level and put in one special slot instead. -TC
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 11:53 AM	Originally posted by Talcoram Cyndar: Cute. All you have done now is change which feat you have to spend for the ability. Instead of spending a feat for ESM, I can now get ESM for the cost of a spell slot- the equilivant of the feat extra slot. I'm still spending a feat for a weak feat. Sorry, no. ALL specials are weak feats. Supposedly, ESM = Extra Slot. This is how I feel about Summon Familiar. Lets compromise. Remove both from first level and put in one special slot instead. Two things... - This just re-creates the double-dip problem. - Unless a summoned familiar's gained abilities are tied to when the ability to summon a familiar is acquired (example- if a sorcerer grabs Summon Familiar at 17th level, that familiar will have +1 natural armor and 6 INT), then no.
ikkonoishi 11-01-03, 12:09 PM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane In 3.5, Eschew costs a feat. Here, it is either a special (after 1st level) or a spell slot (at 1st level), both decidedly cheaper than burning a feat on it. Are we agreeing here? It sure seems that way. Scribe Scrolls Costs a feat as well. Wizards get it for free at first level. Creating scrolls without spending a feat on it is much more useful than escewing is. A wizard will be constantly using that scribe scroll ability while ESM only comes into any real use when the party has been stripped of their gear. Something that most DMs will do once in a blue moon.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 12:13 PM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs: I always pull out my components for my next spell, if I know what I want, with a wizard (or sorc if we had to use M components) as a free action as soon as the first is cast. The components are always in hand. I want to focus on this for a second. Does your DM have you declare exactly what M component you have pulled? If not, you have way more latitude than you deserve. Normally, it isn't a big deal because you can drop an item as a free action and simply pull a different component, if you change your mind about which spell to cast next. But, what if the component is a focus? You only have one focus in your pouch for each spell that requires them. If you change your mind, are you going to drop it as a free action, or are you going to use a move-action to stow the item? What is in your hand at any given moment is important in EVERY situation, because it determines the limits of what your responses can be. This is where I think ESM is under-estimated, because people don't bother to think about what they have in hand. You assume that you have everything you'll need at the ready, and that's not necessarily true. During a grapple, it is a full-round action to pull a spell component. If you don't have ESM, what are you going to do if you have the wrong item in hand?
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 12:16 PM	Originally posted by ikkonoishi: Scribe Scrolls Costs a feat as well. Wizards get it for free at first level. Creating scrolls without spending a feat on it is much more useful than escewing is. A wizard will be constantly using that scribe scroll ability while ESM only comes into any real use when the party has been stripped of their gear. Something that most DMs will do once in a blue moon. A wizard gets Scribe Scroll to start, and they also start out with ONE 1st-level slot. The sorcerer gets THREE.
Thot 11-01-03, 12:31 PM	> HERE < (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125296) is a link to a new thread regarding specifically Mask Spell and Contrived Casting. At last… ;) Hieratical : Actually it's a slight power-down only at the even levels. It balances the extra slot that comes in one level earlier on the new chart. IIRC, It is already compensated by a « stutter » step, at least as far as the number of slots is concerned. Now, if you mean the bang for your buck you get from the advanced slot, well, it’s up to you to decide. It’s only putting on more even footing with the other primary casters, you know ? You’ll find that the PHB chart goes, for example : lvl 3 4 7 4 - 8 5 3 9 6 4 Whereas, the alt.Sor goes : lvl 3 4 7 3 1 8 4 3 9 5 4 I should point out that a 1/- on a level isn't just one spell slot, if they get additional slots from a high CHA, they get them at this level too. One level earlier than otherwise. Yes, but even that is less than what the other casters get, and they still don’t know spells of that level, they can only fill them with less powerful spells (even if metamagiced ). Simplicity mostly. I seems like the effect that people want can be acheived by either expiditious metamagic applied to Still and Silen Spell, or by Secret Spell incorporating Still and Silent Spell into a given spell.And if it's too complicated the gamemaster might not go for it. There is indeed ways to duplicate the effects. But, for me, it doesn’t quite feel like the “real thing”, if you see what I mean. And it will not be complicated once we’re finished. (I’m in an optimistic mood, today !) MuP? I haven't the faintest idea what MuP stands for. Except for reading many pages of posts on this thread, I have no connection to Ogrebane. MUP stands for “Multi Username Poster” IIRC. Basically you have two screen names, but only one real poster behind them. And I didn’t want to imply that you had connections to Ogrebane, I’m sorry if you take it badly. I think that EM is clearly innapropriate for some kind of sorcerers. For example the ones mentioned in the DMG that get their arcane knowledge from a patron of some sort. Therefore if a player wants to take it they should take the feat. More acutely, let’s just put back a special at first level (and find a balanced way to do it). Then we’ll try and see if that special can be abused for dips. TC : Contrived Casting/ Mask Spell- I give up. I think everybody is making this more complicated than it needs to be. However, I recognise that there are some serious questions regarding this ability. Lets just drop it already. We’ll see… I’ve created a new thread for it… Frank : Most PHB sorcerers do {use M}, but that doesn't mean our alt. sorcerer should. Nor does it mean that our alt.Sor should prevent it (which honestly ESM stuck at first would do). That’s what Ogrebane thinks. It’s fair enough, IMHO, so long as we can still take it at first for those of us that wish. Ogrebane : 4) If your spellcasting is masked successfully, then the opponent has no reason to think that you let your guard down. 5) Consequently, the opponent is denied his AOO, without the requisite Concentration check from the caster. Frank : 4) No, if you mask succesfully, the opponent has no idea why you're letting your guard down. 5) Consequently, he can still make an AoO, but may not take one if he chooses not to. That’s my point, indeed. {Modified chart :} I've been thinking the same thing. Would be nicer, wouldn't it. It is quite a big power-down, however. <SNIP> It is enough of a powerdown to allow an extra special at a low level, I think. We might consider this, yes. That’s mainly of importance at low levels, when the number of slots is limited; and rather crucial. It could thus be enough, yes. IMHO. Still, that’s treading on precarious ground… I'd prefer a special, since it could throw out the +2/+2 feats. Yes, indeed. Ogrebane’s suggestion seems good. You mean, make it two specials. We'd have to agree on two wordings instead of one... But if you can do it in a simple way, that seems balanced, I don't have anything against the idea of splitting it up. Actually, I meant that my very first opinion (way back in ??) was a combination of both, with unclear borderlines. Which in the end made us drop the whole idea. Now Contrived Casting and Mask Spell are more clearly cut as two different things, and might thus be more easily defined, and agreed upon. Point 1 to 12 : Kept for the other thread, later. And I'd like to be able to get it at first level, because it makes a lot more sense to be able to start learning to cast spells without material components than to suddenly stop using them at higher levels. Ditto But it looks like we're a minority, especially now Thot has crossed over to the dark side.I merely agreed it shouldn’t be set in stone So no I'm going to try to get a special back at level one. Since this would be a powerup at first level, I suggest the following.That’s the spirit, boy ! This nicely resembles the old sorcerer's spell progression, and weakens our alt.sorcerer a little at the even levels and at level one. Yes. Looks good. I didn’t delve in it yet, though. At first level, an extra special to compensate for the loss of the spell slot.Yes I would prefer to fix it at Eschew Materials, of course.Well, no, no more sticking that (or than) can be avoided ConfusedUs : I don't understand why people are thinking that ESM is overpowered. It’s not that it is overpowered by itself. It is that added to other stuff, it powers up a class up to “borderline overpowered”, or at least makes it unfair as compared to the other core class (the PHB Sor that is our Basis first). Hence the discussion about : a) should it be set in stone ? (no, more or less agreeed) b) how can we allow for it to be selected without screwing the PHB Sor ? (current) TC : if you've spent a feat slot on something that'll only make a game-mechanical difference once or twice in your career, you've pretty much wasted that slot. For the standard campaign assumed by the core rules, Eschew really isn't good for much except flavor. By giving it to sorcerers at 1st level, you're not really powering the class up. You're just adding a bit flavor. Thank you. It is partly why I’ll (later in this post) disagree with the new chart of Ogrebane. A delayed progression is OK in my book. Further screwing isn’t. Ogrebane : TANSTAAFL. :confused: here, I don't want all sorcerers to not require M components, unless it was a conscious decision by the player. Yes. I think this point is no more really debated. Now comes the debate : how to allow a special at first level? Do you know what I think is the best thing about this class? For the most part, it is backward compatible (darn close, anyway). It’s real good, yes. See below, although Toughness should stay, if for no other reason than to accomodate the d6 HD crowd (i.e.- shut them up :devil :). Amen ! :angel: if you want ESM to start out, you sacrifice one 1st-level slot you won't get that 1st-level slot back without acquiring Extra Slot sometime later - three people have indicated that starting out with two slots is acceptable, if you get ESM in the bargain Yes for the delayed access, no for the raw ablation. Now, you did this because of the question on the sheer number of specials, don’t you ? It is another debate; IMHO, than the one of affording some at low level without adequate compensation. Also, here's something that might be a suitable replacement for Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, and Persuasive... - Arcane Skill Enhancement [Special] OK, looks good. In 3.5, Eschew costs a feat. Here, it is either a special (after 1st level) or a spell slot (at 1st level), both decidedly cheaper than burning a feat on it. Are we agreeing here? It sure seems that way. Both are cheaper. Still, our specials are supposedly already paid for… Truly, I expressed doubts about it, but, our playtest doesn’t seem to indicate a major difference between any casters, did it ? TC : This is how I feel about Summon Familiar. Lets compromise. Remove both from first level and put in one special slot instead. I’d rather not, if possible, for many reasons. Ogrebane : A wizard gets Scribe Scroll to start, and they also start out with ONE 1st-level slot. The sorcerer gets THREE. And we suggest our alt Sor starts with two, and a weak feat… Could you please all stop posting while I'm writing an answer, please ? It's quite hard to follow.. ;)
Krynus Ogrebane 11-01-03, 12:32 PM	Here's an alternate alternate solution. :smirk: - Class Abilities... see the following table. lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 ¹Summon Familiar 2 Special 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 Special - ¹Summon Familiar: (as the PHB class ability). At 1st character level, you may start the game with the ability to Eschew Sorcerer Materials instead of Summon Familiar (see below). If so, you may choose Summon Familiar as a special at a later level, but the level at which Summon Familiar is gained is considered level 1, for determining a familiar's natural armor adjustment, intelligence, and special abilities.
Thot 11-01-03, 12:35 PM	IMHO, not KISS. I'd rather have only two slots, a fixed SF, and a Special. Is that too much ?
BlaineTog 11-01-03, 12:40 PM	I agree. Scribe Scrolls isn't all that usefull for a sorcerer anyway. Wizards use it to augment their prepared spells w/ they known spells that they don't need all that often. For Sorcerers, if would basically give them a few extra slots, but not really all that many. I am seeing a common vein running through all the disputed specials: situational power. Mask spells isn't usefull all that much, but it could be a lifesaver is certain crucial situations. Likewise with ESM. Most people don't bother with Material components costing less than 1gp farther than "I have SCP, so i should have them." With good reason: the alternative is most definitelly not KISS. I've been playing w/ the 7.02 Alt.Sor for a week or two now. Thus far, the casualy observer would think that I was using the PHB.Sor, and with good reason. For one think, i havn't been in a situation where I needed ESM or Mask Spell. Yesterday, i was playing and used the "Choke" spell several times. I Spell Secreted it earlier for extend (i think) which doubled it's duration from 6 rounds to 12 rounds. You know what? All three spells caster i used it on were dropped by our Samurai/cleric/Air Elementalist in less than 4. My point is: these specials are usufull, ad can be powerful, but they are in no way overpowered or gamebreaking. Besides, if you spot a loophole, why cant we just patch it with "It can't be used in this situation" and give some fluffy reason why? YOu don't have t drop something just because it isn't perfect (or we would all have to drop DnD in its entierty).
Thot 11-01-03, 12:49 PM	I am seeing a common vein running through all the disputed specials: situational power. Mask spells isn't usefull all that much, but it could be a lifesaver is certain crucial situations. Likewise with ESM. Most people don't bother with Material components costing less than 1gp farther than "I have SCP, so i should have them." these specials are usufull, ad can be powerful, but they are in no way overpowered or gamebreaking. Yes, that's it ! Useful in some situations, indeed, but not dangerous. So long as theyare paid for (something we tried to ensure), there's nothing inherently wrong with any of those we've selected so far. If there's, I'm not aware of them, at least...
Frank the Vandal 11-01-03, 06:38 PM	² = Alternately, a player may choose to have her sorcerer start with the ability to Eschew Sorcerer Materials. If so, reduce the number of 1st-level slots by one (two slots at 1st level, three slots at 2nd and 3rd levels, and four slots at 4th level and up). Not very KISS, IMO. It gives you a rather weird spell progression. And in the long run, more powerful than putting ESM at first level, since you could get a higher level slot to compensate, if you wanted. - Arcane Skill Enhancement [Special] : You can use your spells to enhance a skill for a short time. Prerequisites: Ability to cast arcane spells spontaneously. Benefit: You can use spell slots to temporarily increase one of your skill modifiers. To do this, select a particular skill and expend an available spell slot of any level (a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity). You gain a bonus to that skill equal to one plus the slot's level. This is an enhancement bonus with a duration of one minute per caster level. You may only enhance skills that can be used untrained, or in which you have at least one full rank. You may only enhance skills for yourself (you cannot enhance a skill for another individual). If someone uses Detect Magic on an individual under the effects of this ability, they detect a faint aura of transmutation. Nice. But a bit powerful, I think. I'd rather have it apply to one roll. The duration is rather long now. When compared to Guidance, it's much better, especially at high levels. You gain a bonus for multiple minutes instead of just one instant. Comparing it to Moment of Prescience, it's different. MoP grants a +20 bonus on one roll, this ability +8 for, say, 15 minutes. You can make a lot of checks in that time, giving it about the same power, I guess. And if it's the same power as a spell, then for a sorcerer, that's quite an upgrade. ESM vs. Summon Familiar: ESM is useful in some situations, but usually just saves you a pouch. Summon Familiar can be an added risk in some situations, but usually grants you extra abilities. Their relative power depends, as has been said before, on the situation, on the campaign, and mostly on the DM. In general, I'd say SF is a bit more powerful, but I could be mistaken. Also, I'd say ESM is more in flavor for a sorcerer. The general agreement seems to be that it shouldn't be mandatory and that it should be an option at level one, just like SF, so let's go with that. IIRC, It is already compensated by a « stutter » step, at least as far as the number of slots is concerned. Now, if you mean the bang for your buck you get from the advanced slot, well, it’s up to you to decide. It’s only putting on more even footing with the other primary casters, you know ? You’ll find that the PHB chart goes, for example : lvl 3 4 7 4 - 8 5 3 9 6 4 Whereas, the alt.Sor goes : lvl 3 4 7 3 1 8 4 3 9 5 4 Actually, a high Cha sorcerer goes (PHB left, alt second, delayed progression third, high Int Wiz far right) lvl 3 4 lvl 3 4 lvl 3 4 lvl 3 4 7| 5 - 7| 4 2 7| 4 2 7| 3 2 8| 6 4 8| 5 4 8| 5 3 8| 4 3 9| 7 5 9| 6 4 9| 6 4 9| 4 3 The third option is the slightly delayed 12345 progression for spells. The alt. sorcerer is more powerful than the PHB one at odd levels, I think, and about on par with him at even levels, assuming the specials make up for the fact that the maximum number of spells per level stops at 5 instead of 6 (+ bonus spells). With the delayed progression, the he becomes a little worse at even levels (the "strong" levels of the PHB sorcerer), while staying the same (more powerful than the PHB one) at odd levels (the "weak" PHB.sorcerer levels). I think it balances out nicely. When comparing to the wizard, you see that with the delay, at every level the sorcerer has one more slot per level than the wizard for the two highest level spell levels they can use. - ¹Summon Familiar: (as the PHB class ability). At 1st character level, you may start the game with the ability to Eschew Sorcerer Materials instead of Summon Familiar (see below). If so, you may choose Summon Familiar as a special at a later level, but the level at which Summon Familiar is gained is considered level 1, for determining a familiar's natural armor adjustment, intelligence, and special abilities. Even less KISS than the last one, I'm afraid. I don't like it if it matters when I take an ability to calculate how powerful it is. Gives you an extra thing to keep track of. So the suggestion I made last post (which is a page back now, thanks to the heavy debating) still stands: delay spell progression to 12345 and put specials at both level one and two to compensate. ESM is a special, SF may be fixed at level one, or made into a special as well (which is a bit less powerful, since it'd cost you one special or ability, but I think I prefer it).
Krynus Ogrebane 11-02-03, 01:40 AM	RE: Arcane Skill Enhancer v. +2/+2 feats: Originally posted by Thot: Yes, indeed. Ogrebane’s suggestion seems good. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Nice. But a bit powerful, I think. I'd rather have it apply to one roll. The duration is rather long now. When compared to Guidance, it's much better, especially at high levels. You gain a bonus for multiple minutes instead of just one instant. Comparing it to Moment of Prescience, it's different. MoP grants a +20 bonus on one roll, this ability +8 for, say, 15 minutes. You can make a lot of checks in that time, giving it about the same power, I guess. And if it's the same power as a spell, then for a sorcerer, that's quite an upgrade. Thot, thank you. I appreciate it. Frank, don't take this the wrong way, but are you feeling OK? To get a +10 bonus for 20 minutes, the sorcerer would have to convert a 9th-level slot!! I think this might actually be underpowered, but since it's a special, I guess that's a good thing. If you think you can break this ability, post a scenario that would do it. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Not very KISS, IMO. It gives you a rather weird spell progression. And in the long run, more powerful than putting ESM at first level, since you could get a higher level slot to compensate, if you wanted. What's so unKISS about -1? So it looks weird... is it that upsetting to your sense of symmetry? :rolleyes: As for your last sentence, the alt.sorcerer can do this right now. Why don't you say what you really mean: you'd rather not give up another spell slot, especially at low levels, when survivability is key. ~~~ Originally posted by Thot: RE: sorcerers eschewing: Nor does it mean that our alt.Sor should prevent it (which honestly ESM stuck at first would do). That’s what Ogrebane thinks. It’s fair enough, IMHO, so long as we can still take it at first for those of us that wish. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: RE: ESM vs. Summon Familiar: ESM is useful in some situations, but usually just saves you a pouch. Summon Familiar can be an added risk in some situations, but usually grants you extra abilities. Their relative power depends, as has been said before, on the situation, on the campaign, and mostly on the DM. In general, I'd say SF is a bit more powerful, but I could be mistaken. Also, I'd say ESM is more in flavor for a sorcerer. The general agreement seems to be that it shouldn't be mandatory and that it should be an option at level one, just like SF, so let's go with that. (emphases mine) I think you'll like what I have at the end of this post. :) Before you see it, I want to explain a few things. In reference to my "alternate alternate" suggestion, I admittedly rushed to put it on the web, before going to work, so that I could view any feedback on it when I returned. What I did not do is completely work out all the implications and abuses that could be garnered from it. While at work, I pondered these points. As the "alt.alt" stands now... 1) Postponing too long makes a familiar a true liability, instead of merely a perceived one. 2) The double-dip problem is introduced again. Now, bear with me. I've categorized some thoughts that I refer to when considering different things about the alt.sorcerer. THE FLUFF (generally, not absolutely): 1) A wizard spends a lot of time in libraries or his laboratory, adding spells to his book, scribing scrolls, or making items. 2) A sorcerer doesn't do any of these things, because his power is not dependent on any of them. He's a walking Staff of Arcana™, with a slew of charges that replenish themselves every day. THE IN-GAME REALITY (generally, not absolutely): 1) Wizards are self-centered, and not very social, except possibly in the case of guilds, where spells (i.e.- power) are bartered for and exchanged. A large portion of his wealth goes into his spellbook, either adding to it, protecting it, or duplicating it. 2) The sorcerer, OTOH, has no need for any of these things. He has other things to spend his time and money on. 3) Because of this (and other reasons), familiars actually suit a sorcerer more than a wizard, and not only because of the time/money costs. The outcast sorcerer (a very popular character concept), shunned by society, would summon a familiar if only for companionship. 4) Wizards and sorcerers are merely flip sides of the same coin. The archtypical staple of a (primary) arcane spellcaster is the ability to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not). The only questions are: a) is the individual so inclined?, and b) can the individual afford it? THE TWEAK: - Class Abilities... see the following table. lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 ¹Summon Familiar 2 Special 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 Special - ¹Summon Familiar: (as the PHB class ability). As an alternative, a sorcerer may select Eschew Sorcerer Materials, instead of Summon Familiar, at character creation. If she does, the second level special ability for the sorcerer becomes Summon Familiar. This option is not available to characters with levels in another core class. THE DISSECTION: 1) The option to move Summon Familiar to second level (in favor of ESM at first) helps players realize the "innate spellcasting" (developed in adolescence) concept. 2) By leaving Summon Familiar as the "default", we aren't dictating that all sorcerers have no need for material components. In fact, most do use them (although I predict a sudden influx of sorcerers that don't, once we're done :cool: ). 3) Because it costs 100 gp to summon a familiar, it's almost a certainty that a first level character will not be able to afford one right away. Delaying it one level isn't going to break anything. 4) By not allowing the Eschew option to characters above first level, it avoids a possible level-dipping abuse. 5) This also helps in a fluff way, specifically the "latent ability" explanation used by multi-classers (if you're not familiar with it, it is the most common reasoning used by a player looking to multi-class his PC into sorcerer to explain the "sudden development" of spontaneous spellcasting; it is a rather flimsy and lame excuse, maligned with a fair amount of regularity by fans of the sorcerer-as-a-concept). Anyway, if the ability to cast spontaneously is "latent", then the character hasn't used it until now, and must "work harder" to develop any special abilities (i.e.- he must wait until second level to select a special). 6) The above Class Abilities table has eight specials for the alt.sorcerer... Summon Familiar and seven of your choice. There are at least three of us who suspect/fear an over-all power-up for the class (in v8.0, when there were eight points where a choice was made). I feel that seven would quell that fear. 7) By specifying that "characters with levels in another core class" do not have the ESM option, it allows the DM to use the ESM option when adding alt.sorcerer levels to monsters ("monster classes" are not core), without bending any rules to suit his needs.
ConfusedUs 11-02-03, 03:07 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane I want to focus on this for a second. Does your DM have you declare exactly what M component you have pulled? If not, you have way more latitude than you deserve. I left out a key sentence there: If I know what spell I'm on casting next, I have the materials in hand. Quote by Ogerbane quote: by ConfusedUs Captured: Many components are common, so it's possible that the caster may find an improvisational component. Not likely, but possible. Otherwise, a captured, weaponless group is probably screwed anyway. Fighter, rogue, and sorcerer, all screwed. Grappled: I always pull out my components for my next spell, if I know what I want, with a wizard (or sorc if we had to use M components) as a free action as soon as the first is cast. The components are always in hand. And a smart caster shouldn't be getting grappled in the first place. They can blur/mirror image/displace/fly/invisible for a reason. A caster who wants to get within 60' of a fight should be protected, or he's ASKING for trouble. Stolen Gear: My wizards (my sorcs would too, if my DM actually made me use components.) use their packs for a pillow, which contains their components and spellbook. That's not gonna get stolen either waking or sleeping, especially since its a 'backpack' type pack. If it does happen to get stolen, the sorc's already 1000x better off than the wizard, as he doesn't have a spellbook to rely on. Not all spells have a M component anyway. All of which is DM-dependent. YMMV. How is all of that DM-Dependent? What role does the DM have in using your pack for a pillow, or ordering said pack with an extra strap to prevent 'purse-snatching'? The ONLY DM-dependant thing up there is the improvised M components, and notice the word 'possible' in the same sentence. Grappling is partially DM dependent, but if the caster is flying, invisible, blurred, or otherwise obscured, there's a darn good chance the enemy WON'T be able to grapple the mage. I am seeing a common vein running through all the disputed specials: situational power. Mask spells isn't usefull all that much, but it could be a lifesaver is certain crucial situations. This is very true. All this debate over abilities that will rarely, if ever, cause a dramatic effect on gameplay. Why not simply give the option of ESM or Summon Familiar at first level? Familiar is more powerful, but some people like the flavor of ESM.
Frank the Vandal 11-02-03, 04:32 AM	Frank, don't take this the wrong way, but are you feeling OK? To get a +10 bonus for 20 minutes, the sorcerer would have to convert a 9th-level slot!! I think this might actually be underpowered, but since it's a special, I guess that's a good thing. Well, maybe I was a bit tired at the time... ;) It is less powerful at high spell levels, sorry. What I had a problem with was that you were basically granting him an extra Spell-ish thing at every spell level. For a sorcerer with his limited list, that's quite nice. But it should add something you actually want to use, and for one roll, you would hardly ever feel the need to actually use a high level slot. So I could go with it. It's certainly way more fun than the +2/+2 feats, but I think it's also a bit more powerful. I'm not sure, though. Depends on how often you use those skills in a campaign... If you made it one minute flat I'd be completely convinced, but if you leave it as it is now, I won't complain unless I come up with a game-breaking example. What's so unKISS about -1? So it looks weird... is it that upsetting to your sense of symmetry? As for your last sentence, the alt.sorcerer can do this right now. Why don't you say what you really mean: you'd rather not give up another spell slot, especially at low levels, when survivability is key. Yes, I have a very strong sense of symmetry. :) Last sentence: Well, I'm not opposed to giving up a spell slot at low levels, since I've suggested something like that (at least for first level) as well. And the alt. sorcerer now has no way to swap a first level slot for a higher level slot now, I think. In your scenario, I could take ESM at level one, then take Extra slot later on for, say, a level two slot. Swapping a level one slot for a level two slot by taking ESM at first. THE FLUFF Agreed 1) Wizards are self-centered, and not very social, except possibly in the case of guilds, where spells (i.e.- power) are bartered for and exchanged. A large portion of his wealth goes into his spellbook, either adding to it, protecting it, or duplicating it. 2) The sorcerer, OTOH, has no need for any of these things. He has other things to spend his time and money on. 3) Because of this (and other reasons), familiars actually suit a sorcerer more than a wizard, and not only because of the time/money costs. The outcast sorcerer (a very popular character concept), shunned by society, would summon a familiar if only for companionship. 4) Wizards and sorcerers are merely flip sides of the same coin. The archtypical staple of a (primary) arcane spellcaster is the ability to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not). The only questions are: a) is the individual so inclined?, and b) can the individual afford it? 1) How social wizards are is more fluff than game mechanics, I think. You could play a very social wizard if you wanted, but usually this impression is correct. Agreed on where he spends his time and money, though. 2) True. 3) In D&D sorcerers are always the high Cha characters, supposedly easy to get along with. So the social sorcerer who prefers being around other people and being the leader for a party is just as viable a concept as the outcast, perhaps even moreso. from PHB Since a sorcerer often has a powerful presence that gives him a way with people, he may serve as the "face" for an adventuring party, negotiationg, bargaining, and speaking for others. 4) True, and I don't want to remove the option Summon Familiar entirely, but I don't see any reason why the sorcerer would have to learn a day-long ritual he's never going to use. So make it optional. In my opinion, ESM fits a sorcerer just as well as SF does, and I think they're about equal in power (and that's including the cost of actually summoning the familiar). I'm not sure, but I think that's what most people think... So they should be implemented in the same way, I think. THE TWEAK Well, it's getting better. ;) 1) The option to move Summon Familiar to second level (in favor of ESM at first) helps players realize the "innate spellcasting" (developed in adolescence) concept. I assume you mean the option of ESM at first? Then yes. 2) By leaving Summon Familiar as the "default", we aren't dictating that all sorcerers have no need for material components. In fact, most do use them (although I predict a sudden influx of sorcerers that don't, once we're done). You aren't doing that either if you just allow a choice. 3) Because it costs 100 gp to summon a familiar, it's almost a certainty that a first level character will not be able to afford one right away. Delaying it one level isn't going to break anything. Well, you should get your hands on wealth equal to about 900 gp during first level (standard gold at level 2), so it's quite possible to summon during first level, actually. But I agree it isn't going to break anything. 4) By not allowing the Eschew option to characters above first level, it avoids a possible level-dipping abuse. True, but normally a class functions the same way for someone taking it later. This also messes up normal multiclassing, it's a bit weird, and I don't think Eschew is such a big problem for level-dipping. (You still haven't told us what 1st level spells with M components you're afraid of. And for the level-dipper, not being able to cast spells for a moment because of lost components is not that big a problem, since he has other skills.) 5) This also helps in a fluff way, specifically the "latent ability" explanation used by multi-classers (if you're not familiar with it, it is the most common reasoning used by a player looking to multi-class his PC into sorcerer to explain the "sudden development" of spontaneous spellcasting; it is a rather flimsy and lame excuse, maligned with a fair amount of regularity by fans of the sorcerer-as-a-concept). Anyway, if the ability to cast spontaneously is "latent", then the character hasn't used it until now, and must "work harder" to develop any special abilities (i.e.- he must wait until second level to select a special). Ok, but not really necessary IMO. 6) The above Class Abilities table has eight specials for the alt.sorcerer... Summon Familiar and seven of your choice. There are at least three of us who suspect/fear an over-all power-up for the class (in v8.0, when there were eight points where a choice was made). I feel that seven would quell that fear. True 7) By specifying that "characters with levels in another core class" do not have the ESM option, it allows the DM to use the ESM option when adding alt.sorcerer levels to monsters ("monster classes" are not core), without bending any rules to suit his needs. [b]Yes, of course it shouldn't apply differently to races with LA or monster HD[b] As I said, the implementation of SF and ESM should be equal (symmetrical if you like :)). So how about the choice between the two at level one (no default), and a special at two (possibly being SF)?
Thot 11-02-03, 07:56 AM	Frank : Not very KISS, IMO. It gives you a rather weird spell progression. And in the long run, more powerful than putting ESM at first level, since you could get a higher level slot to compensate, if you wanted. Indeed. The third option is the slightly delayed 12345 progression for spells. With the delayed progression, the alt.Sor becomes a little worse at even levels (the "strong" levels of the PHB sorcerer), while staying the same (more powerful than the PHB one) at odd levels (the "weak" PHB.sorcerer levels). I think it balances out nicely. I concur. It is a viable solution, if we decide to adopt it. delay spell progression to 12345 and put specials at both level one and two to compensate. ESM is a special, SF may be fixed at level one, or made into a special as well That IMHO is a good solution. The potential abuse if we grant two specials at first level, and one at second (as was once the case), is in case of one level dip, to take two toughness “specials”. But if we further delay the progression, I hardly see who would be interested if it weren’t for the long run. Ogrebane : If you think you can break this ability, post a scenario that would do it. I’m searching, but so far… Arcane trickster, maybe. Or s/t during downtime (crafting items or some such). Or bards ? with perform ? So it looks weird... is it that upsetting to your sense of symmetry? Well, yes. I admit/ ;) Why don't you say what you really mean: you'd rather not give up another spell slot, especially at low levels, when survivability is key :confused: Not too sure what you’re referring too, here. As for me, I think indeed that delaying the access to a slot at low level (when they’re crucial) is indeed punishment enough. I don’t see the need to remove it once you’re a higher level, when a first level slot hardly makes a difference. I think you'll like what I have at the end of this post. I like. Which doesn’t mean I haven’t further complaints, of course… :D See later. 1) Postponing too long makes a familiar a true liability, instead of merely a perceived one.Indeed 2) The double-dip problem is introduced again. IMHO, a further delayed access to slots solves this. You go Sor mainly for them, not for “specials” that’ll prove useful only on the long run. Even if some of those specials could levy the price you have to pay (read hp) for the slots. The Fluff : No problem there. The In Game reality : Overall yes. As you said, it’s generally, not absolutely. The Tweak : As an alternative, a sorcerer may select Eschew Sorcerer Materials, instead of Summon Familiar, at character creation. If she does, the second level special ability for the sorcerer becomes Summon Familiar. This option is not available to characters with levels in another core class. What would you do with ESM ? It would remain a special, wouldn’t it ? If so, yes, I like it. I have reservations, of course, but I don’t think they’re good enough, in light of what’s already been said. My main one would be, as a good-will gesture, to suggest relegating SF to “special” status, but the consequent possible abuses are known… Still I don’t know if they’re that important… Humm… The Dissection : 1, 2, 3, 6(I’d like to have a proof though), 7 : Yes. 4 : I think you overestimate that risk. See the list of first level spells and components that I did. Besides, as I said, by delaying the progression, you cut the thing that interests most people who would dip, without penalizing too much those who are in for the long run (notably because their high score will go to Cha, and partially make up for lacking slots). 5 : Yes, but this is an arbitrary interpretation from us. Frank : Arcane Skill Enhancement : If you made it one minute flat I'd be completely convinced, but if you leave it as it is now, I won't complain unless I come up with a game-breaking example. Two things : it’s an enhancement bonus which is quite frequent and doesn’t stack. If we made last 1mn/Spell level, would it be better for you? Yes, I have a very strong sense of symmetry. I have to second that. ;) Well, I'm not opposed to giving up a spell slot at low levels, since I've suggested something like that (at least for first level) as well. {OK with that.} And the alt. sorcerer now has no way to swap a first level slot for a higher level slot now, I think. In your scenario, I could take ESM at level one, then take Extra slot later on for, say, a level two slot. Swapping a level one slot for a level two slot by taking ESM at first. I’m very unsure as to what you mean. It was a flat out loss that Ogrebane first suggested. So the social sorcerer who prefers being around other people and being the leader for a party is just as viable a concept as the outcast, perhaps even moreso. I would disagree if I felt it mattered. So long as no concept suffers, we’re doing fine. I don't want to remove the option Summon Familiar entirely, but I don't see any reason why the sorcerer would have to learn a day-long ritual he's never going to use. So make it optional. Well, it’s a hot debate, but in the end, maybe putting it back as a special would be fairer, as far as some are concerned. Even if IMC I’ll let it mandatory (at least as an ability). Let’s see the consequences of such a choice : a) A special is freed. b) Sorcerers no more can pretend to have a liability as a burden (as compared to Wizards) c) Dipping is made more attractive (see above) None of it sounds irresolvable (balance-wise), but some would cringe nonetheless. In my opinion, ESM fits a sorcerer just as well as SF does, and I think they're about equal in power (and that's including the cost of actually summoning the familiar). I'm not sure, but I think that's what most people think... So they should be implemented in the same way, I think. In the end, maybe that would be ideal. But we kept the Familiar stuck not to give the feeling we wanted to screw the Wizard... And that feelin would be back… True, but normally a class functions the same way for someone taking it later. This also messes up normal multiclassing, it's a bit weird, and I don't think Eschew is such a big problem for level-dipping. So far, I agree on the principles. As I said, the implementation of SF and ESM should be equal (symmetrical if you like :) ). So how about the choice between the two at level one (no default), and a special at two (possibly being SF)? It would even be better IMHO if we could prove that a Special at first, and another at second is viable. It may not be (though I suspect/hope it is). That would the most elegant solution. It could IMHO be made viable by delaying the slot progression (now remains the question of the Wiz…). Per day / Known level 0 1 2 1 3/4 2/2 - Special 2 4/5 3/2 - Special 3 5/5 4/3 1/- - 4 5/6 5/3 2/1 Spell Evolution Now, I’ve implemented both the specials and the delayed spell progression. What do you think of it, especially with respect to : a) Viability in itself ? b) Desirability as compared to the PHB Sor ? c) Desirability as compared to he PHB Wiz ? d) Potential of abuses as far dipping is concerned ? NOTE : I don’t have time now for the MS / CC debate, and it may be the same tomorrow, but I don’t forget them yet, not in the least.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-02-03, 12:13 PM	Originally posted by ConfusedUs: How is all of that DM-Dependent? What role does the DM have in using your pack for a pillow, or ordering said pack with an extra strap to prevent 'purse-snatching'? The ONLY DM-dependant thing up there is the improvised M components, and notice the word 'possible' in the same sentence. Grappling is partially DM dependent, but if the caster is flying, invisible, blurred, or otherwise obscured, there's a darn good chance the enemy WON'T be able to grapple the mage. Captured: it is up to the DM to determine was is lying around you, for a possible improvised M component. Grappled: it is up to the DM to determine what the NPC's do, and how many there are. Stolen Gear: it is up to the DM to determine what the NPC's do. RE: "uses pack as a pillow"... it's not stealing when you have been coup de grace'd in your sleep... it's looting. :smirk: My point is that the DM controls everything that you do not. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: RE: Arcane Skill Enhancement: If you made it one minute flat I'd be completely convinced, but if you leave it as it is now, I won't complain unless I come up with a game-breaking example. Fair enough. I eagerly await the devastating blow that cleaves it in twain. ;) RE:THE FLUFF: 3) In D&D sorcerers are always the high Cha characters, supposedly easy to get along with. So the social sorcerer who prefers being around other people and being the leader for a party is just as viable a concept as the outcast, perhaps even moreso. True, but being an outcast doesn't mean that the person is repugnant, only that society knows what he is, and doesn't want "his kind" around. He's still a person of uncommon personal magnetism and strength of character. Originally posted by Thot: What would you do with ESM ? It would remain a special, wouldn’t it ? If so, yes, I like it. Yes, it would still be a special if not chosen at 1st. So the level-dipper would have to go two levels to grab it instead of one, which means he probably gave up something pretty decent in his other class(es). The Dissection : 1, 2, 3, 6(I’d like to have a proof though), 7 : Yes. 4 : I think you overestimate that risk. See the list of first level spells and components that I did. Besides, as I said, by delaying the progression, you cut the thing that interests most people who would dip, without penalizing too much those who are in for the long run (notably because their high score will go to Cha, and partially make up for lacking slots). 5 : Yes, but this is an arbitrary interpretation from us. 4) Possibly, but better to be safe than sorry. 5) Yep. :D RE: Arcane Skill Enhancement: Two things : it’s an enhancement bonus which is quite frequent and doesn’t stack. If we made last 1mn/Spell level, would it be better for you [Frank]? It is indeed an enhancement bonus (rather than a circumstance bonus, as you had it, Thot). I'd prefer to leave the bonus tied to the spell level, the duration tied to the caster level. Thot:Frank: I don't want to remove the option Summon Familiar entirely, but I don't see any reason why the sorcerer would have to learn a day-long ritual he's never going to use. So make it optional. Well, it’s a hot debate, but in the end, maybe putting it back as a special would be fairer, as far as some are concerned. I agree. It is an archtypical staple. The option is whether to exercise that ritual at all. Now, I’ve implemented both the specials and the delayed spell progression. What do you think of it, especially with respect to : a) Viability in itself ? b) Desirability as compared to the PHB Sor ? c) Desirability as compared to he PHB Wiz ? d) Potential of abuses as far dipping is concerned ? a) Viable, maybe. Balanced, no (it's weaker). b) Not as desirable, because it's weaker. c) Not as desirable, because a specialist wizard has just as many at 1st. d) The double-dip illustrated by Evanta (I believe) of a fighter grabbing two Toughness specials, three extremely useful spells, and +3 to Will saves, and only losing +1 BAB and +1 Fort is a huge abuse. If it's a rogue doing this, it's even worse (he actually gets more hit points than he would have for staying in rogue).
BlaineTog 11-02-03, 12:35 PM	So nix Toughness. But this is very heartening! May the fine-tuning commense!
Frank the Vandal 11-02-03, 02:17 PM	Thot: On Arcane Skill Enhancement : Two things : it’s an enhancement bonus which is quite frequent and doesn’t stack. If we made last 1mn/Spell level, would it be better for you? Would be better, I think. Since you're not actually casting a spell, I think it's a little weird if caster level matters. But as I said, I could also go with the 1 min/CL solution. In the end, maybe that {turning SF into a special}would be ideal. But we kept the Familiar stuck not to give the feeling we wanted to screw the Wizard... And that feelin would be back… You could also say the Wizard gets it automatically, and the sorcerer has to spend a special on it. It depends on the relative power of the rest of the class (which may be tweaked by spell progression and amount of specials) which interpretation is better. Per day / Known level 0 1 2 1 3/4 2/2 - Special 2 4/5 3/2 - Special 3 5/5 4/3 1/- - 4 5/6 5/3 2/1 Spell Evolution Now, I’ve implemented both the specials and the delayed spell progression. What do you think of it, especially with respect to : a) Viability in itself ? b) Desirability as compared to the PHB Sor ? c) Desirability as compared to he PHB Wiz ? d) Potential of abuses as far dipping is concerned ? a) Seems pretty good at first sight, but comparison to other possibilities gives more information. b) In general, it's about the same desirability, I think, except for level 1. Level 1: Definately weaker than PHB Level 2: About on par: a special for a first level slot. Level 3: Definately stronger than PHB.sorc Level 4: A little weaker. Steps 3 and 4 continue for odd and even levels. Note that the even levels were always the strong ones for a PHB sorcerer. c) This one is a bit more tricky: differences between the two classes are bigger. Level 1: About on par, I think (Extra Spell slot <-> Scribe Scroll) Level 2: Sorcerer a bit more powerful: Extra special Level 3: Wizard more powerful: Knows 2nd level spells Level 4: Sorcerer more powerful: he now has enough spells to make effective use of his spontaneous casting, and might even be able to do some metamagic on the fly. Don't really know how this continues, though it seems pretty balanced. Playtesting may help. d) A one level dip is made less desirable, since at first level the alt. sorcerer is weaker than the PHB one. A two level dip may cause trouble, but I doubt it. The specials that are interesting to a level dipper are, IMHO: - Eschew Sorcerer Materials, but there are very few first level spells that have M components anyway, so not unbalanced. - The +2/+2 feats, which I hate anyway, but again, not really unbalanced, since the gain isn't especially high. (Doesn't serve as a prereq. for anything, for example) - Toughness, which I hate anyway. But 3 hitpoints isn't that great at higher levels (and for it to be called level-dipping, I'd say you needed at least 4 other class levels) Possible solution: Make the special at first a choice between ESM and SF. Rules out one Toughness special. I don't think it's necessary, however. Krynus: a) Viable, maybe. Balanced, no (it's weaker). b) Not as desirable, because it's weaker. c) Not as desirable, because a specialist wizard has just as many at 1st. d) The double-dip illustrated by Evanta (I believe) of a fighter grabbing two Toughness specials, three extremely useful spells, and +3 to Will saves, and only losing +1 BAB and +1 Fort is a huge abuse. If it's a rogue doing this, it's even worse (he actually gets more hit points than he would have for staying in rogue). b) At each even level above 2nd, it's actually more powerful, I think. Do you disagree here? c) Hmmm, I compared to a normal wizard, but I'm assuming throughout this discussion that a specialist is in most cases on par with a normal wizard. d) The fighter doing this will lose a feat, +1 BAB, +1 Fort, +2/3 Ref (on average), will delay his fighter feats (Weapon Spec and feats like that), must have a Cha of at least 11, gains three spells that he casts at CL 2, and has trouble casting in armor. A rogue doing this will gain 4 HP (on average) and spellcasting with less trouble about casting in armor (probably light armor, while a fighter usually has medium or heavy), but will lose +1/2 BAB, +1d6 Sneak attack, +2/3 Trap sense, 12 skill points, and will delay his rogue special abilities or Improved Uncanny Dodge. I don't really see the problem. If you don't dip, the few spells you learn are probably available through potions, or another arcane caster in the party (buy him some wands or scrolls if you want). And you can keep doing what you're good at (fighting, sneak attacking, whatever). And if you still think it's too much, listen to BlaineTog: So nix Toughness. :devil:
Krynus Ogrebane 11-03-03, 01:59 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: RE: duration of Arcane Skill Enhancement at 1 min/spell level instead: Would be better, I think. Since you're not actually casting a spell, I think it's a little weird if caster level matters. But as I said, I could also go with the 1 min/CL solution. I have something a little different that I came up with too. - Arcane Skill Enhancement [Special] : You can use your arcane spells to temporarily increase your skills. Benefit: You can use an available spell slot to gain a temporary bonus to one skill. This is an enhancement bonus that lasts for one round per caster level. The bonus gained is equal to double the slot level, plus two. Converting a spell slot into a skill bonus is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity. You choose the skill you want to enhance at the time the spell slot is converted. This skill must be one that can be used untrained, or in which you have two or more ranks. You may only enhance skills for yourself (you cannot enhance a skill for another individual). If someone uses Detect Magic on an individual under the effects of this ability, they detect a faint aura of transmutation. Special: This ability is limited to sorcerer spell slots only. Multiclass sorcerers cannot enhance skills with another class' spell slots. One-tenth of the duration, double the ranks required for use with trained skills, but the bonus is doubled, compared to the other idea. You could also say the Wizard gets it automatically, and the sorcerer has to spend a special on it. You may have missed what I said in another post. I'll repeat it... "The archtypical staple of a (primary) arcane spellcaster is the ability to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not)." This very point is not even debatable, except in your particular game (i.e.- a house rule). Just ask Talcoram. :angel: RE: Thot's progression: b) At each even level above 2nd, it's actually more powerful, I think. Do you disagree here? Yes, I disagree. Using the 12345 progression, ALL even levels above 2nd become weaker than both the PHB.sorcerer AND the ALT.sorcerer, in any of it's previous versions... and that's aside from the blatant double-dipping multi-class abuse potential that having wide-open specials at levels 1 & 2 encourages. Summon Familiar has to be gained at either 1st (default) or 2nd (grudgingly) to account for the archtype and curtail double-dipping. And if you still think it's too much, listen to BlaineTog: So nix Toughness. :devil: Apparently you missed something else. Observe... me: Toughness should stay, if for no other reason than to accomodate the d6 HD crowd (i.e.- shut them up :devil: ). Thot: Amen! :angel: ~~~ Sorry, Thot. I forgot to address this one. TANSTAAFL :confused: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
BlaineTog 11-03-03, 02:15 AM	Just a suggestion. I know it was to placate the d6 ppl, but... i dunno. TANSTAAFL? Oh, yes there is! For the 1st 18 years of your life, and every Halloween (and every meal after for a week) :devil:
Krynus Ogrebane 11-03-03, 02:20 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog TANSTAAFL? Oh, yes there is! For the 1st 18 years of your life, and every Halloween (and every meal after for a week) :devil: Har! You didn't do chores as a kid? Were you born with a silver spoon in your mouth? :D Some people have all the luck!
BlaineTog 11-03-03, 04:15 AM	Ha ha, very funny. Do I really have to go digging through legal document to find the law that saws you have to give your children adequate food, shelter, clothing, and education, especially when we all know it's there? I didn't think so. But Halloween is still unrefuteable proof :D. Merry Christmas everybody!
Thot 11-03-03, 11:22 AM	Ogrebane : {ESM}Yes, it would still be a special if not chosen at 1st. So the level-dipper would have to go two levels to grab it instead of one I thought I had proved that ESM was no risk, as far as dips are concerned ? Weren’t you convinced ? Toughness could be more of a risk, IMHO, since some could see it as gaining some spellcasting without losing too much hp. Even then I think it’s not that much of a risk, and I’ll try to prove it later. {You : By not allowing the Eschew option to characters above first level, it avoids a possible level-dipping abuse. Me : risk overestimated} 4) Possibly, but better to be safe than sorry. Then you’ll have no qualms about the delayed slot access, if it comes to that. Right ? I'd prefer to leave the bonus tied to the spell level, the duration tied to the caster level. As you wish. I agree. It is an archtypical staple {SF}. The option is whether to exercise that ritual at all. I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting to put SF as a special, to accommodate the “no familiar” crowd. I understand your statement as “they all have it. Their choice is whether to use it or not”. Which, the more I think about it, is quite possibly unfair (same goes for the Wiz, btw). a) Viable, maybe. Balanced, no (it's weaker). better safe than sorry ? Anyway, is it just a matter of tinkering with the spell’s chart ? b) Not as desirable, because it's weaker. Could be amended. Besides, it should then creates no more dipping risks than the PHB one. c) Not as desirable, because a specialist wizard has just as many at 1st.Your opinion. It then comes down to spontaneous casting/prepared... The double-dip illustrated by Evanta (I believe) of a fighter grabbing two Toughness specials, three extremely useful {dubious, IMHO} spells, and +3 to Will saves, and only losing +1 BAB and +1 Fort {and a Feat} is a huge abuse. If it's a rogue doing this, it's even worse (he actually gets more hit points than he would have for staying in rogue). {not so again, IMHO} Apart from True Strike (though there’s a Focus) and Feather Fall, all the spells I listed do have a S component, meaning that their use is limited to a Fighter, IMHO. I guess that 2/3 True Strike a day don’t exactly break the class. As for the rogue, he does indeed give up other abilities. Hp is not the only criteria to take into account : abilities gained through multiclassing are useful only if applicable. For memory, here’s my list of spells that are likely to be selected when multiclassing. A rogue indeed may be more interested in Obscuring Mist, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall or Jump than a Fighter. But I don’t think that those abilities would really break the game, since their scope is limited, and they quickly grow rather weak (if situationaly handy) as level increase. As such, I think we’ll have to do the math of what’s gained and lost, and compare. I don’t think we’ll find multiclassing in the alt.Sor much more desirable than the core one. If we grant less slots with the alt.Sor, ASF becomes more of an issue (and most multiclasser wear one). It’s roughly offset by the “special” gain, be it Extra Spell or Toughness or Arcane Skill Enhancement. I’d say on first sight they’re about on par. Shield : VS Grease : VSM (1 rd/lvl) Mount : VSM Obscuring Mist : VS (1mn/lvl) SM 1 : VSF (+ last only 1 round/lvl) True Strike : VF Sleep : VSM (though it sooo doesn't scale... and Will negates) Burning Hands : VS Magic Missile : VS Shocking Grasp : VS Color Spray : VSM (Will negates) Cause Fear : VS Chill Touch : VS Ray of Enfeeblement : VS Enlarge Person : VSM (1min/lvl) Expeditious Retreat : VS (1mn/lvl) Feather Fall : V Jump : VSM (1min/lvl) Reduce Person : VSM (1min/lvl, Fort negates) Frank : {SF} You could also say the Wizard gets it automatically, and the sorcerer has to spend a special on it. It depends on the relative power of the rest of the class (which may be tweaked by spell progression and amount of specials) [/i]which interpretation is better.[/i] Err… Not too sure what you mean, there. And the Wiz gets it automatically, while we’re pondering indeed putting it as a “special” for the Sor. Thus, the Sor would have to spend a special on it indeed, if we elect not to fix it at first/second level. Seems pretty good at first sight, but comparison to other possibilities gives more information. Will do ASAP. In general, it's about the same desirability, I think, except for level 1 {Sor}. Level 1: Definately weaker than PHB Then we can fine tune it, if we agree that’s what we want (a special at first and second level). For info, here comes the difference between both the PHB Sor, and the alt.Sor (delayed progression): Difference in Slots Per day (since Known are the same) Level 0* 1 2 Special 1 -2 -1 0 S 2 -2 -1 0 S 3 -1 -1 1 0 Or seen otherwise, still in slots, PHB on the left, alt. On the right. Level 0* 1 2 Special 1 5/3 3/2 -/- -/S 2 6/4 4/3 -/- -/S 3 6/5 5/4 -/1 -/- (*) Note : that for cantrips, you add your CHA modificator to your number of slots available, so you’ll usually have more cantrips in the end. Let’s just not count them, then. By what you and Ogrebane tell me, you get on par with the PHB Sor only when you hit your second Special at level 2… Before, you’re weaker. So, I infer that at first level, a one level slot is worth more than a special (the special would then be paid for). I think we all agree that at first level, a crossbow bolt is usually as efficient in a fight as any spell available (very roughly). Hence the lost slot does not compromise the viability of the alt.Sor at first level, while still going by our “no power-up” policy. A one level dip is made less desirable, since at first level the alt. sorcerer is weaker than the PHB one. two level dip may cause trouble, but I doubt it. Thank you. I hope further analysis will prove us right. BTW, we don’t have to delay all the chart. By delaying only the first level spell progression, we should solve the dip issue, without compromising the alt.Sor at mid-high level. Possible solution: Make the special at first a choice between ESM and SF. Rules out one Toughness special. I don't think it's necessary, however. Neither do I. I don't really see the problem. If you don't dip, the few spells you learn are probably available through potions, or another arcane caster in the party (buy him some wands or scrolls if you want). And you can keep doing what you're good at (fighting, sneak attacking, whatever). Ditto. Ogrebane : One-tenth of the duration, double the ranks required for use with trained skills, but the bonus is doubled, compared to the other idea. First, it’s less KISS. Second, I think it’s more abusable (being more powerful) than the first one (Arcane trickster, tumble, flanking and Skeak Attack). « The archtypical staple of a (primary) arcane spellcaster is the ability to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not). »This very point is not even debatable, except in your particular game I understand it as : “I will not stand putting SF as a Special, especially because it means that there would be Sorcerers without one, which is unfair to Wizards”. Right ? I thought you no more defended that very position, and were mainly concerned by the possible abuses of two level dipping (that I understood as implicit consideration of SF=special) ? Well, while it’s right it’s screwing the Wiz, and while I keep on thinking that a Familiar is close to a must-have, I have to say that if we could accommodate the “no familiar” crowd by putting it as a raw special, I wouldn’t mind one bit, as for me. aside from the blatant double-dipping multi-class abuse potential that having wide-open specials at levels 1 & 2 encourages. Sorry, but so far I don’t see it as so blatant. Summon Familiar has to be gained at either 1st (default) or 2nd (grudgingly) to account for the archtype and curtail double-dipping. OK, I see I was right above, and wrong before. My bad. Err… double dipping will be dealt with in due time (if it hasn’t already). As for the archtype, well, we have to allow for it, that’s for sure. Now, going as far as to make it mandatory when we could have a nice alternative, that could please everybody, is perhaps a bit too “straight”, too “rigid”. The archtype is the Wiz, and we want the Sor to be not so close to the Wiz, at least in some respects. The respect I’d choose to differ from, would be the components, other would choose the familiar, other something else.. Besides, if the Wiz is too strict about SF, then the Wiz should be amended, but we shouldn’t make the same design mistake for the Sor. Don’t know if I’m clear ? convincing ? We could let a blank special, and say that we advise to make it SF if Wiz cringes too much in the campaign… Apparently you missed something else. Observe... Yes. I’ll ban it IMC probably, but regardless, if we can keep it in this debate, so much the better. Thank you for TANSTAAFL. I would never ever have guessed otherwise. Now, if (when) I did any real big mistake, blame my lack of sleep ! Very tired I am... EDIT - How the hell do you manage to get your charts aligned ?:looloo: :whatsthis
Frank the Vandal 11-03-03, 04:11 PM	One-tenth of the duration, double the ranks required for use with trained skills, but the bonus is doubled, compared to the other idea. A lot more powerful, I think. And a lot more abusable. I preferred the previous one. "The archtypical staple of a (primary) arcane spellcaster is the ability to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not)." This very point is not even debatable, except in your particular game (i.e.- a house rule). It's certainly debatable. I'm not sure where to look up archetypical statements, but if you look at DnD, the Wizard was the only one with a familiar until 3ed, since the sorcerer didn't exist. And the 3.0/3.5 sorcerer is the one we are changing here. Personally, I think the familiar fits the wizard better than the sorcerer. Partly because it's a day-long ritual, partly because I think it's more fitting for someone who prefers to spend his time with books rather than with people, partly because I'd like to make the sorcerer different from the wizard. All subjective arguments, and personal, so I don't think we'll get to an agreement on this one. However, I'm not sure what the problem is with making it a special. It'd probably the most versatile special of them all, making it rather attractive. With a bit of fine tuning in other areas, we should be able to make it balanced. Yes, I disagree. Using the 12345 progression, ALL even levels above 2nd become weaker than both the PHB.sorcerer AND the ALT.sorcerer, in any of it's previous versions... Oops, sorry. :embarrass I meant odd levels, of course. Confused the wizard with the sorcerer... TANSTAAFL Wow, learned something new! :P Err… Not too sure what you mean, there. And the Wiz gets it automatically, while we’re pondering indeed putting it as a “special” for the Sor. Thus, the Sor would have to spend a special on it indeed, if we elect not to fix it at first/second level. Just putting in another way of looking at it. Getting it automatically is not a drawback at all, if the rest of the classes are balanced to eachother. In other words, you can balance turning SF into a special by changing the sorcerer in other areas, if you're concerned about the relative power. For info, here comes the difference between both the PHB Sor, and the alt.Sor (delayed progression): Nice breakdown. Allow me to rephrase. Level 1: alt.sor sacrifices one spell slot for one special Level 2: alt.sor sacrifices one spell slot for two specials Level 3: alt.sor bumps one spell slot up one level and gains two specials extra, plus he has the possibility of bonus 2nd level spells. Level 4: alt.sor sacrifices a first and second level slot for two specials (assuming continued delayed progression) If you'd be able to take Extra Slot at those levels, Level 1 would be perfectly on par, and level 2 and 3 more (too?) powerful. Since you can't, level one is a little bit weaker, but not even a full spell slot, so it's not as much as I thought. The special and the probable extra cantrip nearly make up for it. Second level is easily on par, I think, perhaps a slight advantage for our alt.sor. At level 3, the alt.sor is obviously more powerful (but level three was probably the weakest level of the PHB sorcerer, so I don't have a problem with that). At level four, the alt.sor falls behind again, leveling the advantage he gained at three. So I don't have a problem with the first four levels, though level one is rather weak. (Though still on par with a wizard, I think) Now I'd like to look at higher levels. I'll assume delayed progression again. Difference in Slots Per day (since Known are the same) Level| lower n n+1 Specials ----------------------------------------------------- 2n-1 | -1/level -1 +1* About n-1 Specials 2 | -1/level -1 -1 About n-1 Specials Or seen otherwise, still in slots, PHB on the left, alt. On the right. Level| lower n n+1 Specials ----------------------------------------------------- 2n-1 | -1/level 4/3 0/1* About n-1 Specials 2 | -1/level 5/4 3/2 About n-1 Specials * : Note that bonus spells may apply. I hope this is a bit clear. It's the same for every set of two levels, so I didn't specify the exact level, just used an n to indicate spell level. I'll assume the specials make up for any lost slot where the PHB sorcerer has 6 slots, and the alt.sorcerer 5 (and I actually think they're a bit more powerful than that). Then the alt.sorcerer is more powerful at odd levels (2n-1) (especially in the case of a bonus (n+1)th level spell, but the PHB sorcerer is more powerful at even levels (2n). Personally, I think it balances out nicely.
mellowship 11-04-03, 04:12 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Arcane Skill Enhancement [Special] : You can use your arcane spells to temporarily increase your skills. Benefit: You can use an available spell slot to gain a temporary bonus to one skill. This is an enhancement bonus that lasts for one round per caster level. The bonus gained is equal to double the slot level, plus two. Converting a spell slot into a skill bonus is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity. You choose the skill you want to enhance at the time the spell slot is converted. This skill must be one that can be used untrained, or in which you have two or more ranks. You may only enhance skills for yourself (you cannot enhance a skill for another individual). If someone uses Detect Magic on an individual under the effects of this ability, they detect a faint aura of transmutation. Special: This ability is limited to sorcerer spell slots only. Multiclass sorcerers cannot enhance skills with another class' spell slots. I liked the version where the bonus was +1+spell level. Making it usable with sorcerer slots only is a good idea, nice catch there. For duration, how about Cha mod in minutes? That's sort of the way it works with Divine feats. The basic mechanical idea of being able to spend spell slots to gain some benefit without actually casting spells opens up some interesting possibilities, sort of the way Divine feats let you spend turning attempts on things. What other things might we come up with as possible Arcane Enhancement specials? re: Eschew Sorcerous Materials You're still not convincing me that giving sorcerers ESM at 1st level, in addition to a familiar, is going to overpower the class. Like I keep saying, and you guys keep failing to understand, is that the classes are really not that finely balanced. There's a lot of wiggle room in how much or little you can allocate to a class before it becomes unbalanced. Remember, class balance is about decision-making. A class isn't unbalanced unless too many people decide to take or avoid it for being too strong or too weak. In real play, the single most important factor in determining class balance is the mix of encounters the DM throws at the party and how he runs those encounters. The stuff we're talking about is just a bit of tinkering at the edges. It's not going to sway very many take-or-avoid decisions in one direction or the other. If a sorcerer actually has to pay a special, feat, or spell slot for it, then he's most likely wasted his resources. The only times ESM won't be a game-mechanical deadweight loss is when the DM decides to put the players in one of those rare situations when the sorcerer has to cast a cheap-material spell and can't reach into his spell component pouch. The main value of ESM is as flavor. Whether the flavor fits or not depends on how sorcerers are defined in the campaign, which means it's up to the DM.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 04:42 AM	Originally posted by Thot: I thought I had proved that ESM was no risk, as far as dips are concerned ? Weren’t you convinced ? Toughness could be more of a risk, IMHO, since some could see it as gaining some spellcasting without losing too much hp. Even then I think it’s not that much of a risk, and I’ll try to prove it later. :confused: You've not proved any such thing. You said you liked the idea of having ESM as an option at 1st level (pushing SF to 2nd), if the individual was a first-level character. Otherwise, SF would be the 1st-level default. Then you’ll have no qualms about the delayed slot access, if it comes to that. Right ? No way... I don't want to delay them. Look, we've reduced the slots already, but at least it happens at later levels, when it's not as painful. Cutting slots off at the knees (1st level) is too much, regardless of the special. The sorcerer is already limited by his spells known. He's basically a two-trick pony, three times a day. Now you want to cut that by one-third, at the least survivable point in the game! :eek: One-tenth of the duration, double the ranks required for use with trained skills, but the bonus is doubled, compared to the other idea. Thot: First, it’s less KISS. Second, I think it’s more abusable (being more powerful) than the first one (Arcane trickster, tumble, flanking and Skeak Attack). Frank: A lot more powerful, I think. And a lot more abusable. I preferred the previous one. OK then. So I take it that Arcane Skill Enhancement is preferred over the +2/+2 feats. I'll put it in as v8.02, soon. "The archtypical staple of a (primary) arcane spellcaster is the ability to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not)." This very point is not even debatable, except in your particular game (i.e.- a house rule). It's certainly debatable. I'm not sure where to look up archetypical statements, but if you look at DnD, the Wizard was the only one with a familiar until 3ed, since the sorcerer didn't exist. And the 3.0/3.5 sorcerer is the one we are changing here. Personally, I think the familiar fits the wizard better than the sorcerer. Partly because it's a day-long ritual, partly because I think it's more fitting for someone who prefers to spend his time with books rather than with people, partly because I'd like to make the sorcerer different from the wizard. All subjective arguments, and personal, so I don't think we'll get to an agreement on this one. However, I'm not sure what the problem is with making it a special. It'd probably the most versatile special of them all, making it rather attractive. With a bit of fine tuning in other areas, we should be able to make it balanced. Sorcerers have existed since the beginning of the game, just not in the way you think. The words "wizard" and "sorcerer" were completely interchange-able, before 3.0. True, there was no sorcerer class in previous editions, but there was no wizard class either, because there was no mechanical difference between them (they were just labels, and they were generically known as magic-users). Now that the magic-user class has been split into two classes, sorcerers and wizards are merely flip sides of the same coin... the same, but different, and comparable. The only thing you said here that was worth considering was the part about a ritual... not to me, mind you, but to some. I don't subscribe to the notion (yes, notion, and unfounded at that) that sorcerers shouldn't be involved with ritualistic ceremonies/spells. Although familiars suit both caster types to a tee, here are some (general, not absolute) reasons why they are better suited to sorcerers than wizards. a) Familiars are magical beasts (formerly animals, IIRC), that would not appreciate being cooped up indoors on a regular basis. b) The nature of depending on a spellbook requires time (nearly constant, since arcane knowledge is the bread and butter of a wizard) and money (and it adds up quickly) spent in research. Familiars require time and money, as well as upkeep (feeding, attention, etc.). The wizard would much rather spend his time/money on adding spells to his book, or scribing scrolls, or making items. Not so, the sorcerer. He has no need for such things. He has much more time and money to devote not only to acquiring a familiar, but also attending to its needs. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: b) At each even {meant to say 'odd'}level above 2nd, it's actually more powerful, I think. Do you disagree here? To reiterate, even levels are diminished in no small amount. Now, odd levels above 2nd... 3rd is slightly better... after that, the 5-slot cap on lower level spells starts to work its power-gap magic. 5th may be equal with the PHB.sor. 7th and up is a losing battle, for pure firepower. However, you're missing one key difference between this 12345 stuff and the current alt.sor progression. In v8.01 (speaking about level 3+), you gain... -- Even levels... 3 slots (2 at the highest-level, and 1 at the level below it) and 1 spell known (the highest-level you can cast) -- Odd levels... 2 slots (1 for metamagic experimentation, and 1 at two levels below it) and 3 spells known (usually... sometimes 2, sometimes as many as 4, depending on where you are in the progression) *That* is the symmetrical beauty of v8.01. With 12345, you have a rather painful nerf at even levels... and, while the table looks "pretty" at first glance, it is actually quite lopsided, especially after 5th sorcerer level. With 12345, you gain... -- Even levels... 2 slots and 1 spell known -- Odd levels... 3 slots and 3 spells known That's rather ugly, IMO. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'm not going to counter your other arguments for having every spot be a special ability of the player's choice, quote by quote. Instead, I'll address it holistically. (1) You are attempting to re-define the archtype Wiz/Sor archetypes are able to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not). Fantasy literature supports it. The only way you can possibly argue this point is from a position of ignorance (i.e.- you haven't read enough on the subject to realize it). The deciding factors for an individual to exercise this option are personal inclination and economics. (2) You penalize the player who must choose Summon Familiar If you make SF a special, you put a player in the dubious position of paying for a familiar twice... once to acquire SF, and again for the time/money investment. (3) You discourage familiar usage Familiars are under-used as it is... your suggestion would make them even more scarce. (4) You power-up the non-summoning sorcerer Using core rules, a player who isn't inclined to summon a familiar loses nothing. The same goes for v8.01. If this class enables a player to select something else in place of SF, he would gain more from it than what he gains from the class that has SF as a fixed ability. choice >> no choice (5) You have other options If your desire to remove SF as a fixed ability stems from a personal bias against familiars, or a desire to move away from (or re-define) the archetype, then the sorcerer class is not for you. Fortunately, you have three options... - create your own class from scratch - use the psion in place of the sorcerer - create a house-rule that applies to sorcerers in your campaign setting Originally posted by mellowship: I liked the version where the bonus was +1+spell level. Making it usable with sorcerer slots only is a good idea, nice catch there. For duration, how about Cha mod in minutes? That's sort of the way it works with Divine feats. Hey, now there's a neat idea!
Bright Eyes 11-04-03, 05:08 AM	Anytime though in make it a PrC? I think this is going too far for a core class.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 06:43 AM	Originally posted by Bright Eyes Anytime though in make it a PrC? I think this is going too far for a core class. Personally, I don't agree (did you expect some other answer? :D ). I mean... -- These abilities are pretty weak compared to what PrC's generally acquire. -- They're even weak for feats. -- They're spread out every 3 levels, while PrC's get something *every* level. What makes you think that it goes too far?
Bright Eyes 11-04-03, 06:51 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane (did you expect some other answer? :D ). Not really :D What makes you think that it goes too far? Specials are like feats. And sorcerer gains one each 3 levels above second... well, I haven´t playtested the class, you´ve done, so you may say it better, but It seems a bit overpowered to me... Anyway, with PrC step I didn´t mean that this one would be ok for a PrC, I mean that it may fill better in a PrC by adding some thing, but that would end the real finish of this thread: make the sorcerer they should have added in 3.5.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 07:00 AM	Originally posted by Bright Eyes: Specials are like feats. And sorcerer gains one each 3 levels above second... well, I haven´t playtested the class, you´ve done, so you may say it better, but It seems a bit overpowered to me... Specials are like *weak* feats. Eschew Materials? Getting to make a move-action when using metamagic (one-feat-at-a-time)? Boosting your familiar a smidge? Toughness? These aren't exactly what I'd call powerful. Also, you did notice that this alt.sorcerer gives up *nine* spell slots, compared to the PHB.sorcerer, yes? Anyway, with PrC step I didn´t mean that this one would be ok for a PrC, I mean that it may fill better in a PrC by adding some thing, but that would end the real finish of this thread: make the sorcerer they should have added in 3.5. I'm not sure I understand this, except for the part about PrC's having something added.
Bright Eyes 11-04-03, 07:12 AM	Well, I realized of the lost spells per day, but it isn´t really a big lost, because you already cast a lot, besides your CHA modifier, and in a long point of view that´s a very high number. That Specials you call are really not as strong as feats, but what about "Spell Secret", "Greater Eschew" or "Expeditonius Metamagic". Anyway I´ve just realized that the most powerfull thing I saw ("Extra Slot") is not what I though... I though it was the feat that gives you one more known spell, not one more spell per day. That is a good step. With "Extra Slot" understood properly, I agree the class (sorry for the misunderstanding). Good job. (Forget about the last paragraph about PrC, it adds nothing to the discussion).
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 07:41 AM	Originally posted by Bright Eyes Well, I realized of the lost spells per day, but it isn´t really a big lost, because you already cast a lot, besides your CHA modifier, and in a long point of view that´s a very high number. That Specials you call are really not as strong as feats, but what about "Spell Secret", "Greater Eschew" or "Expeditonius Metamagic". Anyway I´ve just realized that the most powerfull thing I saw ("Extra Slot") is not what I though... I though it was the feat that gives you one more known spell, not one more spell per day. That is a good step. With "Extra Slot" understood properly, I agree the class (sorry for the misunderstanding). Good job. Hey cool! Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you like it. About "Extra Slot"... the feat you're thinking of is "Extra Spell", from Tome & Blood. It was, of course, a popular suggestion, but extremely powerful for a sorcerer. There's no way we could add it in good conscience. ~ ~ ~ For those interested, I have updated v8.02. Added Arcane Skill Enhancement (with mellowship's CHA mod duration idea), and ESM/SF option at level 1 (because nobody said they didn't disagree with it). If we're not finished, I'm sure you'll notify me. ;)
Thot 11-04-03, 01:07 PM	Alas, that I have less and less time on my hands to answer as I’d like… still, I’ll do my best. Frank : I'm not sure what the problem is with making it a special. It'd probably the most versatile special of them all, making it rather attractive. With a bit of fine tuning in other areas, we should be able to make it balanced. I agree. I tend to think that SF would indeed be a powerful special (if dipping, it can easily be seen as a free bonus feat in a limited list). Thus, if we can prove that whichever special is OK, dipping or not, we’ll just have to convince Ogrebane that it shouldn’t be mandatory for a Sor player. I’m not very optimistic on this last point… ;) but I’m consistent (sort of), and tireless, so… :angel: Getting {SF} automatically is not a drawback at all, if the rest of the classes are balanced to eachother. In other words, you can balance turning SF into a special by changing the sorcerer in other areas, if you're concerned about the relative power. Well… it depends on whether the main problem of Ogrebane (the firmest opponent to SF=special) is that : a) a primary arcane spellcaster could have no SF in his abilites, or whether it is the b) screw the Wiz, I didn’thave to waste one of my abilities that I didn’t plan to use anyway. Worst case scenario is a mix of both… a) can hardly be helped, it is IMHO quite subjective. We could just try to say that it’s pigeon-holing, which is bad (*deep, scary voice* :) ). Archtype I think of who didn’t have Familiar, as far as I know : Gandalf, Elric, Merlin (not the Disney one). b) can be helped by agreeing that it should be amended in the Wiz class, which is beyond the scope of this thread, and leave it at that. BTW, SF is already accounted for in the abilities / balance of both classes, so a player who chooses not to use it, only shoots himself in the foot, IMHO. You can disagree if you think a familiar is a liability. Still, as such, balance is not compared to another class, but only within itself (here the PHB Sor). Is putting a configurable special at first level on par with the SF ability ? Frankly, it depends. I say yes. Some say no. If you begin with 1000 XP and 0 gp, then the answer is no, it is superior. If you begin at 1500 XP with 500 gp, they’d more or less on par, IMHO. If you begin at 6th level, it’s a question of appreciation of the familiar, but since it has abilities of its own, plus grants you a feat, and can IMHO be easily protected (T&B helps !), I’d say yes, and a special is even inferior. Err… I’ve been quite hazy, there… If Ogrebane could formulate clearly why he is so opposed to putting the SF as a special, it could help us. Sorry if it wasn’t already clear. :embarrass {loss at first level} The special and the probable extra cantrip nearly make up for it. That’s my hope anyway. {delayed progression} Personally, I think it balances out nicely. That’s my hope too. We’ll see. Mellowship : What other things might we come up with as possible Arcane Enhancement specials? Many. I’ll give you some ideas. Many are obviously to be banned. Abilty scores, BAB, AC, hp(temporary, not healing), DC (to resist spells), Saving throws, … The most interesting is perhaps the DC, and even then, you got the Heighten Spell for something… *shrug* You're still not convincing me that giving sorcerers ESM at 1st level, in addition to a familiar, is going to overpower the class. IMHO, it’s not as much giving it to him (which is nowhere near overpowering), than helping him save a special that could be used for anything else (which in respect of the sum total of the abilites of the class, is deemed cheap). And specials should be paid for, and help overcome some “weak points” of the Sor, not given out for “free”. Ogrebane : You've not proved any such thing {ESM and dips compatibility}. You said you liked the idea of having ESM as an option at 1st level (pushing SF to 2nd), if the individual was a first-level character. Otherwise, SF would be the 1st-level default. Well, I posted a table of the IMHO dangerous 1st spells, and their components. It turned out that risks are minimal, IMHO, given both either the presence S or the M (or F) component. That’s what I thought was a proof of the compatibility of ESM and dips. Next I said I liked the idea of ESM so much that I wanted to be able to take it at first level, yes (regardless of whether the character is first-level or not). The inference that it has to relegate SF to second level is yours (though I’d possibly house-rule it, I no more advise making SF mandatory if it can be helped at all). Last, IMC, SF could indeed turn out to be the default special at first if the player don’t choose ESM. It would IMX be a frequent choice anyway. Thus, I don’t see the need to make it stuck at first level (if it can be helpedsomehow). No way... I don't want to delay them. Look, we've reduced the slots already, but at least it happens at later levels, when it's not as painful. Cutting slots off at the knees (1st level) is too much, regardless of the special. Not so much cutting them off, than delaying their access by one level. The sorcerer is already limited by his spells known. He's basically a two-trick pony, three times a day. Now you want to cut that by one-third, at the least survivable point in the game! :eek: I suggest it. He usually have one bonus slot from high CHA, making it not that bad. Besides, his repertory at first level is limited enough in scope that he won’t have that many occasions to use his precious few slots. Next, in combat, a crossbow will often be as useful as his spells at those levels. Last, a Wizard would begin with two slots and between three and seven spells known, with a flexibility that’s not superior to a Sor (barring scrolls). there was no mechanical difference between {Wiz and Sor, in 2E} (they were just labels, and they were generically known as magic-users). Now that the magic-user class has been split into two classes, sorcerers and wizards are merely flip sides of the same coin... the same, but different, and comparable. I have a limited experience of it, but IIRC the MU you mention was using the Vancian system, and nothing else. Right ? If so, they’re so close to the Wiz that we could indeed consider the Sor as a new class. Or was it really a splitting of the former MU abilities between the two of them (W and S) ? If so, how then worked the MU (spellbook, preparation, special abiltes) ? If we agree the Sor is the new kid in town, he’s free from former staples (now, Familiar), and as thus, it shouldn’t be stuck on him (even if I find SF desirable), so long as it doesn’t screw the Wiz, IMHO. I don't subscribe to the notion (yes, notion, and unfounded at that) that sorcerers shouldn't be involved with ritualistic ceremonies/spells. I would have much to say about it, but that’s for another day. Basically, I’d think there should be two different things, spells, and rituals. A la Vampire. Thus Sor shouldn’t be barred from rituals, but from spells that are ritual-like… Dude, even to me it sounds weird, and I have the distinct advantage to know what I mean ! :rolleyes: whatever… *That* is the symmetrical beauty of v8.01. <SNIP> That's rather ugly, IMO. I did math for 8.01, I trust you for the delayed progression. Darn, you’re right. OK, then let’s not talk about it for all levels, then, and focus on the low levels, since that’s where there may still be some tinkering to be done… (dubious though it seems). 1) Wiz/Sor archetypes are able to summon a familiar. Fantasy literature supports it. Could you please gimme references ? I admitedly haven’t read much fantasy literature, but the few that I know of don’t especially go that way. 1) The deciding factors for an individual to exercise this option are personal inclination and economics. This is true in D&D. I don’t know how well you can extend that argument beyond. And it would be nice if Sor and Wiz in D&D weren’t so close, now, wouldn’t it ? At least in D&D. 2) If you make SF a special, you put a player in the dubious position of paying for a familiar twice... once to acquire SF, and again for the time/money investment. one day / 100 gp. Close to nothing if taken only at fifth level. A special, yes, but that’s because we are decreasing their number, because we feared an overall power-up (including the SF ability!) 3) Familiars are under-used as it is... your suggestion would make them even more scarce. Not so, IMX. I sometimes wonder if that’s not a commonly accepted truth that would turn out to be wrong. :confused: 4) Using core rules, a player who isn't inclined to summon a familiar loses nothing. The same goes for v8.01. If this class enables a player to select something else in place of SF, he would gain more from it than what he gains from the class that has SF as a fixed ability. Inexact, IMHO. A player not inclined to summon a Familiar loses a Familiar. Since it’s already taken into account in the balance of the class, it’s a paid-for ability he doesn’t use, thus a waste. That lapse of yours by itself would make me think you are of those thinking a Familiar a liability. In V8.01, see former sentence. Last, if this class enables a player to select s/t else in place of SF, he would gain that ability, and that only (no SF later unless he pays for it with a special), and thus would only gain an ability that he already paid for, IMHO. Thus more indeed, but not exactly too much. Again IMHO. Note : I don’t think that 1 day / 100 gp balances a Familiar (Toad 3.0 anyone ?) It’s there to make sense in the ritual aspect, and make it less likely at very low levels, when a feat + a companion means more potential unbalancing. As for 5, I’ll wait for more info on the archtype to be sure. I have the feeling I might be wrong. But I find it poor, cause we’re basically creating our class, cause Psion and Sor don’t have the same flavor (nor mechanics), and shouldn’t be compared, except in terms of balance maybe, and cause of the Oberoni Fallacy. For those interested, I have updated v8.02. Added Arcane Skill Enhancement (with mellowship's CHA mod duration idea), and ESM/SF option at level 1 (because nobody said they didn't disagree with it). Good. So far, it’s our best compromise, so… If we're not finished, I'm sure you'll notify me. ;) Yeah. You can count on me ! ;) Note : I have the feeling I may sound angry about the Familiar, or so, but I don't. Quite the contrary I find quite funny that Ogrebane seems so stubborn about it ! For once, it's not me ! ;)
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 05:37 PM	Originally posted by Thot: b) can be helped by agreeing that it should be amended in the Wiz class, which is beyond the scope of this thread, and leave it at that. BTW, SF is already accounted for in the abilities / balance of both classes, so a player who chooses not to use it, only shoots himself in the foot, IMHO. This is the key. Sor/Wiz are simply different classes that accomplish the same things in different ways. If WOTC amends the SF ability for these classes in the future (4.0, or whatever), then I am OK with that, because it is equitable. Until then, I advocate equal treatment with SF for the two primary arcane spellcasters, and leave it at that. Of course, the reasons (after reasons, after reasons) I have produced before this quote was made are still valid. I'd rather devote time to something more productive, frankly, and if we can agree on this, that frees up our time for more productive ideas. RE: other Arcane Enhancements: Many. I’ll give you some ideas. Many are obviously to be banned. Abilty scores, BAB, AC, hp(temporary, not healing), DC (to resist spells), Saving throws, … The most interesting is perhaps the DC, and even then, you got the Heighten Spell for something… *shrug* Ugh. This gets ugly rather quickly. Besides, there are already spells and feats that already do exactly these things (Mage Armor, Tenser's Transformation, Vampiric Touch, Resistance, Eagle's Splendor, Bear's Endurance, etc.) in varying degrees. Next I said I liked the idea of ESM so much that I wanted to be able to take it at first level, yes (regardless of whether the character is first-level or not). Let me refresh your memory. Thot: "What would you do with ESM ? It would remain a special, wouldn’t it ? If so, yes, I like it. I have reservations, of course, but I don’t think they’re good enough, in light of what’s already been said." I don't see anything conditional about your response to it. Not so much cutting them off, than delaying their access by one level. Reducing them at the levels where they are needed most *is* cutting off at the knees. I suggest it. He usually have one bonus slot from high CHA, making it not that bad. Besides, his repertory at first level is limited enough in scope that he won’t have that many occasions to use his precious few slots. Next, in combat, a crossbow will often be as useful as his spells at those levels. Last, a Wizard would begin with two slots and between three and seven spells known, with a flexibility that’s not superior to a Sor (barring scrolls). You're killing me. Three slots is not as good as four slots (bonus slots added in). Reducing them at this point in the game does indeed make them "precious". The sorcerer can't make scrolls for himself, as you aptly pointed out. I have a limited experience of it, but IIRC the MU you mention was using the Vancian system, and nothing else. Right ? If so, they’re so close to the Wiz that we could indeed consider the Sor as a new class. Or was it really a splitting of the former MU abilities between the two of them (W and S) ? If so, how then worked the MU (spellbook, preparation, special abiltes) ? If we agree the Sor is the new kid in town, he’s free from former staples (now, Familiar), and as thus, it shouldn’t be stuck on him (even if I find SF desirable), so long as it doesn’t screw the Wiz, IMHO. You miss my point. Until 3.0 "wizard" and "sorcerer" were identical ("magic-users"), the different names being only that. Now that there are mechanical differences between the two does not preclude them from sharing the same party role, or accomplishing the same things in different ways. Inexact, IMHO. A player not inclined to summon a Familiar loses a Familiar. What?! He never had a familiar! He saves his money for something more "useful", in the player's opinion. As for 5, I’ll wait for more info on the archtype to be sure. I have the feeling I might be wrong. But I find it poor, cause we’re basically creating our class, cause Psion and Sor don’t have the same flavor (nor mechanics), and shouldn’t be compared, except in terms of balance maybe, and cause of the Oberoni Fallacy. Um... Thot... we are the definition of the Oberoni Fallacy. Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni. We are creating this class to overcome the sorcerer's design flaws. Note : I have the feeling I may sound angry about the Familiar, or so, but I don't. Quite the contrary I find quite funny that Ogrebane seems so stubborn about it ! For once, it's not me ! ;) Heh. IMX, the familiar is pretty much considered a hostage for the DM to hold over your head... not by me, because they are quite useful. We addressed it with Augment Familiar, and I think this will encourage more familiar use. By making it an option to even summon one, it discourages what we intend to encourage. Please refer to my first response in this post. If WOTC decides to alter SF for both classes, then I can live with that (but I don't guarantee that I'll like it :) ).
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 05:38 PM	*grumble grumble* double post
Krynus Ogrebane 11-04-03, 05:41 PM	*grumble grumble* double post
Frank the Vandal 11-04-03, 07:06 PM	Mellowship: Arcane Skill Enhancement: For duration, how about Cha mod in minutes? That's sort of the way it works with Divine feats. I like it! Very much! re: Eschew Sorcerous Materials You're still not convincing me that giving sorcerers ESM at 1st level, in addition to a familiar, is going to overpower the class. Like I keep saying, and you guys keep failing to understand, is that the classes are really not that finely balanced. There's a lot of wiggle room in how much or little you can allocate to a class before it becomes unbalanced. Remember, class balance is about decision-making. A class isn't unbalanced unless too many people decide to take or avoid it for being too strong or too weak. That's true, and I agree that it wouldn't be overpowering. But however reluctantly it may be, I'll have to admit that apparently there are people who don't want to kill the concept of a sorcerer who uses material components (Krynus, for example, and if there's one, there will be more). To put it another way, I don't want to force my idea of the class onto someone else. So making it into a choice might be a better solution, and just turning it into a special is simpler than a choice between just SF and ESM (which kills the concept of a sorcerer who uses M components but not a familiar a bit :)). Krynus Ogrebane: -- Even levels... 2 slots and 1 spell known -- Odd levels... 3 slots and 3 spells known Ouch. Good point, there. This probably needs tweaking. However, I'm not very happy with the old progression either. And access to spells, even if it's only one, of a higher level is quite powerful. SPELLS per Day (alt.sor/PHB sor) ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/5 3/3 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/6 4/4 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/6 4/5 ²1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 5/6 3/3 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 - - - - - - 7 ¹6/6 5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- - - - - - 8 ¹6/6 5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 - - - - - 9 ¹6/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- - - - - 10 ¹6/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 - - - - 11 ¹7/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- - - - 12 ¹7/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 - - - 13 ¹7/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- - - 14 ¹7/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 - - 15 ¹8/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- - 16 ¹8/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 - 17 ¹8/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 3/4 ²1/- 18 ¹8/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 4/5 3/3 19 ¹9/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 4/4 20 ¹9/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 5/6 ---- At levels 1, 2 and 3, the alt. sorcerer is more powerful, even when not counting any specials. Correct? So there should be changes made there, I think. At the levels above that, the alt.sorcerer begins to lag behind in spell slots, with a difference of one spell slot per spell level at every spell level below the highest level he knows spells from. That didn't sound very clear. What I'm saying is that for his highest level spells, he always has as many slots available as the PHB sorcerer (and at odd levels, one of those is bumped up a level, and might even gain him a bonus spell slot). Now the question is: do the specials balance out the lost spell slots. IMO, they do, and I think in most cases, they're actually more powerful than that. (Especially if you're in a campaign where you don't usually "cast until you can't"). So I'd still prefer the delayed progression for all levels, but I'd love to hear other options. In any case, I think the current progression is too strong at least at levels 1-3. Wiz/Sor archetypes are able to summon a familiar (whether you are willing to admit it or not). Fantasy literature supports it. The only way you can possibly argue this point is from a position of ignorance (i.e.- you haven't read enough on the subject to realize it). The deciding factors for an individual to exercise this option are personal inclination and economics. I've read a nice share of fantasy literature, and can't really come up with many examples of wizards/sorcerers/mages with familiars. I can come up with examples without them a lot more. Sword of Truth series, Discworld series, Deathgate Cycle, Darksword Trilogy, just to name a few of my favorites. For most of your other arguments, see Thot's post.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-05-03, 12:16 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: At levels 1, 2 and 3, the alt. sorcerer is more powerful, even when not counting any specials. Correct? So there should be changes made there, I think. Keep in mind that the standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, and a player that focuses on sorcerer casting will likely have the 15 in CHA... all my analyses have been based on this, because unless you play in a game where a CHA 20 is possible at 1st level, there is nothing to gain from a 16+ CHA early on, and placing a score lower than 14 in CHA will lessen your slots per day. Having said that, the only level that might be better is 3rd (by one slot), because of his bonus slots from CHA. He still doesn't have access to 2nd level spells (like a wizard does), but something tells me that doesn't matter to you right now (and it should). As far as cantrips go (exactly why we are analyzing them is beyond me), it is equal to the PHB.sor at 1st and 2nd, while 3rd has one more cantrip per day. It suits the creature-of-magic theme nicely, and really helps with the lack of skill points and class skills. So, we can go back to not adding CHA modifier to cantrips per day, but expect people to be very annoyed at you for inferring that cantrips unbalance anything. For the record, I think the spells table should be left just the way it is. I don't find that it's worth my time and effort to tweak and tweak a spells table that has exactly one class level (3rd) with a 2nd-level and 0th-level slot (not spell) advantage over the PHB.sor, when 3rd is nicely balanced against the PHB.wiz. You promptly lose this "advantage" over the PHB.sor at 4th level (never to be seen again).
Thot 11-05-03, 04:48 AM	Ogrebane : This is the key. Sor/Wiz are simply different classes that accomplish the same things in different ways. If WOTC amends the SF ability for these classes in the future (4.0, or whatever), then I am OK with that, because it is equitable. Until then, I advocate equal treatment with SF for the two primary arcane spellcasters, and leave it at that. I see that I’ll probably not be able to make you change your mind. I disagree, but, well… This gets ugly rather quickly. Besides, there are already spells and feats that already do exactly these things Indeed. So far, I don’t see what could benefit from another “Arcane Enhancement” special. Me : "What would you do with ESM ? It would remain a special, wouldn’t it ? If so, yes, I like it. I have reservations, of course, but I don’t think they’re good enough, in light of what’s already been said." There’s no conditional to it. Still, I do see two questions, a “if”, and “reservations”. Besides, this answer of mine was because I had the fear you were suggesting of completely removing ESM from the specials. I wasn’t sure you weren’t suggesting a “at first level or never” policy. It means indeed that I can make do with your compromise, pending the clarifications you gave later. Reducing them at the levels where they are needed most *is* cutting off at the knees. That’s my point. At very low levels, you don’t need them most. You are still useful with a +0/+1 BAB, and a decent DEX, and a crossbow, especially since you can hardly turns the sway of battle with spells at low level (that’s expected from you at high levels). You are not useless compared to a Ranger, even without slots. Hence, you still have fun (though you are less playing your real part, which is bad, I admit), are still useful, and still fairly viable. Thot : A player not inclined to summon a Familiar loses a Familiar. Ogrebane : What?! He never had a familiar! He saves his money for something more "useful", in the player's opinion Yes, he does. Still, IMHO, money is only the smallest part of the price of the Familiar. It is already accounted for with the limit of slots, other abilities, and all … So, the way I see, it’s like saying : “hey dude, you’ve made it to the finals, it was hard, you’re tired, but still you’re favorite, your opponent is hurt, you are likely to win sooo much money / gold / fame / … How do you feel about it ?” “Well, not good, actually. I’m not gonna play, I fear I might hurt myself, and besides, it costs me twenty bucks to go there, and what if I lose ?” He does indeed save twenty bucks, will not risk getting hurt, and never actually had the title. So he loses nothing. But still… We are creating this class to overcome the sorcerer's design flaws. One of the perceived being the sticking of SF to the Sor (and Wiz, btw), IMHO. By making it an option to even summon one, it discourages what we intend to encourage. Fair enough Please refer to my first response in this post. If WOTC decides to alter SF for both classes, then I can live with that. I’ll look forward to it. Frank : just turning {ESM} into a special is simpler than a choice between just SF and ESM (which kills the concept of a sorcerer who uses M components but not a familiar a bit) . Well… didn’t you know that you had to belong to one of those two schools ? :twitch: It’s linked to the Wiz, as far as I understand it. We’re doomed on this very point. I'd still prefer the delayed progression for all levels, but I'd love to hear other options. In any case, I think the current progression is too strong at least at levels 1-3. As far the chart is concerned, there’s probably no real need. Still, I’ll try to come with a new one anytime soon. Low level trouble is the number of slots (that shouldn’t be cut down according to Ogrebane), while there’s still the added bonus of a special at second level, right ? SF/ESM being already accounted for in the class as a whole, and from the start (IMHO). High level trouble is “clumsy” progression (spells known included :smirk: ), right ? I’m not sure at all if I’ll be able to help it. We'll see.
Frank the Vandal 11-05-03, 06:33 AM	Well, I think 15 is pretty low, for a starting sorcerer, but if you assume you get 15 at first level, increased at 4th (8th and so on), then levels one and two are equal (on spellcasting, not counting specials), at level three the alt.sorcerer is a bit more powerful, at level four the PHB one strikes back (a bit, getting a first level slot for two cantrips), and at level 5 the alt.sorcerer has the advantage again (gaining two 3rd level slots instead of a 1st and a second, plus two cantrips). If I assume a 16 charisma, at levels one, two, three and five he's strictly better than the PHB sorcerer, and that's not even counting specials. At level four, he sacrifices a first level slot for two cantrips.I thought the idea was to let the alt.sorcerer sacrifice something for his specials? TANSTAAFL and all that? If you manage to get your Cha to 18 at 7th, (and I don't think that's an exception, seeing how in the Firework and Light show (level 7) 5 out of 8 people started with either 18 or 19) seventh level is better as well, I think: IMO, a 4th level slot is better than a 1st and 2nd level slot together. At higher levels, it'll probably be harder to get your bonus spell slots when they're most beneficial, though you should have access to magic items to increase your charisma there. So the alt.sorcerer is, in general, more powerful than the PHB sorcerer at lower levels (the limit on "lower levels" may range from 3 to 7 or even higher, depending on your charisma) when not counting the specials. That's pretty bad, I think. Let's take a look at a comparison between the two sorcerers at high Cha: SPELLS per Day (alt.sor/PHB sor) Starting Cha = 18, bought Cloak of Charisma +6 at level 13. ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cha ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- 1 7/5 4/4 - - - - - - - - 18 2 8/6 5/5 - - - - - - - - 18 3 9/6 5/6 2/- - - - - - - - 18 4 9/6 6/7 4/4 - - - - - - - 19 5 9/6 6/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - - 19 6 9/6 6/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - - - 19 7 10/6 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - 19 8 11/6 7/8 6/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - - 20 9 11/6 7/8 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/- - - - - 20 10 11/6 7/8 6/7 6/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - 20 11 12/6 7/8 6/7 6/7 6/7 4/5 1/- - - - 20 12 13/6 7/8 6/7 6/7 6/7 5/6 3/3 - - - 21 13 15/6 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 4/5 2/- - - 27 14 15/6 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 5/6 4/4 - - 27 15 16/6 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/- - 27 16 17/6 8/9 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 5/6 4/4 - 28 17 17/6 8/9 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 6/7 5/5 2/- 28 18 17/6 8/9 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 6/7 5/6 4/4 28 19 18/6 8/9 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 6/7 6/7 5/5 28 20 18/6 8/9 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 6/7 6/7 6/7 6/7 29 I may be assuming some sort of worst case scenario here, but I just wanted to know what came out of it. Also, I'm not using the Cha-boosting manuals here. In this case, the only time I don't get the extra spell slot for my highest level spells is level 11, and that could be altered by simply buying a cloak of Charisma +2 along the way. At level 10, that's certainly doable, I'd say. At the other odd levels, the alt.sorcerer has as many slots available as the PHB one for his three highest (and most important) spell levels, losing out only at the lower level spells. Now, I'll throw all my specials (above level 4) into Extra Slot. Not a good character concept, (do I hear people shouting: "Play a PHB.Sorcerer!"?) but it may be interesting to look at. And I made up the table for myself anyway, so I might as well post it here. SPELLS per Day (alt.sor/PHB sor) Starting Cha = 18, bought Cloak of Charisma +6 at level 13. ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cha ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- 1 7/5 4/4 - - - - - - - - 18 2 8/6 5/5 - - - - - - - - 18 3 9/6 5/6 2/- - - - - - - - 18 4 9/6 6/7 4/4 - - - - - - - 19 5 9/6 6/7 5/5 2/- - - - - - - 19 6 9/6 6/7 6/6 4/4 - - - - - - 19 7 10/6 6/7 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - 19 8 11/6 7/8 7/7 6/6 4/4 - - - - - 20 9 11/6 7/8 7/7 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - - 20 10 11/6 7/8 7/7 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - 20 11 12/6 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 5/5 1/- - - - 20 12 13/6 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 6/6 3/3 - - - 21 13 15/6 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 4/5 2/- - - 27 14 15/6 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 6/6 4/4 - - 27 15 16/6 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 4/5 2/- - 27 16 17/6 8/9 8/8 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - 28 17 17/6 8/9 8/8 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 6/7 6/5 2/- 28 18 17/6 8/9 8/8 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 6/7 6/6 4/4 28 19 18/6 8/9 8/8 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 6/7 7/7 5/5 28 20 18/6 8/9 8/8 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 6/7 8/7 6/7 29 This leaves you with the special at level 2 to use as you see fit, assuming you get SF at first (either fixed or as a special, to look as much like the PHB sorc as possible). Now, this is not the alt.sorcerer I would build, and I don't think anyone would. There are specials that are way more powerful. But as you can see, this one is already nicely on par with the PHB sorcerer, beating him in spell slot at levels 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 (?), 13, 15, and 17 (!). The only levels where the PHB sorcerers is noticeably more powerful are 4 (just a little bit), 6 (hardly), 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 20. And except for level 4 and 20, the advantage for the PHB sorcerer is always at two levels lower than his highest level spell slot, and the difference is rather small. I think the 2nd level special makes up for it at most levels, though maybe not at 20th. But again, I think you could make the alt.sorcerer a lot more powerful by putting at least some of your specials elsewhere. Dropping your Extra Slot at spell level 3 for ExpMM(Quicken) would already make the alt.sorcerer more powerful than the PHB one at nearly every level in the above build, I think. So in short, I consider the current version of the alt.sorcerer an overall powerup. IMHO, money is only the smallest part of the price of the Familiar. It is already accounted for with the limit of slots, other abilities, and all … Agreed. The cost for the familiar is not the money (which is negligeable above a certain level), but is mostly balanced into the sorcerer (and wizard) class. Since we're changing the sorcerer class anyway (and not the wizard class), we can simply balance it out, giving another option instead. Saying that a PHB sorcerer who chooses not to summon a familiar loses nothing and just saves money is the same as saying that scrapping SF from the PHB sorcerer altogether would make them happier. ("Look, they saved me 100 gp!")
Xorial 11-05-03, 12:22 PM	I havent posted on this thread before, but have enjoyed reading it from time to time. I like what has been done to help the sorcerer here. Took me awhile to adjust to some of it, but it balances. I use a modified form of this sorcerer in my campaign. Mainly added some bloodline stuff to the class. One thing that I have added, that isnt on this one, is a new special ability, that is similar to the wizard's Spell Mastery. I'll post it as a feat, in case anybody here thinks it is too powerful as an ability.Note: I also spread the abilities out to every 4 levels. While similar to the Spell Mastery feat, it has more prerequisites, which I thought was fitting. Due mainly to the nature of the feat. SORCERER’S MASTERY [Special] You learn to master your spells so that you can apply metamagic to them more easily. Prerequisites: Any one Metamagic Feat, Sorcerer 7th level, Spellcraft 10 ranks. Benefits: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Charisma modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can cast these spells with metamagic enhancements without increasing their casting times. Normal: Without this feat, you increase the casting times of all spontaneously cast spells to a full round action. Note: This allows the sorcerer to learn the Quicken Spell feat, and use it. Edited Raised requirements so that a sorcerer is casting 3rd level spells. This would mitigate it being taken with too many spells that become useless at higher levels.
Frank the Vandal 11-05-03, 02:34 PM	That's also a nice way of shortening the casting time of metamagiced spells. A lot of variations of Expeditious Metamagic have come along during the discussion, but I don't remember this variant showing up. I'm wondering which one is more powerful, ExpMM or this one, but I'm not sure. ExpMM gets better as your level increases, of course, allowing you to apply it to more spells. This one gets a little better when you gain new Metamagic Feats, but if some of the spells you applied it to become too weak to be useful, you might not use them again. Overall, I think I like Expeditious Metamagic better, though.
Xorial 11-05-03, 03:52 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal This one gets a little better when you gain new Metamagic Feats, but if some of the spells you applied it to become too weak to be useful, you might not use them again. One way to lessen that, would be to increase the level requirement to cast at least 3rd level spells. Most of those dont crap out too badly.
Frank the Vandal 11-05-03, 05:11 PM	True, and if you apply it to lousy spells, it's your own fault, so I don't think it's much of a problem. Besides, you shouldn't apply it to spells with too high a level anyway, since you have to be able to metamagic it.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-06-03, 01:20 AM	Originally posted by Thot: That’s my point. At very low levels, you don’t need them most. You are still useful with a +0/+1 BAB, and a decent DEX, and a crossbow, especially since you can hardly turns the sway of battle with spells at low level (that’s expected from you at high levels). You are not useless compared to a Ranger, even without slots. Hence, you still have fun (though you are less playing your real part, which is bad, I admit), are still useful, and still fairly viable. :looloo: How does one fill the role they are supposed to fill if they have less resources to do so? (rhetorical... don't bother answering... you've made my point for me) RE: not summoning a familiar loses you nothing: Yes, he does. <SNIP> He does indeed save [/i][money][/i], will not risk getting hurt, and never actually had the title. So he loses nothing. But still… :rofl: Yet another point you have made for me. I could get used to this. :D Even if the example was a poor one, all you've really illustrated is how foolish people are to not summon a familiar. One of the perceived being the sticking of SF to the Sor (and Wiz, btw), IMHO. But we can't change one class in this way and not the other, to be fair... and changing the wizard is beyond the scope of this thread. RE: some sorcerers use M components, which means SF remains a fixture: Well… didn’t you know that you had to belong to one of those two schools ? :twitch: It’s linked to the Wiz, as far as I understand it. We’re doomed on this very point. Yay. As far the chart is concerned, there’s probably no real need. Double Yay! Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Well, I think 15 is pretty low, for a starting sorcerer If you play in a game that uses more than 25-point buy, then I might be able to see why you think a 15 is low, but that is a non-standard game. In fact, there is a word for that... it's called power-gaming... not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't understand why you are so surprised to see the numbers jump, when higher stats are involved. but if you assume you get 15 at first level, increased at 4th (8th and so on), then levels one and two are equal (on spellcasting, not counting specials), at level three the alt.sorcerer is a bit more powerful, at level four the PHB one strikes back (a bit, getting a first level slot for two cantrips), and at level 5 the alt.sorcerer has the advantage again (gaining two 3rd level slots instead of a 1st and a second, plus two cantrips). Firstly, you are counting cantrips as if they are good spells, something to be feared in combat. :looloo: Do you want to cut back on something so trivial (yet appropriate) to a creature of magic? I don't even worry about cantrips when crunching the numbers for comparison. If you think that it's important, then we go back to the PHB.sor chart for cantrips (not adding CHA modifier to the slots). :rolleyes: If I assume a 16 charisma, at levels one, two, three and five he's strictly better than the PHB sorcerer, and that's not even counting specials. At level four, he sacrifices a first level slot for two cantrips.I thought the idea was to let the alt.sorcerer sacrifice something for his specials? TANSTAAFL and all that? *sigh* :nonono: Forget cantrips for the moment. They're barely even spells, and have next to zero combat usefulness. They ARE good for out-of-combat utility and fill the role of sorcerer "skills", something that the PHB.sorcerer doesn't really have, and the wizard uses his Knowledge skills and a handful of cantrips/day. If they become the breaking point (yeah, right), we can deal with them later. For now, let's concentrate on *real* spells. If you manage to get your Cha to 18 at 7th, (and I don't think that's an exception, seeing how in the Firework and Light show (level 7) 5 out of 8 people started with either 18 or 19) seventh level is better as well, I think: IMO, a 4th level slot is better than a 1st and 2nd level slot together. 17 and 18 *are* the exception. The Firework & Light Show characters were made with 32-point buy (NON-standard game). Ever seen a bell curve? IMO, a 4th level slot is better than a 1st and 2nd level slot together. *sigh* The slot is only as good as the spells you can cast with it. If you have no 4th-level spells, the slot is only good for lesser spells, and metamagic'd spells aren't as good as the slot they require to cast. EXAMPLES: Extended Summon Monster III isn't as good as Summon Monster IV. Charm Person (heightened to 4th) isn't as good as Charm Monster. Assuming that these spells and feats are in a spellcaster's repertoire, the 7th level alt.sorcerer can only do the former, while a 7th level wizard can do both, as it suits him. This is pretty elementary stuff. I mean, come on... At higher levels, it'll probably be harder to get your bonus spell slots when they're most beneficial, though you should have access to magic items to increase your charisma there. Magic items cannot be used to account for class balance. ALL characters of any given level are presumed to have a comparable amount of wealth/gear. So the alt.sorcerer is, in general, more powerful than the PHB sorcerer at lower levels (the limit on "lower levels" may range from 3 to 7 or even higher, depending on your charisma) when not counting the specials. That's pretty bad, I think. See below. You are analyzing bogus data. Now, I'll throw all my specials (above level 4) into Extra Slot. Not a good character concept, (do I hear people shouting: "Play a PHB.Sorcerer!"?) but it may be interesting to look at. And I made up the table for myself anyway, so I might as well post it here. <SNIP> This leaves you with the special at level 2 to use as you see fit, assuming you get SF at first (either fixed or as a special, to look as much like the PHB sorc as possible). Now, this is not the alt.sorcerer I would build, and I don't think anyone would. There are specials that are way more powerful. But as you can see, this one is already nicely on par with the PHB sorcerer, beating him in spell slot at levels 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 (?), 13, 15, and 17 (!). The only levels where the PHB sorcerers is noticeably more powerful are 4 (just a little bit), 6 (hardly), 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 20. And except for level 4 and 20, the advantage for the PHB sorcerer is always at two levels lower than his highest level spell slot, and the difference is rather small. I think the 2nd level special makes up for it at most levels, though maybe not at 20th. But again, I think you could make the alt.sorcerer a lot more powerful by putting at least some of your specials elsewhere. Dropping your Extra Slot at spell level 3 for ExpMM(Quicken) would already make the alt.sorcerer more powerful than the PHB one at nearly every level in the above build, I think. So in short, I consider the current version of the alt.sorcerer an overall powerup. This analysis isn't valid, for several reasons... -- You cannot use magic items for balance considerations because wealth by level is supposed to be comparable -- You placed Extra Slots at the incorrect levels (read THE DISSECTION on Extra Slot, to see what I mean) The only way your chart could be correct is if you had Heighten Spell as your 1st or 3rd level feat, and you did not specify that. Alright then... I'll take your example of a starting CHA of 18 (as small as the odds for this are in standard play, but whatever...). Magic items are not a factor (wealth by level is equitable). Cantrips can wait. Bonus slots from a high CHA are included, as well as Extra Slots where they would actually fit in most advantageously (this is how you accounted for specials in your second chart, and it works adequately): SPELLS per Day (alt.sor/PHB sor) ----- Lvl advantage X-slot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CHA ---- --------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 - SF 4/4 - - - - - - - - 18 2 alt special 5/5 - - - - - - - - '' 3 alt × 5/6 2/- - - - - - - - '' 4 - × 6/7 4/4 - - - - - - - 19 5 alt 1st -> 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - - '' 6 - × 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - - - '' 7 alt × 7/7 6/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - '' 8 - 3rd -> 8/8 6/7 6/6 4/4 - - - - - 20 9 alt × 8/8 6/7 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - - '' 10 PHB × 8/8 6/7 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - '' 11 - 4th -> 8/8 6/7 7/7 7/7 4/5 1/- - - - '' 12 PHB × 8/8 6/7 7/7 7/7 5/6 3/3 - - - 21 13 PHB × 8/8 6/7 7/7 7/7 6/7 3/4 1/- - - '' 14 PHB 6th -> 8/8 6/7 7/7 7/7 6/7 5/5 3/3 - - '' 15 PHB × 8/8 6/7 7/7 7/7 6/7 6/6 3/4 1/- - '' 16 PHB × 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 7/7 4/5 3/3 - 22 17 PHB 7th -> 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 7/7 6/6 3/4 1/- '' 18 PHB × 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 7/7 6/6 4/5 3/3 '' 19 PHB × 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 7/7 6/6 5/6 4/4 '' 20 PHB 8th -> 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 7/7 6/6 6/6 5/6 23 ---- ALT advantage = 5 levels no advantage = 5 levels PHB advantage = 10 levels Interesting, don't you think? The alt.sor has the advantage at lower levels, when survival is more difficult. The PHB.sor, on the other hand, has the advantage twice as often, but later in the advancement. The alt.sorcerer's power level doesn't climb as steeply, nor does it reach as high... a common complaint (read: design flaw) that most people have with magic is the seemingly exponential power ramp (of ALL primary casters, not just sorcerers). The alt.sor is designed even better than I thought! :ayyyy!: Compare this to the wizard's situation, by level. We know the even levels were fine, but the ALT.sor actually looks competitive at the odd levels too. This is a good thing. ~ ~ ~ ~ Now, if you actually think that the cantrips/day are game-breaking ( :rolleyes: ), here is an alternative that allows adding the CHA mod, but doesn't climb nearly as high as v8.02 cantrips/day: SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 2 ¹4/5 3 ¹4/5 4 ¹4/6 5 ¹4/6 6 ¹4/7 7 ¹4/7 8 ¹4/8 9 ¹4/8 10 ¹4/9 11 ¹4/9 12 ¹4/10 13 ¹4/10 14 ¹4/10 15 ¹4/10 16 ¹4/11 17 ¹4/11 18 ¹4/11 19 ¹4/11 20 ¹4/12 ---- ¹ = In addition to the cantrip slots per day listed in this column, add the sorcerer's Charisma modifier to determine how many cantrip slots/day she has available. *dusts hands off* Originally posted by Xorial: I havent posted on this thread before, but have enjoyed reading it from time to time. I like what has been done to help the sorcerer here. Took me awhile to adjust to some of it, but it balances. I use a modified form of this sorcerer in my campaign. Mainly added some bloodline stuff to the class. One thing that I have added, that isnt on this one, is a new special ability, that is similar to the wizard's Spell Mastery. I'll post it as a feat, in case anybody here thinks it is too powerful as an ability.Note: I also spread the abilities out to every 4 levels. While similar to the Spell Mastery feat, it has more prerequisites, which I thought was fitting. Due mainly to the nature of the feat. SORCERER’S MASTERY [Special] That's a very nice alternative. Not bad!
BlaineTog 11-06-03, 01:47 AM	Question: How badly does the full-round casting time on metamagics main the sorcerer? Does it mean that a Concentration check is forced anytime anyone hits you for the whole round (ie until your next turn), and if you fail the spell is lost, or does it just mean you miss out on a Move action? If so, do you still get a 5-foot step? Thanks.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-06-03, 02:13 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Question: How badly does the full-round casting time on metamagics main the sorcerer? Does it mean that a Concentration check is forced anytime anyone hits you for the whole round (ie until your next turn), and if you fail the spell is lost, or does it just mean you miss out on a Move action? If so, do you still get a 5-foot step? Thanks. Well, there's full-round actions, and full-round cast-times. A spell with a 1-standard action cast-time that has metamagic applied to it becomes a full-round action (the only consequence is that you lose your move action... you aren't casting the entire time up until your next initiative turn). A spell with a full-round cast-time means that you use your standard and move action to cast the spell, plus all the time until just before your next initiative count. If you apply metamagic to a spell like this, the spell doesn't take effect until the end of the 2nd round (so you've given up standard and move actions for two rounds in a row). In both cases, you are entitled to a 5-foot step each round, if you didn't bodily move any distance.
Frank the Vandal 11-06-03, 08:00 AM	Even if the example was a poor one, all you've really illustrated is how foolish people are to not summon a familiar. So in other words, if you have the ability it'd be foolish not to use it. You used the same argument against the idea that fixing ESM at first level wouldn't kill the concept of a sorcerer who uses material components. But we can't change one class in this way and not the other, to be fair... and changing the wizard is beyond the scope of this thread. I don't see any reason why we can't, providing the end result is balanced. They're not the same class. If you play in a game that uses more than 25-point buy, then I might be able to see why you think a 15 is low, but that is a non-standard game. In fact, there is a word for that... it's called power-gaming... not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't understand why you are so surprised to see the numbers jump, when higher stats are involved. If you roll 4d6, drop lowest, more than 50% of the characters will have a score of 16 or greater, and a sorcerer will put it in charisma. Even with 25-point buy, I'd put at least a 16 in Cha if I knew I'd be playing a sorcerer. I have nothing against seeing the numbers jump with higher stats, but they should jump about equally for alt. and PHB sorcerers, shouldn't they? Also, if I look at the Real D&D forums, I mostly see point buys of 30 or higher. So you can't say it's an exception. Firstly, you are counting cantrips as if they are good spells, something to be feared in combat. Do you want to cut back on something so trivial (yet appropriate) to a creature of magic? I don't even worry about cantrips when crunching the numbers for comparison. If you think that it's important, then we go back to the PHB.sor chart for cantrips (not adding CHA modifier to the slots). They aren't powerful in combat, but they are a benefit they get. If you add it without taking anything away, it's a powerup. And don't pretend my arguments are based on cantrips alone. I mostly mention them to get a complete view. You seem to be forgetting about the specials... 17 and 18 *are* the exception. The Firework & Light Show characters were made with 32-point buy (NON-standard game). Ever seen a bell curve? Plenty of them. And I'd like our alt.sorcerer not to break down in any game that slightly diverges from standard. Of course he gets more powerful with higher stats, but the difference with the PHB sorcerer shouldn't get too big. *sigh* The slot is only as good as the spells you can cast with it. If you have no 4th-level spells, the slot is only good for lesser spells, and metamagic'd spells aren't as good as the slot they require to cast. Depends on the situation, but in any case, a metamagiced level 3 spell is better than a normal level three spell. And an empowered Scorching Ray is quite nice against one enemy. Probably better than most 4th level direct damage spells. So I stay with my view: a level 4 slot is better than a level 1 and level 2 slot together. Magic items cannot be used to account for class balance. ALL characters of any given level are presumed to have a comparable amount of wealth/gear. Correct, that's why I used the same item for both sorcerers in my comparison. Magic items have to be accounted for when balancing classes, whether you want to or not. They are an extremely important part of D&D. This analysis isn't valid, for several reasons... -- You cannot use magic items for balance considerations because wealth by level is supposed to be comparable -- You placed Extra Slots at the incorrect levels (read THE DISSECTION on Extra Slot, to see what I mean) -- I have to use magic items for balance considerations. Without magic items, the balance between most classes breaks up. And in my comparison, wealth by level is comparable. Your analysis is flawed because it doesn't account for them. -- Yes, forgot to state that I took Heighten Spell. I already assumed it was necessary, but forgot to mention it. Sorry. It's not a bad choice for a sorcerer though, so I don't think it's a drawback. As for your analysis, a few Cha boosting items tactically placed could still easily bump the alt.sorcerer past the PHB one at the higher odd levels, making the advantage switch nicely every level. And the option of not using all those nice specials for extra slots then gives the total advantage to the PHB sorcerer. The alt.sorcerer's power level doesn't climb as steeply, nor does it reach as high... a common complaint (read: design flaw) that most people have with magic is the seemingly exponential power ramp (of ALL primary casters, not just sorcerers). The alt.sor is designed even better than I thought! Compare this to the wizard's situation, by level. We know the even levels were fine, but the ALT.sor actually looks competitive at the odd levels too. This is a good thing. Right... So we've fixed the exponential power ramp with the alt.sorcerer, but at the same time it stays competitive with the wizard (where it didn't change at all). Great! Now, if you actually think that the cantrips/day are game-breaking ( ), here is an alternative that allows adding the CHA mod, but doesn't climb nearly as high as v8.02 cantrips/day: I don't think they're gamebreaking, as long as you account for them properly, especially at low level, where they are the majority of your spell slots. If you want to change them, I suggest giving them the same progression as the other slots, capping out at 5. Symmetry...
Thot 11-06-03, 10:50 AM	Frank : {Spells/day} So in short, I consider the current version of the alt.sorcerer an overall powerup. When we suggested putting the 1 (0 back then), we knew it would slightly power-up the alt.Sor. We should perhaps have done the maths before, but I don’t think it turns out to be that bad. In the playtest, I don’t think anyone really “owns the day” thanks to them. They only are an advantage among many small others. If they turn out to be too powerful, maybe we could re instate the 0s... {SF} Since we're changing the sorcerer class anyway (and not the wizard class), we can simply balance it out, giving another option instead Much as I’d like, I don’t think we’ll be convincing enough. I think I finally understand one of Ogrebane’s argument, though : Sorcerer and Wizard fills the same niche (primary arcane spellcaster). This niche used to be formerly manned only by nowadays Wizard’s clones (right ?). They splitted the MU class (in terms of game mechanics) into Sorcerer and Wizard. But the familiar is linked to the niche, and not to the class. Hence, Sorcerer and Wizard should be stuck with a Familiar. Whereas my interpretation is the reverse one : Wizards formerly had another name (MU), and their archetype was linked to a familiar. Then WotC decided they wanted to create a new class to compete with the Wizard (formerly called MU) on the same ground. And the Sorcerer was born. And because they didn’t want to let him have a blank “special” chart, and because they didn’t know exactly which was the definition / archetype / own niche of the (back then) new class, they gave him the same 1st level special than the Wiz (cause they wanted them on the same footing, IMHO), thus muddling the more fundamental differences between the classes (thus what I perceive as a confusion from Ogrebane, and vice-versa). Well, that’s how I see it now, anyway… Is it right, now ?? Now, if my interpretation is clear, it should be quite clear why I support the “SF not mandatory for the Sor” camp. Because I see Wiz and Sor far less linked, far more independent than Ogrebane does. And let me close this answer by saying that it has nothing to do with the merit of the SF / Sor link, for I think it’s a fairly great link. It shouldn’t just be stuck onto the Sor, for he doesn’t work in the same referential that the Wiz, IMHO. Xorial : Welcome aboard ! On your Sorcerer’s mastery Feat, I like it. And I never saw one like it before (IIRC), nor thought about it. Only two comments : I think it’s probably weaker than our ExpMM, and I think too that it makes a bit less sense (though that is indeed very easily arguable). Overall nice, IMHO. :) Note : I, as a player, would still never take it. I don’t like at all to take an ability that would have been better if I had taken it later. It always makes me cringes when I think about it. Same goes for Spell Mastery btw. It would be more to my taste if it were a fixed number. But I admit that CHA mod probably makes more sense. Which is why I don’t even want to think about such abilities. That’s just me. Ogrebane : How does one fill the role they are supposed to fill if they have less resources to do so? Two things : if they still have enough resources (which the alt.Sor does after lvl 4), or if they already have so few resources that that hardly feel the blow anymore(which is quite the case before lvl 4)… I shouldn’t have answered… ;) Yet another point you have made for me. I could get used to this. :D No, don’t ! I’d never be up to it ! ;) Besides, which point did I make for you ? that you indeed saved money when not summoning a familiar ? Well, that was hard to do, wasn’t it ? :D we can't change one class in this way and not the other, to be fair... and changing the wizard is beyond the scope of this thread. See above my take on the relation between Wiz and Sor. I don't even worry about cantrips when crunching the numbers for comparison. Neither do I, I admit. I glance over them, and am not worried. The only damage dealing cantrips are Acid Splash (1d3), Ray of Frost(1d3) and Disrupt Undead(1d6, no save, SR, close range, ranged touch attack). DU might be abusable in an Undead heavy campaign… And a Cleric would fare way better. That’s it all, IMHO. metamagic'd spells aren't as good as the slot they require to cast. Pending the circumstances, the spell to be metamagiced, and the metamagic feat itself. You’re right IMHO though, if you say that a metamagiced spell is overall less useful than a spell of the level to which the metamagiced spell is brought up to with the slot adjustment. Example : an extended SM2 is overall less useful than Dispel Magic. The alt.sorcerer's power level doesn't climb as steeply, nor does it reach as high... a common complaint (read: design flaw) that most people have with magic is the seemingly exponential power ramp (of ALL primary casters, not just sorcerers). The alt.sor is designed even better than I thought! Sorry, but no… the main trouble is not with the number of slots, but the power of the spells themselves (IMHO). So, we do indeed give the Sor a friendly progression, but that doesn’t mean so much. Compare this to the wizard's situation, by level. We know the even levels were fine, but the ALT.sor actually looks competitive at the odd levels too. This is a good thing. Compared to a Wiz, yes. Compared to other classes, that already saw all arcane spellcasters as overpowered, not so. But since it’s IMHO linked to the spells themselves… Frank : You used the same argument against the idea that fixing ESM at first level wouldn't kill the concept of a sorcerer who uses material components. :twitch: Let’s face it. It’s not the same thing. One is active (you have to undergo the binding ritual to get a Familiar), while the other is so very always passive ! That comment id not fair, IMHO, sorry. I don't see any reason why we can't, providing the end result is balanced. They're not the same class. See above for a potential answer ? They aren't powerful in combat, but they are a benefit they get. If you add it without taking anything away, it's a powerup. Yes. Same as for ESM at first level without taking s/t away. In practice, it’s close to nothing, but it’s a power-up (in terms of raw numbers). don't pretend my arguments are based on cantrips alone. I mostly mention them to get a complete view. You seem to be forgetting about the specials... Do you mean that the alt.Sor is overpowered when compared to the PHB Sor ? The specials have been designed to be “handy”, and “useful”, not “truly useful”, as when compared to, say, Energy Substitution (Sonic). What’s your exact point : overpowered at low level, or overpowered over the course of the twenty levels ? or s/t else that I’d have missed ? I'd like our alt.sorcerer not to break down in any game that slightly diverges from standard. Of course he gets more powerful with higher stats, but the difference with the PHB sorcerer shouldn't get too big. True enough. in any case, a metamagiced level 3 spell is better than a normal level three spell. indeed, that was the aim of the 1s in the chart. Don’t forget that all other primary spellcasters get to use “real 4th level spell”, while you’re still using your 3rd level, metamagiced, ones. That’s the gap we tried to fill somehow (hence indeed powering up the alt.Sor when compared to the poor PHB Sor, who was like a retarded schoolboy compared to the others…) I’ll say it again, maybe we should put the 0s back, as a safety mesure ? Humm… you only get so many metamagiced feats anyway, and they aren’t all relevant to the spell you’d like to cast with your high level slot… Hummm… Magic items have to be accounted for when balancing classes, whether you want to or not. They are an extremely important part of D&D. Let’s be clear. Balancing the alt.Sor as compared to the PHB Sor ? to the Wiz ? to the non caster classes ? Here, it’s mainly the PHB Sor, the Wiz being our upper limit, IMHO. And yes, items overall have to betaken into account, IMHO. But that’ll be hard with the Wiz (who has the ability to craft items given for free – or close enough). We already had the trouble, I don’t need to remind you, I guess ? As for your analysis, a few Cha boosting items tactically placed could still easily bump the alt.sorcerer past the PHB one at the higher odd levels, making the advantage switch nicely every level. that’s not fair if you don’t give the PHB one the very same items, at the very same level. You know it. So we've fixed the exponential power ramp with the alt.sorcerer, but at the same time it stays competitive with the wizard (where it didn't change at all). Great! :eek: :uh-huh: If you want to change them, I suggest giving them the same progression as the other slots, capping out at 5. Symmetry... Well, while symmetry is a fair reason, I like the extra cantrips too much to submit myself to its gouge at this level. I don’t support it. Flavor vs symmetry.
Thot 11-06-03, 11:20 AM	I'd like to reinstate that we're still discussing them, and that you're all welcome to chime in anytime, if you wish : > HERE < (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125296) . (OT : I'll be away till next Wednesday. Posting unlikely. Don't make me being too late on you when I'm back, please !)
Frank the Vandal 11-06-03, 11:46 AM	When we suggested putting the 1 (0 back then), we knew it would slightly power-up the alt.Sor. We should perhaps have done the maths before, but I don’t think it turns out to be that bad. In the playtest, I don’t think anyone really “owns the day” thanks to them. They only are an advantage among many small others. If they turn out to be too powerful, maybe we could re instate the 0s... Well, I tried lobbing a couple Empowered Acid Arrows, but they both missed :(. In any case, I think putting the 0s back might be better. EDIT: OTOH, see below. Note : I, as a player, would still never take it. I don’t like at all to take an ability that would have been better if I had taken it later. It always makes me cringes when I think about it. Yes, I had the same feeling... Neither do I {consider cantrips when thinking about balance}, I admit. I glance over them, and am not worried. The only damage dealing cantrips are Acid Splash (1d3), Ray of Frost(1d3) and Disrupt Undead(1d6, no save, SR, close range, ranged touch attack). DU might be abusable in an Undead heavy campaign… And a Cleric would fare way better. That’s it all, IMHO. I don't think cantrips are powerful enough to make up for any significant loss, but just adding without taking away should be done with care. [QUOTE]Let’s face it. It’s not the same thing. One is active (you have to undergo the binding ritual to get a Familiar), while the other is so very always passive ! That comment is not fair, IMHO, sorry. I realize it's not really the same thing. What I wanted to say was that I'd rather get something instead if I don't want a familiar, than be called foolish. Yes. Same as for ESM at first level without taking s/t away. In practice, it’s close to nothing, but it’s a power-up (in terms of raw numbers). Correct. Of course, I don't see a problem in allowing ESM at first level, taking away the familiar. ;) Do you mean that the alt.Sor is overpowered when compared to the PHB Sor ? The specials have been designed to be “handy”, and “useful”, not “truly useful”, as when compared to, say, Energy Substitution (Sonic). What’s your exact point : overpowered at low level, or overpowered over the course of the twenty levels ? or s/t else that I’d have missed ? I meant over the course of all levels. And yes, I'm comparing to the PHB Sor. That's the power I'm aiming for. I think it's overpowered at more levels than it's underpowered, so overall, the alt.Sorcerer is better (in power) than the PHB one. indeed, that was the aim of the 1s in the chart. Don’t forget that all other primary spellcasters get to use “real 4th level spell”, while you’re still using your 3rd level, metamagiced, ones. That’s the gap we tried to fill somehow (hence indeed powering up the alt.Sor when compared to the poor PHB Sor, who was like a retarded schoolboy compared to the others…) I’ll say it again, maybe we should put the 0s back, as a safety mesure ? Humm… you only get so many metamagiced feats anyway, and they aren’t all relevant to the spell you’d like to cast with your high level slot… Hummm… The PHB sorcerer was weak at odd levels. Giving him an extra slot there fixes that, and I don't think it puts you ahead of the other casters. OTOH, the PHB sorcerer was strong at even levels, so pulling him back a bit there might be a good idea, and it may be doable while still keeping him competitive with the other casters. So at the moment, I'm still in favor of the delayed spell progression (12345) through all levels. It makes the total gain at even levels quite small, as Krynus pointed out, but those are the levels where you get your first higher level spell. That's even more fun than getting a new higher level spell slot or two, I think. Being able to cast Fireball is a bigger change than being able to cast a Silent Melf's Acid Arrow, IMO. Let’s be clear. Balancing the alt.Sor as compared to the PHB Sor ? to the Wiz ? to the non caster classes ? Here, it’s mainly the PHB Sor, the Wiz being our upper limit, IMHO. And yes, items overall have to betaken into account, IMHO. But that’ll be hard with the Wiz (who has the ability to craft items given for free – or close enough). We already had the trouble, I don’t need to remind you, I guess ? In the last few posts, I was comparing the balance between the alt.Sor and the PHB Sor. As in any balancing of classes, magic items are a factor. Between those two classes, it's pretty easy: I can just give them about the same magic items, since they benefit from the same ones. Comparing a Wizard to a Sorcerer is a lot more difficult, but if I'm convinced that the alt.sor is balanced when compared to the PHB sor, then I'm also convinced that it's balanced to the wizard. that’s not fair if you don’t give the PHB one the very same items, at the very same level. You know it. Yes, I know. And I was giving the PHB one the same items. The point was that the Cha-boosting items would give the alt.sor more extra spell slots than the PHB sor. :eek: :uh-huh: Maybe <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> would have been appropiate in my post? ;) Well, while symmetry is a fair reason, I like the extra cantrips too much to submit myself to its gouge at this level. I don’t support it. Flavor vs symmetry. I don't mind them staying in, as long as I'm allowed to consider them when regarding balance at low levels.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-06-03, 12:04 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: So in other words, if you have the ability it'd be foolish not to use it. You used the same argument against the idea that fixing ESM at first level wouldn't kill the concept of a sorcerer who uses material components. So in other words, you're putting words into my mouth. :bored: SF simply means you can summon a familiar. To do so, you also need money/time you're willing/able to spend. ESM requires no effort to use. In fact, it requires more effort to go out of your way and avoid using it. If you roll 4d6, drop lowest, more than 50% of the characters will have a score of 16 or greater, and a sorcerer will put it in charisma. Even with 25-point buy, I'd put at least a 16 in Cha if I knew I'd be playing a sorcerer. If you roll 4d6, there are no guarantees about what the scores will be. You are free to do with 25-point buy to do as you wish. *shrug* I have nothing against seeing the numbers jump with higher stats, but they should jump about equally for alt. and PHB sorcerers, shouldn't they? Yes, they should, and yes, they do. Also, if I look at the Real D&D forums, I mostly see point buys of 30 or higher. So you can't say it's an exception. Yes, I can. It's called "Nonstandard Point Buy" for a reason. I'd like our alt.sorcerer not to break down in any game that slightly diverges from standard. Of course he gets more powerful with higher stats, but the difference with the PHB sorcerer shouldn't get too big. Have no fear; it doesn't. So I stay with my view: a level 4 slot is better than a level 1 and level 2 slot together. That's good, because it depends on what you mean by "better", plus it's only that... an opinion. Correct, that's why I used the same item for both sorcerers in my comparison. Magic items have to be accounted for when balancing classes, whether you want to or not. They are an extremely important part of D&D. If a magic item "breaks" something, you address the item, not the class. Magic items do not factor into class analysis, except to say that they all will have an equal amount of wealth, and leave it at that. -- I have to use magic items for balance considerations. Without magic items, the balance between most classes breaks up. And in my comparison, wealth by level is comparable. Your analysis is flawed because it doesn't account for them. -- Yes, forgot to state that I took Heighten Spell. I already assumed it was necessary, but forgot to mention it. Sorry. It's not a bad choice for a sorcerer though, so I don't think it's a drawback. -- :nonono: See above. -- :rolleyes: So why didn't you pick the other six feats? Because they are irrelevant, which means you shouldn't have picked one in the first place. As for your analysis, a few Cha boosting items tactically placed could still easily bump the alt.sorcerer past the PHB one at the higher odd levels, making the advantage switch nicely every level. Actually, no it doesn't. The analysis evens out to something like: ALT advantage = 5 levels no advantage = 7 levels PHB advantage = 8 levels ... IF you acquire a +2/+4/+6 Cloak of CHA at intervals where the item won't consume more than 25% of the character's wealth. So sorry. I know how you wanted so much to break the balance, but the numbers prove you wrong. I don't think they're gamebreaking, as long as you account for them properly, especially at low level, where they are the majority of your spell slots. If you want to change them, I suggest giving them the same progression as the other slots, capping out at 5. Symmetry... Five cantrips per day, or 5+CHA modifier?
Thot 11-06-03, 12:05 PM	Frank : In any case, I think putting the 0s back might be better Fair enough, AFAIAC. I meant {overpowered} over the course of all levels. And yes, I'm comparing to the PHB Sor. Darn. That's bad. But we're enough to think about it (if not exactly that) that's it could indeed be a real issue. at the moment, I'm still in favor of the delayed spell progression (12345) through all levels To be honest, I don't really care. When he would gain a 2, he'd gain a spell known of his highest level, and that's all (apart from two slots), right ? Perhaps tweaking the spells known chart could be our next agenda :smirk: . That would prove quite a mess, though... if I'm convinced that the alt.sor is balanced when compared to the PHB sor, then I'm also convinced that it's balanced to the wizard. Yes , indeed. I don't mind them staying in, as long as I'm allowed to consider them when regarding balance at low levels. You are, of course, just don't overestimate them. Ogrebane : Have no fear; it doesn't So far, it's only a wish from us.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-06-03, 12:16 PM	Originally posted by Thot: Much as I’d like, I don’t think we’ll be convincing enough. I think I finally understand one of Ogrebane’s argument, though : Sorcerer and Wizard fills the same niche (primary arcane spellcaster). This niche used to be formerly manned only by nowadays Wizard’s clones (right ?). They splitted the MU class (in terms of game mechanics) into Sorcerer and Wizard. But the familiar is linked to the niche, and not to the class. Hence, Sorcerer and Wizard should be stuck with a Familiar. <SNIP> Is it right, now ?? ... as cherubs strum harps, the heavens are filled with song. Hallelujah! :D I, as a player, would still never take [Sorcerer Mastery]. I don’t like at all to take an ability that would have been better if I had taken it later. It always makes me cringes when I think about it. Same goes for Spell Mastery btw. It would be more to my taste if it were a fixed number. But I admit that CHA mod probably makes more sense. Which is why I don’t even want to think about such abilities. That’s just me. I'm the same way about abilities. Neither do I, I admit. I glance over them, and am not worried. The only damage dealing cantrips are Acid Splash (1d3), Ray of Frost(1d3) and Disrupt Undead(1d6, no save, SR, close range, ranged touch attack). DU might be abusable in an Undead heavy campaign… And a Cleric would fare way better. That’s it all, IMHO. Same here, for the same reasons. RE: CHA-boosting items: that’s not fair if you don’t give the PHB one the very same items, at the very same level. You know it. Don't worry, I already did that analysis after I did the one without items. It's still balanced, and still in favor of the PHB.sor... the advantage merely shrinks.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-06-03, 12:23 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Correct. Of course, I don't see a problem in allowing ESM at first level, taking away the familiar ;) You have that option right now (and delaying the familiar)! :D The PHB sorcerer was weak at odd levels. Giving him an extra slot there fixes that, and I don't think it puts you ahead of the other casters. Yes. OTOH, the PHB sorcerer was strong at even levels, so pulling him back a bit there might be a good idea, and it may be doable while still keeping him competitive with the other casters. Which we did by capping his slots at 5.
Thot 11-06-03, 12:31 PM	Ogrebane : ... as cherubs strum harps, the heavens are filled with song. Hallelujah! :D Rejoice thee not ! Thou shalt not have mine's approbation on thy interpretation of the thrice beloved Sorcerer's birth ! :P You've seen my interpretation, right ? you know then why I disagree on the importance you seem to grant to the archetype's applicability to the Sor. Me : I don’t like at all to take an ability that would have been better if I had taken it later. Frank :Yes, I had the same feeling... Ogrebane : I'm the same way about abilities. Whooo !!!! We all agreed on one thing without any argument whatsoever !! X-mas is nearing indeed ! :D
Thot 11-06-03, 12:42 PM	Ogrebane : Which we did by capping his slots at 5. That takes some time to establish itself. At the level when the PHB Sor gets his first access to a spell level, he is only back of 1 slot, one level lower than his (new) max. That may not be enough. *ponders and sighs* I don't really know.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-07-03, 01:56 AM	Originally posted by Thot: (hence indeed powering up the alt.Sor when compared to the poor PHB Sor, who was like a retarded schoolboy compared to the others…) While this comment could be construed as politically incorrect, I find it not only appropriate, but also darn funny! :rofl: Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I don't think they're gamebreaking, as long as you account for them properly, especially at low level, where they are the majority of your spell slots. If you want to change them, I suggest giving them the same progression as the other slots, capping out at 5. Symmetry... This should do the trick then (see below), although I don't find it necessary. Anybody still reading this thread, chime in! SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 2 ¹4/5 3 ¹4/5 4 ¹4/6 5 ¹4/6 6 ¹5/7 7 ¹5/7 8 ¹5/8 9 ¹5/8 10 ¹5/9 11 ¹5/9 12 ¹5/10 13 ¹5/10 14 ¹5/10 15 ¹5/10 16 ¹5/11 17 ¹5/11 18 ¹5/11 19 ¹5/11 20 ¹5/12 ---- ¹ = In addition to the cantrip slots per day listed in this column, add the sorcerer's Charisma modifier to determine how many cantrip slots/day she has available. I have them jump to five at 6th level because it is half-way between ability increases (you will get another extra cantrip slot at 4th or 8th, depending on whether you started with an odd or even CHA score). So in other words, if you have the ability it'd be foolish not to use it. You used the same argument against the idea that fixing ESM at first level wouldn't kill the concept of a sorcerer who uses material components. <SNIP> I realize it's not really the same thing. What I wanted to say was that I'd rather get something instead if I don't want a familiar, than be called foolish. I want to address this more completely. I am not calling you foolish; Thot's comparison implies that the sorcerer who doesn't summon one may be voluntarily forfeiting something for a small price, but the example was an over-exaggeration, and not entirely comparable. In plenty of circumstances, I don't blame people for not taking a familiar. Time and money aren't the only considerations. - Yes, you get a useful companion that can do a bunch of neat things. - Yes, the familiar gets better with higher levels. - Yes, you get Alertness (if the familiar is within 5 feet). - Yes, you get a feat-like bonus, depending on what kind of familiar you summon. However, these abilities are not yours. They are lost with the death or dismissal of your familiar. In addition to this unhappy event (regardless of the reason), you are forbidden from summoning another for a year and a day (a veritable lifetime in RPG's). Even more, you WILL lose 100 XP per sorcerer level, or 200 per with an unsuccessful DC 15 Fortitude save. Time and money have already been mentioned. So has upkeep, which usually takes place "off-stage", unless it's important to the situation, or your DM is a stickler. So, the gains are great, but the risk is too. It's a judgment call. If you know your DM is biased against them, ask him if you can swap it out for something else. We have here a nice little alternative for you to set in front of him, in the form of specials (weak feats). He will likely be more than happy to accomodate it, and even DM's that are fond of the idea of familiars may even allow you to do this. Talcoram Cyndar does this... Thelon Fairblade does too. Thot plans on house-ruling it. I know there are others. But, the alt.sorcerer is supposed to be a replacement for the core class. We have made the familiar more desirable with Augment Familiar (i.e.- tougher, and therefore more survivable). Hopefully it will make people think twice before dismissing the familiar as a viable option. I don't actively want it to be discouraged, and making it a special would do exactly that. Familiars do fit the sorcerer-as-a-concept better than wizards. What would a wizard rather do, generally? Magically bond to himself a creature that requires feeding and attention, or add a new spell to his book? Summon a familiar, or make a magic item (i.e.- increase his personal power), requiring him to pay more in raw materials than the 100 gp for familiar summoning and more than the 200 XP/level that is incurred with a familiar's death? Generally (not absolutely), I think the answer is obvious. ~ ~ ~ ~ OK, so let's take your method of using a stat-boosting item for balance considerations. :twitch: CRITERIA: - starting CHA 18 ( :rolleyes: ) - Cloak of Charisma (+2/+4/+6) acquired/upgraded when it accounts for no more than 25% of the character's wealth by level - Extra Slot plugged in at the most advantageous slots (this accounts for specials) - Cantrips... see above (that table should satisfy the concern about symmetry, if it exists) SPELLS per Day (alt.sor/PHB sor) ----- Lvl advantage X-slot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 cloak? CHA ---- --------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ ---- 1 - SF 4/4 - - - - - - - - × 18 2 alt ESM 5/5 - - - - - - - - × '' 3 alt × 5/6 2/- - - - - - - - × '' 4 - × 6/7 4/4 - - - - - - - × 19 5 alt 1st -> 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - - × '' 6 - × 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - - - × '' 7 alt × 8/8 6/7 4/5 2/- - - - - - +2 21 8 - 3rd -> 8/8 7/8 6/6 4/4 - - - - - '' 22 9 alt × 8/8 7/8 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - - '' '' 10 - × 8/8 7/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - '' '' 11 alt 4th -> 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 4/5 2/- - - - +4 24 12 PHB × 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - '' 25 13 *** × 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 6/7 4/5 2/- - - '' '' 14 PHB 6th -> 8/8 7/8 8/8 8/8 6/7 6/6 4/4 - - +6 27 15 *** × 8/8 7/8 8/8 8/8 6/7 7/7 4/5 2/- - '' '' 16 PHB × 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - '' 28 17 *** 7th -> 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 4/5 2/- '' '' 18 PHB × 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 5/6 4/4 '' '' 19 PHB × 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 5/5 '' '' 20 PHB 8th -> 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 7/7 6/7 '' 29 ALT advantage = 6 levels no advantage = 5 levels PHB advantage = 6 levels *** = 3 levels Technically, *** levels are an ALT.sor advantage, although this could be debated until the cows come home. I will recognize them as ALT advantages (for argument's sake), but the advantage is so close as to be almost negligible. The ALT.sorcerer... has more slots on only two occasions (3rd & 5th) (not a problem; others will still scratch their head at the wizard who is casting two fireballs per day at 5th level, while you can't cast any) has an advantage for less than half of the progression (this is a good thing) when an advantage is apparent, it is only because two of his slots are more useful (allowing application of metamagic... he "experiments", learning "tricks" with his repertoire) (this is also a good thing) still has most of his levels of advantage on the front-side of the progression (when he needs them most) power ramp still doesn't rise as steep, nor climb as high advantage gap shrinks with a Cloak of Charisma, but does not turn the tide to an unbalanced situation numbers in this analysis are augmented by an item that, among other things, can be lost, destroyed, stolen, suppressed, or disjuncted SUMMARY: Overall, this class design is not more powerful than the PHB design, but it is superior. Why is it superior? the power levels are close (i.e.- balanced), regardless of equipment (or lack thereof) there are options to address class drawbacks there are options to differentiate it from the other primary arcane spellcaster (i.e.- flavor) there is incentive to stay with the class, rather than grab a PrC at the first opportunity there is more out-of-combat utility and versatility ~ ~ ~ ~ So at the moment, I'm still in favor of the delayed spell progression (12345) through all levels. It makes the total gain at even levels quite small, as Krynus pointed out, but those are the levels where you get your first higher level spell. That's even more fun than getting a new higher level spell slot or two, I think. Being able to cast Fireball is a bigger change than being able to cast a Silent Melf's Acid Arrow, IMO. 12345 is lop-sided. One of the only good things about the PHB.sorcerer design is it's relatively even-keeled spell/slot gains, and v8.02 maintains that, and overall class balance, at the same time. Referring to the analysis earlier in this thread, if 12345 was implemented, the levels of advantage would look like this: Lvl advantage ---- --------- 1 - 2 alt 3 alt 4 PHB 5 alt 6 PHB 7 alt 8 PHB 9 alt 10 PHB 11 alt 12 PHB 13 *** 14 PHB 15 *** 16 PHB 17 *** 18 PHB 19 PHB 20 PHB ---- ALT advantage = 6 levels no advantage = 1 level PHB advantage = 10 levels *** = 3 levels :nonono: :thumbsdow ~ ~ ~ ~ Frank, don't do anything rash ;) ... I know how determined you are to prove that v8.02 is broken, but you can't dispute the numbers. Embrace the class and come over to the dark side. :devil: Resisting will only prolong the anguish and agony. :D
spasheridan 11-07-03, 03:14 AM	Wow, so much in this thread. I've entered the conversation late and I'm having a hard time digesting it all. Pardon the probably newb question but here goes. IMO, the main drawback of the Sorc has been the small amounts of spells known, especially when you learn a new level of spells. I understand that you can use Metamagic feats to overcome this but it seems hard to do at low levels. I've always thought that a nice bump to the sorcerer class would be giving them more spells known. Maybe learning 2 spells when you gain a new level of spells instead of 1, and upping the cap on spells known by 1 to accomidate this. Flavour from the extra powers seems nice, but I'm looking for playable changes. I can definitly see how a high level sorcerer is lots of fun but I'm having a hard time seeing how a low to medium level character would be fun... the small spells known limitation kind of screams for excessive care in selecting spells, and that is just a short hop away from min-maxing. I'm not a fan of making large changes to a core class, not that I don't think this looks like a good class, so I've been looking for a simple change that would balance out the slow spell learning progression and lack of feats for the sorcerer class. And toss in Eschew Materials, that's a great idea as a class featire. I'm sure this has been discussed before, can anyone point me to some similar threads or do you have comments?
Krynus Ogrebane 11-07-03, 03:50 AM	Howdy, spasheridan, and welcome to the thread! Originally posted by spasheridan: I've always thought that a nice bump to the sorcerer class would be giving them more spells known. Maybe learning 2 spells when you gain a new level of spells instead of 1, and upping the cap on spells known by 1 to accomidate this. Flavour from the extra powers seems nice, but I'm looking for playable changes. As for the sorcerer class in general, adding more spells known is a HUGE power boost, because of his spontaneous casting... which explains why people would want more. :) The class in this thread has quite a few more Cantrips known, but something tells me that isn't what you mean (you want the big guns, and not some party favors). Sooo... In the splatbook Tome & Blood, there is a feat called "Extra Spell", which lets you add another spell to your list, up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. That would help you, I think. Also, Monte Cook published a book called Book of Eldritch Might II - Songs and Souls of Power (Malhavoc Press) that has a variant sorcerer. It has more spells known, and the ability to eschew materials (even expensive ones, at an XP cost), but the spell list got changed. For example, Shield is a 2nd-level spell for that sorcerer, and most of the divination spells were removed entirely. IIRC, there were at least three dozen spells that got bumped up a level, or removed entirely (no spells were reduced in level). We found Monte's sorcerer unsatisfactory, but it might suit you just fine. I'm not a fan of making large changes to a core class, not that I don't think this looks like a good class, so I've been looking for a simple change that would balance out the slow spell learning progression and lack of feats for the sorcerer class. And toss in Eschew Materials, that's a great idea as a class featire. Of course, I think this class address the rest of your points. Check out the first three posts on page 1 of this thread, for the complete write-up. Slots are gained at the same levels as wizards, clerics, and druids (instead of being one step behind). Eschew is an option. There are seven other special options that add a little something (essentially, they are "weak feats"). Anyone who is so inclined is free to use this class in their games.
Frank the Vandal 11-07-03, 08:07 AM	This should do the trick then (see below), although I don't find it necessary. Anybody still reading this thread, chime in! Nice, yes. Doesn't change much at lower levels, and the chance of running out of cantrips at high levels is still not very big, but at least you don't get that huge amount of cantrips in the end. If someone manages to make use of about 15 cantrips per day at level 20, then they must have found a way to do something really useful with them. Maybe in combination with the Archmage's Arcane Fire? Still, in general it's not much of a power down. So don't worry, you haven't convinced me yet! ;) So, the gains are great, but the risk is too. It's a judgment call. In general, I think the gains are greater than the risks. It depends on your DM, of course, but mostly you can keep your familiar pretty safe, IMO. Plus, the option of summoning it is something that makes you more powerful than if you didn't have it. So in terms of power, I think SF isn't any weaker than a special, and personally I think it's better than nearly all of the specials we have now. So changing it into a special would hardly be a power-up (just a little bit, because you have the choice, of course). When looking at power only, do you disagree here? If not, are there specific specials you want to rule out at low levels, so that a limited list at level one would be okay with you? If you know your DM is biased against them, ask him if you can swap it out for something else. We have here a nice little alternative for you to set in front of him, in the form of specials (weak feats). He will likely be more than happy to accomodate it, and even DM's that are fond of the idea of familiars may even allow you to do this. Talcoram Cyndar does this... Thelon Fairblade does too. Thot plans on house-ruling it. I know there are others. But, the alt.sorcerer is supposed to be a replacement for the core class. We have made the familiar more desirable with Augment Familiar (i.e.- tougher, and therefore more survivable). Hopefully it will make people think twice before dismissing the familiar as a viable option. I don't actively want it to be discouraged, and making it a special would do exactly that. Familiars do fit the sorcerer-as-a-concept better than wizards. What would a wizard rather do, generally? Magically bond to himself a creature that requires feeding and attention, or add a new spell to his book? Summon a familiar, or make a magic item (i.e.- increase his personal power), requiring him to pay more in raw materials than the 100 gp for familiar summoning and more than the 200 XP/level that is incurred with a familiar's death? That's your opinion. Mine is different. And the fact that you can houserule it, doesn't make anything right. Oberoni Fallacy, remember? ;) So why make all those people houserule it, if we can just change SF to a special? That would fit your concept just as well as ours. Maybe you would discourage summoning one a little, but the option of Augment Familiar encourages it again. And if the option of a special is enough to make you not summon one, you probably weren't very set on it in the first place. Just another crazy idea: what if we turn it into a special, but if you take it at first level, you can begin play with a familiar? Nice encouragement, and a hardly noticeable difference at high levels. ALT advantage = 6 levels no advantage = 5 levels PHB advantage = 6 levels *** = 3 levels Technically, *** levels are an ALT.sor advantage, although this could be debated until the cows come home. I will recognize them as ALT advantages (for argument's sake), but the advantage is so close as to be almost negligible. Yes, I think the alt.sorcerer is at an advantage at those levels. The ALT.sorcerer... 1) has more slots on only two occasions (3rd & 5th) (not a problem; others will still scratch their head at the wizard who is casting two fireballs per day at 5th level, while you can't cast any) 2) has an advantage for less than half of the progression (this is a good thing) 3) when an advantage is apparent, it is only because two of his slots are more useful (allowing application of metamagic... he "experiments", learning "tricks" with his repertoire) (this is also a good thing) 4) still has most of his levels of advantage on the front-side of the progression (when he needs them most) 5) power ramp still doesn't rise as steep, nor climb as high 6) advantage gap shrinks with a Cloak of Charisma, but does not turn the tide to an unbalanced situation 7) numbers in this analysis are augmented by an item that, among other things, can be lost, destroyed, stolen, suppressed, or disjuncted 1) Correct. 2) Well, yes. But if you don't count the equal levels, than the alt.sorcerer has advantage on more levels than the PHB sorcerer. 3) True. It's also mostly at levels where the PHB sorcerer was weak. 4) The difference in the high end isn't very big. One level nine spell slot, mostly. 6) True. 7) True, but hardly an issue. Things like these don't happen very often, and as long as your wealth still goes along the normal chart, you should be able to replace it. So, for a low level campaign, (running from 1-11) the alt. sorcerer is obviously the better choice. That's a bit painful, I think. For a higher level campaign, the difference is less obvious, but don't forget that if you fix the specials in a build, you're only showing what level of power is at least attainable. I'm fully convinced that this this is not an optimal build. If you think you'll play the character for a long time, you'll probably take a special that scales a bit with levels instead of an extra level 1 slot. Or ExpMM(Quicken) at level 11, which is a lot more useful at higher levels than that extra 4th level slot. Also, if you happen to take Heighten Spell anyway, it'd bump some of the slot in your build. Probably puts the alt in an advantage position at levels 6 (debateable), 8, 10 (debatable), 13, 15 and 17. It equals things out at level 12, 18 and 19. So in short, I think the build you presented (with Extra Slots) was overall (1-20) close to balanced (though with a slight advantage for the alt.), but he's painfully overpowered at low levels (1-10), and a bit underpowered at high levels. The alt.sorcerer in general (so no fixed Extra Slots) is even more powerful than that, since he has more options. Overall, this class design is not more powerful than the PHB design, but it is superior. Why is it superior? a) the power levels are close (i.e.- balanced), regardless of equipment (or lack thereof) b) there are options to address class drawbacks c) there are options to differentiate it from the other primary arcane spellcaster (i.e.- flavor) d) there is incentive to stay with the class, rather than grab a PrC at the first opportunity e) there is more out-of-combat utility and versatility Hmm, I'm not sure of your definition of superior. But for me, a), b), c), and e) all concern power (though not all of them concern combat power). d) I fully agree with, and since it was my main concern about the PHB sorcerer, I'm very happy with it. :D 12345 is lop-sided. One of the only good things about the PHB.sorcerer design is it's relatively even-keeled spell/slot gains, and v8.02 maintains that, and overall class balance, at the same time. Referring to the analysis earlier in this thread, if 12345 was implemented, the levels of advantage would look like this: ... ALT advantage = 6 levels no advantage = 1 level PHB advantage = 10 levels *** = 3 levels That's nearly even, isn't it? 9 levels for the ALT, 10 for the PHB, even though the alt.advantages might be a little smaller at some points. The options to optimize your build then make it perfectly balanced, IMO. 12345 is the progression that most matches the PHB.sorcerer. It's just one slot less at every level, and an added 1 in front of it. For a PHB.sorcerer the even levels (above 3) were always the most powerful ones, making it's progression rather lop-sided. v8.02 fixes that by making the odd levels more powerful, but leaves the even levels nearly untouched (specials make up for the lowered cap on spell slots). At even levels, the PHB sorcerer was more powerful than the wizard, I think, so a powerdown at that level shouldn't be a problem. Frank, don't do anything rash ... I know how determined you are to prove that v8.02 is broken, but you can't dispute the numbers. Embrace the class and come over to the dark side. Resisting will only prolong the anguish and agony. Never! I will not rest until I have shown you the light, and the error of your ways. :D
Krynus Ogrebane 11-07-03, 11:59 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: In general, I think the gains are greater than the risks. It depends on your DM, of course, but mostly you can keep your familiar pretty safe, IMO. Plus, the option of summoning it is something that makes you more powerful than if you didn't have it. So in terms of power, I think SF isn't any weaker than a special, and personally I think it's better than nearly all of the specials we have now. These are arguments to keep it as a fixed ability. I'm glad you agree! :smirk: are there specific specials you want to rule out at low levels, so that a limited list at level one would be okay with you? There are eight specials on the list. Of those, you cannot qualify for three of them at 1st or 2nd. The other five are reasonable options to allow at that point, but doing so reintroduces the two-level dip problem. That is a design flaw. That's your opinion. Mine is different. And the fact that you can houserule it, doesn't make anything right. Oberoni Fallacy, remember? ;) You are officially certifiable. My "opinion", as you put it, are facts of the game. A wizard WOULD rather spend money on spells than a critter (generally), this class IS a core replacement, people DO house-rule SF right now, and Augment Familiar IS an attractive special. You dispute these points?! :looloo: SF as a fixed ability at level 1 (or 2) does not constitute a design flaw. Having the option to push it back one level just means that we recognize the reality that money isn't plentiful at level 1. In fact, being "stuck" with SF (your way of thinking) is less of a burden for the ALT.sor, because you still have seven other ways to customize your character. The PHB.sor has none. This whole class falls under the Oberoni Fallacy. If you don't like something about it, either change it or don't use it, just like you do with the PHB.sor right now. So why make all those people houserule it, if we can just change SF to a special? That would fit your concept just as well as ours. No, it wouldn't. Those who wouldn't summon a familiar, regardless of the class design, will continue to do whatever it is that they do, whether that is nothing or replacing SF with something else. Those who would LIKE to summon a familiar, but have to now pay for it twice to do so, are less inclined to (once to select it, and again for the summoning costs, consequences, etc.). This is a bad thing. Maybe you would discourage summoning one a little, but the option of Augment Familiar encourages it again. So now you pay for it three times? No. And if the option of a special is enough to make you not summon one, you probably weren't very set on it in the first place. Even ONE person who otherwise would summon a familiar getting dissuaded is unsatisfactory. Just another crazy idea: what if we turn it into a special, but if you take it at first level, you can begin play with a familiar? Nice encouragement, and a hardly noticeable difference at high levels. Then you (or someone like you, who won't summon a familiar) will be crying for 100 gp more in starting gear, and so would the wizard. So, for a low level campaign, (running from 1-11) the alt. sorcerer is obviously the better choice. That's a bit painful, I think. For a higher level campaign, the difference is less obvious, but don't forget that if you fix the specials in a build, you're only showing what level of power is at least attainable. I'm fully convinced that this this is not an optimal build. What is optimal? It will never be perfect, because we are merely human, but this IS superior without being unbalanced, and well-thought out as well. If you think you'll play the character for a long time, you'll probably take a special that scales a bit with levels instead of an extra level 1 slot. Or ExpMM(Quicken) at level 11, which is a lot more useful at higher levels than that extra 4th level slot. Probably, but that was the whole point of this re-design (choices/incentive). Also, if you happen to take Heighten Spell anyway, it'd bump some of the slot in your build. Probably puts the alt in an advantage position at levels 6 (debateable), 8, 10 (debatable), 13, 15 and 17. It equals things out at level 12, 18 and 19. ... which is irrelevant, and the reason why I didn't include it, nor did I include Tomes of Leadership & Influence. So, for a low level campaign, (running from 1-11) the alt. sorcerer is obviously the better choice. That's a bit painful, I think. It's a better design, not painful. The class needed more earlier and less later. Mission accomplished. but he's painfully overpowered at low levels (1-10) *crickets chirping* My friend, I believe you are alone in this way of thinking. The alt.sorcerer in general (so no fixed Extra Slots) is even more powerful than that, since he has more options. Is a minimal skill modifier boost for a handful of minutes over the top? Is a better familiar too much? Is the ability to eschew (or ignore) materials more powerful than a spell slot (or two)? Is getting your move-action back when using metamagic too good to allow? Is the ability to use Quicken, at a +5 slot cost, unbalanced? Does a built-in minor metamagic effect for a single spell push it over the edge? Does 3 hit points make or break the class? Is nine spell slots in exchange for seven of the above mix/match opportunities too great a gain? I suggest not, and you have already answered "no" to all of these questions, at one point or another. Will you re-affirm your position, or have you waffled again? Hmm, I'm not sure of your definition of superior. But for me, a), b), c), and e) all concern power (though not all of them concern combat power). d) I fully agree with, and since it was my main concern about the PHB sorcerer, I'm very happy with it. :D ... And there was much rejoicing. :) Never! I will not rest until I have shown you the light, and the error of your ways. :D It is an exercise in futility, but it is your privilege to do so. :)
Frank the Vandal 11-08-03, 08:04 AM	These are arguments to keep it as a fixed ability. Why? There are eight specials on the list. Of those, you cannot qualify for three of them at 1st or 2nd. The other five are reasonable options to allow at that point, but doing so reintroduces the two-level dip problem. That is a design flaw. The five ones that you think reasonable are, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong): - Arcane Skill Enhancement (Most useful one, I think. Still, if you dip 2 levels, it's a +2 bonus at most) - Augment Familiar (Still needs SF, so this one has no influence) - Eschew Sorcerer Materials (You are willing to allow this at level one, so no power problem, I suppose) - Greater Eschew Materials (For identify only? Not useful.) - Toughness Arcane Skill Enhancement and Toughness are the two most useful ones for a level dipper, I think. Maybe ESM as well. In a two level dip, you gain two specials, or SF and one special. Could you state clearly what exactly the problem is? Three hit points extra, a +2 skill bonus a few times a day or casting those few 1st level spells with a Material component without it (all when sacrificing SF)? You are officially certifiable. My "opinion", as you put it, are facts of the game. A wizard WOULD rather spend money on spells than a critter (generally), this class IS a core replacement, people DO house-rule SF right now, and Augment Familiar IS an attractive special. You dispute these points?! SF as a fixed ability at level 1 (or 2) does not constitute a design flaw. Having the option to push it back one level just means that we recognize the reality that money isn't plentiful at level 1. Well, yes, I dispute some of these. A sorcerer has as much use for money as a wizard. Scrolls to expand his repertoire, perhaps? He can't make them as cheaply as a wizard... If many people house-rule SF right now, maybe we should do something about it. Augment Familiar is an attractive special, yes. SF at first level seems to be a flaw, since many people don't like it and house-rule it out. Turning it into a special just means we recognize that fact. In fact, being "stuck" with SF (your way of thinking) is less of a burden for the ALT.sor, because you still have seven other ways to customize your character. The PHB.sor has none. Answer: Probably, but that was the whole point of this re-design (choices/incentive). --- This whole class falls under the Oberoni Fallacy. If you don't like something about it, either change it or don't use it, just like you do with the PHB.sor right now. The Oberoni Fallacy says that being able to change it doesn't make it right. If we turn it into a special, no house rules are necessary, since everyone can adapt the sorcerer to his will. (Maybe you will make your players take it at first level, but since you seem to be a minority on this one, isn't that better than make all the people who would house-rule it otherwise free it up? :devil: ) Then you (or someone like you, who won't summon a familiar) will be crying for 100 gp more in starting gear, and so would the wizard. Well, I wouldn't. :) If you just change the way SF works for a sorcerer (no 100 gp cost, maybe not even a day work if you like), everybody is happy: -The non-summoning sorcerer, who gets something in return for not summoning a familiar (a special). - The summoning sorcerer, who only has to pay once for his familiar (a special) and has options to augment it. - The summoning wizard, who also only pays once for his familiar, if he's inclined to do so (100 gp + 1 day). - The non-summoning wizard, who doesn't have to pay for his familiar (no changes here), and doesn't gain a familiar, but still has his extra Scribe Scroll feat at first level. It's a better design, not painful. The class needed more earlier and less later. Mission accomplished. Really? That's the first time I hear that. You really think the sorcerer was underpowered at levels 1-11, compared to the wizard, for example? And overpowered after that? I didn't really think so, really. Maybe a bit at the odd levels, but IMO the even levels made up for that. I always thought that the larger total amount of slots was more useful at low levels, where there was a greater chance of running out of them. I suggest not, and you have already answered "no" to all of these questions, at one point or another. Will you re-affirm your position, or have you waffled again? I don't have any problem with any of the specials at the moment, and I think they make up for the lost slots nicely, in general. However, the slots lost are always at lower levels, and I think they don't make up for both the specials and the boosted spell progression at odd levels. It is an exercise in futility, but it is your privilege to do so. Thanks, I need some exercise. :D
Krynus Ogrebane 11-08-03, 12:36 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Why [are these arguments to keep SF fixed]? I've already answered this in a previous post. RE: if two specials were at 1st and 2nd: The five ones that you think reasonable are, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong): - Arcane Skill Enhancement (small bonus, small duration) - Eschew Sorcerer Materials (already allowed) - Expeditous Metamagic (if you have metamagic at 1st) - Spell Secret (cantrips only, at that point) - Toughness With SF fixed, any one of these is fine. Greater Eschew requires too many ranks in Knowledge[arcana]. Extra Slot requires a higher caster level. Augment Familiar doesn't enter into it if SF isn't chosen, and it won't be, if it isn't a fixed ability (or at least not as often as PHB.sor players would summon one). If many people house-rule SF right now, maybe we should do something about it. What you propose discourages summoning a familiar even more than now. :nonono: SF at first level seems to be a flaw, since many people don't like it and house-rule it out. Noooo... the only "flaw" in having it fixed at 1st is the general scarcity of cash at that level (although not always). Probably, but that was the whole point of this re-design (choices/incentive). You forgot to add "without discouraging/trivializing other player concepts"... which is what would happen, if you had your way. The Oberoni Fallacy says that being able to change it doesn't make it right. If we turn it into a special, no house rules are necessary THIS WHOLE CLASS IS A HOUSE RULE. If you just change the way SF works Tsk tsk. We haven't changed how anything works directly, but you want to start now? Really? That's the first time I hear that. You really think the sorcerer was underpowered at levels 1-11, compared to the wizard, for example? No, the odd levels are badly designed (PHB.sor), with the exception of 1st. I don't have any problem with any of the specials at the moment, and I think they make up for the lost slots nicely, in general. However, the slots lost are always at lower levels, and I think they don't make up for both the specials and the boosted spell progression at odd levels. I think you're alone. It would be nice to hear others chime in on it.
Prakhog 11-08-03, 10:30 PM	In response to a WAY earlier post. I like 7.2 because of contrived casting and Ignore materials. I don't want a familiar. I call the core sorc a "spellchucker", hurling spells all the time, intensely magical, but not really knowledgable in many types of arcane lore (ie. spells). How would a sorceror know how to summon a familiar? No one taught him. Furthermore, I usuallly play druids, so familiars really seem weak compared to animal companions, and I use my specials for Expedious metamagic.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-09-03, 01:19 AM	Originally posted by Prakhog: In response to a WAY earlier post. I like 7.2 because of contrived casting and Ignore materials. I don't want a familiar. Contrived Casting, or something like it, is being worked on in another thread, and v8.02 still has Ignore Materials... it's just broken up into two specials instead of one (Eschew Sorcerer Materials and Greater Eschew Materials). I call the core sorc a "spellchucker", hurling spells all the time, intensely magical, but not really knowledgable in many types of arcane lore (ie. spells). How would a sorceror know how to summon a familiar? No one taught him. Furthermore, I usuallly play druids, so familiars really seem weak compared to animal companions, and I use my specials for Expedious metamagic. To address your question about "knowing how", that's up to the player to decide. He may have had a mentor, or he may have heard about someone else doing it, or (most likely) he just knows (it is intuitive to him, just like spells). Familiars seem weaker than animal companions? Hmm... I think I see why. Hypothesis working...
Krynus Ogrebane 11-09-03, 01:42 AM	Anybody who does not summon familiars when playing an arcane spellcaster, please chime in! I would like to delve into the reasons why a number people don't summon familiars. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate a bit. These are not *my* thoughts on the matter, but rather the way I choose to play devil's advocate. 1 - "A familiar does not fit the class in any way." 2 - "I like the idea of some sort of magically bonded creature, in general, but the risks listed in the PHB outweigh the rewards." 3 - "The familiar isn't nearly as good as the druid's animal companion. Look at what the animal companion gets, compared to a familiar." 4 - "Seven special abilities isn't enough for me. I want eight." 5 - "I don't use, select, or want any class abilities that have negative consequences." Do any of these describe you? Which one? Is it a combination of more than one of these? Did I not list your reason(s)? What is it? I'd like to hear what you all have to say.
SirisC 11-09-03, 01:50 AM	I dont use familiars for my characters because of option 2 and because it generally doesnt fit my characters.
BlaineTog 11-09-03, 02:02 AM	At 1st level, it's unlikely that the spellcaster will opt for the familiar. But later (when the budget isnt so contrained), you would be a bit silly not to. 'Specially since familiars are so darn cool! Do you know what would be nice? A familar that enhances your spellcasting abilities somehow. Pehaps a topic for another thread... 1. For me, it does. I'm blatantly ripping someone off here, but I'd think that the Sorcerer, the lonely, lonely sorcerer, would actually be willing to go to MORE trouble for a familiar friend than his/her wizard counterpart. 2. Not quite. As in to say, yes, and no. There ARE soem minor risks, but they arn't the big whne you get to levels higher than 2/3. But i still like familairs;) 3. Which is partially why I got my DM to approve a Corrollax for my Familar. It doesn't give me any direct benefits per se, but a) it can mimic whaterver sound I want it to, b) it's small and it flys, so its perfect for scouting/spying/Touch attacks, and c) Color Spray at will. That little parrot has saved my *** on at least 1 specific occasion (I was surrounded by 4 wererats, one of which has levels in rogue, and only lived to tel lthe tale becasue by Familiar colosprayed the Rogue and blinded him). I don't know whether this is unbalancing or not, but i try not to abuse it (I've only actually used its Color Spray ability i think three times is the month or so i've been playing it). 4. 7 specials is fine, but (to be honest), 8.02 only has 8 to choose from. Now as much as I love Alt.sor, i'd like a little bit more leaway in the specials *hops behind blast sheild, strapps on kevlar vest, braces self for explosion* 5. Well, no one actually WANTS negative side effects. It's a question of returns: am i gaining as much (if not more than) as I'm losing? If no, then I'm not gonna take it. Finally: Where is this Contrived Casting thread? Or is it secret?
spasheridan 11-09-03, 02:10 AM	I had a multiclassed sorcerer and I took a Toad familiar. It's a cheap way to get a +2 con bonus. I was planning on dropping the familiar before I gained to many levels in sorc though because I wouldn't keep the familiar permanently and I would be able to get the con from somewhere else. With the 3.5 rules I would just avoid the familiar all together. The familiar is neat, but it isn't really a good idea for an adventuring kind of character. First off they have a really good chance of getting killed in most adventures, so that's a liability. 2nd, the don't contribute much on their own so they kinda hafta stay out of the way... which is good because of the 3rd point.. you loose XP when they die. Man, that's a kick in the pants. If I was an NPC caster than a raven or rat might make a great spy familiar, and be a great hook for the PC's to follow. As a PC caster it just doesn't make sense. Yep, once again, the druid beats the arcane spellcasters. Free to summon, gains better powers than the familiar, and no penalty if it dies. Why not be a druid? The higher level choices look neat, but you have to spend a feat to get em. Druids don't. Who wins again???
Krynus Ogrebane 11-09-03, 02:11 AM	The feedback is great so far. Everybody else, keep it coming! :thumbsup: Originally posted by BlaineTog: Finally: Where is this Contrived Casting thread? Or is it secret? Contrived Casting/Mask Spell thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125296) Sorry about that! I actually meant to link to it, but completely forgot to look up the link. :blush: :D Originally posted by : Yep, once again, the druid beats the arcane spellcasters. Free to summon, gains better powers than the familiar, and no penalty if it dies. Why not be a druid? Don't forget that, if an animal companion dies, you can summon one a mere 24 hours later, instead of a year and a day (for a familiar).
Krynus Ogrebane 11-09-03, 02:50 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog: 4. 7 specials is fine, but (to be honest), 8.02 only has 8 to choose from. Now as much as I love Alt.sor, i'd like a little bit more leaway in the specials *hops behind blast sheild, strapps on kevlar vest, braces self for explosion* OK, do you have any ideas? You do realize that a lot of them can be chosen multiple times, right (the exceptions being Eschew, Greater Eschew, and Arcane Skill Enhancement)? Don't forget that Mask Spell is being fine-tuned in that other thread.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-09-03, 05:27 AM	Just a heads up... I plugged in the 5 cantrips per day cap. v8.03 is the current version.
Frank the Vandal 11-09-03, 06:11 AM	Nice, lots of responses! - Arcane Skill Enhancement (small bonus, small duration) - Eschew Sorcerer Materials (already allowed) - Expeditous Metamagic (if you have metamagic at 1st) - Spell Secret (cantrips only, at that point) - Toughness With SF fixed, any one of these is fine. Ok, I assumed you wouldn't see metamagic as useful if your highest level slot is 1st level. And I overlooked the extra Knowledge requirment for Greater ESM. So my question was: powerwise, which one of these would be unbalancing if a leveldipper took it instead of SF? THIS WHOLE CLASS IS A HOUSE RULE I know that. What I'm trying to prevent is that a large amount of people will have to make house rules on this class again. Tsk tsk. We haven't changed how anything works directly, but you want to start now? Except of course for the sorcerer in general, Spell Secret (I think, the extra limit involved?), Eschew Materials (restricted it), the way Quicken Spell works for a sorcerer (maybe not directly, but close to it) and Spell Evolution. We can give it a new name after changing it, if you like. I think you're alone. It would be nice to hear others chime in on it. You're right. I won't post on the power issue until we have some more opinions on it, I think. As for the reasons not to summon a familiar: 1) It fits the class, though I think it fits the Wizard (who is usually less of a "people person") more. It doesn't fit all character concepts though. 2) I think that the rewards outweigh the risks, unless you plan on multiclassing later on (less rewards, greater risks, since your familiar doesn't advance). 3) The druid's animal companion is better for combat (less risk if he dies, easy to replace, stronger) but a familiar is better as a friend, or for more complicated operations. In general, the druid's companion is more powerful, I think. However, the druid's animal companion and his wildshape abilities are supposed to be balanced by his weaker spellcasting. 4) Not really, but I'd like to have something in return if I don't take a familiar. 5) Depends on the benefits, and how much I want them.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-09-03, 06:40 AM	Alright, I'm glad to see all the great input. Anybody else who sees this, feel free to jump in with your reasons. Now for a little dissection... 1 - "A familiar does not fit the class in any way." This is obviously untrue. While it may not suit a player's character concept, it does suit the class perfectly. 2 - "I like the idea of some sort of magically bonded creature, in general, but the risks listed in the PHB outweigh the rewards." This is understandable... there are quite a few risks, none of them inconsiderable. 3 - "The familiar isn't nearly as good as the druid's animal companion. Look at what the animal companion gets, compared to a familiar." I hadn't realized until this evening that WOTC had boosted the animal companion so thoroughly in 3.5. The familiar does seem to pale in comparison, and then you throw in the drawbacks?... a shame, really. 4 - "Seven special abilities isn't enough for me. I want eight." I didn't think this was an issue when I posed the situation, and apparently it is not. 5 - "I don't use, select, or want any class abilities that have negative consequences." This ties in with #2, and it's a reasonable stance. ~ ~ ~ ~ So, from what we have so far, familiars are suited to the class, but the risks/rewards, especially when you compare it to the animal companion, seems inadequate and almost unfair. Perhaps the familiar needs a makeover too. Man, I think we've just added on a bit of work, if we encompass a familiar re-write into this, although it shouldn't be too bad. I will think on this and come up with ideas. You all do the same (if you're interested). Is there anything else that people think should be considered, that we may have over-looked? I can't think of anything else, and Thot is dealing with a possible Mask Spell issue (if it's at all reconcilable). As an aside... how the hell do divine spellcasters rate such blatant favoritism (read: design flaws)? It's frustrating.
Frank the Vandal 11-09-03, 07:43 AM	Before starting to toss in ideas, are you sure major changes on the familiar are necessary? As I said, the druid's animal companion is supposed to be balanced by his weaker spellcasting abilities. There have been numerous threads (since 3.5, but also before that) that claimed divine spellcasters are too strong, and even though there is a lot of disagreement on that, trying to balance the sorcerer to them may not be a good idea (and it's not easy either, since they're so different). (Note that clerics don't get companions, so we're looking at druids mostly here.) The out-of-combat uses of a familiar are much better than those of an animal companion. For one thing, you can talk to it, to give it complicated orders and just to make conversation. A druid's companion stays as stupid as when it started, so even if you mange to talk to it (spells...), you're still limited. And because they are essentially wild animals, they're hard to keep around in unnatural environments for them. (I've lost two of my companions already in a campaign I'm playing in, both times my character got trapped somewhere the companion couldn't come. :( Maybe I'll find them back, but at the moment, I'm still stuck underground.) Familiars can accompany you virtually everywhere. Also, changes to the familiar at least indirectly affect the wizard. If you make the changes to him as well, it'll be a power-up he doesn't need. Boosting the sorcerer's familiar and not the wizard's doesn't make sense and will upset the wizards. I think we should be very careful about making any big changes. If you do want to increase the familiars possibilities, I'd prefer to maybe boost Augment Familiar and/or add other specials like it. We'll have to make sure, however, that they aren't necessary for having a familiar, or people will complain they need to spend extra specials on it. And of course, I'd still like it if people who decide not to take one get something in return. :) I'll try and think of any ideas.
Frank the Vandal 11-09-03, 08:54 AM	Ok, some rough drafts, all specials: Acquire Familiar: Benefit: You can obtain a familiar just like a wizard can (see the sidebar, PHB page 50 for details). Doing so requires you to magically link with a creature that isn't hostile or unfriendly toward you. A creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher (before any increase for becoming a familiar) must be initially friendly toward you. The link fails if the creature is under any charm or compulsion effect. Linking is mostly an intuitive process, takes about two minutes and requires no material components. When the familiar dies or is dismissed, the sorcerer loses experience as stated in the PHB, and the familiar can not be replaced for a year and one day, though it can be raised or ressurrected normally (this doesn't return the lost XP). Special If the sorcerer takes this ability at first level, he can begin play with his familiar. Comments: Mostly as in the PHB and T&B, but I left out the day-long ritual and material cost, which are "unsorcerish" for some people ("where would he learn it"). This also makes it available from the start, hopefully encouraging familiar usage, even though it costs you a special. Augment Familiar: Your familiar is more powerful than normal. Prerequisites: Ability to summon a familiar. Benefit: When this ability is selected, the sorcerer adds +1 to her class level when referencing Table 3-19 for her familiar's abilities (scaling Natural Armor and Intelligence, should the effective level go above 20th). Furthermore, the range of effect for the Familiar Abilities Alertness and Spell Sharing is extended to 10 feet. Special: A character may gain this ability multiple times, adding another +1 to her class level and extending the ranges by 10 feet each time. Its effects stack. Comments: Same as in v8.x. Just added it here for completeness. Would a +2 to class level be too much, you think? BTW, does this ability also affect the amount of Spell Resistance the familiar gets (normally based on master's level)? And does anyone else think that at Epic levels the familiar gets extremely intelligent? Empathic Casting: Prerequisites: Ability to summon a familiar. Benefit: You can cast spells through the Empathic Link you have with your familiar, as long as the spell targets your familiar. The spell can only affect the familiar, and this ability only works with spells that are targeted on a creature. You don't need a direct line of effect to your familiar, but the Empathic Link only reaches for 1 mile, as normal. Improved Empathic Casting: Prerequisites: Ability to summon a familiar, Empathic Casting. Benefit: You can cast spells through the Empathic Link you have with your familiar, and let your familiar target them for you. The spell range limits the distance of the spell effect from the familiar, not the caster, and if the spell normally would visibly emenate from the caster, it now seems to come directly from the familiar. During the casting, the spell requires as much concentration from the familiar as from the caster, and the spell can be disrupted at both sides of the link as normal by Attacks of Opportunity or Counterspelling (though the Spellcraft DC to identify the spell might be higher when looking at the familiar, since any spellcomponents are missing). Any targeting of the spell is done by the familiar, and you don't have any control over it when casting the spell (though you can instruct him before casting). The familiar knows which spell it's supposed to targed. If the targeting requires an attack roll, the familiar can use your BAB, but it uses it's own ability modifiers.
BlaineTog 11-09-03, 12:53 PM	Idea? Hmm... I'll take a shot. Spell Thematics[Metamagic] Basically, you can make your spells look and/or sound differently than they normally would. They can look/sound like anything you want, but have no effect of the mechanis of the spell. So, a Fireball, for instance, still does fire damage, even if it looks like Lightning, or Acid, or a swarm of little pink bunnies. This adds a flat +2 to the DC for identifying the spell. This adds +0 to the spell's level and does not increase the casting time. Personally, I think this makes logical sense (and it's cool). Plus, if there ever was an underpowered feat, this would be it. The Spellcraft mod could be taken out if you still think its too powereful (:confused:) since the spell still acts the same and the movements involved wouldn't be all that different (if they are different at all). [puts on thinking cap, sips some Vanilla Coke] Magical Affinity [Note" Name needs tweaking] Prerequisites: Caster level 11, Prestigiditation The Sorcerer (being a creature of magic) now seems to exude energy wherever (s)he goes. They are now under the constant effects of Presdigigtation. This permenantly used up 1 Cantrip slot per day [or not. Possibly the caster could instead go through a ritual or something using up xgp in magical supplies or something]. Now, you might at first glance think this is overpowered, and it darn well might be. But think about it: Presdigitation has a) no use in combat, and b) has basically no mechanical use out of combat either. I use it mostly to make my eyes glow and lightbulbs appear above me head (ok, candles, since I don't wanne be metagaming!) Also: at 11th level, the caster can cast Presditigation and it will be up for 11 hours! Basically, this saves them a casting. Spell Reflection Prerequisites: Caster level 14, Dispel Magic, Will Save modifier (not base, but after all is said and done): 12 If another spell is being cast and the sorcerer wishes to dispel it, (s)he may instead Reflect it (stated before the process begins). To start with, a successful Counterspell must be cast. Then, the sorcerer (as a full round action each round) may (metaphorically) grapple with the spell for three ful consecutive rounds. This provokes AoO and cannot be cast on the defensive due to the intense concentration required. And damage triggers a conscentration check of 20+spell level. Each round, the sorcerer must undergo a Will Save of 10+spell level+ caster level. If all three will saves are completed successfully, then the spell is cast towards the original caster as if (s)he had cast it (you are essentially bouncing the spell back to them). If you fail any two of the three will saves, then the spell detonates normally. Now this, i think, might be a bit overpowered, althougth the fact that they a) have to spend three rounds with this, b) have a high DC for each of those will saves, c) have to successfully Counter it first, d) can't cast on the defensive, and e) might end up simply delaying they spell if they fail make it less powerful. Perhaps it whould be changed to something like: Only spells targeting the caster (including Area Effect spells in which the caster resides) may be Reflected, and the standard 5-foot step could be disallowed. Spell Detonation Prerequisites: ??? The Sorcerer can become channel the intence power of his/her magic into pure force. As a standard action, the caster may detonate a Spell Per day, causeing a wave of force to eminate in a 20-ft radius hemisphere centered on the caster. This blast does 1d4 (or possible d6 or d3) damage +1 per caster level (max???) to all cauge in the blast and stuns them for 1d4 round (Will save negates Stun). The caster, however, is stunned for the remainder of the round and 1d4 more rounds, with no save(although (s)he is not helpless and cannot be coup de graced in this way). Reasons? twofold. a) So the sorcerer isn't confined to Damage and generally Offensive spells, and b) i really, really, really like the idea of the caster clapping his/her hands together and causing a blast (coolcoolcool!). Plus, it (again) makes a measure of sence that the sorcerer can deal with raw magical energy. As far as tweaks go, the damage could be tweaked, the radius of the hemisphere could be tweaked, it could be made into a circle (:weep:), and +1per caster level could be capped or taken out entierly, a Reflex save for 1/2 could be implemented (althoguh I don't like this much. Magic Missle doesn't have a save!). And while this could be like Mask Spell (everyone wants it), it can't really be used safley in many situations. For one thing, its a lot less damage than other spells at said levels (partially why I don't like the save-for-half-w/-reflex-save idea) and it [i]will[/u] stunn the caster. Magical Empathy Much like the aforementioned Magical Affinity, allthough instead constant Detect Magic. Possible tweak: caster must succeed at a will save (DC???) when entering a high magic area or become nauseated for 10 minutes (???) at which time another will save can remove the nausea. Another will save every hour is necessary to prevent nausea. A metal hat plated with magic iron (or something) worth at least 2000gp may be worn to prevent the will save and the nausea (weights 5lbs or something, 5%arcane spell failure). Improved Magical Empathy Prereqs: Magical Empathy Removes Nausea effect and/or gives the caster the information that would normally take 3 rounds as a free action (Caster glances at a sword or something and knows it magical or not). Again, Creature Of Magic logic. [pulls rip cord on thinking cap] False Casting Prerequisites: Probably a Caster level of 5ish, Bluff Ranks, must know the spell (s)he is trying to fake. The Sorcerer has learned the art of holding back. They may now "cast" any spell know normally w/o actualyl casting it. Basically, they try to fake out (or fieghnt) an apposing casting into Counterspelling a spell that isn't being cast. They must declare this before actually trying to fake the enemy out. The effect is that the apposing caster wastes a spell slot/spell prepared. However, they get a chance to notice that something's awry. They must make an apposing Sence Motive to your Bluff check. Both of you add your Caster levels to your respective results. If they succeed, then they know you're faking the spell and can choose not to cast it. Alternate: when casting a "real" spell, you can take a Concentration Check of 15 (or 20)+spell level to try to make it look like you are faking. A Sence motive+CL vs. your Bluff+CL check is forced. If successful, the apposition thinks you are bluffing and may choose not to counterspell. This very well might be overpowerd, or more worht a full feat, but I don't really know. Questions? Comments? Objections?
Frank the Vandal 11-09-03, 02:14 PM	Wow, that's a lot of new specials. Let's see. Spell Thematics It's been mentioned a few times in this thread, but never made it as a special. I don't remember if there was a good reason for this, though. If not, I wouldn't mind putting it in. It's certainly fitting. Magical Affinity Well, Prestidigitation last one hour, not one hour/level, so you're saving yourself a little more castings than one. I can hardly say it's overpowered, though. The cost of a special is far greater than that of the used cantrip slot, and the only reason anyone would take it is for flavor reasons. I can't think of any reasonable objections. Spell Reflection When I started reading this, I thought the ability would be overpowered, but after finishing, I can't think of a reason a sorcerer would be willing to try this after he has succesfully countered the spell. The odds of overcoming the three high DCs aren't good. In fact, he's probably just delaying the effect in most cases. Now, I must say I rather like the idea of being able to use your opponents' magic against him, but this is too weak, I think. I'll give it a try myself, if you don't mind: Spell Sabotage You can use other people's magic against themselves. Benefit: When succesfully countering a spell with a range greater than Touch, you may attempt to gain control of the spell's targeting. To do so, you must make a Spellcraft Check, opposed by a Spellcraft check from the person who was originally casting the spell. The original caster gains a bonus to his check equal to the level of the spell. If you fail to beat his check, the spell takes effect normally, as if you hadn't countered it. If you succeed, you can select a new target for the spell, as long as it is within spell range from the original caster. The original caster can decide to spend one round to attempt to regain control and cast the spell normally on his next turn (which costs a standard action). This again requires an opposed Spellcraft Check, but no spell level bonusses apply this time. However, even if this is succesfully done, you can attempt gaining control again on your next turn (just before the original caster), as if you had succesfully counterspelled it. This magical duel continues until someone fails to wrestle the targetting away from the other, until someone stops spending time to try, or until someones concentration is disrupted. Note: Counterspelling and attempting to gain control of a spell both provoke an AoO. Example: Mialee, a Wizard, casts a Fireball at Hennet, a sorcerer, and his party. Hennet, who had readied an action to counterspell, counters it with his own Fireball spell and attemps to target it back at Mialee. He wins the opposed Spellcraft Check, despite Mialees +3 bonus on her check for the spell's level. Mialee, who doesn't want to be fried, tries to gain back control, and beats Hennet's check this time. They both spend the rest of the round concentrating. Sadly, Hennet gets hit by an arrow from one of Mialee's friends, fails his concentration check (DC 10+damage dealt, as normal), and Mialee blasts Hennet's party with her fireball on her next turn. What do you think? Probably too complicated, right? :) Spell Detonation I must admit I like the flavor. It shouldn't be too powerful, of course. It probably should be weaker than a spell of the same level, since we don't want to give the sorcerer any extra spells known. An ability that stuns yourself doesn't sound very appealing, however, and making it balanced for all levels will be hard. Wouldn't it be easier to just create a new spell that does about the same thing (though for a fixed level, of course)? BTW, I prefer sphere over hemisphere. More logical, I think. Improved Magical Empathy This can already be achieved by using Permanency. It has a few more drawbacks (dispellable, costs XP) and doesn't take up a special. Personally, I don't really see the need. False Casting Fits nicely, I think, but the reason I don't like it is that at high levels, the "alternate" option makes counterspelling nearly impossible, since a spellcaster probably won't spend much skillpoints in Sense Motive (cross-class), and a sorcerer that maxes out Bluff (one of his few class skills) will probably beat him every time.
BlaineTog 11-09-03, 02:55 PM	Thank you. IMO, the character should have more choices than they can take (As it is, there are only 8 specials, meaning the player can take all of them but one, which could very well be Toughness.). RE: Magical Affinity. It only lasts for 1 hour? ::checks books:: :eek: Woops! I was confusing it w/ my a house rule of mine (1hour/level). But you're right: this still doesn't overpower it, IMHO. RE: Spell relfection. I was purposley undershooting, since it can only go up from there:D. I like Spell Sabotage, though. Not overly complicated, although it could be restated more suscinctly. How, I don't know. RE: Spell Detonation. Although making it a spell would be easier, it a)would be fixed, and the whole point of this is that it's NOT fixed, and b) it wouldn't then be a special;). Now: balance for spell levels. If it's d6 +1 per 2 caster levels, here's how it will stack up agaisnt a 1st, 3rd, and 9th level damage spell: CL10. MM: 10-25. SD: 6-11. CL20. MM:same, SD: 10-16 CL10. Fireball: 10-60. SD: 8-23. CL20. FB: same. SD: 13-46 CL20. Meteor Swarm: either 24-144 or, uh, still lots. SD: 16-64 It can, theoretically, rival Fireball, but the caster is still stunned. If you think that this makes it a worthless special, then possibley the caster could get a save, or maby it only last for 1 round for the caster. Actually, as I look at this, Stunning enemies should probably either have a lower DC than is customary for a spell of that level (like, just 10+spell level), or is should be eliminated altogether. The reason that I'm, agaisnt a Reflex save for half is because this energy is flying out of the caster at the speed of light (if not faster. u never know in DnD;)), and I just can't see them hoping out of the way (especially if they are right next to the caster). Again, other than for flavor reasonings, this is really just so that the sorcerer doesn't feel obligated to take damage-dealers at every level; I'm trying to take down the idea that all sorcerers are Mobile Artillery Platforms. And seriosuly: a level 9 spell slot does about the same damage as Fireball does, and it's level three! RE: Improved Magical Empathy. Although I'm aware of Permenacy-fying Detect Magic, you still have to focus of the object for three rounds, which seems silly in the cast of a sorcerer. They themselves are partly magic, so why do they have to concentrate? That would be like having to concentrate for half a minute to tell if it's a Tropical or Arctic temperature. RE: False Casting. The alternate version was an afterthought that I would have no problem ditching. I do see your point, however, on the effect at higher levels. Mabye make is a Spellcraft Check apposing a Bluff check. That makes more sence, i think (the apposing caster notices that you arn't moving your hands in white the right way). Mabye a concentration check, and if you fail, you lose the slot anyway (like, accidentlly casting it if you don't cencentrate hard enough, but it misfires).
Frank the Vandal 11-09-03, 04:30 PM	RE: Spell relfection. I was purposley undershooting, since it can only go up from there. I like Spell Sabotage, though. Not overly complicated, although it could be restated more suscinctly. How, I don't know. Yes, I already thought so (undershooting). I agree the wording could be more clear, but I'm not really sure how either. Maybe an example would help. RE: Spell Detonation. Although making it a spell would be easier, it a)would be fixed, and the whole point of this is that it's NOT fixed, and b) it wouldn't then be a special. Now: balance for spell levels. If it's d6 +1 per 2 caster levels, here's how it will stack up agaisnt a 1st, 3rd, and 9th level damage spell: CL10. MM: 10-25. SD: 6-11. CL20. MM:same, SD: 10-16 CL10. Fireball: 10-60. SD: 8-23. CL20. FB: same. SD: 13-46 CL20. Meteor Swarm: either 24-144 or, uh, still lots. SD: 16-64 I'm not getting your math, I think... It deals 1d6 per spell level + 1 per 2 caster levels? Then I'd get: CL10. MM: 10-25. SD: 6-11. CL20. MM:same, SD: 11-17 CL10. Fireball: 10-60. SD: 8-23. CL20. FB: same. SD: 13-28 CL20. Meteor Swarm: either 24-144 or, uh, still lots. SD: 19-64 Right? I agree that it's less powerful than the spells at the levels you mentioned, and the stunning makes it even weaker. But how about this: CL 1: MM 2-5, SD: 1-6. CL 20: Acid Splash (cantrip) 1-3, SD: 10 Now at level 20, you probably don't want to stun yourself for dealing 10 damage and some stunning, but at level 1 SD might be a rather good option, if you have a party around you. I'm not sure how to balance the stunning, however. Stunning your enemies can be pretty useful if you have a party around you to take care of them. How harmful stunning yourself is depends on the situation. The ability looks a bit like Sound Burst (level 2 Cleric spell, 10 ft radius, 1d8 sound damage, 1 round of stunning (Will negates stunning)). Another wild idea might be to allow dropping multiple spells at once: Spell Detonation The Sorcerer can become channel the intence power of his/her magic into pure force. As a standard action, the caster may detonate a number of his unused Spell Slots, causeing a wave of force to emanate from him in a sphere centered on the caster. This blast does 1d6 points of damage per two lost spell levels to all creatures within 5 feet of him, including himself. For every additional 5 feet of distance, the damage done halves. Cantrips count as level 1/2 spells for this purpose. If the damage kills the sorcerer, the creatures around him never take more than twice his maximum hitpoints in damage. For example, a caster detonating one 3rd level and one 1st level slot would deal 2d6 points of damage to himself, and the creatures right next to him, but only half of that to a creature 10 feet away. Too weak, too powerful? Damage per spell level may need some tweaking... It's risky, but it's of course extremely cool to see a desparate sorcerer blow himself up! The type of damage will need to be specified as well, and you should not be able to prevent the damage to yourself. It's of course getting dangerously close to a magical point system, possibly too close to the Psion as well. RE: Improved Magical Empathy. Although I'm aware of Permenacy-fying Detect Magic, you still have to focus of the object for three rounds, which seems silly in the cast of a sorcerer. They themselves are partly magic, so why do they have to concentrate? That would be like having to concentrate for half a minute to tell if it's a Tropical or Arctic temperature. The reason I'd like someone to have to concentrate to detect magic, is that I don't want magical traps and illusions to be useless against the party with a sorcerer in it. Makes the job quite a bit harder for the DM... An ability like this was mentioned before (I thought by Thot, who got it from somewhere/someone else, I think), and as long as it needs at least some concentration to detect something, I don't have much of a problem with it. RE: False Casting. The alternate version was an afterthought that I would have no problem ditching. I do see your point, however, on the effect at higher levels. Mabye make is a Spellcraft Check apposing a Bluff check. That makes more sence, i think (the apposing caster notices that you arn't moving your hands in white the right way). Mabye a concentration check, and if you fail, you lose the slot anyway (like, accidentlly casting it if you don't cencentrate hard enough, but it misfires). I'm very protective of counterspelling. ;) I think it's a very fun option that's already underused. If you make it Bluff vs. Spellcraft, you still prevent dispelling in 50% of the cases against a same level wizard (even more for a sorcerer, since Spellcraft is Int-based) if you max it out, on average. Personally, I just don't like it, I'm afraid. I don't mind trying to pull away some extra slots from someone who is counterspelling you, but the ability doesn't make sense if you can trick someone into thinking you're casting while you're not, but not the other way around. And the other way around is close to Mask Spell, which is discussed in the other thread (Krynus gave the link, please stop by and give your opinion if you're interested), where I'm also desperately trying to make sure counterspelling isn't nerfed by it. :) EDIT: I tried to clear Spell Sabotage up with an example in my last post.
ShadowShinobi 11-09-03, 05:50 PM	I just give the sorcerer acess to to WuJen and Wiz/Sor spells. Works for me.:mage:
BlaineTog 11-09-03, 07:00 PM	I see what you're saying about SD and Improved Magical Empathy. SD. A clarification: effects allies as well as enemies. Radius: Mabye just set it at 10feet, for the sake of KISS. As far the effects to the caster, If (s)he is takingdamage from this, is has to either be significantly less than that the enemy is taking, and/or the enemy must take more. Sorcerers only get a d4 anyway, so mabye they take the minimum. At least that way they have a chance of surviving. As far as power relative to MM or acid splash, those two can be cast in successive rounds. Let me put it like this, in two rounds, this is the damage: CL1 MM: 4-10. SD: 1-6 (since you are stunned the next round). You can get off 2 magic missles in the same time it takes to blast 1 Detonation. With your modification, they both take the same number of slots and the same number of rounds, but SD does less damage. As for the cantrips problem, simply disalow cantrip slots for this purpose. "Cantrips slots cannot be detonated since the transference from spell-ready power into raw magical force by itself consumes all their energy." I can see how Improved Magical Empathy could cause problems. It was really just a suggestion. Mabye simply change the concentration to 1 round. This way, it's a little bit more useful than Detect Magic is in spell form, but not Trap Sence. Since generally, traps are encountered out of battle, this basically saves the character... 18 seconds and a cantrip slot (not even that, if we decide it consumes a slot). False Casting. Hmmm... I see your point. "Alternate" is too close to mask spell. Call it a little Freudian slip on my part. :mymy: So (if i read this right), what you are saying is that if two caster of an equal level square off in this, the person being tricked has about a 50/50 chance of wasting a slot (if they have the option of counterspelling). It's a little less if it's a Sorcerer Vs. a Sorcerer, since the victim sorcerer probably has a higher Charisma than intelligence. If you want, we could add a a +5 bonus to the Opposing Spellcraft check since you arn't actually using magical energies. This puts the favor in the opposing Spellcraft check, but still making Faking them out feasible (i mean, it's not like they're losing a whole lot. This is an interesting sidenote, but not the most useful technique on the block). To me, this is kinda like Feighnting, but with magic. However, since it doesn't do direct damage and I don't *think* it's as abusable as feignthing was (you know, hoe rogues could use it to get Sneak Attacks in), it isn't overpowered, IMHO. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you my Swan Song for Mask Spell: Make this change to how we were gonna have it: A Bluff Check apposing either a Sence Motive or a Spellcraft Check. A Successful Sence Motive Check makes them strongly suspect/realize that you are casting a spell. A Spellcraft Check that is successful by more than 2 tells them that a) you are casting a spell, and b) which spell it is. If their Spelllcraft check is within 2, then they realize you are casting a spell, but they don't know which one, and if they fail by more thna 2, they don't notice that you are casting a spell. Example: Mialee and Lidda are holding Hennet and Regdar captive. Hennet is trying to cast a Masked Fireball. Mialee and Lidda are both automatically entitled to a check. Since Mialee has onlt 2 ranks in Sence Motive, she makes a spellcraft check and gets a 16. Hennet's Bluff check is a 13, so Mialee knows that he is casting Fireball. Lidda has 0 ranks in Spellcraft, vs 9 in Sence Motive, so she makes a sence motive check. She rolls a 12, so she doesn't realize that he's casting a spell. The surprise round would include only Mialee and Hennet, unless Regdar succeeded at his Sence Motivee check. The surprise round would still have encluded Mialee if she had gotten between 11 and 15, although for all she knew, Hennet could have been casting Ray of Frost on his cup of soup so it wouldn't burn his lips.
BlaineTog 11-10-03, 01:33 AM	Am I destined to be thread killer? When I was a young 'un, this thread usesta get a new post every minute! What I'm trying to say is :bump: Not really. I've just always wanted to use that smiley.:D
Krynus Ogrebane 11-10-03, 03:07 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: As I said, the druid's animal companion is supposed to be balanced by his weaker spellcasting abilities. :uh-huh: Weaker spellcasting? I don't know how you can arrive at THAT conclusion. Druids are the most powerful class in the game, bar none. And of course, I'd still like it if people who decide not to take one get something in return. :) Give it up, Frank. You'll get nothing, AND LIKE IT! :D :smirk: Acquire Familiar: Comments: Mostly as in the PHB and T&B, but I left out the day-long ritual and material cost, which are "unsorcerish" for some people ("where would he learn it"). This also makes it available from the start, hopefully encouraging familiar usage, even though it costs you a special. No. Augment Familiar: Comments: Same as in v8.x. Just added it here for completeness. Would a +2 to class level be too much, you think? BTW, does this ability also affect the amount of Spell Resistance the familiar gets (normally based on master's level)? And does anyone else think that at Epic levels the familiar gets extremely intelligent? +2 is too much. Yes, this does affect SR, and a small clarification would be a good idea. Yes, INT for familiars is ridiculously high... it should probably cap out somewhere (+/- 2 of master's INT?). Empathic Casting: This is nice. I would say that maybe Augment Familiar should be a prereq. (?) Improved Empathic Casting: This is nice too. I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but familiars already use the master's BAB. Why would you add that in the description? Originally posted by BlaineTog: Spell Thematics[Metamagic] A few things... what you have here is not what the feat in Magic of Faerun does. You pick a theme (only one theme... you can't just throw out any old effect you want, but you can cast a spell without using it), it adds +5 to the Spellcraft DC to identify it, and it is not metamagic (no extended cast-times). Having said that, it's still an underpowered feat. I forget why we didn't have it on the specials list, but I think it had something to do with the fact that DM's pretty much give this one out free, without the +5. Magical Affinity [Note" Name needs tweaking] Permanency. Spell Reflection THREE full-round actions? :nonono: Also, do you know how difficult it actually is to counterspell? Spell Turning. Spell Detonation :bored: This should be a spell, after it is sufficiently boosted to whatever spell slot you want it to require for casting. I have an idea about it, if you'd like to hear it. Plus, it (again) makes a measure of sence that the sorcerer can deal with raw magical energy. The [force] descriptor (any descriptor, for that matter) is not "raw magical energy", in the sense that you are implying. Arcane Fire (or Spellfire) is "raw magical energy". Magical Empathy Permanency. False Casting Counterspelling is harder than it should be, and is therefore extremely under-used (I have yet to see it used in a game, personally). Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Spell Sabotage *looks imploringly at the sky* "What have I done?" Come on, man. 'Gain control'? :nonono: Originally posted by ShadowShinobi: I just give the sorcerer acess to to WuJen and Wiz/Sor spells. Works for me. :mage: You already do, by virtue of spell research (and your DM's discretion). Originally posted by BlaineTog: Am I destined to be thread killer? If you are, work your magic on Xun's thread. :devil:
Krynus Ogrebane 11-10-03, 03:41 AM	About boosting familiars... My general ideas revolve around a few more abilities, improving the existing ones, improving Augment Familiar, or reducing/eliminating some of the "penalties". For example, the familiar abilities stop at "Scry on familiar". An "improved" and "greater" scrying option would be nice. Also, perhaps a Telepathic Link (improving on the Empathic Link... actual talking, instead of just emotions). The ideas suggested by Frank for Empathic Casting and Improved Empathic Casting are nice too. Maybe Augment Familiar should allow you to pick a feat that your familiar acquires, in addition to the other stuff listed... or just have bonus feats on the familiar abilities table instead. IMO, 200 XP/sorcerer level (save for half) is A LOT. That's 20% of your XP towards the next level (if you're not multi-classed). I was thinking 100 XP/level (or 50 XP/level with a successful save). Instead of a year and a day to summon another, a month sounds more reasonable. The money is the least troublesome part, IMO. That uber-INT is annoyingly unreasonable at high levels, to me. I don't know. I worked up a familiar progression at work, but it looks like too much. *YAWN*
Krynus Ogrebane 11-10-03, 04:09 AM	Also, dismissing a familiar shouldn't result in XP loss (retired due to old age, "upgrading", etc.). A 30-day waiting period would still be required though.
Frank the Vandal 11-10-03, 04:11 AM	Spell Detonation: After a lot of discussion, it may be possible to balance it, but I actually think it's just easier as a spell. By this ability, you're reinforcing the idea of the sorcerer as the "blaster" mage, not decreasing it. Just design a new spell (or two, normal and greater, for example) and adjust it with Metamagic if you want to change the slot. It's exactly what spell slots and metamagic are there for. I can see how Improved Magical Empathy could cause problems. It was really just a suggestion. Mabye simply change the concentration to 1 round. This way, it's a little bit more useful than Detect Magic is in spell form, but not Trap Sence. Since generally, traps are encountered out of battle, this basically saves the character... 18 seconds and a cantrip slot (not even that, if we decide it consumes a slot). As long as it requires at least a round of concentration, I don't have a problem with it. But nearly the same thing can be attained by permanency, so I wouldn't mind leaving it out either. False Casting: Still not fond of it, I'm afraid. It still makes counterspelling less attractive, and it doesn't make much sense to leave out the alternate version (and I definately don't want it in!). If you're always 100% sure if a person is actually casting a spell, and not faking (and you are, if you leave out the alternate), then you also won't believe he's casting if you're not sure. Not very clear maybe... Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you my Swan Song for Mask Spell: I'll answer on the other thread, but it may take until tonight (and I'm in Europe...). Busy day. Weaker spellcasting? I don't know how you can arrive at THAT conclusion. Druids are the most powerful class in the game, bar none. I said "supposed". I know there are disagreements here, and I'm not sure myself. I'm pretty sure the druid's spellcasting is weaker than arcane casting, but not sure if it balances out. In any case, trying to balance an essentially new class to the most powerful class in the game isn't the best option. No. {on acquire familiar} Well, that was the answer I was expecting from you. :) +2 is too much. Yes, this does affect SR, and a small clarification would be a good idea. Yes, INT for familiars is ridiculously high... it should probably cap out somewhere (+/- 2 of master's INT?). - Ok. (Thought so, just wondering...) - Good. (Didn't think so, but it's better if it does, I think.) - I don't have a problem with it increasing past it's master's if he's a sorcerer, but if he's a wizard, things are getting nasty. Maybe it should just cap out at level 20. 15 Int is higher than average, but it prevent's the situation where the familiar is one of the most intelligent creatures in the world, when at Epic levels. This is nice. I would say that maybe Augment Familiar should be a prereq. Thanks. I considered making it a prereq, but didn't really see the need. They work on different mechanisms. Shared Spells and Alertness are both only effective at close range, while the Empathic Link extends for a mile. I wouldn't mind if it was put in, but so far, I don't see a problem with leaving it out. I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but familiars already use the master's BAB. Why would you add that in the description? Oops. No, I wasn't aware. (And I've read the info on familiars several times yesterday!) You're right, it's redundant. Magical Affinity [Note" Name needs tweaking]Permanency. Prestidigitation can't be made permanent with the Permanency spell. *looks imploringly at the sky* "What have I done?" Come on, man. 'Gain control'? :D Alright, calm down. I was just brainstorming. Feeling creative, you know. We'll forget about this one. If you are, work your magic on Xun's thread. :rofl:
Krynus Ogrebane 11-10-03, 04:19 AM	Oh my gawd, we agreed almost entirely! What's gotten into us?! ;) Prestidigitation can't be made permanent with the Permanency spell. OK. I can't imagine anybody spending XP on something like this, in any event. Besides, we gave the alt.sor quite a few more cantrips/day (potentially). That should be enough, yes? RE: Augment Familiar being a prereq for Empathic Casting: Thanks. I considered making it a prereq, but didn't really see the need. They work on different mechanisms. You probably have a point there. They really aren't related. I wouldn't mind putting it in the familiar's abilities table, myself. There's quite a lot of white space, especially after 13th.
Frank the Vandal 11-10-03, 04:34 AM	Yeah, this is scary! I just saw the 2 posts you typed while I was putting up mine. I'll try to work some disagreement in my comments there. :D OK. I can't imagine anybody spending XP on something like this, in any event. Besides, we gave the alt.sor quite a few more cantrips/day. That should be enough, yes? I suppose so. I wouldn't spend a special on it either, to be honest, so I wouldn't mind leaving it out. For example, the familiar abilities stop at "Scry on familiar". An "improved" and "greater" scrying option would be nice. Improved doesn't exist anymore, right? I wouldn't mind increasing it to "greater"at, say, level 17 (nice empty spot in familiar progression). Also, perhaps a Telepathic Link (improving on the Empathic Link... actual talking, instead of just emotions). The ideas suggested by Frank for Empathic Casting and Improved Empathic Casting are nice too. I've been thinking the same thing. As a special or as an extra familiar ability? Maybe Augment Familiar should allow you to pick a feat that your familiar acquires, in addition to the other stuff listed... or just have bonus feats on the familiar abilities table instead. I'm not so fond of this idea... What feats would you see as useful? Or are you suggesting things like we mentioned here (Telepathic link, Empathic casting, Greater Scrying)? Not really bonus feats, but bonus abilities... IMO, 200 XP/sorcerer level (save for half) is A LOT. That's 20% of your XP towards the next level (if you're not multi-classed). I was thinking 100 XP/level (or 50 XP/level with a successful save). Instead of a year and a day to summon another, a month sounds more reasonable. ... Also, dismissing a familiar shouldn't result in XP loss (retired due to old age, "upgrading", etc.). A 30-day waiting period would still be required though. Hmmm, the estimate is about 13-15 balanced encounters per level-up, right? Seeing that, a 10% loss seems a bit small, I think. With two encounters you have it back. And at higher levels, you'll probably make the save anyway. With 5% loss, it's quite probable that your experience total is still going up by the encounter where your familiar died (it's probably a challenging one). Month or year doesn't really matter to me. I agree a year is long, but at higher levels, a simple Raise Dead or Resurrect spell will fix things for you anyway, and I don't really want to encourage dumping your familiar. It's supposed to be your closest friend, sharing your deepest thoughts... How about automatically passing the Fort Save if you dismiss it? The money is the least troublesome part, IMO. That uber-INT is annoyingly unreasonable at high levels, to me.Agreed. Still a lot of agreement here... Ummm, *thinks quickly*, you should get something back for not summoning a familiar! Especially with all those power-ups! There, that should do it. ;)
Thot 11-10-03, 06:14 AM	OK, I don't have much time, so I'll be concise, and will not comment on everything (yet, at least). I've had time only to lurk, too, and haven't even read it all, so, be forgiving, please. Frank : So, for a low level campaign, (running from 1-11) the alt. sorcerer is obviously the better choice. That's a bit painful, I think. If true, yes, it is painful, but I believe that many people who think the Sor is unviable are refering mainly to the low-levels. Including viable compared to the other spellcasters. Ogrebane : {SF as a special} Those who would LIKE to summon a familiar, but have to now pay for it twice to do so, are less inclined to (once to select it, and again for the summoning costs, consequences, etc.). This is a bad thing. I don't think you pay twice for it. As we said now, the price (of SF) is nearly already paid, and the price (of the specials) is paid. You're merely selecting an ability in a package you paid for. It's a choice, true. A price, no, IMHO. Blainetog : Spell reflection's idea : :cool: Spell detonation's idea : good. False casting's idea : close to the delayed spell feat. All : The sheer fact of giving many Familiar related specials could give ideas/incentive to take one. Thus making the SF=special idea back to fashion ? What about some "spell protection" special : slect X spells you know, you get an Y bonus to your saves against those spells ?
Krynus Ogrebane 11-10-03, 06:02 PM	Originally posted by Thot: RE: SF as a special: I don't think you pay twice for it. As we said now, the price (of SF) is nearly already paid, and the price (of the specials) is paid. You're merely selecting an ability in a package you paid for. It's a choice, true. A price, no, IMHO. You pay for it twice, in this case. Once to choose SF ability, once for the time/money involved. I would actually consider saying he pays three times, because you also pay again when/if the familiar dies or is dismissed. So no. With SF fixed, Frank's concept does not get compromised. He still has seven other opportunities to build his concept (unlike the PHB.sor), all of which have no additional costs, and there's no double-dipping concern. With SF as a special, those who would consider having a familiar get a short-changed concept. In general, almost everybody will dismiss an ability that has additional costs or risks involved. They would consider it, if it comes as part of the package. I would not select SF as a special. Familiars suit sorcerers perfectly, even more than they do wizards. Familiars are already an endangered species. I have seen exactly two players with familiars in my RL gaming groups, and I've been playing for over 18 years. Making it a special would send familiars close to extinction.
BlaineTog 11-10-03, 08:11 PM	Whoa... lots to talk about! A few things... what you have here is not what the feat in Magic of Faerun does. You pick a theme (only one theme... you can't just throw out any old effect you want, but you can cast a spell without using it), it adds +5 to the Spellcraft DC to identify it, and it is not metamagic (no extended cast-times). Having said that, it's still an underpowered feat. I forget why we didn't have it on the specials list, but I think it had something to do with the fact that DM's pretty much give this one out free, without the +5. Yeah. I haven't seen said feat. This is my version (name unchanged so as to prevent confusion :angel: ). But a see what you mean. RE: Spell Detonation ::sees smiley, :weeps: from embarassment:: I feel ya. But I will not give up hope! Wait. Yes I will! I'm at a loss to think of a way to balacne this (perhaps you blast 1dx per spell slot in a 20-ft radius, lose those spell slots for the day, and your health automatically drops to -5 or something, but at somepoint, the damage just gets ridiculous). I WOULD like to hear your suggestion, though. Also, my logic behind "lesening the Mobil Artilelry Platform" is that this would take some of the weigth off the sorcerer's reliance on pure offensive spells. As far a Familar-related specials are concerned, I'm all for it. Perhaps something that gives the caster a boost (of some sort) is his/her magic when the familar is close. The Archetype of a familar is a magical, intelligent creature (usually a cat) that is always around when its master is doing magic. Why? Because it somehow makes thta magic easier/possible to perform. Mabye an extra slot(s), concentration/Spellcraft/save DC/higher effective level/i dunno. Most of those are probably overpowered, but to be honest, there arn't that many other things they could help.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-11-03, 03:00 AM	Familiars: (as the PHB, with the following exceptions...) If the familiar dies, the sorcerer must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude saving throw. Failure means he loses 100 experience points per sorcerer level; success reduces the loss to half that amount. If the familiar is dismissed by the sorcerer, the saving throw is automatically successful. SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Master's Nat. Class Armor Level Adj. ¹INT special abilities -------- ----- ----- ------------------- 1 - 2 +1 6 Alertness, Empathic Link, Improved Evasion, Share Spells, ²Weapon Finesse 3 - 4 +2 7 Deliver Touch Spells 5 - 6 +3 8 Speak with Master 7 - 8 +4 9 Speak with own kind 9 - 10 +5 10 Empathic Casting, Telepathic Link 11 - 12 +6 11 Spell Resistance 13 - 14 +7 12 Scry on Familiar 15 - 16 +8 13 Improved Empathic Casting 17 - 18 +9 14 Improved Scry on Familiar 19 - 20 +10 15 Greater Scry on Familiar ---- ¹ = maximum INT is equal to master's INT + 2. ²Weapon Finesse: {familiars already get this ability... for some reason, it's only explained in the Familiar Basics} Telepathic Link (Su): Benefit: This ability is basically a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond, except that it only affects you and your familiar, and the range is limited to one mile. Empathic Casting: Benefit: You can cast spells through the Empathic Link you share with your familiar. The familiar must be a valid target for the spell (see the Share Spells special ability), and it affects the familiar only. This ability only functions when the familiar is within the range limit of your Empathic Link (one mile). Improved Empathic Casting: Benefit: You can cast spells through the Empathic Link you share with your familiar, allowing the familiar to select the spell's target instead of you. The spell's range is the distance of the spell effect from the familiar, not the caster. If the spell has a visible emanation from the caster, it emanates from the familiar instead. Using this ability requires just as much concentration from the familiar as from the caster, meaning that both caster and familiar are considered to be casting a spell when determining potential consequences, including but not limited to Attacks of Opportunity, Concentration checks, and Counterspelling (although the Spellcraft DC to identify the spell will likely be higher when looking at the familiar, due to the lack of discernible spell components). Additionally, the familiar is no longer required to be in contact with you at the time of casting when it is designated as the "toucher" for touch spells. This ability only functions when the familiar is within the range limit of your Empathic Link (one mile). Improved Scry on Familiar (Sp): Benefit: As Scry on Familiar, except that the cast time is only 10 minutes and the duration is 10 minutes/level. This ability is usable once per day. Greater Scry on Familiar (Sp): Benefit: If the master is 19th level or higher, he may scry on his familiar (as if casting the Greater Scrying spell) once per day.
Frank the Vandal 11-11-03, 07:15 AM	If true, yes, it is painful, but I believe that many people who think the Sor is unviable are refering mainly to the low-levels. Including viable compared to the other spellcasters. :( Of course I disagree... But I seem to be alone. A shame, I think. The main reason I liked this discussion was that it wasn't looking for a power-up, just for a more fun to play class. You pay for it twice, in this case. Once to choose SF ability, once for the time/money involved. I would actually consider saying he pays three times, because you also pay again when/if the familiar dies or is dismissed. As Thot said, you get the special anyway. It's more of a choice than a price. I suggested dropping the second time instead, but you didn't like it. Tell me what you think. That's a pretty big boost. For the sorcerer only, I understand? And you think the Wizard won't feel screwed now? You've halved the drawbacks, and improved the gain. At no extra cost to the sorcerer at all! I think it's too much. 50 XP/level is hardly a drawback for dismissing it, or losing it at higher levels. One nice combat and you've fixed it.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-11-03, 11:05 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: :( Of course I disagree... But I seem to be alone. A shame, I think. The main reason I liked this discussion was that it wasn't looking for a power-up, just for a more fun to play class. I don't see a power-up, overall. Compared to the PHB.sor, it's a little better in the early levels, and not as good later. If a PrC is acquired, at least the player has to give up something to do it. You tell me what is more powerful, this alt.sorcerer as a house rule, or a game that uses the core classes, but the house rules include one, some, or all of the following: - sorcerers are given Eschew Materials free (because it "completely makes sense" for "innate spellcasters" to not need eye of newt, or a pinch of bat poop) - using Quicken Spell on the fly does not change the cast time to a full-round action (because "it's not fair that no other spellcaster class has this same drawback") - arcane casters can trade in Summon Familiar for a feat of your choice (because familiars "don't suit my sorcerer concept") - the sorcerer gets a d6 HD (because "he's not a bookworm", don't you know) - the sorcerer gets 4+ skill points per level (naturally, because "it's not fair" that wizards spellcasting stat also nets them more skill points) - sorcerers get any one Knowledge skill as a class skill, in addition to Knowledge [arcana] (because he's "not a backwater bumpkin") For the sorcerer only, I understand? No, for all familiars. I don't know if you noticed or not, but animal companions don't cause a loss of XP when they die, or are dismissed. Even if we left it at 200 XP/level, it shouldn't be as painful to voluntarily dismiss as it is upon death. Alternatively, Empathic Casting can be moved up to 15th, and Improved Empathic Casting can be made into a special, a feat (with Empathic Casting as a prerequisite), or left out entirely. Perhaps Improved Empathic Casting is too powerful, but can you really say that Telepathic Link, Empathic Casting, Improved Scry, and Greater Scry are? Aren't they merely extensions of what the familiar already acquires, that fill in white space on the table?
Frank the Vandal 11-11-03, 05:46 PM	You tell me what is more powerful, this alt.sorcerer as a house rule, or a game that uses the core classes, but the house rules include one, some, or all of the following: - sorcerers are given Eschew Materials free (because it "completely makes sense" for "innate spellcasters" to not need eye of newt, or a pinch of bat poop) - using Quicken Spell on the fly does not change the cast time to a full-round action (because "it's not fair that no other spellcaster class has this same drawback") - arcane casters can trade in Summon Familiar for a feat of your choice (because familiars "don't suit my sorcerer concept") - the sorcerer gets a d6 HD (because "he's not a bookworm", don't you know) - the sorcerer gets 4+ skill points per level (naturally, because "it's not fair" that wizards spellcasting stat also nets them more skill points) - sorcerers get any one Knowledge skill as a class skill, in addition to Knowledge [arcana] (because he's "not a backwater bumpkin") Depends on the combination, of course. Eschew is a pretty minor change, Quicken is quite a big one. Personally, I'd never just boost the stats of a class without appropriate drawbacks: except for Eschew Materials maybe, I wouldn't allow any of these changes on their own, because I considered the PHB sorcerer balanced (even though it had it's problems). He wasn't wildly impopular, and the main issue I had with it was the fact that it didn't provide a reason not to take a PrC. In any case, with the alt. one, you're allowing the sorcerer to choose from several of these things, and add a few new specials as well. Then you boost his odd-level spellprogression, and the only compensation is a few spell slots (at most one/spell level), at levels where they don't matter that much anymore. No, for all familiars. I got confused because of your first paragraph (100 XP per sorcerer level...). So you're boosting the wizard as well. Not necessary for me. I don't know if you noticed or not, but animal companions don't cause a loss of XP when they die, or are dismissed. Animal companions are supposed to be useful in combat, fighting alongside their master. The bond/link with a companion is much less strong. The companion isn't intelligent, and has hardly any out-of-combat use. Familiars are supposed to be your lifelong friend, sharing your deepest feelings, but not as a fighting machine. The XP penalty is meant as an out-of-game reason not to take unnecessary risks with them. At 50 XP per level, and only one month of being without, they are way too expendable for my taste. The loss of a familiar should be a little bigger than the one for a magic item you can create again in a month. Even if we left it at 200 XP/level, it shouldn't be as painful to voluntarily dismiss as it is upon death. Why encourage dismissing? I don't think it should be something that's taken lightly. You're sending away what's probably your best friend. Why would you want to do that? Because you can get a better one? Perhaps Improved Empathic Casting is too powerful, but can you really say that Telepathic Link, Empathic Casting, Improved Scry, and Greater Scry are? Aren't they merely extensions of what the familiar already acquires, that fill in white space on the table? Telepathic Link is pretty useful, of course, and it fits. Empathic Casting can save your familiar's life in emergency situations, and combined with a simple Message Spell it's as good as Telepathic Link. Improved Scry and Greater Scry are pretty useless, since they only extend the duration and increase the chance of some additional spell effects functioning correctly. The original Scry on Familiar was a Spell-like Ability, so casting time doesn't matter (always standard action). You probably don't want to stare at your familiar for hours anyway. I don't really care if they're in or out. Improved Empathic Casting is certainly worth a special, IMO. Empathic Casting and Telepathic Link are a bit weaker, so maybe you could include them in Augment Familiar, allowing a choice between 10 ft. extra Spell Sharing range and Empathic Casting or Telepathic Link? A bit complicated, but I don't think they're worth a special each, and I don't want to hand out improvements for free. Maybe you could combine the two in one special. Improved Empathic Link or something like that?
Krynus Ogrebane 11-12-03, 02:14 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Depends on the combination, of course. Eschew is a pretty minor change, Quicken is quite a big one. Personally, I'd never just boost the stats of a class without appropriate drawbacks: except for Eschew Materials maybe, I wouldn't allow any of these changes on their own, because I considered the PHB sorcerer balanced (even though it had it's problems). He wasn't wildly impopular, and the main issue I had with it was the fact that it didn't provide a reason not to take a PrC. "Except for Eschew Materials"... :devil: Congratulations, you've just boosted the PHB.sorcerer with your house rule. While you're passing out extras without drawbacks, what do the other classes get? :smirk: In any case, with the alt. one, you're allowing the sorcerer to choose from several of these things, and add a few new specials as well. <SNIP> The alt.sor gets seven choices, at the cost of nine slots. That is quite a bit more than "a few". <SNIP> Then you boost his odd-level spellprogression, <SNIP> Which is needed to have a chance of keeping up with the wizard, and he STILL doesn't have the same level spells as slots. Metamagic spells of a given slot are not as good as a spell that actually requires an equal slot to cast. <SNIP> and the only compensation is a few spell slots (at most one/spell level), <SNIP> "Only compensation"?! What do you mean by "at most one/spell level"? You play it off like the alt.sor will get back most of his slots PLUS seven specials. That's just not true. The player can't have it both ways. <SNIP> at levels where they don't matter that much anymore. Nine slots is nine slots, and the cost scales too (one slot from each progressively higher level). Every time a special comes around, that's a slot of a higher level he could have used for another spellcasting. Don't play down the price this class pays. I got confused because of your first paragraph (100 XP per sorcerer level...). So you're boosting the wizard as well. Not necessary for me. It's minor (if Improved Empathic Casting isn't in there). Very minor. Also, did you notice the INT cap? This boosts the wizard too, probably more-so than those four added abilities (again, not counting IEC)... BUT, the wizard doesn't have access to Augment Familiar! Neat little twist, eh? Eh? Animal companions are supposed to be useful in combat, fighting alongside their master. The bond/link with a companion is much less strong. The companion isn't intelligent, and has hardly any out-of-combat use. Familiars are supposed to be your lifelong friend, sharing your deepest feelings, but not as a fighting machine. The XP penalty is meant as an out-of-game reason not to take unnecessary risks with them. At 50 XP per level, and only one month of being without, they are way too expendable for my taste. The loss of a familiar should be a little bigger than the one for a magic item you can create again in a month. Interesting. Why don't you want SF in your games again? Or maybe, why don't you summon familiars, as a sorcerer? The REAL reason... not the one where you told me that "it doesn't suit sorcerers as much as wizards"... we all know that's untrue. And don't tell me that it doesn't fit your character concept, because this is a general discussion, not a specific character build. Is it that you don't want to risk losing XP for a familiar's death? Is it that it rankles you to know that a portion of the sorcerer's abilities might come from somewhere other than inside himself? Is it something else? Do tell! :) Why encourage dismissing? I don't think it should be something that's taken lightly. You're sending away what's probably your best friend. Why would you want to do that? Because you can get a better one? XP loss encourages dismissal? The reason the cost should be less is because the familiar didn't die, for whatever reason. Old age. Permanent disability. The player acquired the feat Improved Familiar. The reason doesn't matter. The creature is still alive, and you are ending your bond with it voluntarily, rather than with the abrupt severing that comes with death. I take it that you have no objections to the month-long "mourning/recovery period", instead of a year and a day? A clarification of "30 days" might be in order... some months are longer than others, and some campaigns might use a completely different calendar. Telepathic Link is pretty useful, of course, and it fits. Empathic Casting can save your familiar's life in emergency situations, and combined with a simple Message Spell it's as good as Telepathic Link. OK, so you agree that these are suited well, and they're not over-powered. Improved Scry and Greater Scry are pretty useless, since they only extend the duration and increase the chance of some additional spell effects functioning correctly. The original Scry on Familiar was a Spell-like Ability, so casting time doesn't matter (always standard action). You probably don't want to stare at your familiar for hours anyway. I don't really care if they're in or out. Good point about the Spell-Like ability thing (standard action, regardless). The duration is useful, because you don't use Scry to look at your familiar... you use it to look at what you've sent your familiar to spy on for you. Longer is better, and with Greater Scrying, you can at least have the opportunity to get sound, by casting Tongues through the link. Improved Empathic Casting is certainly worth a special, IMO. Not a problem. At least it's not capable of Fireball/Improved Evasion cheese, up to a mile away. Empathic Casting and Telepathic Link are a bit weaker, so maybe you could include them in Augment Familiar, allowing a choice between 10 ft. extra Spell Sharing range and Empathic Casting or Telepathic Link? A bit complicated, but I don't think they're worth a special each, and I don't want to hand out improvements for free. Maybe you could combine the two in one special. Improved Empathic Link or something like that? I think those four could stay on the familiar table. They're not all that great, they're logical progressions, and it helps with the fact that the familiar gains almost nothing from levels 14 through 20. In epic levels, the familiar at least gets a spell (up to 8th level, usable once/day as a Spell-Like ability, and the spell can't have an XP cost, or a materials cost of more than 1 gp). Unfortunately, it happens every 10 levels on the familiar table. You can have it more often than that, but you have to burn a feat to do it.
Frank the Vandal 11-12-03, 11:21 AM	"Except for Eschew Materials"... "Maybe" It would depend greatly on the circumstances, and there would still be restrictions. The alt.sor gets seven choices, at the cost of nine slots. That is quite a bit more than "a few". And each of the choices are more valuable than a slot (at least as powerful, since you can use them for extra slot, plus you have other options). Generally, this balances out. (Not looking at the extra high level slots). Which is needed to have a chance of keeping up with the wizard, and he STILL doesn't have the same level spells as slots. Metamagic spells of a given slot are not as good as a spell that actually requires an equal slot to cast. And IMO, the PHB sorcerer WAS balanced with the wizard, in general, though the relative power switched a lot between odd and even levels. In my view, if you want to boost the sorcerer at odd levels, you have to limit him at even ones. "Only compensation"?! What do you mean by "at most one/spell level"? You play it off like the alt.sor will get back most of his slots PLUS seven specials. That's just not true. The player can't have it both ways. "Only compensation": Yes, you give the sorcerer extras, and the only compensation is the loss of spell slots. "at most one/spell level": Yes, only at 20th level you lose one slot/spell level, at all other levels it's less, and at some levels, you actually gain slots (bonus spells). The gained slots are always at highest level, the lost slots always at lower ones. Also, did you notice the INT cap? This boosts the wizard too, probably more-so than those four added abilities (again, not counting IEC)... BUT, the wizard doesn't have access to Augment Familiar! Neat little twist, eh? Eh? :confused: The int cap is a limit, not a boost, but a very minor one, just to let it make more sense. It'll hardly have any effect in game terms. Interesting. Why don't you want SF in your games again? I never said I didn't. I just don't feel like powering familiars (and wizards) up for free. XP loss encourages dismissal? Nope, it discourages it. So removing the loss (partly), encourages it again. You were so fond of the familiar as part of the archetype. Where in fantasy litterature do you see a wizard/sorcerer dismiss his familiar because he can get a better one? (Old age isn't a factor for familiars, and I'd like to know how you managed to get your familiar a "permanent disability") Longer is better, and with Greater Scrying, you can at least have the opportunity to get sound, by casting Tongues through the link. You also get sound with Scrying (errata). Tongues only translates. The improvement is minor really, though it isn't quite clear if it stacks (can I use Scry, Improved Scry and Greater Scry on familiar in one day?). Fireball/Improved Evasion cheese, up to a mile away. :confused: Not sure what you mean here... --- Of course, the better Scrying, the Telepathic link and even Empathic Casting are pretty minor, so putting them in the familiar aren't a big problem for me. Since I prefer not to boost it for free, and I'd like to limit any changes made to the sorcerer (and not let them extend to the wizard), I would like it better to make a special out of them or include them in another one somehow. Improved Empathic Casting is the greatest boost of course, though even Empathic Casting can greatly increase the use of your familiar when delivering touch spells (especially if you decrease the risk of losing him).
Thot 11-12-03, 01:29 PM	I'd like to point out that I think the SF problem isn't clear enough, IMHO. What do we want ? To make the Familiar desirable enough, so that SF could be made as a special, and still being as likely as the others to be taken. Right or wrong ? Now, IMHO, we have two possibilities : a) grant boosts to the Familiar through "specials". Good start, for sure, but not enough, IMHO. It smacks too much of the OF for me to be really satisfied. b) create a "Ultimate Familar Thread", to recreate one that would be as viable / interesting for the Sor than for the Wiz. And state that our alt.Sor uses the alt.Fam. c) combine both. The best solution of course. Now as for specifics, EC and IEC are nice, for sure. Would the issue be solved if IEC was simply put at 19-20th level ? EC, by helping to save the Familiar makes him a more viable solution at levels when he'll need them, so it shouldn't be acquired too late, IMHO. IS and GS cannot be game breaking, IMHO. A last suggestion about Spell Detonation : make it stun slot * 1D8 HD of monsters for 1D4 rounds , while dealing slot * 1D4 subdual to the Sor... Of course, CL isn't taken into account, but... *shrug*
Frank the Vandal 11-12-03, 02:54 PM	I'd like to point out that I think the SF problem isn't clear enough, IMHO. What do we want ? To make the Familiar desirable enough, so that SF could be made as a special, and still being as likely as the others to be taken. Right or wrong ? Apparently you're right. It's not clear.;) I didn't have the idea that Krynus was trying to make SF into a special. I might be wrong, though. Also, I don't think SF as a special would be one of the less desirable specials, especially at low levels. (Thoughts on this?) Now, IMHO, we have two possibilities : a) grant boosts to the Familiar through "specials". Good start, for sure, but not enough, IMHO. It smacks too much of the OF for me to be really satisfied. b) create a "Ultimate Familar Thread", to recreate one that would be as viable / interesting for the Sor than for the Wiz. And state that our alt.Sor uses the alt.Fam. c) combine both. The best solution of course. Uhmmm... that's three possibilities. :) a) "smacks too much of the OF"? Not sure what you mean. Original Familiar? b) Possible. I'm not really interested in boosting the familiar myself, of course, but others seem to be. Unless you boost the costs of a familiar, you're boosting the familiar-using classes as well. It's not meant to be of use in combat, and it's more of a flavor thing than a powerhouse. If a possible alt.Familiar turns out to be of equal power when compared to the PHB.Familiar, then the two alternatives can be used independantly, right? You can just use the term Familiar in this class and let everyone see for himself which one to use. A last suggestion about Spell Detonation : make it stun slot * 1D8 HD of monsters for 1D4 rounds , while dealing slot * 1D4 subdual to the Sor... Of course, CL isn't taken into account, but... *shrug* Would you allow a Saving throw? Range 20 ft, centered on the sorcerer? Could be very nasty if no save is allowed. But I don't know if it'd be too nasty. I can't find many spells to compare it to. CL is taken into account by the slot level, so that isn't really a problem.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-12-03, 10:20 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: And each of the choices are more valuable than a slot (at least as powerful, since you can use them for extra slot, plus you have other options). Generally, this balances out. (Not looking at the extra high level slots). Nine (slots) minus seven (specials) equals two (missing slots). Is a special worth 1.29 spell slots? :cool: Yes, yes... I think it is! And IMO, the PHB sorcerer WAS balanced with the wizard, in general, though the relative power switched a lot between odd and even levels. This is why the odd levels got slots without spells... to lessen the power-switching. Compared to the ALT.sorcerer, the PHB.wizard still has the advantage at odd levels, and the PHB.sorcerer still has the advantage at the even levels AND the higher odd levels. A superior design, without being over-powered. Still balanced. "Only compensation": Yes, you give the sorcerer extras, and the only compensation is the loss of spell slots. Duh. As if spell slots are worthless. "at most one/spell level": Yes, only at 20th level you lose one slot/spell level, at all other levels it's less, and at some levels, you actually gain slots (bonus spells). The gained slots are always at highest level, the lost slots always at lower ones. Again, duh. Until 20th level, the alt.sorcerer hasn't earned all the specials yet, and the PHB.sorcerer hasn't earned all the spell slots yet. This is known as "pay as you go". You expect a low-level sorcerer to pay those nine slots, without getting anything in return? You're talking nonsense, Frank. I never said I didn't [want familiars in my games]. Great! Then you have no trouble leaving Summon Familiar at 1st level, where it belongs. Done and done. Nope, it discourages it. So removing the loss (partly), encourages it again. You were so fond of the familiar as part of the archetype. Where in fantasy litterature do you see a wizard/sorcerer dismiss his familiar because he can get a better one? How nice of you to ignore my point, it being that THE REASON IS IRRELEVANT. (Old age isn't a factor for familiars, and I'd like to know how you managed to get your familiar a "permanent disability") Really? Familiars don't age? I never knew that. Would you mind quoting a rulebook for me? Source and page numbers should suffice. A disability is as permanent as long as the ability to cure it are beyond means to acquire. Not every character has access to a cleric willing to heal a mere animal, even if it is a magical beast. You also get sound with Scrying (errata). Tongues only translates. The improvement is minor really, though it isn't quite clear if it stacks (can I use Scry, Improved Scry and Greater Scry on familiar in one day?). I didn't realize that about the errata, so these abilities are even weaker than I thought. Yes, I wrote it so that you can use each version once per day. RE: Fireball/Improved Evasion cheese, up to a mile away. :confused: Not sure what you mean here... With Empathic Casting, the familiar, and ONLY the familiar, is the target for a spell cast through the link. It is easy to predict that a munchkin on a power-trip would cast Fireball on his familiar (through the link), while the familiar is flying through an enemy's site (that is up to a mile away). The aforementioned munchkin would expect the fireball to burst into a 20-foot ball of flame, annihilating the enemy site, while the familiar would use Improved Evasion to fully avoid the fire damage. :nonono: But, all that would really happen is that the familiar would receive the full brunt of the Fireball, without a burst (because he is the ONLY one affected by spells cast through the link). :devil: As a DM, I would rule that the familiar gets no saving throw against that Fireball, because the familiar is voluntarily receiving the effects of whatever spell you cast. Either that, or the familiar shuts down the link, and the spell is lost. I think I'd roll a Spellcraft check for the familiar, and NPC its reaction. :smirk: Improved Empathic Casting is the greatest boost of course, though even Empathic Casting can greatly increase the use of your familiar when delivering touch spells (especially if you decrease the risk of losing him). Um... you can cast defensive spells on your familiar now. You don't need Empathic Casting to do this. Empathic Casting only enables you to really cast buffs on your familiar from a distance. Empathic Casting does *not* enable you to designate the familiar as the "toucher" from a distance. The familiar would still have to be in contact with you when designating it as the "toucher", and any spell you cast before the touch spell is delivered would still cause the touch spell to be lost. Originally posted by Thot: I'd like to point out that I think the SF problem isn't clear enough, IMHO. What do we want ? To make the Familiar desirable enough, so that SF could be made as a special, and still being as likely as the others to be taken. Right or wrong ? Nope. SF will still be a fixed ability for this class. The only thing I am addressing is the unfavorable view people have of it, especially when compared to the druid's animal companion. Now, IMHO, we have two possibilities : a) grant boosts to the Familiar through "specials". Good start, for sure, but not enough, IMHO. It smacks too much of the OF for me to be really satisfied. b) create a "Ultimate Familar Thread", to recreate one that would be as viable / interesting for the Sor than for the Wiz. And state that our alt.Sor uses the alt.Fam. c) combine both. The best solution of course. a) Players won't want to blow a lot of specials on their familiar. They'll want those for themselves (and this is why SF is a fixed ability, and not a special). b) This is probably worthy of a new thread. "Familiars versus Animal Companions -- what are your thoughts?" c) We already have Augment Familiar, so that's a start. It would be interesting to see what would come of a thread devoted to class critters. A last suggestion about Spell Detonation : make it stun slot * 1D8 HD of monsters for 1D4 rounds , while dealing slot * 1D4 subdual to the Sor... Of course, CL isn't taken into account, but... *shrug* *psst* This should be a spell. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Apparently you're right. It's not clear. :) I didn't have the idea that Krynus was trying to make SF into a special. I might be wrong, though. Also, I don't think SF as a special would be one of the less desirable specials, especially at low levels. (Thoughts on this?) That's right; SF is a fixed ability at 1st level, with the option to push it back to 2nd. You will always have your dead-set-against-a-familiar people, and you will always have your die-hard-familiar-fans, but for the middle-of-the-road group, making SF a special would make it even more ignored than it is as a fixed ability. I am almost positive that it rankles more people than are willing to admit it that a portion of the sorcerer's abilities might come from somewhere other than inside himself. If this is you, I have just this to say: DON'T SUMMON A FAMILIAR. Ignore the ability, and acquire specials that will only benefit yourself. However, I won't let this core replacement class enable an already under-used feature to be even less used. Not going to happen.
Frank the Vandal 11-13-03, 07:25 AM	Nine (slots) minus seven (specials) equals two (missing slots). Is a special worth 1.29 spell slots? Yes, yes... I think it is! Wheee! We agree on something again. :D This is why the odd levels got slots without spells... to lessen the power-switching. But if the lost slots are balanced by the specials, then you can't just boost the odd levels without expecting it to be a powerup. Again, duh. Until 20th level, the alt.sorcerer hasn't earned all the specials yet, and the PHB.sorcerer hasn't earned all the spell slots yet. This is known as "pay as you go". You expect a low-level sorcerer to pay those nine slots, without getting anything in return? You're talking nonsense, Frank. Nope. The first level where the amount of spell slots you lost is greater than the amount of specials you earned is at 13th level. (again, not looking at the extra high level slots). You pay as you go, but with a delay. How nice of you to ignore my point, it being that THE REASON IS IRRELEVANT. I don't think there is a good in-character reason, which is why I don't want to encourage it. Really? Familiars don't age? I never knew that. Would you mind quoting a rulebook for me? Source and page numbers should suffice. T&B, page 11. (Though I must admit I thought I had seen it in the PHB when I wrote that, otherwise I'd have added the source. Sorry.) It basically says the familiar ages at the same rate as it's master, unless that would shorten it's lifespan. A disability is as permanent as long as the ability to cure it are beyond means to acquire. Not every character has access to a cleric willing to heal a mere animal, even if it is a magical beast. I think there's hardly a case where you couldn't pay for it. Circumstances like these are so rare, that they're not really a problem, IMHO. With Empathic Casting, the familiar, and ONLY the familiar, is the target for a spell cast through the link. It is easy to predict that a munchkin on a power-trip would cast Fireball on his familiar (through the link), while the familiar is flying through an enemy's site (that is up to a mile away). I suspected something like that, but I thought you were referring to Improved EC with that remark. With Improved, you can do the same thing without harming your familiar (centering the blast far enough away from it). With normal EC, I'd rule you can't use Fireball through the link, since it doesn't target a creature. {Empathic Casting:} The familiar would still have to be in contact with you when designating it as the "toucher" Missed that. Maybe a clarification in the description would be useful? I know Improved mentions it, but EC doesn't. Nope. SF will still be a fixed ability for this class. The only thing I am addressing is the unfavorable view people have of it, especially when compared to the druid's animal companion. Animal companions SHOULD be stronger. They're supposed to help you in combat. I am almost positive that it rankles more people than are willing to admit it that a portion of the sorcerer's abilities might come from somewhere other than inside himself. :confused: Really can't see the idea behind that, sorry. Those people don't use (magic) items either, I presume? Besides, all the powers the familiar has, basically come from you anyway.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-13-03, 11:56 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: But if the lost slots are balanced by the specials, then you can't just boost the odd levels without expecting it to be a powerup. I can do exactly that. Boosting the odd levels does not bring back any slots. At 1st and 2nd class level, slots are identical. 3rd and 5th level has the ALT.sor with a one-slot edge. That leaves the PHB.sor with sixteen levels where he has more slots overall. The ALT.sor, at odd levels only, has one or two slots that are more useful to him, but he still has less slots. PHB.sor = quantity ALT.sor = quality Is there an overall advantage/over-power? = NO Nope. The first level where the amount of spell slots you lost is greater than the amount of specials you earned is at 13th level. (again, not looking at the extra high level slots). You pay as you go, but with a delay. This is acceptable, I tell ya! T&B, page 11. (Though I must admit I thought I had seen it in the PHB when I wrote that, otherwise I'd have added the source. Sorry.) It basically says the familiar ages at the same rate as it's master, unless that would shorten it's lifespan. Wrong. T&B, page 10. :smirk: I think there's hardly a case where you couldn't pay for it. Circumstances like these are so rare, that they're not really a problem, IMHO. Check out page 12, Dismissing a Familiar. OK, so it's callous. How about if the familiar is dismissed, it takes a year and a day waiting period, but if it is killed, it takes 30 days to wait? No auto-save in either case. Animal companions SHOULD be stronger. They're supposed to help you in combat. ... and therein lies the perceived uselessness of familiars (not by me, mind you). That, plus XP risk, plus waiting period. :confused: Really can't see the idea behind that, sorry. Those people don't use (magic) items either, I presume? Besides, all the powers the familiar has, basically come from you anyway. I don't subscribe to that notion... I'm wagering that those who won't summon familiars under any circumstance do.
Thot 11-13-03, 12:28 PM	Frank : I don't think SF as a special would be one of the less desirable specials, especially at low levels. (Thoughts on this?) Neither do I, but it seems that Ogrebane disagrees. Still, IMX, I’ve yet to see a Wizard without a Familiar… I'm not really interested in boosting the familiar myself, of course, but others seem to be. Unless you boost the costs of a familiar, you're boosting the familiar-using classes as well. It's not meant to be of use in combat, and it's more of a flavor thing than a powerhouse. That still leaves enough margin IMHO to make funny things. Later on. Ogrebane : SF will still be a fixed ability for this class. The only thing I am addressing is the unfavorable view people have of it, especially when compared to the druid's animal companion. I’ll be blunt then. IMHO it belongs to another thread, unless it allows to come up with specials for the Familiar. Players won't want to blow a lot of specials on their familiar. They'll want those for themselves (and this is why SF is a fixed ability, and not a special). True enough for the first part. Our solution is clear then : to fix the design flaws of the Player class :D . Still, I’d rather find a way to make SF as attractive, and make it fully optional. Would you go for it if it were at all possible. This is probably worthy of a new thread. "Familiars versus Animal Companions -- what are your thoughts?"<SNIP> It would be interesting to see what would come of a thread devoted to class critters. As soon as I have time on my hand. Not yet, then. This should be a spell. Perhaps not, but I admit I don’t want to bother me with such a thing now. Frank : Animal companions SHOULD be stronger. They're supposed to help you in combat. :confused: I’ll have to double-check, then. I heard that they were already hideously useful / powerful.
Frank the Vandal 11-13-03, 03:42 PM	I can do exactly that. Boosting the odd levels does not bring back any slots. At 1st and 2nd class level, slots are identical. 3rd and 5th level has the ALT.sor with a one-slot edge. That leaves the PHB.sor with sixteen levels where he has more slots overall. The ALT.sor, at odd levels only, has one or two slots that are more useful to him, but he still has less slots. Look, you said yourself that the specials were worth enough to compensate for the lost slots. 1.29 spell slots, you mentioned. (Even with that you get an advantage at all levels except 19th and 20th, but that's pretty minor.) So the alt.sorcerer, without the added spell slots at odd levels, is balanced. Anything else you want to add should be compensated by an additional drawback. OK, so it's callous. How about if the familiar is dismissed, it takes a year and a day waiting period, but if it is killed, it takes 30 days to wait? No auto-save in either case. So if you want to get rid of it, it's better to kill it than dismiss it? No. Thot: I’ll have to double-check, then. I heard that they were already hideously useful / powerful. What I meant was that they should be more powerful than a familiar. They are, so I don't want to change them.
Crashy75 11-13-03, 10:17 PM	I'm semi-new so pardon me if any suggestions have been mentioned before. I like the idea of splitting eschue(sp_) materials..... On familliars- personally i've been wanting to do away with these for a while. I think that if a wiz/sorc wants one they should purchase a feat.... I think animal familliars say witch or druid but not sorc or wiz. just my view on em... I like the idea of converting one 0 level spell to always on or at will as one of the special abilities.
SirisC 11-13-03, 10:24 PM	I have always wondered why familiars were such a big deal. IMX someone playing a wizard/sorcerer only summoned a familiar only a couple of times over the 8 years i have been playing.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-13-03, 11:19 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Look, you said yourself that the specials were worth enough to compensate for the lost slots. 1.29 spell slots, you mentioned. (Even with that you get an advantage at all levels except 19th and 20th, but that's pretty minor.) So the alt.sorcerer, without the added spell slots at odd levels, is balanced. Anything else you want to add should be compensated by an additional drawback. OK, you've finally made a decent point. :angel: IMO, the higher-level slots at the odd levels are an important part of why this class is a desirable alternative to a PHB.wizard, so something else has to be the drawback. I propose removing the special at 2nd level. This removes 1.29 right off the top, when the "imbalance" (not my words) surfaces. So if you want to get rid of it, it's better to kill it than dismiss it? No. Ugh. I presumed that the familiar would die "in combat". That "year and a day" really sticks in my craw though. That is a virtual lifetime in a game. Originally posted by Crashy75: I like the idea of splitting eschue(sp_) materials..... Thanks! Monte Cook came up with a pretty neat ability with his variant sorcerer not needing components, but it was a bit... too much. On familliars- personally i've been wanting to do away with these for a while. I think that if a wiz/sorc wants one they should purchase a feat.... I think animal familliars say witch or druid but not sorc or wiz. just my view on em... *sigh* They are already rather unused/unpopular. Doing this would make them even more so. I like the idea of converting one 0 level spell to always on or at will as one of the special abilities. OK... at what cost? It shouldn't just be a special with no consequence beyond selecting the ability. There is a precedent for it with Persistent Spell (the feat from the Forgotten Realms). A permanent loss of a 4th-level slot would be reasonable, IMO, to convert one cantrip into an always-on Spell-Like Ability. Originally posted by SirisC: I have always wondered why familiars were such a big deal. IMX someone playing a wizard/sorcerer only summoned a familiar only a couple of times over the 8 years i have been playing. That's the problem. Why is this? It really shouldn't be that way.
BlaineTog 11-13-03, 11:20 PM	That's the problem. The (cost/danger) to return is a lot lower than it is for, say, animal companions.
Thot 11-14-03, 04:10 AM	Frank : So the alt.sorcerer, without the added spell slots at odd levels, is balanced. Anything else you want to add should be compensated by an additional drawback. I didn’t even think about it. :embarrass . What would you suggest then ? Besides, we should beware of not falling on the other side, and underpowering him, or else no one would consider playing one. Crashy75 : I like the idea of splitting eschue(sp_) materials... As for me, I don’t. It’s multiplying the abilities to do one thing in the end, and without good cause, IMHO. That’s what I tried to prove, but to no avail, alas. I like the idea of converting one 0 level spell to always on or at will as one of the special abilities. IMHO, the alt.Sor gives you (or should give you) enough cantrips/day that it doesn’t really matter. Ogrebane : I propose removing the special at 2nd level. This removes 1.29 right off the top, when the "imbalance" (not my words) surfaces. How then would you deal with the ESM / SF issue ? I fear I see where you’re heading… What about banning some spells from his spell list, instead… *dons flame-proof full-plate, and hides behind a Great Wyrm Red Dragon* BlaineTog : The (cost/danger) to return is a lot lower than it is for, say, animal companions. I overall disagree, but that’s not important. Why do I have the growing feeling that a dedicated thread would be useful ?
Frank the Vandal 11-14-03, 09:34 AM	On familliars- personally i've been wanting to do away with these for a while. I think that if a wiz/sorc wants one they should purchase a feat.... I think animal familliars say witch or druid but not sorc or wiz. just my view on em... Yes, I think the witch is actually the best example, if you don't count the druid's animal companions, which aren't really familiars, IMO. OK, you've finally made a decent point. Yay! I propose removing the special at 2nd level. This removes 1.29 right off the top, when the "imbalance" (not my words) surfaces. The second level special is definately the weakest one, since you have little to choose from. And as Thot said, what about ESM? That "year and a day" really sticks in my craw though. That is a virtual lifetime in a game. But usually, there's no reason you couldn't raise the familiar before that time, getting your old pal back. There is a precedent for it with Persistent Spell (the feat from the Forgotten Realms). A permanent loss of a 4th-level slot would be reasonable, IMO, to convert one cantrip into an always-on Spell-Like Ability. I know I wouldn't take it if it cost me a 4th level slot... With all the cantrip slots you get, it's improbable you'll get that much use out of it. Thot: I didn’t even think about it. . What would you suggest then ? Besides, we should beware of not falling on the other side, and underpowering him, or else no one would consider playing one. Quite simple: you give him an extra high-level slot at odd levels, so take one away at even levels. Delayed Spell progression: 12345. Perfectly balanced, and as simple as possible. The gain in spell slots/spells known at even levels won't be very high, but those are still the levels where you learn your first spell of the next level, which is certainly something to look forward to. {familiar}Why do I have the growing feeling that a dedicated thread would be useful ? Because boosting the familiar isn't necessarily part of the alt.sorcerer. Make another thread, and come up with a nice solution if you want, but keep it separate from this project. That way you won't have to please everyone on both threads. For me, the familiar doesn't need a boost. It's useful enough for the sorcerer, and useful enough to be a special. The only changes I'd make are extra specials to boost it, and maybe drop the gp cost for summoning to make it possible to start with one.
Thot 11-14-03, 10:04 AM	Frank : Quite simple: you give him an extra high-level slot at odd levels, so take one away at even levels. Delayed Spell progression: 12345. Perfectly balanced, and as simple as possible. I'll have to think twice to make really sure, but I think you just bought yourself a supporter. :D Because boosting the familiar isn't necessarily part of the alt.sorcerer. Make another thread, and come up with a nice solution if you want, but keep it separate from this project. That way you won't have to please everyone on both threads Will do. ASAP. Probably in another life, then... :( For me, the familiar doesn't need a boost. It's useful enough for the sorcerer, and useful enough to be a special Yay. The only changes I'd make are extra specials to boost it I think there's already enough specials, so yours had better be good.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-14-03, 01:25 PM	Thot: I didn’t even think about it. :blush: . What would you suggest then ? Besides, we should beware of not falling on the other side, and underpowering him, or else no one would consider playing one. Frank: Quite simple: you give him an extra high-level slot at odd levels, so take one away at even levels. Delayed Spell progression: 12345. Perfectly balanced, and as simple as possible. The gain in spell slots/spells known at even levels won't be very high, but those are still the levels where you learn your first spell of the next level, which is certainly something to look forward to. Thot: I'll have to think twice to make really sure, but I think you just bought yourself a supporter. :D Guys, we can't do that. Do you remember why? I'll refresh your memory: Me: However, you're missing one key difference between this 12345 stuff and the current alt.sor progression. In v8.01 (speaking about level 3+), you gain... -- Even levels... 3 slots (2 at the highest-level, and 1 at the level below it) and 1 spell known (the highest-level you can cast) -- Odd levels... 2 slots (1 for metamagic experimentation, and 1 at two levels below it) and 3 spells known (usually... sometimes 2, sometimes as many as 4, depending on where you are in the progression) *That* is the symmetrical beauty of v8.01. With 12345, you have a rather painful nerf at even levels... and, while the table looks "pretty" at first glance, it is actually quite lopsided, especially after 5th sorcerer level. With 12345, you gain... -- Even levels... 2 slots and 1 spell known -- Odd levels... 3 slots and 3 spells known That's rather ugly, IMO. Frank: Ouch. Good point, there. Because the 2's occur at the even levels, you've just nerfed the ALT.sor against the PHB.sor at ALL even levels, even with the specials taken into account. That is not an acceptable solution. Thot: How then would you deal with the ESM / SF issue ? I fear I see where you’re heading… Frank: The second level special is definately the weakest one, since you have little to choose from. And as Thot said, what about ESM? The 2nd level special sets the imbalance almost from the beginning. 5th level is where people start looking at PrC's, so even though it would be nice to have something earlier, 5th is where it's really needed. As for ESM... I would say that these supposed "natural spellcasters" have the feat Eschew Materials at 1st level, not the special Eschew Sorcerer Materials. Now, some people here wouldn't use a feat for Eschew Materials, but think about it. This would just reinforce the fact that true natural spellcasters are a rarity, while this class would not preclude you from putting forth conscious effort into removing the need for such a mundane thing when casting your spells, with practice (a special). In fact, I think this makes great sense. In character, this could be a source of pride, or something that an elitist individual would assert. It may be that most sorcerers don't need material components, eventually, and sometimes sorcery is a latent ability that develops later in life, for some, but only THE PURE were born with it (i.e.- the "true" natural spellcasters). Sometimes I even amaze myself. :D What I'm trying to say is that SF would be fixed at 1st, just like it is fixed in the PHB. Oh, I can hear it now. "My idea of a sorcerer ...", "but aren't ALL sorcerers 'natural ...'", "my character concept doesn't ...". Hey, in your campaign setting, things might be different, but this is supposed to be a core replacement, not a wish list. Summon Familiar, as an ability that all primary arcane casters have, is not a design flaw in the core rules. Therefore, moving it is not necessary for the core rules replacement. Specific familiar abilities/restrictions are possibly another story. Originally posted by Thot: What about banning some spells from his spell list, instead… *dons flame-proof full-plate, and hides behind a Great Wyrm Red Dragon* It's not worth the effort. Some spells just aren't going to be selected by an individual with such a limited number of spells known, so it's self-governing. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Yes, I think the witch is actually the best example, if you don't count the druid's animal companions, which aren't really familiars, IMO. Excuse me. A witch is nothing but a wizard or sorcerer that concentrates on transmutations and enchantments. For me, the familiar doesn't need a boost. It's useful enough for the sorcerer, and useful enough to be a special. The only changes I'd make are extra specials to boost it, and maybe drop the gp cost for summoning to make it possible to start with one. For me, I think only the waiting period needs to be shortened. The XP and gp costs aren't a big deal, and they make sense.
Xorial 11-14-03, 03:56 PM	All debating aside, this version of the sorcerer does one GREAT thing for PrCs. It gives the sorcerer SOMETHING to take away, so you can balance a PrC. Right now, if you make a PrC mainly for sorcerers, and dont take away spellcasting progressions, you get blasted as munchkin. If you refer them to this thread, as the sorcerer you use, then you can show them that he WILL lose something when taking the PrC. I did this in a PrC I have posted. Maybe now I will get soem constructive critizism, instead of a cry of "BROKEN". :rolleyes: That doesnt help. I want ideas.
Crashy75 11-14-03, 05:15 PM	I like these ideas. I've got some questions/comments.... I like eshew sorc. materials alot. I would make that an auto ability (and i suppose in my version i will ;) On the familliar.... Don't hate me for this.... but i just don't like them as class abilities for wizards/sorcerers. I could see one for a which or the druid class but i just don't see them as, what's the word, an essential ability for sorc's and wiz's. Spell evolution is great! Helps to offset the sorc's limited spell knowlege. and special abilities definitly make sense for the sorc- abilities not available to more 'mundaine(sp)' casters. on the specific specials I like most of them as is but what's up with the toughness feat? well maybe they channel some of their mystic energy into their own bodies making them a little tougher...is that the idea? I read something about allowing them to select a cantrip that they can use at will. I like that idea. overall good stuff!!!
Frank the Vandal 11-14-03, 05:16 PM	I'll have to think twice to make really sure, but I think you just bought yourself a supporter. Great! One down, next to go: Krynus Ogrebane! Guys, we can't do that. Do you remember why? I'll refresh your memory It's not that bad. The extra spell known at even levels is the first at your highest spell level, so it's something you've been waiting for a while, and more useful than any added spells to that level later on. A wizard gains two spells known and two spell slots at odd levels, and one of those is at three levels below maximum. The difference isn't that great. Because the 2's occur at the even levels, you've just nerfed the ALT.sor against the PHB.sor at ALL even levels, even with the specials taken into account. That is not an acceptable solution. That's the idea, yes. You boost the sorcerer at all odd levels (with lost slots/specials taken into account, since they don't matter in this case), so you have to nerf it at even levels. Xorial: All debating aside, this version of the sorcerer does one GREAT thing for PrCs. It gives the sorcerer SOMETHING to take away, so you can balance a PrC. Yes, that's the main thing I like about it as well. Crashy75: I like eshew sorc. materials alot. I would make that an auto ability (and i suppose in my version i will Yes, it certainly fits the sorcerer, doesn't it? On the familliar.... Don't hate me for this.... but i just don't like them as class abilities for wizards/sorcerers. I could see one for a which or the druid class but i just don't see them as, what's the word, an essential ability for sorc's and wiz's. Neither do I, they're not essential. That's why I think the ability should be entirely optional: as a special. I like most of them as is but what's up with the toughness feat? well maybe they channel some of their mystic energy into their own bodies making them a little tougher...is that the idea? As I understand it, the idea is that some people think the sorcerer doesn't have enough hitpoints. I agree it doesn't fit the sorcerer at all, though, and I'd much rather throw it out.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-15-03, 01:46 AM	Originally posted by Xorial: All debating aside, this version of the sorcerer does one GREAT thing for PrCs. It gives the sorcerer SOMETHING to take away, so you can balance a PrC. Right now, if you make a PrC mainly for sorcerers, and dont take away spellcasting progressions, you get blasted as munchkin. Indeed. The PHB.sorcerer's main flaw is that there is nothing to keep you there, except feat prerequisites... meaning that because you only get 7 feats, and some *have* to be "sacrificed" to fulfill the PrC requirements, you aren't free to choose other feats. The problem with that way of thinking is this: if a particular PrC suits a player's character concept, then there really is no sacrifice after all. Not only that, but many PrC's re-compensate you for what you "sacrificed" in order to qualify... a lot of times in the form of bonus feats. Originally posted by Crashy75: I like these ideas. I've got some questions/comments.... I like eshew sorc. materials alot. I would make that an auto ability (and i suppose in my version i will ;) Many agree, and many will do precisely that, because it suits their games, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. On the familliar.... Don't hate me for this.... but i just don't like them as class abilities for wizards/sorcerers. I could see one for a which or the druid class but i just don't see them as, what's the word, an essential ability for sorc's and wiz's. I don't hate anybody for this way of thinking, even though I disagree whole-heartedly. I fully support those whom alter this (or any) class to suit a campaign setting. Spell evolution is great! Helps to offset the sorc's limited spell knowlege. Well, we can't take credit for that. It is a 3.5 sorcerer ability. What we can take credit for is giving it a name and putting it on the abilities table. By doing that, a player cannot swap spells when levelling up in a Prestige Class... and we did this intentionally. :) and special abilities definitly make sense for the sorc- abilities not available to more 'mundaine(sp)' casters. No argument on that! on the specific specials I like most of them as is but what's up with the toughness feat? well maybe they channel some of their mystic energy into their own bodies making them a little tougher...is that the idea? It really has nothing to do with channeling magic into your body. This is just the way of saying that sorcerers aren't "bookworms", spending copious amounts of time in libraries on their butts. Sorcerers, with their high charismas, tend to be more social and sociable than wizards, in general. I read something about allowing them to select a cantrip that they can use at will. I like that idea. Here's the thing with this... in reality, sorcerers can do this already. Besides the fact that we gave them more cantrips per day, and more cantrips known, he can always use higher level slots for lower level spells. Putting in an ability that basically says "always on" doesn't change much. overall good stuff!!! Thanks! I always love to hear encouraging feedback. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Great! One down, next to go: Krynus Ogrebane! Not so fast, partner. He's still thinking, and I'm not done by a long shot! :) RE: 12345: It's not that bad. <SNIP> Yes, it is. The extra spell known at even levels is the first at your highest spell level, so it's something you've been waiting for a while, and more useful than any added spells to that level later on. A wizard gains two spells known and two spell slots at odd levels, and one of those is at three levels below maximum. The difference isn't that great. At even levels, when you acquire a spell known of the highest level slots you have, the sorcerer only knows ONE. The wizard has FOUR. RE: 2's at even levels nerfs the alt.sorcerer: That's the idea, yes. You boost the sorcerer at all odd levels (with lost slots/specials taken into account, since they don't matter in this case), so you have to nerf it at even levels. Look, even when using 3's, plus accounting for specials, the alt.sorcerer is still nerfed at the even levels, when compared to the phb.sorcerer. Dropping them to 2's is just insult on top of injury. I suggested removing the special at second level, because that is where the imbalance begins and maintains to 18th level, not the 3's. RE: Toughness: As I understand it, the idea is that some people think the sorcerer doesn't have enough hitpoints. I agree it doesn't fit the sorcerer at all, though, and I'd much rather throw it out. Removing the 2nd level special pretty much kills Toughness. The hit points are more needed earlier in a character's career, and removing the 2nd level special means that the first opportunity to pick up Toughness (as a special) is at 5th. It's almost pointless by then.
Castlmike 11-15-03, 04:36 AM	Nice Class. The Sorcerer is lacking particularily with the minimal skill points of a commoner and the class skills required Arcana, Concentration and Spellcraft, not to mention things like Alchemy, Herbalism, Scrying or a decent Craft not to mention useful daily and adventuring skills. 5 Minimum preferably 6 per level. Where is the closest wizard's guild with a spell pool? :-) No feat eqivalent to Wizardly Spell Mastery (Basically 2 or 3 additional spells for an unusually intelligent non- typical sorcerer) until recently in the Dragon Magazine with minimally useful Celestial, Draconic, Elemental & Fiendish Feat spell bonuses equal to one additional Feat Spell for each level. Instead of the toughness feat why not the extra hit point like a wujen (2-5 HP/Lvl) and the standard 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th feats like a wizard. <My apology to used to seeing in well thumbed original Oriental Adventures and glossed over in 3.0> Comparing Feats: Toughness feat +3 HP at 20th or Epic Toughness +20 HP at 21st.
Frank the Vandal 11-15-03, 01:32 PM	At even levels, when you acquire a spell known of the highest level slots you have, the sorcerer only knows ONE. The wizard has FOUR. This was always the case, and has nothing to do with the changes we made. Look, even when using 3's, plus accounting for specials, the alt.sorcerer is still nerfed at the even levels, when compared to the phb.sorcerer. Dropping them to 2's is just insult on top of injury. No, the alt.sorcerer would be balanced without the extra high-level spell slots. Not any more nerfed at even levels than at odd levels. Nice Class. The Sorcerer is lacking particularily with the minimal skill points of a commoner and the class skills required Arcana, Concentration and Spellcraft, not to mention things like Alchemy, Herbalism, Scrying or a decent Craft not to mention useful daily and adventuring skills. 5 Minimum preferably 6 per level. Hmmm, I think Alchemy isn't really necessary for a sorcerer. It's mostly used to mimic spells with items, and he can cast them himself. Scrying isn't a skill anymore. I think 2+Int are enough for the sorcerer, personally. It's not a skill-based class. BTW, I just saw this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130995) thread. Maybe interesting for the ones wanting to improve the familiar...
Castlmike 11-15-03, 01:45 PM	You would think that the basics of alchemy or Craft alchemy would be a prerequisite for most arcane spell casters with the Potion Making feat, granting you some cost savings like craft herbalism in Masters of the Wild. Alchemy is a prerequisite for The Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors Guild in Waterdeep but not the Mage of The Arcane Order. Thanks for the scrying note, haven't purchased the new 3.5 books yet. Standard ability scores 15,14,13,12,10 & 8. Everyone would probably agree Char 15 and most would go Con 14 for the extra two hit points at each level and take Char 16 at 4th level. Many would opt for an average 8 Wisdom or St while others would opt for a 10 or even 12 for St. Figure 13 Dex and either 10 for Int with no extra skill points or 12 Int with that extra single skill point a level. Why is a fighter getting 4 skill points and a ranger or druid 6 but not a cleric?
Frank the Vandal 11-15-03, 01:56 PM	Yes, it's a little weird that the Item Creation Feats have nothing to do with the Craft Skills. It would make some sense if the skills had some effect, but on the bright side, it doesn't make the crafting spellcasters so skill dependent. :)
Krynus Ogrebane 11-16-03, 01:59 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: The extra spell known at even levels is the first at your highest spell level, so it's something you've been waiting for a while, and more useful than any added spells to that level later on. And the sorcerer gets three slots of the same level because he can only use that one spell known with those slots. Meanwhile, look at the wizard at even levels. When talking about highest-level magic at even levels, you would have the alt.sorcerer with two slots and one spell, while the wizard has two slots and four spells. :nonono: A wizard gains two spells known and two spell slots at odd levels, and one of those is at three levels below maximum. The difference isn't that great. First, having higher-level spells at odd levels (which the wizard does) is more powerful than not having higher-level spells at odd levels (which the sorcerer does not). Second, the wizard actually gets three slots, two at the highest level, due to the bonus from a high INT. After all, all spellcasters start with a 17 or 18 in their spellcasting stat, plus they get Headbands of Intellect or Cloaks of Charisma at the ubiquitous and well-stocked MagicMart. :rolleyes: Originally posted by Castlmike: Nice Class. Thank you. The Sorcerer is lacking particularily with the minimal skill points of a commoner and the class skills required Arcana, Concentration and Spellcraft, not to mention things like Alchemy, Herbalism, Scrying or a decent Craft not to mention useful daily and adventuring skills. 5 Minimum preferably 6 per level. Every class is wanting more skill points. No class needs more, in 3.5. The sorcerer is not a skills-based class. It is a spell-based class. Where is the closest wizard's guild with a spell pool? This is a campaign-dependent question that only your DM can answer. :confused: How would I know? No feat eqivalent to Wizardly Spell Mastery (Basically 2 or 3 additional spells for an unusually intelligent non- typical sorcerer) until recently in the Dragon Magazine with minimally useful Celestial, Draconic, Elemental & Fiendish Feat spell bonuses equal to one additional Feat Spell for each level. I read that article. One word: BROKEN. Instead of the toughness feat why not the extra hit point like a wujen (2-5 HP/Lvl) Um... Wu Jen have d4 for hit dice, just like sorcerers and wizards. I don't know where you got your information about Wu Jen hit points, but it's not correct. and the standard 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th feats like a wizard. Full-blown bonus metamagic feats are too powerful for a sorcerer, and bonus item creation feats make the sorcerer into a wizard-wannabe. One accomplishment of this class is to make the sorcerer less wizard-like. Differentiate, not amalgamate. Comparing Feats: Toughness feat +3 HP at 20th or Epic Toughness +20 HP at 21st. Although I addressed Tougness in a previous post, the fact of the matter is that you are not an epic character at 20th level. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: This was always the case, and has nothing to do with the changes we made. That's right, because we didn't change how many highest-level slots a sorcerer has at even levels (three). If you go 12345, not only is the alt.sor nerfed against the phb.sor, but it is also nerfed against the wizard. No, the alt.sorcerer would be balanced without the extra high-level spell slots. Not any more nerfed at even levels than at odd levels. Frank, you're dead wrong. The biggest issues that arise when a sor/wiz comparison is done are a) bonus feats, and b) the virtual ECL for magic acquisition. I am not going to argue this with you any more. Anybody with eyes and sense recognizes it. Originally posted by Castlmike: Standard ability scores 15,14,13,12,10 & 8. Make a note of it, Frank. Standard. Ability. Scores.
Aarathi 11-16-03, 02:35 AM	My variant sorcerer/wizard related rule changes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133325) I moved that out of respect for Mr. Ogrebane.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-16-03, 03:13 AM	Originally posted by Aarathi My variant sorcerer/wizard related rule changes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133325) I moved that out of respect for Mr. Ogrebane. No need to be so formal. :angel: Thank you for starting a fresh thread for your ideas.
Xavim 11-16-03, 07:44 AM	I love it. I'm seriously considering this class for immediate implimentation.
Thot 11-16-03, 12:32 PM	Ogrebane : Slot Progression : I’ve not yet done the maths, but wouldn’t putting 0 instead of 1 solve the issue. Keep the “stutter step”, and the alt.Sor would end with the following gains : Even levels... 3 slots (2 at the highest-level, and 1 at the level below it), and 1 spell known (the highest-level you can cast) Odd levels... 1 slot at two levels below the 0, and 3 spells known (usually) That way, the lost slots pay the specials, the stutter step pays the “potential slots”. I emphasize “potential”, cause with a standard array of abilities, while you’re likely enough to get some at low level, higher levels slots would probably be scarcier. Specials at low levels : The 2nd level special sets the imbalance almost from the beginning. 5th level is where people start looking at PrC's, so even though it would be nice to have something earlier, 5th is where it's really needed. Scribe Scroll ?? Besides, if Sor can already have a taste of specials before PrC-time, I bet they’ll get addicted… :D this is supposed to be a core replacement, not a wish list.True enough. So what, with respect to granting an ability at low level ? Next to all the other classes do. I bet there’s a reason for that : much low level play. So what if you’ll be “special” at 5th level when you’re playing in the 1-7/8 range (as I mainly do, for example). It does not encourage taking Sor as compared to the other, because of a sheer feeling of being screwed. I can make do with the ESM/SF solution presented in 8.03, and at the very least, I don’t want to get rid of it. Where would be the need ? Xorial : Thank you very much. The PrC trouble was one of our main issue too. Crashy75 : Thank you too. Much appreciated. I like eshew sorc. materials alot. I would make that an auto ability Well, I’m trying to save this currently endangered possibility, too. Frank : You boost the sorcerer at all odd levels <SNIP>, so you have to nerf it at even levels. What about boosting it less at odd levels, then ? Stutter step + 0 could do, or not ? Ogrebane : I suggested removing the special at second level, because that is where the imbalance begins and maintains to 18th level, not the 3's. Untrue, IMHO. The special at 2nd level is accounted for as soon as you reach 4th level. Removing the 2nd level special pretty much kills Toughness. I’ll try to do it Ogrebane-style : “that’s why removing the second level special is doomed to fail, then !”. ;) Castlmike : Thank you. :) the standard 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th feats like a wizard. We began with that, but then decided that it failed too much to prevent PrCing (see Wiz examples), while some small useful abilities more often likely stood a better chance. Besides, I think it’s easier to balance in the course of 20 levels. Aarathi : Meta-magic feats that do not change spell level do not change casting time. A side effect that I like of this idea, is that I could then make a long delayed plea/rant… Eschew Materials IS a MetaMagic Feat, not a General ! What went into them, really ??? :rolleyes: Xavim : Thank you for the kind words, too. EDIT - I don't know what too me so long, I'm sorry. I should have screamed before. WTF is this cantrips progression ? Delaying in the beginning might be conceivable, but to keep it as such till the end ? Frank, IIRC, you're the one who supported this ? Does it look appealing to you as it stands now ? It has close to no balance/imbalance power, IMHO, especially as the levels increases, so delaying them ( :rolleyes: ) should be enough, no ? Sorry.
Frank the Vandal 11-16-03, 01:08 PM	Thot: I’ve not yet done the maths, but wouldn’t putting 0 instead of 1 solve the issue. Would also work for me. Maybe a bit less metamagic fun, but I think it's balanced. It's a slight power-up from the PHB sorcerer (disregarding specials and 5-slot cap, since they balance out) if your charisma is high, and a slight power-down at any level you fail to get the bonus slot. With average Charisma, I think it balances out. I prefer the delayed progression, but this is fine as well. WTF is this cantrips progression ? Delaying in the beginning might be conceivable, but to keep it as such till the end ? Frank, IIRC, you're the one who supported this ? Hmmm. Ogrebane came up with the idea of changing them, thinking I wanted them out since I mentioned them in my balance-comparisons (at low levels). I stated that if he wanted to change them, I'd prefer a maximum of 5 (+ Cha), and that's what Krynus put in eventually. As I said, personally I don't really care, though. I don't see anyone using more than 10 cantrips/day. At high levels, their effect is minimal. (If the delayed progression would make it, you could adjust the cantrip slots/known to at least give the illusion the boost at even levels is somewhat higher, though the first higher level spell dwarfs it completely, of course. Personally, I think there isn't much of a problem there.)
Krynus Ogrebane 11-17-03, 01:17 AM	Originally posted by Thot: Ogrebane : Slot Progression : I’ve not yet done the maths, but wouldn’t putting 0 instead of 1 solve the issue. Keep the “stutter step”, and the alt.Sor would end with the following gains : Even levels... 3 slots (2 at the highest-level, and 1 at the level below it), and 1 spell known (the highest-level you can cast) Odd levels... 1 slot at two levels below the 0, and 3 spells known (usually) I have done the math. {2nd-level special is kept, progression is 03345} SPELLS per Day (alt.sor/PHB sor) ----- Lvl advantage X-slot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 cloak? CHA ---- --------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ ---- 1 - SF 4/4 - - - - - - - - × 18 2 alt ESM 5/5 - - - - - - - - × '' 3 alt × 5/6 1/- - - - - - - - × '' 4 - × 6/7 4/4 - - - - - - - × 19 5 alt 1st -> 7/7 4/5 1/- - - - - - - × '' 6 - × 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - - - × '' 7 *** × 8/8 6/7 4/5 1/- - - - - - +2 21 8 - 3rd -> 8/8 7/8 6/6 4/4 - - - - - '' 22 9 *** × 8/8 7/8 7/7 4/5 1/- - - - - '' '' 10 PHB × 8/8 7/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - - '' '' 11 *** 4th -> 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 4/5 1/- - - - +4 24 12 PHB × 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - - - '' 25 13 PHB × 8/8 7/8 8/8 7/7 6/7 4/5 1/- - - '' '' 14 PHB 6th -> 8/8 7/8 8/8 8/8 6/7 6/6 4/4 - - +6 27 15 PHB × 8/8 7/8 8/8 8/8 6/7 7/7 4/5 1/- - '' '' 16 PHB × 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 5/6 4/4 - '' 28 17 PHB 7th -> 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 4/5 1/- '' '' 18 PHB × 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 5/6 4/4 '' '' 19 PHB × 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 6/7 5/5 '' '' 20 PHB 8th -> 9/9 7/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/7 7/7 7/7 6/7 '' 29 ---- ALT advantage = 3 levels no advantage = 4 levels PHB advantage = 10 levels *** = 3 levels Keep in mind, this sorcerer is an optimal build (18 CHA to start, and Cloaks of Charisma on every street corner), and it gets screwed. Go with the standard array in a standard game, and it's a total screw: ALT advantage = 3 levels no advantage = 4 levels PHB advantage = 13 levels That way, the lost slots pay the specials, the stutter step pays the “potential slots”. I emphasize “potential”, cause with a standard array of abilities, while you’re likely enough to get some at low level, higher levels slots would probably be scarcier. Try "non-existent after 6th level", if you don't power-game. I'll let you in on a little secret: I don't give a frog's fat arse if a munchkin can squeeze more out of this ALT.sor than he could from the PHB.sor. I'm more concerned about the normal players/games. Specials at low levels : Scribe Scroll ?? Besides, if Sor can already have a taste of specials before PrC-time, I bet they’ll get addicted… :D Scribe Scroll enables the wizard to "keep up" with the sorcerer's overall slots/day, and even then, scrolls don't use the same save DC's, the caster level is probably lower than his actual caster level, and they're still prepared in advance, rather than being spontaneous. About specials, I agree. I don't want the special at 2nd to go, I don't want the 1's to become 0's, and I don't want the highest-level 3's to become 2's. There's no need. Overall, it's balanced against a standard PHB.sorcerer, and it's balanced against a wizard. RE: this is a core replacement, not a wish list: True enough. So what, with respect to granting an ability at low level ? Next to all the other classes do. I bet there’s a reason for that : much low level play. So what if you’ll be “special” at 5th level when you’re playing in the 1-7/8 range (as I mainly do, for example). It does not encourage taking Sor as compared to the other, because of a sheer feeling of being screwed. I can make do with the ESM/SF solution presented in 8.03, and at the very least, I don’t want to get rid of it. Where would be the need ? I agree with you. RE: "imbalance" starts at 2nd: Untrue, IMHO. The special at 2nd level is accounted for as soon as you reach 4th level. It is true, if you're a power-gamer, and I don't care about power-games. It's not imbalanced, if your games are not. I’ll try to do it Ogrebane-style : “that’s why removing the second level special is doomed to fail, then !”. ;) I hope so! Frank is being ignorant about slots, though. Shall we ignore him? :angel: EDIT - I don't know what too me so long, I'm sorry. I should have screamed before. WTF is this cantrips progression ? Delaying in the beginning might be conceivable, but to keep it as such till the end ? Frank, IIRC, you're the one who supported this ? Does it look appealing to you as it stands now ? It has close to no balance/imbalance power, IMHO, especially as the levels increases, so delaying them ( :rolleyes: ) should be enough, no ? Sorry. You tell him, Thot! More cantrips, more cantrips! :fight!: Behold v8.04. The cantrips are back! Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Hmmm. Ogrebane came up with the idea of changing them, thinking I wanted them out since I mentioned them in my balance-comparisons (at low levels). :headexplo Don't even pin that on me. I was against it, while you were whining that 18 cantrips per day was unbalancing at 20th level. You specifically said "cap it at 5... symmetry symmetry". Tough cookies! The sorcerer gets his due! (If the delayed progression would make it, you could adjust the cantrip slots/known to at least give the illusion the boost at even levels is somewhat higher, though the first higher level spell dwarfs it completely, of course. Personally, I think there isn't much of a problem there.) Screw the delayed progression!
Frank the Vandal 11-17-03, 03:29 AM	I have done the math. It's simpler. Again, the only thing you've shown is that pumping your low-level specials into Extra Slot isn't a good idea. We agreed the specials made up for the 5-slot cap, right? So the only thing you have to consider is the changes to the highest level slots. With the 0's instead of 1's: At even level, no changes, so PHB vs. alt is balanced there. At any odd level where you get a bonus spell, the alt has the advantage, at any odd level you don't get one, the PHB has the advantage. Averagely speaking (so not in the optimal Cha-case) it's balanced. With the delayed progression: alt.sorcerer has the advantage at all odd levels (except lvl 19), and the PHB one at all even levels (except lvl 2). Don't even pin that on me. I was against it, while you were whining that 18 cantrips per day was unbalancing at 20th level. You specifically said "cap it at 5... symmetry symmetry". I said "if you want to change it, cap it out at 5". As I said, I don't care much about them. I know you didn't think it was necessary either, and maybe I haven't been clear enough about my opinion. So I'm not pinning it on you, just stating that I don't have a problem with putting them back in.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-17-03, 06:02 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: With the 0's instead of 1's: At even level, no changes, so PHB vs. alt is balanced there. At any odd level where you get a bonus spell, the alt has the advantage, at any odd level you don't get one, the PHB has the advantage. Averagely speaking (so not in the optimal Cha-case) it's balanced. At 5th level with v8.04, both sorcerer and wizard have two 3rd-level slots. The sorcerer has zero 3rd-level spells known, and the wizard has two. Guess what? An Enlarged Scorching Ray is no match for a Fireball. You want the alt.sor to have one slot (possibly none), to the wizard's two? :nonono: You don't seem to understand. The PHB.sor has no relevance in this part of the class design, because it is inherently flawed at the odd levels above 2nd. In this one thing, the PHB.sor is a bad joke. In other words, when comparing the alt.sorcerer to non-sorcerer primary casters (druid, cleric, wizard), and with the fact that the sorcerer does not get any spells to go along with those highest-level slots, the 1's don't need to be balanced against anything. Period. If this is your misguided idea of a power-up, then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over your crazy ideas. <sarcasm> If you think that 1's are too much, there's a "perfectly balanced class" *COUGH* in the PHB... it's called "the sorcerer" too. I know how satisfied you are with the balance of that class. </sarcasm> ~~~~~ As for me, I think I'm done for now. v8.04 is right as rain, and will be used in my games. By the way, I've emailed The Sage about a few things. I'll keep you posted, if he replies.
Frank the Vandal 11-17-03, 06:36 AM	From your Dissection: "The PHB.sorcerer needs:" 1. Flavor 2. Out-of-combat utility and versatility 3. A reason to NOT take a Prestige Class at the absolute earliest opportunity So, it was popular demand that was the real impetus for this (as it turns out) massive project. However, we didn't really think the sorcerer needed a "power-up". This meant that if we add abilities to the class, we have to take some things away (or nerf some things, at the very least), for balance reasons. Maybe you should add a number four: A power-up, and change the last statement in the quote. You're giving people the wrong impression. Had I known this from the start, I probably wouldn't have joined this thread. Before you change the purpose of a project so many people have worked on, though, it may be nice to check if the others agree with you...
Krynus Ogrebane 11-17-03, 12:22 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Had I known this from the start, I probably wouldn't have joined this thread. I guess we'll be seeing you around. Bye. By the way, did you notice that the alt.sor and the phb.sor are evenly matched in the Light Show? Yep. Over-powered. Sure is. Right.
mellowship 11-17-03, 12:40 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal Maybe you should add a number four: A power-up, and change the last statement in the quote. You're giving people the wrong impression. Had I known this from the start, I probably wouldn't have joined this thread. Before you change the purpose of a project so many people have worked on, though, it may be nice to check if the others agree with you... There's power-ups and there's power-ups. You should've seen some of the stuff that Krynus, our voice of moderation, vetoed on the earlier threads. Get this through your head, Frank: class balance is not about weighing columns of special abilities on paper. It's about decision-making. A class is not overpowered unless too many people take it, and it's not underpowered unless too few people take it. However, the reasons why people choose to take or not take a class don't always come down to a rational min-maxy weighing of that class's powers. Consider the cleric. On paper, it's an overpowered class. The guys on the Character Optimization boards just *love* the cleric. But more often than not, even with all the goodies it gets, you have to make the guy who draws the short straw play the cleric, because the primary-healer niche isn't as much fun (not for me, though; I love being the guy who saves the party with healing). The fact the PHB sorcerer's specials column was so sparse, even though the class held up fine game-mechanically, turned a lot people off from taking it (not me, though; I'm so morally opposed to the Vancian spellcasting mechanic that I'd never play a wizard in a million years). In that respect, the PHB sorcerer was "underpowered." With our alt.sorcerer, we're redressing an imbalance, not on paper, but in the minds of players. So the thing we should be asking ourselves whenever we consider adding specials to the chart or tinkering with the spell progression is, how many more people are going to play this alt.sorcerer, as opposed to playing a wizard? If the answer is an inordinately big number, then we've overpowered our alt.sorcerer. If it's a more modest number, then our alt.sorcerer is still well-balanced. And if it's hardly any, then we probably haven't gone far enough in redressing the psychological underpowering of the sorcerer.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-17-03, 10:46 PM	Originally posted by mellowship: <everything> God bless you, friend. I'm flattered. I'm also glad to see that somebody "gets it". ~~~ Frank, if you're lurking, I'm not trying to crowd you out of this thread, but to be honest, you **** me off sometimes, and I don't even really know you. While you've made some great contributions to the class design, you're too focused on how it looks on paper. The point I was trying to make in my hyper-angry state was that "the proof is in the pudding". The playtest going on right now... which uses the alt.version that includes a special at 1st (plus the other seven), spell secrets that can be applied to any spell known (instead of being limited to a spell one-level lower than the highest you can cast), ESM and GEM rolled into one ability (Ignore Materials), the cantrip progression that climbs to 9+CHA mod. slots at 20th, and the 1's at odd levels... indicates that v7.10 is a balanced class. Even though we didn't need to, we went ahead and nerfed v7.10 anyway (reflected in v8.04). I don't need to tell you why, because you already know the reasons. Isn't all of this compelling to you in any way?
hotfixer 11-17-03, 11:42 PM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane - Spell Secret: You can modify your sorcerer spells. Benefit: Choose one sorcerer spell known to you up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. That spell becomes permanently modified as though affected by any metamagic effect where the feat description lists a fixed slot cost of +0 or +1, and provided the sorcerer meets all prerequisites listed in the actual feat's description. The spell's level and cast time do not increase (as if spontaneously applying metamagic). Once the spell and modification are chosen, they cannot be changed. As the sorcerer goes up in level, she can choose the same spell to be modified in different ways with multiple spell secrets, provided she again selects this as a special ability. She does not need to know the feat she applies to the spell. "Extended Mefl's Acid Arow" (Saving Throw: none :) ) 2d4 acid damage for (1round+1/3level)*2 At caster lvl6 (1+2)*2 = 6 round For a total 12d4 in 6 round At caster lvl9 (1+3)*2 = 8 round For a total 16d4 in 8 round Fun for a level 2 spell :D ok the target is long to dye... ;) What do you think? _________ The bad :behold: still resist to you corsif acid!!! Cast permanence (joke :angel: )
Krynus Ogrebane 11-18-03, 12:26 AM	Originally posted by hotfixer: "Extended Mefl's Acid Arow" (Saving Throw: none :) ) 2d4 acid damage for (1round+1/3level)*2 At caster lvl6 (1+2)*2 = 6 round For a total 12d4 in 6 round At caster lvl9 (1+3)*2 = 8 round For a total 16d4 in 8 round Fun for a level 2 spell :D ok the target is long to dye... ;) What do you think? _________ The bad :behold: still resist to you corsif acid!!! Cast permanence (joke :angel: ) That was one of the first things I thought of, when I first saw the ability "Spell Secret". ;) Pretty sweet, isn't it? And not over-powered either, considering that you couldn't do that until 8th level (or 5th, if you have the feat Heighten Spell). We're doing a playtest right now on the Real d20 Adventure Boards, and one of the players has Extended Summon Monster I AND Extended Summon Monster III. Add in the fact that he has Spell Focus [conjuration] and Augment Summoning, and those are some tough monsters that hang around for a LOOOONG time! Try and imagine a Silent Teleport. NO components for this spell whatsoever. Just will it, and *blip*, you're gone. :D Or a Silent Blindness/Deafness. "Oh my god, I can't see, and I don't even know how it happened, or whom to blame!" :rofl:
Frank the Vandal 11-18-03, 11:21 AM	I guess we'll be seeing you around. Bye. Yes, I think it may be best if I leave this thread. I've really enjoyed our discussions here, and I don't hold a grudge against any of you, but I think our goals aren't really compatible. Though I like the idea of giving the sorcerer some extra flavor, I'd never want to use a variant class of which I wasn't sure it wasn't more powerful than the old one, to be fair to the (players of) other classes. If I hadn't thought the intentions of the other people here were the same, I wouldn't have spent so much time on that (eventually useless) power-balance discussion. Moreover, I don't want to annoy people with my posts, and it seems that's what I've been doing, at least to Krynus, for which I'm sorry. In response to Ogrebane's last question: I think playtesting in an arena is fun, and useful for revealing any glaring mistakes, but the outcome is mostly decided by player tactics. Also, classes aren't usually balanced with PvP in mind, and at high levels the spellcasting classes will usually win any duel, probably with the Wizard on top (best spells, Quicken). That doesn't necessarily mean the Wizard is the most powerful class in a normal campaign. In short, since I don't want to playtest a class in a real campaign unless I know it's balanced, and playtesting in specific situations doesn't give much information, I have to focus on the class as it is on paper (or on screen :)). Good luck with your class, and I'll see you all around these boards. FtV
Krynus Ogrebane 11-18-03, 12:36 PM	Me: Isn't all of this compelling to you in any way? Frank: In response to Ogrebane's last question: I think playtesting in an arena is fun, and useful for revealing any glaring mistakes, but the outcome is mostly decided by player tactics. Also, classes aren't usually balanced with PvP in mind, and at high levels the spellcasting classes will usually win any duel, probably with the Wizard on top (best spells, Quicken). That doesn't necessarily mean the Wizard is the most powerful class in a normal campaign. Apparently, your answer to my question translates roughly into "no". Shall I remind you of what your criteria for balance actually is, by your own words? Originally posted by Frank the Vandal, on 11-06-03 11:46 AM Eastern Time: but if I'm convinced that the alt.sor is balanced when compared to the PHB sor, then I'm also convinced that it's balanced to the wizard. The current playtest is using PHB versus ALT sorcerers. It is showing every indication that this quote rings true. I'd also like to point out that the playtest started with five ALT's and three PHB's. Currently, it is two and two. Certainly, tactics will win the game, but in this case, tactics is going to be the only deciding factor... not the class itself. v8.04 (the current model) is a refined and slightly nerfed class, compared to v7.10 (the playtest model). If my words aren't compelling to you, shouldn't your own be?
Xorial 11-18-03, 03:09 PM	I would test it as balanced vs the wizard. I think that the core sorcerer is inherently UNBALANCED. It gives up NOTHING when taking a PrC, therefore, IMHO, that makes it mechanically unbalanced. In every Class Construction engine, the sorcerer comes out behind every class. I dont see those engines as the end all, to be all when quantifying a class, but they are good to use for comparison. Like Krynus Ogrebane has said, the real test is how it effects play, not head to head duels. When a player dominates the party because the class is dominating, then the class is too powerful. When few, if any, want to play the class, then it can be a weak class.
TheWhaleShark 11-18-03, 03:43 PM	Krynus: I just had a thought. Have you ever thought of posting your alt.sorcerer on the Character Optimization boards and saying "Please break this class?" There is a certain principle that one follows when doing genetics experiments. When you have an unknown genetic system in front of you, the first thing you do is try to break that system. Then, you try to figure out what happened to break it, and from that you gain a greater understanding of the system. That's my suggestion to you; let the munchkins give this thing the true acid test.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-18-03, 05:46 PM	Originally posted by TheWhaleShark Krynus: I just had a thought. Have you ever thought of posting your alt.sorcerer on the Character Optimization boards and saying "Please break this class?" Yes I did (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117769&highlight=sorcerer), about a month ago. I got one positive response (basically, "here's what I did for the sorcerer in my games") and one rude response ("this is the wrong board for this post").
TheWhaleShark 11-18-03, 11:47 PM	I think the problem might be the way you phrased it... I think that, perhaps, if you actually worded it as a challenge, you might get a better response. That is, just challenge the entire character optimization board to break your class in any way possible. It seems like it would be a great resource for testing the class... Anyhow, I'll at least be giving this a run in my games in the next couple of weeks. I'll see how it goes.
Thot 11-19-03, 01:29 PM	OK. Real big troubles over here with my connection, so I'll have to resort to way shorter posts, and less frequent, from now on... And it has nothing to do with the "completeness" of this class, I insure you. :( I'm really very sorry for Frank, for I think he's erring on the wrong side, this time at least. Sorry... :( I do think (hope at least) the alt.Sor (from 7.10 to now on) is balanced against any other primary spellcaster, which is IMHO good, and as fun to play. And is more fun to play than the PHB.Sor, which was one of our aim. AS for the C.O. board, they're welcome to chime in anytime, I ask for nothing more... Be seeing you... Thot
Krynus Ogrebane 11-20-03, 03:09 AM	Originally posted by Thot OK. Real big troubles over here with my connection, so I'll have to resort to way shorter posts, and less frequent, from now on... And it has nothing to do with the "completeness" of this class, I insure you. :( I'm really very sorry for Frank, for I think he's erring on the wrong side, this time at least. Sorry... :( I do think (hope at least) the alt.Sor (from 7.10 to now on) is balanced against any other primary spellcaster, which is IMHO good, and as fun to play. And is more fun to play than the PHB.Sor, which was one of our aim. AS for the C.O. board, they're welcome to chime in anytime, I ask for nothing more... Be seeing you... Thot Sorry to hear that about your internet connection. I agree about Frank... both that it's a shame, plus the misguided notion about the higher slot. But, at least the class has come along nicely. All we're waiting on now is for The Sage to reply to my email. I can't wait to see what he says. :)
Crashy75 11-21-03, 04:14 PM	1. Incresed Potency: Select an energy type. Spells of that type have two dice added to maximum damage potential 2. Elemental focus: Select an energy type. Add one point per die of damage to spells u cast with that energy type. 3. Meta-efficiency: Select a metamagic feat. You may reduce the spell slot requirements by one (min of 0) well that's it for now. Got more suggestions when i have more time.
Coyote Skyheart 11-22-03, 11:28 PM	Hi Krynus, and those that recognize me. :cool: You have a lot written here, and I'll admit that I haven't read through it all yet myself. Frankly, this type of discussion isn't my strong suit and I'll leave it to the experts. Still, I want to contribute my observations as a play-tester. I'll also answer questions as best I can, though you might need to nudge me with a pm to get my attention over here. I've seen a little bit of talk about the playtest, but not very much. This needs to be corrected. :cool: I tend to agree that the winner of the arena tourney will be decided by tactics, not build variations. I've also noticed some patterns. The vast majority of those already defeated, died with several spell slots remaining. Access to additional spells did not help them. A brief summary of the 'death' sequence for each contestant might be interesting. What was the crippling blow, and was it brought about by an alt.sorceror ability or not? (or lack of alt. ability, in the victim's case) I don't know whether that will help your deliberations, but it is something that I noticed. The end game may be a whole other matter, as the various characters are facing a shortage of slots with which to cast spells. I'm not certain if the winner will be the one with the most spells remaining at their disposal at the end of the day. It will be interesting to find out. Later, when the battle is over - or my character dies, I'll look into how the alt.sorceror benefits affected my survival, compared to the more mundane opponents. Since it still might affect my survival, I won't comment on that just yet! :cool: Questions! I've heard rumors of a wizard / alt.sorceror test, and I would like to know the details of the test. I'm willing to play a wizard, and I've already decided on the core of my strategy (and no, its not rope trick this time. I want to learn about a different spell next!) :smirk: The horror!
BlaineTog 11-23-03, 12:22 AM	Originally posted by Crashy75 1. Incresed Potency: Select an energy type. Spells of that type have two dice added to maximum damage potential 2. Elemental focus: Select an energy type. Add one point per die of damage to spells u cast with that energy type. 3. Meta-efficiency: Select a metamagic feat. You may reduce the spell slot requirements by one (min of 0) well that's it for now. Got more suggestions when i have more time. :OMG! Those are a) overpowered and b) blatanly broken. 2 whole dice? That's insane. If that was to be made a special, you'de have to be totally wasted to not take it. +1 point be die? That's even worse. It doesn't so much for low-level spells, but what about Delayed Fireball, for instance? 40-140 points! And it works for EVERY fire spell. That's just silly. Taking 1 slot off is madness. It totally unbalances all metamagics. In short, these sound like viable peic feats, but not specials. Nonono.:nonono:
Krynus Ogrebane 11-23-03, 01:01 AM	Originally posted by Coyote Skyheart: Hi Krynus, and those that recognize me. :cool: You have a lot written here, and I'll admit that I haven't read through it all yet myself. Frankly, this type of discussion isn't my strong suit and I'll leave it to the experts. Still, I want to contribute my observations as a play-tester. I'll also answer questions as best I can, though you might need to nudge me with a pm to get my attention over here. I've seen a little bit of talk about the playtest, but not very much. This needs to be corrected. :cool: Howdy, Coyote. I'm glad to have you share your observations. I tend to agree that the winner of the arena tourney will be decided by tactics, not build variations. I've also noticed some patterns. The vast majority of those already defeated, died with several spell slots remaining. Access to additional spells did not help them. A brief summary of the 'death' sequence for each contestant might be interesting. What was the crippling blow, and was it brought about by an alt.sorceror ability or not? (or lack of alt. ability, in the victim's case) I don't know whether that will help your deliberations, but it is something that I noticed. Indeed, I will have to go back and determine exactly how each contestant was defeated. I do remember that my cat familiar accounts for two of the deaths. :devil: The end game may be a whole other matter, as the various characters are facing a shortage of slots with which to cast spells. I'm not certain if the winner will be the one with the most spells remaining at their disposal at the end of the day. It will be interesting to find out. Later, when the battle is over - or my character dies, I'll look into how the alt.sorceror benefits affected my survival, compared to the more mundane opponents. Since it still might affect my survival, I won't comment on that just yet! :cool: Sounds good to me. Questions! I've heard rumors of a wizard / alt.sorceror test, and I would like to know the details of the test. I'm willing to play a wizard, and I've already decided on the core of my strategy (and no, its not rope trick this time. I want to learn about a different spell next!) :smirk: The horror! I'm working on details for the wiz/sor playtest. In any event, it won't be until after the current one is over and the observations have been dissected. There is one good thing that came of your strategy: if a contestant leaves the arena for longer than an instant, they'll be disqualified. :smirk: Teleport/Dimension Door to another part of the arena will be OK, but your Rope Trick won't be. :D
Crashy75 11-24-03, 06:39 PM	OK i have to admit, i don't have much 3e play experience: Nobody to game with :( 2 whole dice? That's insane. If that was to be made a special, you'de have to be totally wasted to not take it. Well, another suggestion i had was going to be to have advanced abilities... My rationall was cuz u couldn't benefit from this till 6th level (1st levels max 5 dice yes) And the heavy hitters like fireball wouldn't come into play around 12th level. Seemed to me to be a good reason to stick with the sorc. To me it doesn't sound any worse than greater eshue materials but hey again i don't have so much experience. +1 point be die? That's even worse. It doesn't so much for low-level spells, but what about Delayed Fireball, for instance? 40-140 points! And it works for EVERY fire spell. Again intended for higher levels but i see what u mean... how about +1 dam/lev in sorc? I guess i wanted to highlight the strengths of the sorc (multi artillery spells) and i figured it wouldn't be so bad including all spells of the same type cuz a. Sorc's only get so many spells and b. if they stack up on say fire spells they're in a load of trouble vs. a salamander. That's just silly. Taking 1 slot off is madness. It totally unbalances all metamagics. Even for a single metamagic? I guess i don't see how (remeber be nice to me, i've little xp ;) ) I personally like it better than expedious metamagic- still takes longer but more efficient. ANyway, I'm just trying to help....
BlaineTog 11-24-03, 07:01 PM	ANyway, I'm just trying to help.... Yeah, i know. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh. I had just finished typing a responce to Xun in another Sorcerer thread and wasn't in a particularly good mood. I guess i wanted to highlight the strengths of the sorc (multi artillery spells) and i figured it wouldn't be so bad including all spells of the same type cuz a. Sorc's only get so many spells and b. if they stack up on say fire spells they're in a load of trouble vs. a salamander. Generally, alternate Sorcs try to shy AWAY from uping the Mobile Artillery Platform atcheytpe and try to highlight the sorcerer's OTHER strengths (metamagics, despite what everyone's told you, are included in this). Krynus, So I guess the ship's sailed on my constant Prestidigitation suggestion, eh? :weep: You know what would be cool? *straps on flak jackets, kevlar vests, and bunny slippers* Giving the Sorcerer 1 exotic weapon proficiency. *ducks* Don't hate me! Nothing TOO powerful. Give them a short (ie less than 5) list to choose from of a few choice weapons. I've always wanted to play a sorcerer that could pull out a two-bladed sword whe nthe going got tough. I mean, it's not like the sorc oculs take advantage of it. And it would certainly break some archetypes, right? *Krynus's reaction: :censored: :hoppingma :headexplo :bored: :thumbsdow*
Endarire 12-01-03, 01:10 AM	Oh, oh, oh, oh, stayin' alive! -EE
BlaineTog 12-01-03, 02:04 AM	If by "Oh, oh, oh, oh, stayin' alive!" you mean :bump:, then count me in!
Krynus Ogrebane 12-03-03, 02:27 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog: Krynus, So I guess the ship's sailed on my constant Prestidigitation suggestion, eh? :weep: A sorcerer with Prestidigitation on his spell list already has it essentially constant, because we implemented the "+CHA mod. to cantrips/day" rule. You know what would be cool? *straps on flak jackets, kevlar vests, and bunny slippers* Giving the Sorcerer 1 exotic weapon proficiency. *ducks* Don't hate me! Nothing TOO powerful. Give them a short (ie less than 5) list to choose from of a few choice weapons. I've always wanted to play a sorcerer that could pull out a two-bladed sword whe nthe going got tough. I mean, it's not like the sorc oculs take advantage of it. And it would certainly break some archetypes, right? *Krynus's reaction: :censored: :hoppingma :headexplo :bored: :thumbsdow* Bah. That's what feats are for. Alternately, take levels in the fighter class, for the bonus feat(s), better BAB, and better Fort. save. This class is basically done, until I hear back from The Sage. The current playtest is winding down (three out of eight remain). Two alt.sor's and a PHB.sor, and one alt.sor is out of spells. :)
JasperDm 12-03-03, 01:35 PM	BAH! Contrived Casting gone? That was the thing I truly loved about this class. It was what gave me the inspiration for my Vegeta ripoff, Veran. Now the barbarian/alt.sorcerer/rage mage who defeated one of the Seven Feathered Fowl of Oathbound...just ain't as much fun. Bring back Contrived Casting, Krynus!! Give us theme-casters something to sink our teeth into that's not just more damage. I want to scream out my spell's name before I blow someone up with it, like a proper anime fan. -IC- *short man with tall hair hovers above dwarven mining camp, palms facing the ground a hundred feet below, glowing as he feeds the spell with his own life force, rather than the confused spell components...he's been up there for a minute straight...then...* WIDENED...MAXIMIZED...EMPOWERED...SONIC BURNED TO BARE ROCK! *120 foot radius blast of yellow energy doing 90 points of sonic damage tears through the entire camp, flattening buildings, killing everyone and leaving a massive crater over 50 feet deep...the short one floats down to survey his work* It's not Final Flash...but it'll do...for now.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-03-03, 07:54 PM	Originally posted by JasperDM: Bring back Contrived Casting, Krynus!! Give us theme-casters something to sink our teeth into that's not just more damage. I want to scream out my spell's name before I blow someone up with it, like a proper anime fan. I've emailed The Sage about the mechanics of identifying a spell, using T&B, Spellcraft, Disguise Spell, and S&S as cited examples, to see *exactly* how everything ties together. His explanation of these things play a crucial role in how/if Contrived Casting and Mask Spell are viable. In any event, everything about this class is a house rule, including ContCast and Mask Spell. There's no reason why you can't include them, or at the very least, proclaim that that is the defining differences in the way sorcerers cast spells, compared to wizards. Or use Silent Spell, or Spell Secret [silent]. They work just fine too. *120 foot radius blast of yellow energy doing 90 points of sonic damage tears through the entire camp, flattening buildings, killing everyone and leaving a massive crater over 50 feet deep...the short one floats down to survey his work* This spell would be 80 feet in radius, doing (10d6/2)+60 pts. of sonic damage (average of 95), require an 11th level slot and have a save DC of 13+CHA modifier. While impressive to behold, this seems rather weak. :) ~~~ On a different note, I'd like to ask anybody still keeping up with this thread what their interpretation of Heighten Spell is (how it works and interacts with other metamagic). I think I have some encouraging news about this feat, but I'll wait to hear your thoughts before revealing mine.
ConfusedUs 12-04-03, 12:29 AM	I've always been under the impression that it simply increases the level of the spell, doing the following Raises DC Allows you to get past Minor Globe of Invincibility and other such spells Takes up a slot of a spell of whatever level you heightened it to. The spell effectively becomes a spell of X level. It doesn't change duration/damage/area/etc unless the spell decription bases that upon SPELL level and not caster level. Most spells are fairly useless when heightened above a certain level. However utility and support spells are nasty. Grease heightened to 9th level is one way to make sure the BBEG drops his weapon. Not many BBEGs are rogues with good Reflex saves, after all. ;) I think that's about it. I'm tired though, and might've forgotten something/
JasperDm 12-04-03, 12:44 AM	This spell would be 80 feet in radius, doing (10d6/2)+60 pts. of sonic damage (average of 95), require an 11th level slot and have a save DC of 13+CHA modifier. Actually, (even if I drop the argument that 10d6 maximized and empowered is ALOT simpler to declare a 90 damage effect), a 60ft radius, 4th level spell Widened becomes a 120ft radius spell with a DC of 14+Cha bonus...read your War Magic article, Krynus...And when you -have- an 11th level slot, and 3.0 Dragon magazine's Rage Mage allowed you to burn spell slots for free during a 10th level spell rage...it's great for making a point, and opening a fight with a bunch of 3rd level dwarven fighters. Overkill...but stylish overkill. But then, style was thrown out the window when I followed it up with a rain of sonic fireballs and firebrands to take out the higher level work boss... *shrug*What can I say? Veran likes craters.:smirk:
Krynus Ogrebane 12-04-03, 01:44 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm: War Magic article Oh yeah, I remember that article from an issue or three back. Hehe. BOOM. Any other takers on how Heighten Spell works, and it's interaction with other metamagic? I'll give you a hint... re-read the Heighten Spell's description and put those reading comprehension skills to good use.
Frank the Vandal 12-04-03, 04:43 PM	I'm still following the thread, of course, so I'll post my interpretation, because I'm wondering what you're trying to say. Heighten Spell increases the effective level of the spell, up to 9th level (may be lower if you wish). It's as difficult to cast and prepare as a spell of it's effective level and is treated as a spell of that level in all ways. (It takes up the spell slot of a spell of that level, requires the same Cha/Int/Wis, has the same DC, affects penetration of Globes of Invulnerability...) Seems simple enough. With other metamagic, the slot adjustment is just increased. So a Maximized Fireball Heightened to level 5 would take up a level 8 slot (3 Fireball +2 Heighten +3 Maximize). Effective level: fifth, so a save DC of 15 + stat mod. (Maximize doesn't increase the effective DC.) That's it, I guess.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-05-03, 03:13 AM	Howdy and welcome back, Frank. OK, there's been several responses to my question about Heighten, so I'll spill the beans. I will use Frank's explanation to make my illustration, for several reasons. It establishes everything that the rest of you have mentioned, but also includes interaction with other metamagic feats. Before I start though, I want to say that Frank's example demonstrates how I understood the feat to operate, up until a week or two ago. I checked the Errata and found nothing relevant. I also checked the FAQ... same thing. However, quite a few posters on these forums (including myself) seem to remember a Sage ruling on the matter (i.e.- Frank's explanation). The problem is that nobody can point it out, anywhere (in other words, it's all hearsay). I would like to thank sparkster4242 for pointing this out to me. Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Heighten Spell increases the effective level of the spell, up to 9th level (may be lower if you wish). It's as difficult to cast and prepare as a spell of it's effective level ... <SNIP> So far, so good. <SNIP> ... and is treated as a spell of that level in all ways. (It takes up the spell slot of a spell of that level, ... <SNIP> Here lies the misconception. <SNIP> ... requires the same Cha/Int/Wis, has the same DC, affects penetration of Globes of Invulnerability...) The rest of this is correct. With other metamagic, the slot adjustment is just increased. So a Maximized Fireball Heightened to level 5 would take up a level 8 slot (3 Fireball +2 Heighten +3 Maximize). Effective level: fifth, so a save DC of 15 + stat mod. (Maximize doesn't increase the effective DC.) This conclusion is drawn from the misconception above. OK, now that I've pointed out the one part that everybody (including myself) has been misconstruing all this time, let's dissect the feat, and it's language. HEIGHTEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. This is straight from the SRD, except that I bolded and underlined the bits that get misinterpreted. Anyway, what do we have here? Let's take the ubiquitous spell Fireball as our example. We'll also use the metamagic feats Heighten Spell, Empower Spell, and Widen Spell to demonstrate a few key things. Fireball is a 3rd-level spell. It requires at least a 3rd-level slot to prepare/cast. The save DC is 13+ability modifier and it cannot penetrate a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability (GoI), because Fireball's effective level is 3rd. Let's look at a Heightened (to 4th level) Fireball. It requires at least a 4th-level slot to prepare/cast. The save DC is 14+ability modifier. It can penetrate a Lesser GoI, but not a regular GoI, because it's effective level is 4th. Now let's take an Empowered Widened Fireball. This spell requires at least an 8th-level slot to prepare/cast. However, the save DC is only 13+ability modifier and it cannot penetrate a Lesser GoI, because it's effective level is still 3rd. Finally, let's heighten that Empowered Widened Fireball in the previous example. Should I Heighten it to 4th? Why bother to heighten it only that much? The spell's effective level (right now) is still 3rd, even though it requires at least an 8th-level slot. I can heighten it to 8th level, and it still only requires an 8th-level slot, because according to the feat description, a heightened spell is "as difficult to prepare/cast as its effective level". So, a Heightened Empowered Widened Fireball requires at least an 8th-level slot to prepare/cast, the save DC is 18+ability modifier, and it can penetrate GoI's. If I so choose, I can heighten this spell as high as 9th, and because a heightened spell is "as difficult to prepare/cast as its effective level", it would require at least a 9th-level slot. ~~~ OK, this might rock a few people's worlds. So, before the flaming starts, wrap your brain around the concept, think it through, then try and punch holes through it with reasoned logic. Better yet, if you can produce the Sage ruling that explicitly says otherwise, I'd love to see it. It wouldn't be the first time The Sage has been wrong about something, but according to the language used in the feat's description, the above illustration is how the feat operates and interacts with other metamagic. For those who can see clearly now ( ;) ), is this a boon or what?
Aengrilor 12-05-03, 03:53 AM	I think this thread addresses some of these issues. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136884 Tarkin and Edymnion go on about this very subject, scroll down a bit and you'll find their replies on the first page of the thread.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-05-03, 04:37 AM	Originally posted by Aengrilor I think this thread addresses some of these issues. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136884 Tarkin and Edymnion go on about this very subject, scroll down a bit and you'll find their replies on the first page of the thread. I know. Scroll down further and you'll find me agreeing with them. Scroll down even more, and onto the next page, and you'll see that I was convinced that we were wrong. The most important point though is that sparkster4242 and (eventually) I were citing a core rulebook, while everybody else was asserting something that is not there.
JasperDm 12-05-03, 03:01 PM	Finally, let's heighten that Empowered Widened Fireball in the previous example. Should I Heighten it to 4th? Why bother to heighten it only that much? The spell's effective level (right now) is still 3rd, even though it requires at least an 8th-level slot. I can heighten it to 8th level, and it still only requires an 8th-level slot, because according to the feat description, a heightened spell is "as difficult to prepare/cast as its effective level". Here's your mistake. Once you Empower and Widen the Fireball to 8th level...that's an 8th level spell, with the stats of a 3rd. You burn an 8th level slot to cast it. If you Heighten the Fireball 5 times to 8th level...that's an 8th level spell with the stats of an 8th. You burn an 8th level slot to cast it. You Heighten an Empowered, Widened Fireball once? It becomes a 9th level spell, with the stats of a 4th. You burn a 9th level slot to cast it. Hence, you Heightened to 8th level Widened, Empowered Fireball? While worthy of my boy Veran, you'd better be packing similar heat to his massive near 30th demigod caster level, because that monster-roasters eating up a massive 13th level spell slot. Personally, I would have Quickened a Meteor swarm. But that's just me. Reason? Heighten Spell isn't free, nor does it exist on some other theoretical level of metamagic feats. Each increase is accompanied by a +1 spell slot cost. That stacks with all other metamagics. It's not a coat of paint, it's a whole new wing of the house. The functionality of Heighten Spell being in the game comes down to two reasons. A) As stated, to bump up save DCs and GoI comparisons to make a spell go the distance when it would normally fall short. Read the rakshasa's abilities...makes Heighten a must. That use has been covered earlier to my satisfaction. B)You can already sack a 9th level spell to cast a Fireball. When you do, it's a 3rd level spell. With Heighten, you get your spell-slot's worth. You could cook through your entire daily spell slot allocation with some dink first level spell like, um (hard to find a good example, Magic Missile has no save) Charm Person bending a town to your will. Any sorcerer or wizard could burn 9th level spell slots or preparations to make it go off, but with Heighten Spell, the same tactic gives your 20 level caster charms for the higher level mayor that have a DC of 19+ his caster stat and specialties.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-05-03, 03:14 PM	Ok, if I didn't finish this response, I'll finish it later, but this is my response to this class, since you've asked for it twice now. Now with new comments! Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane THE CLASS All rules references (example: "as the PHB") are for version 3.5 rulebooks, where applicable. version 8.04 - Alignment... (as the PHB) - Hit Die... (as the PHB) - BAB... (as the PHB) - Saving Throws... (as the PHB) - Weapon and Armor Proficiency... (as the PHB) - Skill Points... (as the PHB) - Class Skills... (as the PHB) - Sorcerer Spell List... (as the PHB) SPELLS (per Day/Known) ----- Lvl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 ¹3/4 3/2 - - - - - - - - 2 ¹4/5 4/2 - - - - - - - - 3 ¹5/5 4/3 ²1/- - - - - - - - 4 ¹5/6 5/3 3/1 - - - - - - - 5 ¹5/6 5/4 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - - 6 ¹5/7 5/4 4/2 3/1 - - - - - - 7 ¹6/7 5/5 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - - 8 ¹6/8 5/5 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - - 9 ¹6/8 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - - 10 ¹6/9 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - - 11 ¹7/9 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - - 12 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - - 13 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - - 14 ¹7/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - - 15 ¹8/10 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 3/2 ²1/- - 16 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 4/2 3/1 - 17 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 3/2 ²1/- 18 ¹8/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 4/2 3/1 19 ¹9/11 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 4/2 20 ¹9/12 5/5 5/5 5/4 5/4 5/4 5/3 5/3 5/3 5/3 ---- ¹ = In addition to the cantrip slots per day listed in this column, add the sorcerer's Charisma modifier to determine how many cantrip slots/day she has available. ² = Although the sorcerer does not know spells of the appropriate level at these points, available spell slots may be used to cast lower level spells, or metamagic may alter a lower level spell for casting at the higher slot. there are three things I don't like here. 1) the number of cantrips available under this build can become insane. The wizard doesn't even have access to all of the cantrips he knows at any given time. Although the wizard beings with all cantrips, the wizard can only have four or five (if specialized) cantrips memorized at any given time. The sorcerer has nine. I don't know about you, but selecting five useful cantrips is difficult for me, because I like to have all of my cantrips be useful and I like to waste no spell slot. Thus, I find it unnecessary for additional cantrips. If the sorcerer has to be revised, its a small amount of power that should be distributed elsewhere and, really, any more than nine is just unnecessary. Besides, what cantrips are useful beyond detect magic, read magic, prestignation, one elemental d3 damage cantrip (like acid splash), light, arcane mark (not really a very handy cantrip, but cool because you can mark where you've been and say "John the conjurer was here, bwahahaha), disrupt undead (very useful at early levels if zombies and skeletons and the like are involved), and possibly resistance, but only at earlier levels. And that's just seven. the other two are just gravy. Hell, my sorceress had to create a cantrip of her own for no other reason to find a use for a spells known slot for a more all-useful cantrip. 2) spells per day is something else that I don't like. A sorcerer could take some pride as to the fact that no other class could cast his spells as many times as she/he could. Even the cleric was short of a full six spells/day/spell level + bonus spells from a high stat. with this build, not only is the # of spells known still reletively low, but now the sorcerer only has as many spells as a specialist wizard and the cleric beats out the sorcerer in # of spells/day. Very bad move, IMO, even one extra slot can make the difference between success and failure, whether it's combat or a unique puzzle in the middle of the temple of doom or some other dungeon. Aside from that, sorcerers are also supposed to, advance faster with a greater number of spells/day much faster than wizards. What I mean is, the sorcerer reaches the maximum number of spells/day for any single spell level (except ninth) after advancing only 3 levels after getting his first spell slots of a given level. Like when a sorcerer gains his/her first third level spell at sixth level, the sorcerer reaches 6 spells/day for 3rd level spells on level 7. The wizard, on the other hand, takes six levels to reach his maximum of 4 spells/day of a given level, except 9th and 8th because the class hits twentieth before six levels pass after first gaining access to spells of 8th or 9th level. Your alternate sorcerer reaches 5 spells/day of a given level after advancing 4 levels farther than initially recieving the initial spell slot of a given level, but only because your sorcerer build recieves its first spell slot of a given level one level earlier. It's essentially the same progression rate, but without the max of six/day. which seems, to me, to cheat me out of the sorcerer's "uber" specialization that comes from it's "specialized" spell list and even more spell slots than the specialized wizard. More on this later... 3) the hex you put to make the sorcerer advance one level faster seems to be added for no particular reason. Since there is no access to any spells of that level, the ability is dependant entirely on the PC taking some sort of metamagic feat, which is a fallacy because the no class should have that sort of dependancy. The bard, who can, with a high enough charisma, get his spells one level faster in a similar method, but still has access to two spells for that level, which the bard can cast with his one or more bonus spell slots of that level. I think that a spell slot that exists for no other reason than to reward characters for taking metamagic feats, which makes builds that don't put emphasis on metamagic feats down a spell slot on every level in which they are able to cast a spell of the given level. THe only reason to give sorcerers a spell slot of that level would be to allow the sorcerer to meet the prequisites of prestige classes one level earlier, but this build doesn't even do that. (because no spells are known at that level. It can only work if the sorcerer knows "heigten spell" which would allow to cast a spell as if it were of that level. But that only creates said problem.) This situation makes metamagic more important than it already is. The existing system works as it is and it does balance out the sorcerer's already superior use of metamagic and isn't in need of further modification. Although a wizard would gain limited access to spells one level higher than a sorcerer with equal experience, the wizard doesn't gain a significant amount of power from it to warrent any change and it only complicates the sorcerer's building process and mandates taking metamagic feats, especially heighten spell to munchkinize the qualifications for prestige classes at an earlier level. Thus, I believe that that is unncecessary. - Class Abilities... see the following table. lvl Ability ---- ------- 1 ¹Summon Familiar 2 ¹Special 3 4 Spell Evolution 5 Special 6 7 8 Special 9 10 11 Special 12 13 14 Special 15 16 17 Special 18 19 20 Special - ¹Summon Familiar: (as the PHB class ability). As an alternative, a sorcerer may select Eschew Sorcerer Materials, instead of Summon Familiar, at character creation. If she does, the second level special ability for the sorcerer becomes Summon Familiar. This option is not available to characters with levels in another core class. given the power of the special abilities that you've listed below, there's far too many to provide a reasonable excuse for the reduced spell slots and such from the spells/day. It's not the individual power of each, but rather the combined power of all of them, particularly if well chosen... i.e. min/maxed. I've also never (well.... not never, I used to agree with this, but then I realized that that isn't true) understood why people think the sorcerer "deserves" a free eschew materials feat at level one, or any other level. I know that sorcerers have an innate talent for casting spells, but that doesn't mean that the sorcerer is born ready to shoot lightning from his arse or fireballs from his eyes. It means that a sorcerer, in his early years, like a psion, actually, has uncontrolled magical surges and such events around his household. As the budding sorc or psion ages, he learns to control that energy in the form of magic. Wizards have to learn how to find and tap that energy from elsewhere whereas the budding sorcerer just finds that energy like a child finds his hands on his wrists. He still has to control and cast that energy in the form of spells like any other caster, hense, he still needs material components, but this power allows him to access this energy whenever he needs it, giving him his spontaneous casting and additoinal spells/day, whereas the wizard has to tap that energy when he prepares his spells or whenever he has at least 15~60 minutes of free time to prepare an unused spell slot or spell slots. That is where the sorcerer's "innate" talent comes in. He still has to learn to use his spells w/o material components, just like a wizard does. However, that's not to say that they couldn't "learn" to do that more naturally than wizards can. Should this ability so desire to remain as a class ability of the sorcerers, then I think it should come as it's own special ability (as opposed to a bonus ability on a "special" list) but rather an automatic ability granted at a mid (7~13) level, if at all. Furthermore, the specials, if I havent mentioned this before, come too much too fast. Like I said earlier, each individual special isn't very powerful on its own, but combined well enough... - Spell Evolution: Upon reaching 4th level, and every two sorcerer levels thereafter (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer "loses" the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level sorcerer spell the sorcerer can cast. For instance, upon reaching 4th level, a sorcerer could trade in a single 0th-level spell (two spell levels below the highest-level sorcerer spell he can cast, which is 2nd) for a different 0th-level spell. At 6th level, she could trade in a single 0th-level or 1st-level spell (since she now can cast 3rd-level sorcerer spells) for a different spell of the same level. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level. - ¹Special: Upon reaching 2nd level, and every three sorcerer levels thereafter (5th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer may select an ability from the following list... Arcane Skill Enhancement Augment Familiar Eschew Sorcerer Materials Expeditious Metamagic Extra Slot Greater Eschew Materials Spell Secret Toughness ¹ = If Eschew Sorcerer Materials was selected at character creation, the special ability for a second level sorcerer is Summon Familiar. - Arcane Skill Enhancement: You can use your spells to enhance a skill for a short time. Prerequisites: Ability to cast arcane spells spontaneously. Benefit: You can use spell slots to temporarily increase one of your skill modifiers. To do this, select a particular skill and expend an available spell slot of any level (a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity). You gain a bonus to that skill equal to one plus the slot's level. This is an enhancement bonus with a duration equal to your Charisma modifier, in minutes. You may only enhance skills that can be used untrained, or in which you have at least two full ranks. You may only enhance skills for yourself (you cannot enhance a skill for another individual). If someone uses Detect Magic on an individual under the effects of this ability, they detect a faint aura of transmutation. I disagree with this (surprise surprise) because it essentially makes the sorcerer more skilled that he/she should be. This could essentially make the sorcerer with the uber charisma more skillful than the rogue or the bard, even if for a short time. However, this can get horribly abused in epic play, when epic spellcasting makes the sorcerer's charisma score go through the roof. And yes, I am aware that that only applies to untrained skill checks, but that's nothing that one or two ranks in a single skill can't fix. Speaking of epic spellcasting, this also allows the sorcerer to use this ability in combat to cast epic spells that are in the realm of "freaking powerful,"* particularly if the sorcerer used an epic spell to boost his/her charisma. Even if it isn't used on charisma skills, per sey, it devalues the necessity of having a skilled party member. (This is a throwback as to a thread concerning intoducing more skillpoints to all character classes. Or allowing spellcasters to make spells that give huge bonuses to skills that aren't available to them, untrained or not.) This doesn't grant ranks to a skill, by the way. It also doesn't boost your CHA, ever. Therefore, it won't help the sorcerer develop an epic spell.I hope you mean "cast" an epic spell. development doens't require any skill. casting them does. Also, using the core rules, epic spellcasting for all classes using the spellcraft skill still uses only the intelligence modifier. Using this ability actually benifits me more using the core rules and the sorcerer's intelligence modifier actually becomes nothing more than an added bonus to the boost provided by this ability. (it also gives good reason to take improved spell capacity several times very early on.) ... but this is only true if the DM doesn't use the "so stupidly obvious that you should use it not to screw everyone but the wizard" varient rule. ... and yes, I'm aware that it doesn't grant ranks. It's a bonus... an unnamed bonus at that. *= that is assuming that the charisma stat is used to cast epic spells in place of intelligence, as per the ELH states for that stat when used by non intelligence based spellcasters. - Augment Familiar: Your familiar is more powerful than normal. Prerequisites: Ability to summon a familiar. Benefit: When this ability is selected, the sorcerer adds +1 to her class level when referencing Table 3-19 for her familiar's abilities (scaling Natural Armor and Intelligence, should the effective level go above 20th). Furthermore, the range of effect for the Familiar Abilities Alertness and Spell Sharing is extended to 10 feet. Special: A character may gain this ability multiple times, adding another +1 to her class level and extending the ranges by 10 feet each time. Its effects stack. I also don't understand why people think the familiar is weak. Given the following: familiars have 1/2 your hitpoints. Granted 1/2 hps of a sorcerer's d4+con is weak, but the familiar enjoys a massive amount of protection. Familiars use their saves or yours, whichever is better. Normal animal familiars have a good fort and reflex saves and a bad will save. wizards have a good will save. all of their saves are good. Familiars enjoy the shared spells special ability. that means that all the buff spells you cast on yourself are also cast on your familiar. Also, any area of effect buff spells also affect your familiar if it's nearby the caster, like haste. That means that if the sorcerer shielded, mage armored, bear's endurance'd, cat's reflex'd, spell turning'd, mind blank'd, etc. etc.'d yourself, your familair enjoys those things as well. That includes things like contingencies and chain contingencies. Your familiar, despite only having 1/2 hps, will only die if the caster also dies in an area-of-effect attack spell that allows reflex for half. except that the familiar has a better chance of surviving the attack on a successful save (because it takes no damage, whereas the caster takes half). familiars can move fast and can deliver touch spells. There aren't very many touch spells that can be used in this fashion, but it's essentially the same as the archmage ability "far reach" only for 100gp instead of a spell slot and instead it has a range limited only by the fly/move speed of the familiar and the duration of the spell's effect. There's also nothing preventing a familiar recieving all the magic buff items that the party doesn't need (that isn't a weapon or armor or some such that he can't wield because of his size and type) or items that the wizard has no longer found a need for. That sort of thing can make a major difference is how powerful the familiar is in combat. Even with all this, however, the familiar shouldn't be used in tougher encounters. Like the kind that threaten total party kill, but even then, the familiar can prove a powerful companion. While I don't think it's a bad idea, I think the ability could be buffed up and made available as a normal feat. - Eschew Sorcerer Materials: You can cast spells without relying on material components. Benefit: You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as normal. Special: This ability is limited to spells cast as a sorcerer only. Multiclass sorcerers cannot eschew material components for another class' spells. I already made my gripes about this earlier. - Expeditious Metamagic: Applying a particular metamagic effect to your spells doesn't require as much time. Benefit: Choose one metamagic feat you know. When you apply that metamagic effect to a spell, it is not necessary to extend the cast time. With the exception of Expeditious Metamagic [Quicken Spell], the spell slot required to cast it is not changed (i.e.- a Maximized Magic Missile still requires a 4th level slot to cast). A quickened spell cast spontaneously uses up a spell slot five levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Normal: Casting a standard-action spell with metamagic applied spontaneously is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast. Special: You may select this special ability multiple times. Each time you do, it applies to a different metamagic feat. In a situation where multiple metamagic effects have been applied to a single spell, the cast time must be extended (as normal) unless Expeditious Metamagic has been applied to each feat. do you have any idea how powerful this ability is? This gives the sorcerer unrestrained access to quickened metamagic, and, the sorcerer, with it's access to that one earlier spell slot (the one to compensate for delayed spell progression) essentially gets at least one free quickened spell/day. A sorcerer would be absolutely stupid not to pick this ability up and it would be able to pan out a quickened spell every round in which it has an available spell slot to do so. That boost's the sorcerer's effectiveness in combat dramatically. It was this reason why the 3.0 haste was nerfed. However, I'm not opposed to seeing this ability granted through hard work on the sorcerer's part. In fact, I created a 10 level only progression epic prestige class to do just that. It's called the metamagi, although I posted it a long time ago and I think the thread was deleated a while back. However, I don't think this ability should be granted pre-epic or all-at-once, as this ability would do. It's far too powerful. I do. A sorcerer could cast his lower level spells at a +5 slot cost (unlike the wizard with +4), and the slots have been reduced. having reread the entry, I've changed my mind. this actually makes this abillity completely worthless. It's much more benificial to use quicken through arcane preparation than through this ability and that's far superior in any fashion that I can think of. By "work for it" i mean, it should be a sorcerer's career focus and by making it a prestige class that's oriented on improving metamagic (basically, like the Metamagi that I created, which does just that. Though my PrC is an epic PrC.) Also, this also goes back to the fact that I still dislike the fewer spell slots available to your alt. 6/level was unique to the sorcerer and now it's built like a specialist wizard with fewer spells known/available, which is essentially where the larger gripes from the anti-sorcerer crowd attacks. - Extra Slot: You can cast an extra spell. Prerequisites: Spellcaster level 4th+. Benefit: You gain one extra spell slot in your allotment of sorcerer spells per day. This extra slot can be at any level up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. For example, a 4th-level sorcerer gains either an extra 0th or 1st level slot, allowing her to cast any known spell of the chosen level one more time per day. Once selected, the extra spell slot never migrates up or down in level. Special: You can gain this ability multiple times. Each time, you gain an extra sorcerer spell slot at any level up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. I'll be covering this topic later... - Greater Eschew Materials: You can cast spells without relying on expensive material components. Prerequisites: Eschew Sorcerer Materials OR Eschew Materials, Knowledge[arcana] 12+ ranks. Benefit: If a listed material component is valued at 1 gp or more, the sorcerer may draw from her personal essence, expending 1/10th of the gp value in XP to complete the spell (minimum expenditure of 1 XP). If the sorcerer desires, and has the components on hand, she may use them instead of pay the experience point cost. For any spell listing a material component, and the sorcerer casting the spell eschews the materials, increase the Spellcraft DC to identify it by +2. This rule clarification originally appeared on page 19 of Tome and Blood, A Guidebook to Wizards and Sorcerers, under the subheading "Spells Being Cast". Focus or XP cost components are still required for spells that list them. Special: Greater Eschew Materials only applies to sorcerer spells. Multiclass sorcerers cannot eschew material components for another class' spells. Furthermore, due to the nature of the spell, Greater Eschew Materials does not work with Trap the Soul. this is an epic feat and should stay that way. essentially, for the same purposes as why eschew doesn't really belong as a class ability for the sorcerer because it doesn't have compatability with the innate nature of the way the sorcerer casts spells. Aside from that, in pre-epic, the costs of material components are a balancing factor. This was stated by someone else on the thread, and I'm aware that you've tried to compensate by adding an xp cost, but that actually makes it hurt to cast the said spells more than with a costly material component, particularly since the costs of item creation state that 1/25th of all costs in gold should be paid in xp. a 1/10 xp cost per gold piece actually makes it much more expensive to cast said spells, essentially making the ability self-defeating in nature because it actually makes it more hurtful to cast spells w/ costly material components. Even more so because spells with costly material components are more common than spells with experience components. No it's not. What you are thinking of is Ignore Material Components from the ELH, and it allows you to literally ignore the M component, regardless of gp cost. This ability requires XP, and Monte himself uses it in his variant sorcerer at a much lower 1/25 xp cost at first level. We increased the xp cost, and broke it up into two abilities. ... did you read my entire comment? I do know what you did. (with the 1/10 xp point thingie) and such. - Spell Secret: You can modify your sorcerer spells. Benefit: Choose one sorcerer spell known to you up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. That spell becomes permanently modified as though affected by any metamagic effect where the feat description lists a fixed slot cost of +0 or +1, and provided the sorcerer meets all prerequisites listed in the actual feat's description. The spell's level and cast time do not increase (as if spontaneously applying metamagic). Once the spell and modification are chosen, they cannot be changed. As the sorcerer goes up in level, she can choose the same spell to be modified in different ways with multiple spell secrets, provided she again selects this as a special ability. She does not need to know the feat she applies to the spell. I actually had an ability similar to this incorperated into my Metamagi epic PrC build, though I eliminated it because it was too much of a pain to deal with, that is keeping track of which spells have what metamagic feat perminantly attatched to it. This ability can also be abused in epic with improved metamagic feat. Though that's unlikely. As a result, I think the ability to too unwieldy to use and, the ability becomes worthless if a spell looses it's usefulness and must be swapped. Then, you essentially wasted a special ability to use on a spell that may have been useful at level 4~10, but lost its usefulness by level 14 or over... like an extended mage armor, for instance. It's not bad. We've been playtesting it for months now on the Real D&D Adventure boards. It's nice, and simple. well... I don't know about that. This is essentially like the incantrix's "instant metamagic" ability, but perminant to one spell and useable with only metamagic feats with +1 or +0 level adjustment. this makes it necessary for the sorcerer to take a +1 or +0 metamagic feat to get any milage out of this ability... but that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that the ability is nigh worthless. particularly if the character has taken expedicious metamagic. Although the ability to apply a +1 metamagic feat might come in handly when the higher spell slot(s) aren't available for use, that will very likely not happen if the sorcerer has the metamagic feat to begin with. - Toughness: You are tougher than normal. Benefit: You gain +3 hit points. Special: A character may gain this ability multiple times. Its effects stack. I'm aware that you used this feat to cater to the d6 fans of the "sorcerer revision" people. :nonono: naturally, I don't like it. sorcerers, like wizards, aren't meleers, scouts, tanks, or anything that really requires them to have additonal hitpoints for any reason, which is generally why I say that dexterity is the second or third most important stat that a caster should plug a high score into, as opposed to constitution. While getting into the wrong end of a grapple or a sword is life for an adventuring arcane caster, such is the weakness of the caster. However, instead of boosting the weaknesses of the caster to better improve them, I think the best method is to improve their spellcasting ability, which is unparalelled by any other primary spellcaster. In other words, there are spells that prevent harm, add hitpoints or add temporary hitpoints, and there are other buff spells and contingencies that should be in existance and the high stat should go to dexterity for making ranged touch attacks, or intelligence (for the added skill points if a sorcerer) or even wisdom. (for a sorcerer with Use magic device, it prevents them from making any checks to emulate a higher wisdom with an additional UMD check.) Thus, I think toughness is as useless as it gets. Now, I've managed to list all my gripes and I'd like to list my suggestions for improvement, but I've run out of time and I have to goto work, but when I return, I'll list my suggestions for improvement in detail. ............ Now that I'm back, I'll continue with my suggestions for improvement. First, while I disagree with nearly everything that's been put up so far, I have to say that there is little that can be done without creating an uberclass like the mystic, (which can very easily be the most powerful character class that I've thus far seen, possibly toppling both the cleric and druid). I've seen a number of times that people wish to see some sort of system for the sorcerer that somehow integrates sorcerer bloodlines. I've seen a number of builds that incorperate different skills and selectable spells, but never anything easy and coherant. Thus, I think sorcerers, like mystics, should have access to one domain (the the actual selection of such would be limited). The numbner of spells/day would remain the same, but spells known would essentially increase by one from levels one to nine to accomidate the new spells. This sorcerer would also gain the benifits of the domain's powers, except that all the spells and the associated power would be cast and/or used as arcane instead of divine. The domain should be appropriate to a certain bloodline, although "unblooded" could also be a selection, because not all sorcerers should have to come from some distant anscestor. Some humans or other creature could just spontaneously have such powers without the necessity of being a distant blood relative of some powerful outsider, dragon, or some such. Some sorcerers do just 'show up' without provocation or even from another source, like some cataclysum or accident. In any case, my domain sorcerer should never have access to certain domains, specifically divine spell heavy ones and especially ones that have access to healing spells. In any case "bloodline sorcerer domain access" could be easily incorperated into the already existing system because "Sorcerer Bloodlines" could essentially be added to the list of available dieities that grant access to the domain. Catagories could include the following: Celestial: the character's arcane power comes from an ancestry or heritage that includes an angel or archon or some such that that sorcerer haralds his/her arcane power. This catagory could include good aligned spells or spells that specialize in abjuration properties and the like Infernal: the character's veins flows with the blood of the infernal creatures of >insert hellhole here<. that is, the character's ancestry has the taint of demons, devils, hags, or some such this would include domains with spells and powers that would include spells that cause harm and are evil aligned Draconic: essentially the same as stated in the PHB, the one that those folks at WotC seem to be hinting that is the 'real source' of the sorc's power. Really though, considering that dragons on Faerun or Oerth are somewhat more common (and more commonly take on nondraconic lovers) than any other kind of sorcerer. this catagory includes powers that relate to dragons. generally any domain granted by dragon gods that fit the type of dragon in which a particular dragon decended from. Elemental: less common are the decendants of those mixed with the blood of the forces of the elementals from their appropriate elemental planes. Or just a relative of a genasi (though few genasi are sorcerers due to all of them having a charisma penelty). this would obviously be any domain that specializes in a particular element. Planar: these are the sorcerers whose decendants include that of extraplanar creatures, such as shadow varients of material plane creatures, ethereal counterparts of material plane creatures, or just creatures that can somehow take on mortal lovers that do not hail from the more normal places, like the far realms (no tentacle hentai jokes, please) or the odder planes in the great wheel (GH) or the great tree (FR). (it's a sort of more general catagory than either the celestial, elemental, or fiendish catagories). this would include the more oddball domains and alignment domains (like law and chaos for mechanus-decent and limbo decent respectively). generally, a domain that fits a particular planar trait will apply here. Magical: the character has a heritage that includes the blood of creatures that are very magical in nature. this catagory can also include sorcerers as a sort of product of society that is heavily magical in nature. (Elves, especially drow might fall under this catagory more often than not, with their high affinity with magic and such). This would include domains that aren't extraplanar in nature, which might suit creatures that have particular powers that are along the line of a particular domain. (like the plant and animal domains for sorcerers decended from fey creatures) Divine: sometimes, a god might actually take a mortal consort and leave a powerful legacy. for instance, beshaba is known to do this actually quite often, she's left quite a few tifelings around, as I recall. anyway. Thus, some sorcerers gain their arcane power due to an ancestry that includes the blood of the gods. (although that doesn't mean that the spells would be divine or dirieved from gods, like clerics.) Divine domains would include spells that involve some sort of manipulation of reality or other major power over others, like death and travel. Other: This is the catagory that would more often that not include sorcerers that have no particular ancestry (and gain their powers from themselves... a sort of natural talent, like psionics, almost) and this catagory would also include sorcerers that gain their powers from an outside source, like magical experimentation or an accident that resulted in the subject gaining special powers. This is where all the special cases and the general (no special bloodline or accident... it just happened) cases. This essentially includes domains that don't seem to go anywhere else, but mostly domains that seem to be able to arise from no other source than the sorcerer (no bloodline, in otherwords). and, using those catagories above, the domains could be arranged as such: (the domains listed come from Dieties and Demigods, the 3.5 PHB, Faiths and Pantheons, Defenders of the Faith Supplemental Handbook), Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exhaulted Deeds, and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Celestial: Good, Protection, Glory, Celestial, Herald, Joy, Pleasure, Renewal, Infernal: Evil, Domination, Pestilence, Corruption, Demonic, Diabolic, Pain, Hatred, Suffering, Tyranny, Elemental: Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Metal, Ocean, Cavern, Sun, Slime, Planar: Law, Chaos, Madness (hello far realms!), Darkness, Portal, Draconic: This catagory would include any domain granted by a god that's appropriate for a dragon of a particular type of dragon (Bahamut for metallic dragons, Tiamat for chromatic dragons, etc.), which would likely coincide with other catagories, depending on the particular dragon god Divine: Luck, Death, Strength, Creation, Repose, Weather, Endurance, Wrath, Fate, Retribution, Storm, Time, Magical: Animal, Plant, Beastmaster, Celerity, Charm, Beastial, Fey, Moon, Spell, Magic, Trickery, Other: Knowledge, Travel, Divination, Mind (sort of makes a magical telepath that isn't of the psion variety), Summoning (I like the idea of a sorcerer summoner... I also like having summon spells be useful.), Scalykind, Drow, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Illusion, Mentalism, Orc, Some domains might fit into other catagories as well, but I didn't feel like listing a domain more than once, considering the amount of time I've already put into this response. Barred Domains: Generally include domains with considerable access to negitive and positive energy and philosophies, which reside in the cleric's domain as far as spellcasting powers go. There are several exceptions, however, with negitive energy, because it seems to belong quite well with the powers of infernal creatures. Positive energy should be more barred because healing magics belong to divine casters. Barred Domains are actually few and far in between because there are few domains that simply shout "Philosophic Power," rather than one that could come from an ancestry. Sorcerers that decend from dieties don't get domains that that diety would get. They aren't clerics. rather, they get powers that primarily alter reality. (like a diety's salient divine abilities). Healing: Is the realm of the cleric and only the cleric.... and the druid. War: again, Philosophy. (If I'm spelling Philosophy wrong, please tell me.) Community: again, Philosophy Exorcism: This is definately a cleric-only domain, as they should have the most demon and celestial involving domains (well... I can't really see a sorcerer performing an exorcism) Inquisition: this is really more of a church thing (a lawful one, at that) Mysticism: this domain is heavily diety oriented, but more than that, the fact that the class gives charisma bonus to saves should never be given to the sorcerer at no cost. even taking one level as a cleric for no other reason than to get this domain is better than simply giving it to them for free. Artiface: doesn't make sense for a sorcerer to have a domain based off of building and building construction, particularly since the creation domain is already up there, only general enough to place it under something Liberation: philosophy Nobility: phil. I'm gonna just call it "Phil" from now on because I don't think I'm spelling it right and I don't feel like getting up to get the dictionary. Rune: doesn't really make sense as a sorcerous power/domain Destruction: smiting and too much negitive energies make this a clerical sort of thing rather than an arcane one. after all, sorcerers dont usually smite. Greed: Phil Family: Phil Planning: Phil Spider: can't really see this one being under any particular catagory... Trade: Phil Undeath: not really sure where to put this one, either. Though I want to, because it makes a sort of nifty sorcerous necromancer. But it's "power" is a free extra turning feat.... quite useless for a sorcerer, anyway... But anyway, I think this change will add a tremendous amount of flavor to a sorcerer without adding too much or making new and complicated rules. This also decreases the "problem" of having too few spells known by adding one each level from one to nine. This actually, IMO, doesn't increase the overall power of the sorcerer as much as adding special abilities to compensate for just about everything else, because nothing else is really needed. The biggest limitation and the most griped about limitation of the sorcerer class is its limited spell selection. While this isn't the entire PHB in a handbasket, it certainly is an improvement, IMO, that doesn't overcomplicate matters concerning special abilities. Like how a cleric recieves domain spell slots that are seporate from the other spell slots, the sorcerer using this alteration should also recieve extra open spell known slots of each level from one to nine (though no extra spells/day) in which the spells of the domain would occupy. The sorcerer using this would also gain this a spell of a given domain in addition to a new spell known of a given level (so a 4th level sorcerer would have 2 spells known at that level, one a domain spell and the other a selectable spell). Furthermore, sorcerers also benifit from having some spells (some divine and domain specific spells) that would only be unique to a few clerics and available to that particular sorcerer for some measure of uniqueness, not to mention having some access to some other divine spells. (which are still cast as arcane, but otherwise available to clerics and druids.) which adds a tremendous amount of uniqness to a sorcerer that uses this suggestion that I've given. Although it doesn't grant some special abilities that discourage the taking of prestige classes, I've come to the realization that it doesn't matter. No ability should be so good as to regret loosing it because that person wanted to be an incantrix or a mage of the arcane order. That would be nothing but a punishment for wanting to take a PrC that gives their character pizazz. Aside from that, not much can be done without making the three primary casters (sorcs, wizzies, and clerics) even more powerful than they are. It still costs something to get a prestige class and a character should have to loose a really awesome ability because they wanted a wizard that had a thing for tentacle hentai (Alienist) or a sorcerer with a thing for candle wax and rod-shaped trinkets (candle caster) or a cleric who really really likes his/her hot god/goddess (Elemental {Fire} Savant). All of those prestige classes come at a cost to the caster. Sorcerers have to spend precious feats, skills, and possibly specific spells to achieve the prequisites for a desired prestige class and neither class can afford those easily. Simply qualifying for a prestige class is a cost in and of itself and I think that more than justifies the additional power it brings. Giving the sorcerer additional power to combat this in the form of special abilities will either serve to punish the caster for taking a prestige class or actually serve to make it easier for said occurance. Take a look at the other classes, for example, the other classes do have special abilities that they can loose and can even become a less powerful class overall by taking a "bad" PrC, whereas a sorcerer, wizard, and cleric loose reletively little in comparison. Truth of the matter is, this never really bothered me. Prestige classes are more powerful than their core counterparts in most cases and those three classes have the least to loose when taking one. I suppose it's just that I don't care that much. Anyway... I think I've said all that needs to be said, so... that's it. EDIT: Finished commenting -- added additional comments to complete this particular post. Also, I went back and reiterated some of the stuff I griped about earlier. .... also, much babbling was done.
Frank the Vandal 12-05-03, 06:15 PM	Here lies the misconception. Hmmm. I suppose you could read it like that, but I think it's wrong. For one thing, if they really meant it to work like you claim, they could have easily clarified that, preventing 95% of the people reading it wrong. In my view, the spell slot a spell takes up is (at least) the spell's level plus any metamagic feat adjustments. Most metamagic feats add an adjustment, Heighten Spell increases the level instead. Together, they add up. Now, to find rules to support this view seems to be rather difficult Under Metamagic Feats: (PHB p. 88) As a spellcaster's knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells wore originally designed or learned. <snip example> Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it's possible. For instance, Mialee chooses to gain Silent Spell, the feat that allows her to cast a spell without it's verbal component. The cost of doing so, however, is that in preparing the spell, she must use up a spell slot one spell level higher than the spell actually is. So "being harder to prepare and cast" means that it at least takes up a higher level slot. Which would mean that what you called a "misconception" would be correct, I think. A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to it's level are cumulative. Your view of heighten would be an exception to this, and they would have stated so if that were true. Now, I can't find a rule anywhere that literally says you have to cast a spell from (or prepare it into) a spellslot of at least it's level, but that seems rather clear to me. (There is of course the rule that you can cast it from a higher level spell slot, p. 178) The first quote clearly shows that metamagic increases the slot requirement. So I'd say my formula: Spell Slot is at least Spell level + Metamagic would be correct. (Any argument there?) Next, Heighten Spell "actually increases the effective level of the spell" adding to the first part. The Heightened spell is "in all ways be treated" as a higher level spell (PHB gives an example with Hold Person stating that). Not all ways except how metamagic applies, or all ways except the slot that is required. Another Metamagic Feat, for example Maximize Spell, would add it's slot adjustment to the second part of the formula. So a Maximized Fireball Heightened to level 5 is, in all ways, a Maximized 5th level spell, which takes up an 8th level slot, and has a save DC of 15 + stat mod. Finally, let's heighten that Empowered Widened Fireball in the previous example. Should I Heighten it to 4th? Why bother to heighten it only that much? The spell's effective level (right now) is still 3rd, even though it requires at least an 8th-level slot. I can heighten it to 8th level, and it still only requires an 8th-level slot, because according to the feat description, a heightened spell is "as difficult to prepare/cast as its effective level". By the same logic, I can cast a Maximized, Widened, Still Fireball from a 4th level slot: Still Spell says "A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level." The spell's actual level is 3, so a 4th level slot would be used. :D
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 12:55 AM	TheDarkestOfAngels, thanks for your feedback. Of course we'll disagree. there are three things I don't like here. 1) the number of cantrips available under this build can become insane. As you pointed out, cantrips are basically gravy. There's not a whole lot that can be done with them, but they are fun. 2) spells per day is something else that I don't like. In the beginning, I thought that this was a tad painful. But seriously, after 10th level, when a caster is asked how many slots they have, the answer is invariably "plenty". 3) the hex you put to make the sorcerer advance one level faster seems to be added for no particular reason. Before 10th level, the highest level slot (without a spell known) helps assuage the 6's that this alt.sorcerer doesn't get. Bonus slots from high CHA also accrue when that slot is acquired. given the power of the special abilities that you've listed below, there's far too many to provide a reasonable excuse for the reduced spell slots and such from the spells/day. I assume you are saying that the specials are too powerful? I don't see that at all. As far as Summon Familiar and Eschew, that is completely up to the player to choose between, and only at character creation. RE: Arcane Skill Enhancement: I disagree with this (surprise surprise) because it essentially makes the sorcerer more skilled that he/she should be. This could essentially make the sorcerer with the uber charisma more skillful than the rogue or the bard, even if for a short time. Having a higher CHA only helps with duration, not with the bonus to the skill. So you have a CHA of 40? Your skill enhancement lasts exactly 15 minutes. I'm not seeing the abuse potential. *shrug* "Yep, I'll burn a 4th-level slot to get a +5 bonus, when I could have Polymorphed myself instead." Speaking of epic spellcasting, this also allows the sorcerer to use this ability in combat to cast epic spells that are in the realm of "freaking powerful,"* particularly if the sorcerer used an epic spell to boost his/her charisma. Interesting. Except for one thing: it's not possible to be overpowered in epic play. Epic is a munchkin's wet dream. This doesn't grant ranks to a skill, by the way. It also doesn't boost your CHA, ever. Therefore, it won't help the sorcerer develop an epic spell. I also don't understand why people think the familiar is weak. This one is easy (although I agree with you). Look at the druid's animal companion. RE: Expeditious Metamagic: do you have any idea how powerful this ability is? I do. A sorcerer could cast his lower level spells at a +5 slot cost (unlike the wizard with +4), and the slots have been reduced. However, I'm not opposed to seeing this ability granted through hard work on the sorcerer's part. :smirk: The alt.sorcerer will have to live with Quicken Spell as a useless feat for two levels, and when he finally does pick up ExpMM[QS], it costs him +5 slot levels and less slots after level three. That sounds like quite a bit of hard work. RE: Greater Eschew: this is an epic feat and should stay that way. No it's not. What you are thinking of is Ignore Material Components from the ELH, and it allows you to literally ignore the M component, regardless of gp cost. This ability requires XP, and Monte himself uses it in his variant sorcerer at a much lower 1/25 xp cost at first level. We increased the xp cost, and broke it up into two abilities. I actually had an ability similar to this incorperated into my Metamagi epic PrC build, though I eliminated it because it was too much of a pain to deal with, It's not bad. We've been playtesting it for months now on the Real D&D Adventure boards. It's nice, and simple. I'm aware that you used this feat to cater to the d6 fans of the "sorcerer revision" people. :nonono: naturally, I don't like it. sorcerers, like wizards, aren't meleers, scouts, tanks, or anything that really requires them to have additonal hitpoints for any reason, I agree. However, the cruel joke is that if a player wants +3 hit points, he just passed by another opportunity for something else like a Spell Secret, or ExpMM, or Eschew, or... you get the idea. It turns out that that d6 HD isn't so necessary after all. :devil: Now, I've managed to list all my gripes and I'd like to list my suggestions for improvement, but I've run out of time and I have to goto work, but when I return, I'll list my suggestions for improvement in detail. I'd like to see them.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 01:12 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm: Here's your mistake. Once you Empower and Widen the Fireball to 8th level... that's an 8th level spell (emphasis mine) No, it's a 3rd-level spell that requires an 8th-level slot. with the stats of a 3rd. You burn an 8th level slot to cast it. This part is correct. If you Heighten the Fireball 5 times to 8th level...that's an 8th level spell with the stats of an 8th. You burn an 8th level slot to cast it. You Heighten an Empowered, Widened Fireball once? It becomes a 9th level spell, with the stats of a 4th. You burn a 9th level slot to cast it. Hence, you Heightened to 8th level Widened, Empowered Fireball? While worthy of my boy Veran, you'd better be packing similar heat to his massive near 30th demigod caster level, because that monster-roasters eating up a massive 13th level spell slot. Personally, I would have Quickened a Meteor swarm. Source please? I've provided mine, and nothing in the feat's description, nor the metamagic section in general, indicates what you say. But that's just me. Reason? Heighten Spell isn't free, True. You still have to select the feat. nor does it exist on some other theoretical level of metamagic feats. There's no theory involved. Just plain English. Each increase is accompanied by a +1 spell slot cost. That stacks with all other metamagics. It's not a coat of paint, it's a whole new wing of the house. Nooo... look at Heighten Spell's description. It does not list a slot cost... not even a variable cost. In fact, they explicitly say that a heightened spell is "as difficult" to prepare/cast as the spell's "effective level". Despite the fact that an 8th-level slot is required to cast this spell, an Empowered Widened Fireball's "effective level" is still only 3rd. The functionality of Heighten Spell being in the game comes down to two reasons. A) As stated, to bump up save DCs and GoI comparisons to make a spell go the distance when it would normally fall short. Read the rakshasa's abilities...makes Heighten a must. That use has been covered earlier to my satisfaction. B)You can already sack a 9th level spell to cast a Fireball. When you do, it's a 3rd level spell. With Heighten, you get your spell-slot's worth. You could cook through your entire daily spell slot allocation with some dink first level spell like, um (hard to find a good example, Magic Missile has no save) Charm Person bending a town to your will. Any sorcerer or wizard could burn 9th level spell slots or preparations to make it go off, but with Heighten Spell, the same tactic gives your 20 level caster charms for the higher level mayor that have a DC of 19+ his caster stat and specialties. All true. However, this only demonstrates how it operates when applied to a spell by itself. ~~~ I'll see if I can help you out with this, in a future post. I know this is seems difficult to grasp, but unfortunately, most people have the same problem interpreting this feat.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 01:53 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: Hmmm. I suppose you could read it like that, but I think it's wrong. For one thing, if they really meant it to work like you claim, they could have easily clarified that, preventing 95% of the people reading it wrong. Actually, if they really meant that Heighten Spell has a slot cost, they would have listed one. But they don't... not even a variable cost. In my view, the spell slot a spell takes up is (at least) the spell's level plus any metamagic feat adjustments. Good, so far. Most metamagic feats add an adjustment, Heighten Spell increases the level instead. Together, they add up. Fortunately, that's not the case. Heighten does not have an adjustment. It increases "the effective level", not "the level". Now, to find rules to support this view seems to be rather difficult ... because it's not there. :) (don't worry... seriously, I'm not being an ass here... just trying to help you understand what all this means) Under Metamagic Feats: (PHB p. 88) <SNIP> So "being harder to prepare and cast" means that it at least takes up a higher level slot. Which would mean that what you called a "misconception" would be correct, I think. Notice that the example used (Silent Spell) actually lists a +1 slot cost. Heighten does not. Your view of heighten would be an exception to this, and they would have stated so if that were true. They stated what they stated. I'm just pointing it out. "A heightened spell is as difficult to prepare/cast as the spell's effective level." Now, I can't find a rule anywhere that literally says you have to cast a spell from (or prepare it into) a spellslot of at least it's level, but that seems rather clear to me. (There is of course the rule that you can cast it from a higher level spell slot, p. 178) That same paragraph explains that the class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. The first quote clearly shows that metamagic increases the slot requirement. Nooo... it shows that Silent Spell requires a +1 slot cost. The reason is because the feat description lists it. Heighten does not. So I'd say my formula: Spell Slot is at least Spell level + Metamagic would be correct. (Any argument there?) Not quite. I'll make another post on this, sometime later. Next, Heighten Spell "actually increases the effective level of the spell" adding to the first part. The Heightened spell is "in all ways be treated" as a higher level spell (PHB gives an example with Hold Person stating that). (emphasis mine) No, it doesn't say that. It literally says: "Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a Lesser GoI) are calculated according to the heightened level." Not all ways except how metamagic applies, or all ways except the slot that is required. Another Metamagic Feat, for example Maximize Spell, would add it's slot adjustment to the second part of the formula. So a Maximized Fireball Heightened to level 5 is, in all ways, a Maximized 5th level spell, which takes up an 8th level slot, and has a save DC of 15 + stat mod. Incorrect. Heighten does not list a slot cost, at all. A Fireball that is Heightened to 5th level would require a 5th-level slot to prepare/cast, because Heighten Spell specifically indicates this. A Heightened (to 5th) Maximized Fireball requires a 6th-level slot to cast, because a heightened spell is "as difficult to prepare as the spell's effective level". This spell has an effective level of 5th. The only reason a 6th-level slot (or higher) must be used is because Maximize requires it. By the same logic, I can cast a Maximized, Widened, Still Fireball from a 4th level slot: Still Spell says "A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level." The spell's actual level is 3, so a 4th level slot would be used. :D :) I know you're being facetious, but I'll go through the steps for clarity. A Maximized Widened Stilled Fireball requires a 10th-level slot because each feat lists a cost that must be paid. Fireball (3rd-level), Maximize (+3 slot cost), Widen (+3 slot cost), Silent (+1 slot cost) = 10. If you had Heighten, you could add it and the effective level would be limited to 9th, because the feat lists 9th as the maximum.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-06-03, 01:56 AM	I've completed my synopsis. almost used up the maximum message length in doing so... I've also added additional comments concerning the post you made addressing what I had for you to see before.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 02:19 AM	Let me try a different angle. We all know the results of the following exercise, if your interpretation of Heighten Spell is used. For the purposes of this post, assume that I am using the my interpretation, literally from the PHB. Fireball is a 3rd-level spell. Delayed Blast Fireball is a 7th-level spell (DBF). Compare the two spells. They're similar in most ways. 20-foot radius burst. Long range. Fire damage. However... DBF can be set to delay up to 5 rounds, the damage cap is 20d6, the save DC is 17+ability modifier (mod), and it requires at least a 7th-level slot. Fireball has no delay, the damage cap is 10d6, the save DC is 13+mod, and it requires at least a 3rd-level slot. Now, compare these, using a 20th-level sorcerer: Heightened (7th) Enlarged Maximized Fireball Delayed Blast Fireball What has changed? The saves are both 17+mod. They both require at least a 7th-level slot. The first spell has a range of 2400 feet and 60 pts. of damage. DBF has a range of 1200 feet and an average damage of 70 pts. While the first has greater range, DBF is still the better spell overall, despite the fact that three feats were required to get the first Fireball to this point. It's even less equitable, the higher you go. Compare these: Heightened Maximized Widened Fireball Meteor Swarm Save DC 19+mod for both. 40-foot radius spread for both. 1200-foot range for both. Fire damage is 60 pts. for the first, versus an average 96 pts. for Meteor Swarm. Plus Meteor Swarm has four balls that can be spread around or layed on top of each other, at the caster's choice. ~~~ If you use the interpretation for Heighten that you have been using all this time, the feat is damn near useless.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-06-03, 02:34 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Let me try a different angle. We all know the results of the following exercise, if your interpretation of Heighten Spell is used. For the purposes of this post, assume that I am using the my interpretation, literally from the PHB. Fireball is a 3rd-level spell. Delayed Blast Fireball is a 7th-level spell (DBF). Compare the two spells. They're similar in most ways. 20-foot radius burst. Long range. Fire damage. However... DBF can be set to delay up to 5 rounds, the damage cap is 20d6, the save DC is 17+ability modifier (mod), and it requires at least a 7th-level slot. Fireball has no delay, the damage cap is 10d6, the save DC is 13+mod, and it requires at least a 3rd-level slot. Now, compare these, using a 20th-level sorcerer: Heightened (7th) Enlarged Maximized Fireball Delayed Blast Fireball What has changed? The saves are both 17+mod. They both require at least a 7th-level slot. The first spell has a range of 2400 feet and 60 pts. of damage. DBF has a range of 1200 feet and an average damage of 70 pts. While the first has greater range, DBF is still the better spell overall, despite the fact that three feats were required to get the first Fireball to this point. It's even less equitable, the higher you go. Compare these: Heightened Maximized Widened Fireball Meteor Swarm Save DC 19+mod for both. 40-foot radius spread for both. 1200-foot range for both. Fire damage is 60 pts. for the first, versus an average 96 pts. for Meteor Swarm. Plus Meteor Swarm has four balls that can be spread around or layed on top of each other, at the caster's choice. ~~~ If you use the interpretation for Heighten that you have been using all this time, the feat is damn near useless. I know this post isn't directed toward me, but I'll say that Heighten spell does nothing other than raise the effective level of the selected spell in which heighten will affect. Heighten changes the DC of a given spell to match the new level and the spell is a spell of that level for all intents and purposes (which comes into play with spell turning and other level depant things). The level adjustment of the metamagic spell is the number of spell levels raised. Without heighten, you can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, however nothing changes. The selected spell is by all considerations a spell of its original level. A heightened (9th Level) fireball, for instance, is a 10d6 fireball that does 10d6 damage, has a DC of 19+charisma, and is considered a 9th level spell for all intents and purposes. Using a ninth level spell slot to cast fireball (without metamagic modification) is a wasted spell slot. Piling on additional metamagic feats raises the spell level adjustment beyond the spell level adjustment of heighten spell. that is, if heighten spell were used to raise fireball to 6th level (+3 spell levels) and you want the fireball to be silent and still also (+2 spell levels together), then an 8th level spell slot must be used. The fireball is casted silent and still and is considered a 6th level spell for all intents and purposes. I hope that information comes of use.
JasperDm 12-06-03, 02:41 AM	Yes, Krynus, you are entirely right, in that situation, Heighten Spell IS useless. I'm about to sound rude, just know that I don't mean to insult. It's given with the respect due a peer. That being said... Firstly, because higher level spells are, by their nature and design, more combat efficient than their lesser cousins. You will never make Magic Missile match it's bigger, badder cousins, and Fireball will never reasonably be a Meteor Swarm. Heighten Spell is not INTENDED to close that gap. It is intended to make the DCs of the tricks you have planned, work. I posted the math earlier, and Krynus, I love ya man, really, but you're looking really foolish here. When you Heighten a spell to X level, it BECOMES an X level spell,and X level spells require X level slots and when you Quicken that X level spell, it takes up an X+4th level slot. Simple truth, and blatantly obvious, if not from the writing, then from the 10 million examples of the spell in NPC's prepared spell lists in issues of Dragon and Dungeon. Krynus, I hate to be bald-faced about it, but you're wrong. Heighten Spell, as I've said before in my previous post that got swallowed by that 3-pager back there, they stack, and Heighten Spell is not free, no matter what you put alongside it. Let's look at the logic you're using. What is basically a typo at worst, and a simple ambiguity at best, must be taken in context. Does it say that the spell takes up a slot of the same level as before? Look in Tome and Blood. That's what Energy Substitution says, because that's what they meant. Heighten Spell says that Fireball looks like an 8th level spell when it is Heightened, that's because IT IS an 8th level spell. Plain and simple. Maybe not written in ironclad legalese, but be honest with yourself. It's clearly the intent. Otherwise, your logic would have every person with the feat Heightening their spells to effective level 9s with no cost at all. All you have to do is build some fanciful bridge of other metamagics to get there? Ridiculous, illogical, and badly reasoned. Sorry, but that's just it. No, Heighten Spell is not the great balancing stick of metamagic. It sucks, unless it is used for it's specific goals...like making Hold Person a 9th level spell to stick on that wizzie with the way-too-high Will save. Not worthless, but not the miracle gun either. Sorry to diappoint.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 02:42 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: First, while I disagree with nearly everything that's been put up so far, I have to say that there is little that can be done without creating an uberclass like the mystic, (which can very easily be the most powerful character class that I've thus far seen, possibly toppling both the cleric and druid). I've seen a number of times that people wish to see some sort of system for the sorcerer that somehow integrates sorcerer bloodlines. I've seen a number of builds that incorperate different skills and selectable spells, but never anything easy and coherant. I hate bloodlines. Passionately. However, I can see why people like the idea that their ancestors were doing the nasty with some powerful being in humanoid form, altering a family tree so that it will never be the same. A good example of something appropriate is the feat "Bloodline of Fire", from the FRCS. Thus, I think sorcerers, like mystics, should have access to one domain (the the actual selection of such would be limited). The numbner of spells/day would remain the same, but spells known would essentially increase by one from levels one to nine to accomidate the new spells. This sorcerer would also gain the benifits of the domain's powers, except that all the spells and the associated power would be cast and/or used as arcane instead of divine. <SNIP> The biggest limitation and the most griped about limitation of the sorcerer class is its limited spell selection. :OMG! Oh... my... gawd. The most powerful aspect of the sorcerer is his ability to tap into any spell he knows as long as he has a slot of the appropriate available. Now you want to add nine more spells for him to tap into?! Krikey, that's uber! WAAAY too powerful. Not only do you want to add nine spells known, but you're not removing a darn thing as an attempt at balance. This is precisely the sort of thing that sends the class through the roof of over-powered. If anything, his spells known table should be reduced by one spell per level, and a domain selected at 1st-level determines what spells the sorcerer would get (for the nine spells known that get removed from the table). Holy moses, man. Geezus. :nonono:
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 02:45 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestofAngels: Piling on additional metamagic feats raises the spell level adjustment beyond the spell level adjustment of heighten spell. Hey, I used to think that it worked this way too, but Heighten doesn't list a spell cost... not even a variable cost.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-06-03, 03:06 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane I hate bloodlines. Passionately. However, I can see why people like the idea that their ancestors were doing the nasty with some powerful being in humanoid form, altering a family tree so that it will never be the same. A good example of something appropriate is the feat "Bloodline of Fire", from the FRCS. I personally am neutral toward that idea, but I also think it wouldn't hurt to expand it more if for no other reason than flavor. This can also be achieved through sorcerer specific prestige classes, but those are lacking. Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane :OMG! Oh... my... gawd. The most powerful aspect of the sorcerer is his ability to tap into any spell he knows as long as he has a slot of the appropriate available. Now you want to add nine more spells for him to tap into?! Krikey, that's uber! WAAAY too powerful. Not only do you want to add nine spells known, but you're not removing a darn thing as an attempt at balance. This is precisely the sort of thing that sends the class through the roof of over-powered. If anything, his spells known table should be reduced by one spell per level, and a domain selected at 1st-level determines what spells the sorcerer would get (for the nine spells known that get removed from the table). Holy moses, man. Geezus. :nonono: you really think so? I highly doubt that. I also don't think anything you've suggested on your sorcerer build significantly improves upon anything that addresses the problems that most people have with the sorcerer. The biggest problem is the limited spells list. I think you're grossly overstating the power of what I suggested. Especially that I know the following: 1. skip williams created the sorcerer. he was also quite biased against the sorcerer and it shows in nearly all of the sorcerer related material that he had anything to do with. I know that now thanks to an individual on this thread. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142840) 2. if dragonlance can get away with the mystic, then I don't see any reason why D&D can't get away with a sorcerer that's essentially a powered-down mystic. 3. the prototype sorcerer, seen only in Baulder's gate 2 (which was made in the ending days of 2nd ed.), could get up to 5 spells known for all spell levels, theoretically. (the game capped that sorc at level 31, which prevented the sorcerer from capping his spells known, but that only amounted to 4 8th level spells known and 4 ninth level spells known.) 4. spells known is a climbing disadvantage as a character gets higher in level. The wizard, which still gets boosted in spells furthermore, nearly everyone that I know of that dislike the sorcerer most vehemontly don't first complain that they don't get powerful enough familiars or don't get enough cantrips or even about slower metamagic. They gripe about spells known. I've played sorcerers for a while now and I can play them just fine the way they are now. Giving them access to domains will increase their power without taking anything in return and, despite that, I don't believe that I would put their power "through the roof" as you state. The mystic is grossly overpowered not because of their domain, but because they also get a good fort save, 3/4 BAB, and better skills.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:07 AM	Originally posted by JasperDM: Yes, Krynus, you are entirely right, in that situation, Heighten Spell IS useless. I'm about to sound rude, just know that I don't mean to insult. It's given with the respect due a peer. That being said... The same here. I am not trying to bait, or flame, or waggle my finger at anybody. Only to enlighten. Firstly, because higher level spells are, by their nature and design, more combat efficient than their lesser cousins. You will never make Magic Missile match it's bigger, badder cousins, and Fireball will never reasonably be a Meteor Swarm. Heighten Spell is not INTENDED to close that gap. It is intended to make the DCs of the tricks you have planned, work. The point of my examples is that it still doesn't close the gap, even with Heighten and as many metamagic feats as you can squeeze in. I posted the math earlier, and Krynus, I love ya man, really, but you're looking really foolish here. When you Heighten a spell to X level, it BECOMES an X level spell,and X level spells require X level slots and when you Quicken that X level spell, it takes up an X+4th level slot. Simple truth, and blatantly obvious, if not from the writing, then from the 10 million examples of the spell in NPC's prepared spell lists in issues of Dragon and Dungeon. Krynus, I hate to be bald-faced about it, but you're wrong. Heighten Spell, as I've said before in my previous post that got swallowed by that 3-pager back there, they stack, and Heighten Spell is not free, no matter what you put alongside it. To which NPCs are you referring? Frankly, I never see an NPC with Heighten Spell, except Elminster. I'm not looking foolish. I'm using my reading comprehension and the English language when reading a feat. I've searched high and low for something, anything that will demonstrate otherwise. I haven't come across anything that disputes it. If you do, please, I ask with all sincerity, find it, post it, and prove me wrong. Until then, the language is what it is. Let's look at the logic you're using. What is basically a typo at worst, and a simple ambiguity at best, must be taken in context. Does it say that the spell takes up a slot of the same level as before? Look in Tome and Blood. That's what Energy Substitution says, because that's what they meant. Heighten Spell says that Fireball looks like an 8th level spell when it is Heightened, that's because IT IS an 8th level spell. Plain and simple. Maybe not written in ironclad legalese, but be honest with yourself. It's clearly the intent. LOL! So now you read minds? What they said is relevant here, not what you think they meant. Energy Substitution lists a +0 cost because it is no more difficult to prepare/cast than the regular version of a spell, aside from actually having to know the feat. A Fireball heightened to 8th level is NOT an 8th-level spell. It is a 3rd-level spell that requires an 8th-level slot. Plain and simple. Otherwise, your logic would have every person with the feat Heightening their spells to effective level 9s with no cost at all. Nooo... the feat specifically says that the spell is "as difficult to prepare/cast as its effective level". That Heightened (8th) Fireball still requires an 8th-level slot, because it is as difficult to prepare/cast as the effective level, 8th. All you have to do is build some fanciful bridge of other metamagics to get there? Ridiculous, illogical, and badly reasoned. Sorry, but that's just it. It is not badly reasoned, at all. It is in black and white, right there on page 95 of the PHB, if you know the English language well enough to understand the words therein. Nobody says you have to do anything. If the only feat you have is Heighten, then make your DCs better with those higher-level slots. No, Heighten Spell is not the great balancing stick of metamagic. It sucks, unless it is used for it's specific goals...like making Hold Person a 9th level spell to stick on that wizzie with the way-too-high Will save. Not worthless, but not the miracle gun either. Sorry to diappoint. Truly, I'm not disappointed. You see, I have it right, by the core rulebook. Everybody else seems to be reading into the feat more than is there. Hey, I was there with you, not two weeks previous. It's quite... liberating, when comprehension dawns. Now, I can't force you to use the PHB, but your interpretation is nothing more than a house rule. Please, I ask, prove me wrong with something from a core source, for I cannot find one that supports your interpretation.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:10 AM	It seems that there are several different things we are all dancing around, as far as spells and metamagic applications are concerned. Keeping a clear mind about the meaning of language, and setting aside (for the moment) what a lot of us seem to think the way Heighten operates, here is what my understanding of the game terminology is... - actual level (A): The level of a spell that is unmodified. - slot cost (C): The number of levels a spell must be increased by, if metamagic is applied to a spell. - slot level (S): The level a spell consumes when prepared and cast. - effective level (E): The level used to determine a spell's save DC and ability to penetrate Globes of Invulnerability. Effective level is equal to actual level in all cases, except where Heighten Spell is applied. What I view to be the crux of the dispute is that the majority of the people here are saying that when Heighten is used with other metamagic feats, an increase in the effective level always constitutes an increase in the slot cost. Meanwhile, there is nothing that can be pointed to that supports this claim. The minority (i.e.- me) disagrees. The ONLY time this is true, by the core rules, is when Heighten is the only metamagic applied to a spell.
BlaineTog 12-06-03, 03:12 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Hey, I used to think that it worked this way too, but Heighten doesn't list a spell cost... not even a variable cost. I'm gonna chime in here, against my better judgment. IMHHO: Heighten spell is not free. DnD does not give things away for free. If Heighten Spell let you raise the effective levels of a Spell, even after other Metamgaics, then noone in their right monds would ignore it. it would be THE secondary Metamagic to have. It's all but worthless by itself, but it becomes the obivous choice for a 2nd feat. Another presedent: Magic Weapons. Example: a +1 Flaming Greatsword counts as a +1 weapon for the purposes of overcoming DR. It's a +2 weapon, but it doesn't matter. The Enhancement bonus is +1, so it counts as a +1 weapon, savvy? The situation is similar here. Why would anyone ever Heighten a Spell on it's own if they can get the exact same effect, with extras if they also use another Metamagic? The Correct answer is nobody, which is by, the defintion used extensively to balance the alt.Sor, broken. It's a choice so obvious it's silly: you are gonna use that 9th level slot anyway, you might as well up it's Save for free as well. So what if they didn't specify a cost? They couldn't! You can use it as a +1 increase as well as a +2, +3, etc. How were they supposed to write it? Something like this: From the 3.5 SRD: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Now this, to me, sounds like as concrete a LA as they could get. Remember: It it's the obvious choice, it's broken.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-06-03, 03:14 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Hey, I used to think that it worked this way too, but Heighten doesn't list a spell cost... not even a variable cost. from the 3.5 SRD HEIGHTEN SPELL [METAMAGIC] Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. It states that it increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. and that all effects dependant on spell level which includes the level of the spell slot used to cast affected spell are calculated according to the heightened level.
JasperDm 12-06-03, 03:16 AM	You've just made my point Krynus. Nooo... the feat specifically says that the spell is "as difficult to prepare/cast as its effective level". That Heightened (8th) Fireball still requires an 8th-level slot, because it is as difficult to prepare/cast as the effective level, 8th. Yes, we are agreeing here. What I am saying is that this is not somehow ignored or overwritten when you add another metamagic feat on. How can you say what you have said here, and say adding any other metamagic overwrites it, instead of stacking? If I Still this spell, how does it become easier, or no more difficult for that matter? If the 8th level Fireball REQUIRES the 8th level slot to work, then a Stilled 8th level Fireball must, therefore REQUIRE a 9th! As for examples, they are forthcoming. I am getting my twin bookbags of holding out of my car's trunk even as you read this.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:17 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog: IMHHO: Heighten spell is not free. DnD does not give things away for free. If Heighten Spell let you raise the effective levels of a Spell, even after other Metamgaics, then noone in their right monds would ignore it. it would be THE secondary Metamagic to have. It's all but worthless by itself, but it becomes the obivous choice for a 2nd choice. Hey, it's not free. You still have to spend one of your seven feats on it to gain its benefit. For the sorcerer in particular, it's not an easy choice. If people understand it correctly, you would think so, although that's not necessarily true if you primarily cast spells that don't require saving throws. Another presedent: Magic Weapons. Example: a +1 Flaming Greatsword counts as a +1 weapon for the purposes of overcoming DR. It's a +2 weapon, but it doesn't matter. The Enhancement bonus is +1, so it counts as a +1 weapon, savvy? BT buddy, enchanted weapons have nothing to do with metamagic. So what if they didn't specify a cost? They couldn't! You can use it as a +1 increase as well as a +2, +3, etc. How were they supposed to write it? They easily could, with examples.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:20 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels It states that it increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. and that all effects dependant on spell level which includes the level of the spell slot used to cast affected spell are calculated according to the heightened level. One more time... what is the effective level of a Maximized Fireball? Answer: 3rd.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:25 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm: You've just made my point Krynus. Yes, we are agreeing here. What I am saying is that this is not somehow ignored or overwritten when you add another metamagic feat on. How can you say what you have said here, and say adding any other metamagic overwrites it, instead of stacking? If I Still this spell, how does it become easier, or no more difficult for that matter? If the 8th level Fireball REQUIRES the 8th level slot to work, then a Stilled 8th level Fireball must, therefore REQUIRE a 9th! It is irrelevant when metamagic is added to a spell to determine the required slot. You are saying that when Heighten is used with other metamagic feats, an increase in the effective level always constitutes an increase in the slot cost. There is nothing that can be pointed to that supports this claim, that I have found. I've looked through source books, FAQ, errata, Sage rulings... nada. As for examples, they are forthcoming. I am getting my twin bookbags of holding out of my car's trunk even as you read this. I eagerly await them. I've also emailed The Sage about this about two weeks ago, for clarification. ~~~ Quite a flurry of posts, folks! If I don't answer right away, it's because I'm in bed. But I will reply to whatever develops, tomorrow.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-06-03, 03:33 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane One more time... what is the effective level of a Maximized Fireball? Answer: 3rd. Bzzt! effective level = level affected. heighten magically makes 3rd become 4th or better by virtue of the nature of the feat.
JasperDm 12-06-03, 03:35 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane One more time... what is the effective level of a Maximized Fireball? Answer: 3rd. Question 1) What is the Effective level of a Fireball Heightened to 8th level? Answer? 8th. Question 2)What level spell slot is required to cast an 8th level spell, including said Heightened Fireball? Answer? 8th. Question 3)When appling Maximized spell to ANY spell, how many additional slots does it require to cast? Answer? 3. Question 4)If you require 3 additional spell levels to cast an 8th level slot spell, what spell slot must you burn, minimum to cast that spell? Answer? 11th. Simple as pi. Also, all the cool bosses in Dungeon are sorcerers...my research is gonna take awhile, but I know I am supported here.
Aengrilor 12-06-03, 03:39 AM	Krynus Ogrebane: "I know this is seems difficult to grasp, but unfortunately, most people have the same problem interpreting this feat." ================= Krynus, stop for just a minute. Would you not agree that if "most people" are having issues seeing things the way you do, perhaps it's your interpretation that may be the faulty one?? This is just my opinion and I'm not trying to flame or be offensive in any way, but coming from anyone else I'd regarde your interpretation as just more munchkin abuse tactics and dismiss it out of hand. But I know from reading your other posts that you're usually quite spot on in your reasoning and very well thought out. Any official ruling on this yet?? I hope I didn't offend -
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:44 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm: Question 4)If you require 3 additional spell levels to cast an 8th level slot spell, what spell slot must you burn, minimum to cast that spell? Answer? 11th. Strike the word "slot" from above, and you are correct, it would require an 11th-level slot to cast a Maximized 8th-level spell. But Fireball is always a 3rd-level spell, even if it's effective level is higher. Also, all the cool bosses in Dungeon are sorcerers...my research is gonna take awhile, but I know I am supported here. I know it will take you a while to peruse the mags. I truly hope you find something that backs you up.
BlaineTog 12-06-03, 03:45 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Hey, it's not free. You still have to spend one of your seven feats on it to gain its benefit. For the sorcerer in particular, it's not an easy choice. Yes, but it's free every time you use it. "Spell Focus" for example only increases the save DCs of 1 school of magic by +2, and you have to spend a feat on it. If Heightened S[ell is taken the way you belive it should be, then you can increase the DC of ANY spell without any further cost. Which is what I meant by "Free." If people understand it correctly, you would think so, although that's not necessarily true if you primarily cast spells that don't require saving throws. Which is a grand totaly of what? 5ish% of the offensive spells? (Note: Pulled that statistic out of ears). BT buddy, enchanted weapons have nothing to do with metamagic. And Supreme Court Cases have no ramifications beyond the specific cases tried? magic Weapons don't have anything t odo with metamagics, but they set a Precedent. They easily could, with examples. ...which they rarely do in the SRD. I have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, and there is a nice little example that I can't repeat here (darn you, OGC, for purging all the flavor!).
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:50 AM	Originally posted by Aengrilor: Krynus, stop for just a minute. Would you not agree that if "most people" are having issues seeing things the way you do, perhaps it's your interpretation that may be the faulty one?? Honestly, the majority is not always right. This is just my opinion and I'm not trying to flame or be offensive in any way, but coming from anyone else I'd regarde your interpretation as just more munchkin abuse tactics and dismiss it out of hand. But I know from reading your other posts that you're usually quite spot on in your reasoning and very well thought out. Any official ruling on this yet?? I hope I didn't offend You did not offend and I appreciate your kind comments about my other posts and my reasoning in general. Thank you. I have emailed The Sage about this. His email is sageadvice@paizo.com, correct? I saw this in Dragon magazine, so I assume it's correct, although I've emailed him in the past at a different address (aol, or something). ~~~ By the way, I found one more NPC with Heighten Spell... Sememmon, from the FRCS.
BlaineTog 12-06-03, 03:52 AM	SEE?!?!?! MORE THAN ONE PERSON WANT AND USE HEIGHTEN SPELL!!! A CLEAR-CUT CASE OF AN OVERPOWERED FEAT!!![/sarcasm]:D btw: That was fast.
JasperDm 12-06-03, 03:55 AM	Ahem, behold the PHB example for Heighten Spell: "For example, a cleric could prepare hold person as a 4th level spell(instead of a 2nd level spell), and it would in all ways be treated as a 4th level spell." Note, not "In all ways other than the effects of other metamagics." All ways. Including spell slot required. Bang.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:57 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog: Yes, but it's free every time you use it. "Spell Focus" for example only increases the save DCs of 1 school of magic by +2, and you have to spend a feat on it. If Heightened S[ell is taken the way you belive it should be, then you can increase the DC of ANY spell without any further cost. Which is what I meant by "Free." It's not free every time you use it. If by "free" you mean "in conjunction with other metamagic", then that's another story. Which is a grand totaly of what? 5ish% of the offensive spells? (Note: Pulled that statistic out of ears). It's also not necessary for spells you cast on yourself, which explains why you don't really see clerics with Heighten. And Supreme Court Cases have no ramifications beyond the specific cases tried? magic Weapons don't have anything t odo with metamagics, but they set a Precedent. They set a precedent for other weapons/shields/armor. This is a completely different animal. ...which they rarely do in the SRD. I have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, and there is a nice little example that I can't repeat here (darn you, OGC, for purging all the flavor!). Yes you can, just don't quote it exactly, if it makes you uncomfortable. It's not illegal to express the same idea in a different manner.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-06-03, 03:59 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm Ahem, behold the PHB example for Heighten Spell: "For example, a cleric could prepare hold person as a 4th level spell(instead of a 2nd level spell), and it would in all ways be treated as a 4th level spell." Note, not "In all ways other than the effects of other metamagics." All ways. Including spell slot required. Bang. That demonstrates Heighten alone, which is not the problem. Found anything with Heighten and other metamagic at the same time? Also, any luck with your mags yet?
JasperDm 12-06-03, 04:06 AM	But Krynus, nowhere in anything are you supported in what you're saying. Nowhere does it say ANYWHERE, that there is some functional exclusion of these facts when other metamagic is introduced, a 4th level is a 4th level is a 4th level, however you get there. The PHB just said it loud and clear. And a Maximixed 4th level is a 7th level slot cost. Period!! And no, for some godforsaken reason, I can't fricking find something that stared me in the face for hours of toilet reading. Stupid Dieties and Demigods and ELH for not listing prepared spells on wizards and clerics high enough level to actually ENJOY having Heighten Spell! Which, BTW, several epic NPCs in the ELH have, look it over.
BlaineTog 12-06-03, 04:09 AM	It's not free every time you use it. If by "free" you mean "in conjunction with other metamagic", then that's another story. I do. "For example, a cleric could prepare hold person as a 4th level spell(instead of a 2nd level spell), and it would in all ways be treated as a 4th level spell." "In all ways" sounds pretty ineqivocal to me.
JasperDm 12-06-03, 04:14 AM	I also draw your attention to the Epic Scroll random generation charts in the ELH. While not a direct proof, it's pretty well cementing the point, as it flat out shows you the costs of Heightening magic in conjunction with other metamagics. Have a look. As an example, the charts clearly show that a Heightened(+6), Quickened 9th level spell takes up a 19th level slot, and compounds that math all the way down the charts. It shows clearly that the two metamagic costs stack, and that the cost is, in fact, real.
Frank the Vandal 12-06-03, 10:08 AM	Wow, this is a fast discussion! :) Fortunately, that's not the case. Heighten does not have an adjustment. It increases "the effective level", not "the level". What, according to you, is the difference between "effective level" and "level"? For me, there is no mechanical difference between the two, they're effectively the same. That's what "effective" means, right? Unless you can come up with a quoted rule that says the "effective level" is the same as "level" in all ways, except for when appplying metamagic... And why does a Heightened Fireball (to 5th) take up a 5th level slot, if no slot difference is mentioned in the feat? For me: because it's level is higher, it requires a higher level slot. That's the way the feat works. It increases the spell's level, and that increases the slot cost. by me: The Heightened spell is "in all ways be treated" as a higher level spell (PHB gives an example with Hold Person stating that).No, it doesn't say that. I was referring to the example in the PHB that was quoted by JasperDm. A Maximized Widened Stilled Fireball requires a 10th-level slot because each feat lists a cost that must be paid. Fireball (3rd-level), Maximize (+3 slot cost), Widen (+3 slot cost), Silent (+1 slot cost) = 10. And a Maximized Heightened (5th) Fireball would be: Heightened Fireball (5th level), Maximize (+3) = 8th level. A Heightened (5th) Fireball is a 5th level spell. That's what the feat says. Heightened (7th) Enlarged Maximized Fireball Delayed Blast Fireball Heightening a Fireball if you have Delayed Blast Fireball is just not a good idea... Heightening a Charm Person can be very useful, however. I haven't come across anything that disputes it. If you do, please, I ask with all sincerity, find it, post it, and prove me wrong. The problem is that you can't come up with any additional rules/examples to back your view up either. But Fireball is always a 3rd-level spell, even if it's effective level is higher. No! This is the problem. It isn't. A heightened (8th) Fireball is in all ways an 8th level spell. With your interpretation of "level" and "effective level", you might be able to come to your conclusion, but if you interpret it my way, then the whole thing is perfectly simple. From dictionary.com: ef·fec·tive, adj. 1. a.Having an intended or expected effect. b. Producing a strong impression or response; striking: gave an effective performance as Othello. 2. Operative; in effect: The law is effective immediately. 3. Existing in fact; actual: a decline in the effective demand. 4. Prepared for use or action, especially in warfare. Number 3 is the correct one here. The spell's effective level = the spell's actual level. Heighten Spell changes the level of the spell. That's why no slot adjustment is mentioned. The higher level requires a higher slot. So if Maximize Spell says: "uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level", they mean the effective spell level (since effective=actual).
Spenser 12-06-03, 11:17 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane That demonstrates Heighten alone, which is not the problem. Found anything with Heighten and other metamagic at the same time? I felt compelled to chime in here. What I fail to understand about this whole argument is why anyone would reasonably conclude that ANY Feat, metamagic or otherwise, would work differently under different circumstances unless it was specifically stated in the wording. If Heighten states that it does X, then it does X no matter if it is used alone or in conjunction with another metamagic Feat, or if there's a blue moon and the planets are in alignment. Unless I'm missing something here, there really is no argument. [my apologies if this sounds in any way condescending, offensive, or flame-like, that is not my intent] Spenser
SirisC 12-06-03, 12:16 PM	you are overlooking an important part of the heighten spell description page 82 of 3.0 phb For example, a cleric could prepare hold person as a 4th level spell (instead of a 2nd-level spell), and it would in all ways be treated as a 4th level spell. if it is in all ways treated as a 4th level spell then additional metamagic would increase its the slot required even more.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-07-03, 04:39 AM	JasperDM, I'll address your ELH post in a moment. I need to clarify something about the example used in Heighten's description. For reference: Originally posted by JasperDM: "For example, a cleric could prepare hold person as a 4th level spell(instead of a 2nd level spell), and it would in all ways be treated as a 4th level spell." Note, not "In all ways other than the effects of other metamagics." All ways. Including spell slot required. Bang. Some follow-ups: JasperDM: But Krynus, nowhere in anything are you supported in what you're saying. Nowhere does it say ANYWHERE, that there is some functional exclusion of these facts when other metamagic is introduced, a 4th level is a 4th level is a 4th level, however you get there. The PHB just said it loud and clear. And a Maximixed 4th level is a 7th level slot cost. Period!! BlaineTog: "In all ways" sounds pretty ineqivocal to me. Frank the Vandal: Unless you can come up with a quoted rule that says the "effective level" is the same as "level" in all ways, except for when appplying metamagic... Spenser: What I fail to understand about this whole argument is why anyone would reasonably conclude that ANY Feat, metamagic or otherwise, would work differently under different circumstances unless it was specifically stated in the wording. SirisC: if it is in all ways treated as a 4th level spell then additional metamagic would increase its the slot required even more. The example of Hold Person (a 2nd-level spell for a cleric) in the feat's description does say "in all ways", however that is not the case, for several reasons. If Heighten changed the actual level to 4th, then it becomes a 4th-level spell for purposes of counterspelling (3.5 PHB, p. 170-171). This is false, ergo, the spell is not treated as a 4th-level spell "in all ways". News flash: the example is ambiguous and imprecise. If Heighten actually changes the spell's level, then a Heightened Fireball will have a higher damage dice cap (3.5 DMG, p. 35-36). I'm pretty sure that it doesn't (Sage ruling or something, but it's second-hand knowledge), therefore it is not changed "in all ways". News flash: The Sage has been wrong before. (mostly, he's pretty good though... credit where credit is due) Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the dice cap should go up, because the cap is usually (always?) listed in a spell's description. Originally posted by JasperDm: I also draw your attention to the Epic Scroll random generation charts in the ELH. While not a direct proof, it's pretty well cementing the point, as it flat out shows you the costs of Heightening magic in conjunction with other metamagics. Have a look. As an example, the charts clearly show that a Heightened(+6), Quickened 9th level spell takes up a 19th level slot, and compounds that math all the way down the charts. It shows clearly that the two metamagic costs stack, and that the cost is, in fact, real. This is the closest you've gotten to making a case. It's too bad that Heighten Spell, as written, does not jive with that table, nor does it say what you want it to say. It would help if the feat was either errata'd or rewritten, but that doesn't change what is there right now. It's also too bad that the ELH is a big tub of crap almost as bad as some of the splatbooks. Also, keep in mind that the ELH is 3.0. For this reason, more than any other, is why I emailed The Sage. Quite a few people (including myself) seem to remember a Sage ruling along the lines of what you suggest (pre-3.5), yet nobody can produce it.
Frank the Vandal 12-07-03, 07:31 AM	If Heighten changed the actual level to 4th, then it becomes a 4th-level spell for purposes of counterspelling (3.5 PHB, p. 170-171). This is false, ergo, the spell is not treated as a 4th-level spell "in all ways". It does influence the Spellcraft check DC, and that's the only point where spell level is important for counterspelling. So it IS a 4th level spell for the purposes of counterspelling, but it's still the same spell (ie. still a Fireball), and can be counterspelled by the same spells. (If you used Improved Counterspell, you'd need a higher level to counterspell as well, because the spell's level is increased) So still, a Heightened (fifth) Fireball is in all ways a 5th level spell, as it says everywhere in the rules. If Heighten actually changes the spell's level, then a Heightened Fireball will have a higher damage dice cap (3.5 DMG, p. 35-36). I'm pretty sure that it doesn't (Sage ruling or something, but it's second-hand knowledge), therefore it is not changed "in all ways". Those rules are guidelines for creating new spells. There's no reason to let them change existing spells. The damage cap is part of the spell, and not dependant on anything.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-07-03, 11:05 PM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: It does influence the Spellcraft check DC, and that's the only point where spell level is important for counterspelling. Nooo... if Heightened (to 4th) Hold Person was "in all ways" a 4th-level spell, then it could not be counterspelled by a wizard with the feat Improved Counterspelling who was casting Suggestion (a 3rd-level spell). That wizard would have to step it up to Hold Monster (or another 5thlevel or higher enchantment spell). Those rules are guidelines for creating new spells. There's no reason to let them change existing spells. The damage cap is part of the spell, and not dependant on anything. This is secondary to the topic, but I'll address it. I'm not arguing that damage caps are raised, because heightening a spell only increases its effective level, not its actual level. There is a semantic difference between the two words. I am suggesting that if the heightened spell is 4th-level "in all ways", then the damage cap should be raised. Since it is not changed "in all ways" (and I proved that it is not by citing the counterspelling/improved counterspelling rules), then the damage cap stays put. Hey, here's something to chew on. I have shown several examples that compare heightened MM'd spells (using my interpretation) of a given level to spells of that actual level. They're still not up to par, and I have no problem with that. No gap is closed. The gap merely shrinks. Also, it is not free. You still must select Heighten and at least one other feat with a +1 or higher slot cost for this to be useful... useful, but still inferior. They synergize, so to speak. I've merely interpreted the feat literally, and demonstrated the implications of that interpretation, and it is not overpowered. In fact, I say that it is finally balanced, while we all know that the feat as you interpret it is weak... almost a total waste. If my interpretation upsets you, don't blame me. The description is what it is. If it would help, I can demonstrate the difference between "actual" and "effective", with a real-life example. I would have thought that the difference between the two words is apparent, but perhaps not.
JasperDm 12-08-03, 12:21 AM	Krynus...I give up. Think what you want. I have only to say that I am pleased I do not play in your game, because my dyed-in-the-wool rules-lawyer mind would shatter at such a, dare I say "nitpicky", interpretation without even the addendum of "This is my interpretation, and is therefore a house rule I hold to, please play and calculate accordingly.":headexplo But with enough forewarning, and liberal GM-says-so Grease, I could probably ease into it, and would probably take the feat every chance I got, and strap it under my beloved Intensify Spell like a laser sight on a 50 cal...not necessary, but fun. But as for me and mine, we'll take the feat the way every single piece of math has shown, and the actual feat and it's examples indicate. Believe as you will, but you have become my example to my players of examining something simple so intently that you overcomplicate it and render it inaccurate. Hope you get it figured out, and once you do, I'm interested in whether you still keep the feat this unusual way in your game because you like it better. Till then, consider me out of this boxing match.
SirisC 12-08-03, 12:27 AM	how is increased save DCs and ability to overcome barriers that block up to lvl x spells underpowered anyway, those save DCs are very important.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-08-03, 12:35 AM	Originally posted by SirisC how is increased save DCs and ability to overcome barriers that block up to lvl x spells underpowered anyway, those save DCs are very important. I agree. Imagine the enemy lich's surprise when you penetrate his spell turning effect with an electric jolt cantrip heightened to ninth level.
Thot 12-08-03, 05:47 AM	Quickly... 1) Ogrebane's interpretation is much intersting. I understood it (or so I think). I have my doubts about it being the intent. I'll eagerly await anything close to a conclusion about it, for I like HS much. 2) This doesn't belong to this thread. BTW, first time I don't post on an alt.Sor page (p11)... :( I got desintoxicated at last ;) though a bit by force of events... 3) To put things back OT, IMHO, I would like you to consider leving the restriction about the SF/ESM choice at first level when multiclassing. The more I think about it, the less do I think it's required. What was the so definitive argument about it ?
Krynus Ogrebane 12-08-03, 06:41 AM	Originally posted by JasperDm: Krynus...I give up. Think what you want. I have only to say that I am pleased I do not play in your game, because my dyed-in-the-wool rules-lawyer mind would shatter at such a, dare I say "nitpicky", interpretation without even the addendum of "This is my interpretation, and is therefore a house rule I hold to, please play and calculate accordingly.":headexplo While I am disappointed that you give up, I understand. After all, if this won't affect your game, the return/benefit to deliberating it is nil. I have respect for the rules knowledge you display in your posts, and the fact that you took as much time to research this particular part of the rules as you did. :bow: But with enough forewarning, and liberal GM-says-so Grease, I could probably ease into it, and would probably take the feat every chance I got, and strap it under my beloved Intensify Spell like a laser sight on a 50 cal...not necessary, but fun. But as for me and mine, we'll take the feat the way every single piece of math has shown, and the actual feat and it's examples indicate. Fair enough. With my table-top gaming group, we never seem to be able to get above 8th level PCs before we start a new campaign, so it has never come up before. Then there is the fact that I'm the rules lawyer of the group, and looked to for the nitty-gritty rule-wrangling. As for your Intensified spell, the +7 slot cost is steep (deservedly so), and Heighten would only take the effective level as high as 9th (save DC 19+mod). Improved Heighten would be needed to bring it up to something truly epic in power. Believe as you will, but you have become my example to my players of examining something simple so intently that you overcomplicate it and render it inaccurate. I take this as a compliment, even though you didn't mean it that way. If an idea is so radical and runs against the grain of everything you believe about a particular rule, yet can't be disproved by the rules and doesn't break the game, then my efforts are not wasted. I shall take pride in the fact that I am thinking outside the box and have broken away from the herd. Hope you get it figured out, and once you do, I'm interested in whether you still keep the feat this unusual way in your game because you like it better. Till then, consider me out of this boxing match. Yes, I still await a response from The Sage. I'm not the only one that interprets it this way either, so an Errata or FAQ would benefit the community. A clarification one way or the other is always a good thing. Originally posted by SirisC: how is increased save DCs and ability to overcome barriers that block up to lvl x spells underpowered anyway, those save DCs are very important. I thought I demonstrated this. Heightening a lower-level spell to penetrate a GoI will work, but the power of the spell is inordinately weak to do so. For example, a 20th-level wizard casting a Heightened (to 5th) Fireball will penetrate a GoI, yet the damage caps at 10d6 (average 35 points). It is much more effective to use a Cone of Cold, because not only is the damage cap 15d6 (average 52 points), but no metamagic was required. Even if the wizard has Empower Spell and applied it to the Heightened Fireball above, the average damage increases to 52 points. While this is on par with a 5th-level spell, it took two feats to do it. By your interpretation, requiring a Heightened (to 5th) Empowered Fireball to be cast from a 7th-level slot is inordinately expensive. You're now in the realm of a Delayed Blast Fireball, with a 20d6 damage cap and a DC 17+mod. To add insult to injury, this metamagic'd spell could still be counterspelled by a normal Fireball, or as an improved counterspell, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere. Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: I agree. Imagine the enemy lich's surprise when you penetrate his spell turning effect with an electric jolt cantrip heightened to ninth level. :rofl: This is an especially funny example because liches are immune to electricity. :D
Krynus Ogrebane 12-08-03, 06:52 AM	Originally posted by Thot Quickly... 1) Ogrebane's interpretation is much intersting. I understood it (or so I think). I have my doubts about it being the intent. I'll eagerly await anything close to a conclusion about it, for I like HS much. 2) This doesn't belong to this thread. BTW, first time I don't post on an alt.Sor page (p11)... :( I got desintoxicated at last ;) though a bit by force of events... 3) To put things back OT, IMHO, I would like you to consider leving the restriction about the SF/ESM choice at first level when multiclassing. The more I think about it, the less do I think it's required. What was the so definitive argument about it ? Hey man, welcome back! 1) I agree. ;) I also have some doubt about the intent, but the wording should have been more concise to explain their meaning. In any event, I think I've adequately detailed that it is balanced, regardless of their intent. 2) True, although the thread had all but died until this came up. Visibility is a good thing. :D 3) The argument was that if ESM could be chosen at 1st-level, by multiclassers, then it almost guarantees the idea that sorcerers don't use M components to cast spells, while this is just not the case. These "latent-ability" types should have to work at it, so to speak, and waiting until 2nd-level won't dissuade them unless the intent was to dip in for one level.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-08-03, 07:00 AM	Hey look, we've been cross-advertised! <LINK!> (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2029493#post2029493)
Frank the Vandal 12-08-03, 07:25 AM	Nooo... if Heightened (to 4th) Hold Person was "in all ways" a 4th-level spell, then it could not be counterspelled by a wizard with the feat Improved Counterspelling who was casting Suggestion (a 3rd-level spell). That wizard would have to step it up to Hold Monster (or another 5thlevel or higher enchantment spell). I don't think that's possible now. Heighten Spell says the spell's level is increased. Improved Counterspelling is dependant on Spell Level only. So to counterspell a Heightened (4th) Hold Person, you'd need a 5th level Enchantment spell at least. One argument for this is the fact that a sorcerer can use Improved Counterspelling, Reactive Counterspell (or your ExpMM(Heighten)) and Heighten Spell to counterspell any spell with a cantrip Heightened to one level above the spell's level. (This was clarified in the 3.5 FAQ.) I know the rules under Counterspelling say that Metamagic is not taken into account, but in that entire paragraph Improved Counterspelling isn't mentioned, so we can easily assume those rules are overridden by the feat Improved Counterspelling. This is secondary to the topic, but I'll address it. I'm not arguing that damage caps are raised, because heightening a spell only increases its effective level, not its actual level. There is a semantic difference between the two words. What difference? I'd really like to know. Heighten Spell doesn't say: this metamagic feat creates a new spell, balanced to it's new level, it just increases the spell's level. Yes, this does mean that the Heightened spell will be generally weaker than other spells of it's level, but if you don't know any spells of that level that do the same thing, it can still be a good choice. This is usually the case with metamagic. I am suggesting that if the heightened spell is 4th-level "in all ways", then the damage cap should be raised. Since it is not changed "in all ways" (and I proved that it is not by citing the counterspelling/improved counterspelling rules), then the damage cap stays put. Damage cap is not determined by spell level. If you're creating a new spell, then you (or your DM) should look at these guidelines to see if it's balanced. (For enhancing the damage cap, there are other Metamagic Feats.) Hey, here's something to chew on. I have shown several examples that compare heightened MM'd spells (using my interpretation) of a given level to spells of that actual level. They're still not up to par, and I have no problem with that. If you're using a lot of metamagic anyway, then the difference is huge, I think. But it doesn't matter. Balance is not a factor in this discussion, unless you are suggesting it as a house-rule.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-09-03, 12:22 AM	Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I don't think that's possible now. Heighten Spell says the spell's level is increased. Improved Counterspelling is dependant on Spell Level only. So to counterspell a Heightened (4th) Hold Person, you'd need a 5th level Enchantment spell at least. One argument for this is the fact that a sorcerer can use Improved Counterspelling, Reactive Counterspell (or your ExpMM(Heighten)) and Heighten Spell to counterspell any spell with a cantrip Heightened to one level above the spell's level. (This was clarified in the 3.5 FAQ.) Several things here. The FAQ was re-revised to explain that this can't be done, because readying a counterspell is a standard action, and a sorcerer using metamagic requires a full-round action. I know, because it was me that sent in that question about Heighten+Imp. Counterspell. ;) More below. I know the rules under Counterspelling say that Metamagic is not taken into account, but in that entire paragraph Improved Counterspelling isn't mentioned, so we can easily assume those rules are overridden by the feat Improved Counterspelling. 3.5 PHB, p. 170, Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: "Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered." Notice that a Heightened Spell + Imp. Counterspell is useful to counter (as long as the cast time is a standard action or less), but it doesn't count when being countered. What difference? I'd really like to know. Heighten Spell doesn't say: this metamagic feat creates a new spell, balanced to it's new level, it just increases the spell's level. Yes, this does mean that the Heightened spell will be generally weaker than other spells of it's level, but if you don't know any spells of that level that do the same thing, it can still be a good choice. This is usually the case with metamagic. OK, I'll try to explain the difference using a real-life example. At a company, let's say that your supervisor (a woman) is going to be out on maternity leave for three months. They ask you to supervise in her place. OK, so now you're in charge of a bunch of employees. You have the authority to hand out assignments, deal with attendance/tardiness issues, initiate discipline with employees that are trouble, etc. You also receive a supervisor's pay. However, because you are only supervising on a temporary basis, you can't really change anything about the department or fire an employee. You'd probably have to get a manager to back you up on any decision like this, because you're there to fill in until the actual supervisor returns. You are effectively a supervisor for the moment, while the woman on maternity leave actually is a supervisor. Damage cap is not determined by spell level. If you're creating a new spell, then you (or your DM) should look at these guidelines to see if it's balanced. (For enhancing the damage cap, there are other Metamagic Feats.) Prima facie, it is determined by spell level. Look at spells of any particular level that deal damage. Except for spells with the [sonic] descriptor, they all fall in line with the damage cap chart. In the case of [sonic] spells, the damage is commensurate against crystalline creatures/objects and falls a little short against the non-crystralline. The reason is because there are secondary effects that all targets have to contend with in addition to damage (stunning or deafness, usually). If you're using a lot of metamagic anyway, then the difference is huge, I think. But it doesn't matter. Balance is not a factor in this discussion, unless you are suggesting it as a house-rule. I've already shown that it isn't huge... in fact, it's still underpowered when compared to a spell of the actual level. I've also pointed out that you have to have the feats (plural) in the first place. For a cleric, druid, and sorcerer, all of which do not receive bonus feats, it's an expensive proposition when at least two of your seven feats would be dedicated to metamagicking a spell that would be still be inferior. And I'll say this again too... using the literal interpretation of what is in the PHB, this is not a house rule. Key phrases: "effective level" and "as difficult to prepare/cast". Was the example stating that a heightened spell is "in all ways" a spell of that level disproven? Yes. (rules for counterspelling) Actual level /= effective level /= slot level ... unless a spell has not been modified in any way, or has been modified by a metmagic feat that lists a +0 slot cost.
Aengrilor 12-09-03, 01:15 AM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Frank the Vandal: I don't think that's possible now. Heighten Spell says the spell's level is increased. Improved Counterspelling is dependant on Spell Level only. So to counterspell a Heightened (4th) Hold Person, you'd need a 5th level Enchantment spell at least. One argument for this is the fact that a sorcerer can use Improved Counterspelling, Reactive Counterspell (or your ExpMM(Heighten)) and Heighten Spell to counterspell any spell with a cantrip Heightened to one level above the spell's level. (This was clarified in the 3.5 FAQ.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane: Several things here. The FAQ was re-revised to explain that this can't be done, because readying a counterspell is a standard action, and a sorcerer using metamagic requires a full-round action. I know, because it was me that sent in that question about Heighten+Imp. Counterspell. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krynus - I think the bit of information you're missing in Frank's post is where he says - "a sorcerer can use Improved Counterspelling, REACTIVE COUNTERSPELL (or your ExpMM(Heighten)) and Heighten Spell to counterspell any spell with a cantrip Heightened to one level above the spell's level". IIRC that should let you do the Cool Cantrip Counter trick. :D
Frank the Vandal 12-09-03, 12:00 PM	Several things here. See Aengrilor's post. ;) 3.5 PHB, p. 170, Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: "Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered." Feats, spells, other races and things like that alter the rules in specific situations. They don't write down every exception everywhere, since it would make the books twice as big. Instead, they explain it when they explain the feat/spell/ability. In this case, they'd have to add "except Heighten Spell if the counterspelling person is using Improved Counterspell." Apparently, they thought it too much trouble (and I agree), since it's already clearly explained in the Improved Counterspelling and Heighten Spell feats. Or maybe they just copied from 3.0, where I.C. wasn't core, and such a clause wasn't needed. Prima facie, it is determined by spell level. Look at spells of any particular level that deal damage. Except for spells with the [sonic] descriptor, they all fall in line with the damage cap chart (Scorching Ray?). In the case of [sonic] spells, the damage is commensurate against crystalline creatures/objects and falls a little short against the non-crystralline. The reason is because there are secondary effects that all targets have to contend with in addition to damage (stunning or deafness, usually). It's affected by spell level when creating the spell. Changing it would require Heighten Spell to change part of the spell's description, which isn't stated in the description of Heighten Spell. "All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level." And in the example: "it would in all ways be treated as a 4th level spell." (Again, not "all ways except counterspelling.") And Improved Counterspelling: "Benefit: When counterspelling, you may use a spell of the same school that is one or more spell levels higher than the target spell." Seems clear enough to me. Heighten spell increases the level, so also the level of the required spell to counter it. Notice that a Heightened Spell + Imp. Counterspell is useful to counter (as long as the cast time is a standard action or less), but it doesn't count when being countered. It does count when being countered with Imp. Counterspell, but not when countered with the same spell or a specific counterspell. Normal counterspelling is not dependent on spell level, so normally Heighten Spell doesn't affect it. Spells can easily be countered by spells of a different level. A spell like Sympathy that a druid casts at level nine can be countered by a sor/wiz with an eighth level slot (Sympathy or Antipathy). Improved counterspelling is dependent on spell level, so, because of the description of Heighten Spell, it is affected by it. Both when counterspelling and when being counterspelled. OK, I'll try to explain the difference using a real-life example. Nice, but I meant the mechanical difference in DnD. I know what the word effectively means. You imply that it comes with some restrictions, but if that's the case, they should be clearly defined in the rules. Was the example stating that a heightened spell is "in all ways" a spell of that level disproven? Yes. (rules for counterspelling) Sorry, no. The fact that it can be countered by a spell of another level doesn't mean that it isn't a spell of that level. In short: A Heightened (5th) Fireball is considered a 5th level spell for all things that depend on spell level. Things affected (and depending on spell level) are: -Save DC -Ability to penetrate Globes of Invulnerability -Int/Wis/Cha required to cast -Spell Slot -Working of Improved Counterspelling: both when counterspelling and when being counterspelled -Concentration checks -Things I've forgotten :), basically everything that refers to the spell's level. Things not affected (and not depending on the level): -Damage -Anything in the spell's description -The fact that it's a Fireball spell, so it can still be countered by another Fireball spell -Range, Area, Casting time (unless casting spontaneously), descriptor, things like that. -Other things I've forgotten that don't refer to the spell's level.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-09-03, 03:59 PM	You're misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting that the damage cap is raised when the spell's level is heightened. ... and of course a spell of the same name can counter another spell of the exact same name, regardless of the spell's level in relation to the caster or his class. I've never argued that this isn't the case. As for using imp.counterspell, any metamagic applied to the spell being countered does not count... any ... it specifically says so on page 170. This concurs with the literal interpretation that a heightened spell's effective level is not equal to that spell's actual level. Nice, but I meant the mechanical difference in DnD. I know what the word effectively means. You imply that it comes with some restrictions, but if that's the case, they should be clearly defined in the rules. No, I don't imply anything. I come right out and say that a spell's effective level is not the same thing as it's actual level. In short: You have two things wrong there, but I'm not going to bother trying to convince you anymore. You play your interpretations, I'll play the literal interpretation. ... and if the Sage ever writes back, he's got lots of explaining to do, or a complete re-write of the feat. :smirk:
Finarin Panjoro 12-09-03, 05:26 PM	Hey Krynus, I know I've said this before, but this Sorceror build really is excellent. Everytime I look at it I'm impressed again by the careful balancing that allowed an infusion of flavor and originality without going munchkin at the same time. The Specials being off set by the reduced Spells per day is a major coup. I'd like to see this one go official.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-10-03, 02:12 AM	Originally posted by Finarin Panjoro Hey Krynus, I know I've said this before, but this Sorceror build really is excellent. Everytime I look at it I'm impressed again by the careful balancing that allowed an infusion of flavor and originality without going munchkin at the same time. The Specials being off set by the reduced Spells per day is a major coup. I'd like to see this one go official. Howdy Fin. Been a while since the "hear me out ranger", eh? :) I have to admit (grudgingly) that WOTC did a fair job of re-doing the ranger though. Truly, I'm flattered by your comments. We felt that the most important thing to keep in mind was that the PHB.sorcerer is a viable class... it's just bland, geared towards blasting, and has no incentive to actually stay sorcerer after 5th level (or so). He just needed a little something to separate him from a wizard. Thanks for the kind words. They mean a lot to me.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-10-03, 02:46 AM	Krynus, while I disagree with the resulting alternate sorcerer that you've been working on thus far, I hope you realize that I do feel no ill will toward you and I do commend your efforts. Furthermore, I understand that you do find my alternate sorcerer overpowered, but you've given me a rather vague (or, rather, a brief explaination that gave little insight as to why you feel that true) reason for why it is as so. Also, the reason, as I stated in my large synopsis, is because I feel that your build doesn't do enough in the way of fixing the two largest problems of the sorcerer -- that is -- the lack of flavor and the lack of versitility. I attempted to fix both in one fell swoop. I also attempted to fix the 'secondary' problems the sorcerer has, that is, lacking skills (some argue points, others the skills themselves: I opted for the skills), the "Im-not-a-shut-in-like-the-wizard" d6 HP, and suggestions of giving the sorcerer abilities that reprent the magical nature of sorcerers (like a continueally active detect magic effect). I've also heard people say the sorcerer in and of itself is inherantly weak, because it lacks all of the above, and barely passes as a viable class in comparison to the other spellcasting classes, and often put it below them. While I believe that the PHB sorcerer is balanced, I don't think boosting their power (not by a lot, obviously) is a bad idea nor would it destroy balance unless it were done excessively. What you've done, however, is seemingly trying to keep your alternate balanced with the PHB sorcerer, which I actually find better than your alternate sorcerer (and the specialist wizard much much better) is headed in the wrong direction. That is, you've given your sorcerer bonus feats with a small selection of weak feats to choose from. While the feats you've created are appropriate, I don't think they do much in accomplishing anything in the way of fixing the problems people see, and that, Krynus, is the reason I dislike your alternate. But I digress... tell me what you think.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-10-03, 04:37 AM	DoA, I'm glad you posted this. I saw your comments on Wiz_O's thread, and I was shocked that you felt short-shrifted by my responses to your dissection. Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: Krynus, while I disagree with the resulting alternate sorcerer that you've been working on thus far, I hope you realize that I do feel no ill will toward you and I do commend your efforts. Good to see. Unfortunately, I suspect that everybody won't agree on the sorcerer... ever. Furthermore, I understand that you do find my alternate sorcerer overpowered, but you've given me a rather vague (or, rather, a brief explaination that gave little insight as to why you feel that true) reason for why it is as so. Well, here's the thing. When I asked your opinion of it in Xun's mega-thread, it was in response to your "wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole" comments. I also explicitly stated that you didn't have to micro-analyze it, because time was an issue for you. I encouraged you to be brief, in fact. However, you did find the time to write a veritable thesis. Which is fine, because I appreciate anything as thorough and time-consuming as what you did. The downside is that, because we've been at this since April, we've already analyzed the class and all the implications a number of times in exacting detail, both through in-depth discussion and playtesting. While my comments on your thesis were relatively brief, they were pertinent and cut to the chase, so to speak. I also have a tendency to forget that not everybody who visits this thread has read all 8 months worth of posts, and that is my main shortcoming. In a nutshell, your analysis wasn't anything new. Truly. I don't say that in a condescending way either. Eight months has confirmed everything in your post, one way or the other. That, plus playtesting on the Real D&D/d20 Boards. Also, the reason, as I stated in my large synopsis, is because I feel that your build doesn't do enough in the way of fixing the two largest problems of the sorcerer -- that is -- the lack of flavor and the lack of versitility. I attempted to fix both in one fell swoop. I also attempted to fix the 'secondary' problems the sorcerer has, that is, lacking skills (some argue points, others the skills themselves: I opted for the skills), the "Im-not-a-shut-in-like-the-wizard" d6 HP, and suggestions of giving the sorcerer abilities that reprent the magical nature of sorcerers (like a continueally active detect magic effect). I personally disagree about the flavor part. A class shouldn't provide flavor... the player should. The versatility problem really isn't a combat-situation issue... it is a non-combat issue. The wizard has the luxury of a slew of skill points for knowledge skills, etc., by virtue of INT being his casting stat. That's not a problem in itself... wizards should be smarter than sorcerers. If the wizard wants to use magic to be more versatile out of combat, he either has to prepare those spells (which is X number of spells that he can't prepare for combat) or scribe utility scrolls (at an XP cost). This is not a problem, to me. Now, on the one hand, sorcerers get short-shrifted in the skills department as a consequence of their casting stat. On the other hand, sorcerers just aren't a skill-based class... it's all about the magic. Enter the cantrips per day and known. The cantrips are basically the sorcerer's "skills", and being able to add the CHA modifier to his slots/day pretty much guarantees that he'll have a minor trick up his sleeve that enables him to help out the party in minor yet fun ways. This also re-affirms the creature-of-magic fluff. ... and if that sorcerer is using those rather large number of cantrips/day in combat for Rays of Frost, Dazes, or Disrupt Undead, so what? He's obviously expended all his "real" spell slots in this case, and will probably not survive the battle. I've also heard people say the sorcerer in and of itself is inherantly weak, because it lacks all of the above, and barely passes as a viable class in comparison to the other spellcasting classes, and often put it below them. While I believe that the PHB sorcerer is balanced, I don't think boosting their power (not by a lot, obviously) is a bad idea nor would it destroy balance unless it were done excessively. Nobody can argue that primary casters are the absolute pinnacle of power, if you can survive the crucial early levels. That's a problem. All we've done with this alt.sor is push a little bit of survivability to the front of the class, and take some off the end, when spell slots are copious, in the form of "not-quite-a-feat" specials. As a side effect, those special abilities are opportunities to mitigate some of the sorcerer's straitjacket drawbacks. A sorcerer outstrips a wizard with his ability to adapt to the battlefield from round to round, merely by rifling through his rolodex of spells available and going at it. By adding nine non-cantrip spells to his list of spells known, you aren't adding flavor... you've outright boosted him past a wizard in power... arguably the most powerful class in existence. You also cheapen the feat Extra Spell. Now, if the spells on the domain lists were 100% non-combat applicable, then that would be a boon without being unbalanced. However, we both know that that is not the case (i.e.- domains are not created equal, and most have combat spells). What you've done, however, is seemingly trying to keep your alternate balanced with the PHB sorcerer, which I actually find better than your alternate sorcerer (and the specialist wizard much much better) is headed in the wrong direction. That is, you've given your sorcerer bonus feats with a small selection of weak feats to choose from. While the feats you've created are appropriate, I don't think they do much in accomplishing anything in the way of fixing the problems people see, and that, Krynus, is the reason I dislike your alternate. But I digress... tell me what you think. Here is the crux of the matter. Those of us who have put a lot of time into this thread, and all its precursors, don't find the sorcerer to be weak, at all, and therefore does not need a power-boost. The main complaints have been flavor (it has none), out-of-combat versatility (he blasts just fine), and no incentive to actually continue being a sorcerer (PrC at first chance). While some players complain about how "painful" it is to try and pick spells or feats, it's not that bad. A 20th-level sorcerer/wizard comparison shows that the sorcerer has 34 non-cantrip spells known, while the wizard has approx. 45 spells in his book (as his freebies from level-ups... anything more costs money/time). Some see that and say "how unfair that a wizard gets more", but the flexibility that being able to cast your spells without preparing them in advance far outstrips having to ponder over a spellbook and prepare. This alt.sor has 5 slots/level, just like a specialist wizard, true enough. But, when those 5-per are capable of being used for any spell known, rather than preparing something in them, the sorcerer's five are much more powerful than the specialist's five. Add to that the fact that the sorcerer doesn't take nearly as long to top out at 5-per, and you're looking at a serious firepower advantage, in the chaos that is a battlefield. 6-per just doesn't help that much, after mid-levels, and this alt.sor pretty much maintains slot quantity prior to mid-levels (when compared to the PHB.sor), when they're needed most.
JasperDm 12-10-03, 05:15 AM	Glad to see this topic back on track. I love Krynus' sorcerer, and even used it for a heavy melee/nuker sorcerer multiclasser, as it does cover some of the issues I've faced for straight class sorcerer roleplay. First of all, every PHB sorcerer I play immediately takes Skill Focus(Intimidate) and Skill Prodigy(from Kingdoms of Kalamar PG) to get several roleplay skills in class - Intimidate, Sense Motive, and such. I have rarely, if ever, ran out of sorcerer spells in an extended set of encounters, but constantly run out of cantrips in scenarios where greater spells would be offensive. I use things like Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, and such to intimidate commoners and impose my presence and power. Personally, burning off some late end power for more simple presence is great. A fighter can lay hand on blade or draw steel a thousand times a day, a sorcerer can only make his hands flare with eldritch might, what, 6 times a day? Stupid, for a class that is defined by at-a-moment inherent power. I'd burn down to 4 per level max for cantrips at will...they go along way to making a sorcerer the presence his Charisma demands. An intimidate check goes alot better when the caster is glowing... And when his eyes and hands are spewing green smoky energy while his clothes and hair are tugged at by black smoky winds that seem to only touch him? ...that's called a circumstance bonus to Intimidate checks. I've played sorcerers since 3.0 was spawned, and Channelers from Spells and Magic, and there's alot to be said to bridge the gap between magic and skills. And I love Krynus' balance...so don't say there's no need for a balance like this...it's just not true for everyone.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-10-03, 08:26 PM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane DoA, I'm glad you posted this. I saw your comments on Wiz_O's thread, and I was shocked that you felt short-shrifted by my responses to your dissection. Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: Krynus, while I disagree with the resulting alternate sorcerer that you've been working on thus far, I hope you realize that I do feel no ill will toward you and I do commend your efforts. Good to see. Unfortunately, I suspect that everybody won't agree on the sorcerer... ever. that much is very true. some people see the need for more changes and some for less. I'd just rather try to find a middle ground that people can still argue about, but still agree that the improvement was both necessary and the change was for the better. That is, when the people that want little or no change shout "overpowered" and the anti-sorcerers that decry the sorcerer as utterly weak say "that's a good improvement, but it still sucks and hasn't come up to par. and I also get at least some people that agree with me, then I think I would have found the balance I was looking for, as opposed to something that everyone can agree on, which is how I view your sorcerer. Not that it isn't a good direction, I just think you're trying too much to appease the people who think it needs little change, whereas I'm trying to appease the people who find it underpowered or at least underwhelming. Furthermore, I understand that you do find my alternate sorcerer overpowered, but you've given me a rather vague (or, rather, a brief explaination that gave little insight as to why you feel that true) reason for why it is as so. Well, here's the thing. When I asked your opinion of it in Xun's mega-thread, it was in response to your "wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole" comments. I also explicitly stated that you didn't have to micro-analyze it, because time was an issue for you. I encouraged you to be brief, in fact. However, you did find the time to write a veritable thesis. very true Which is fine, because I appreciate anything as thorough and time-consuming as what you did. The downside is that, because we've been at this since April, we've already analyzed the class and all the implications a number of times in exacting detail, both through in-depth discussion and playtesting. it did take a looong time to write all that up. In fact, my work schedule did cut it in half (which seporated the gripes from the suggestions). While my comments on your thesis were relatively brief, they were pertinent and cut to the chase, so to speak. I also have a tendency to forget that not everybody who visits this thread has read all 8 months worth of posts, and that is my main shortcoming. When I first discovered your attempts to create an alternate sorcerer, I took a quieter ground (because I didn't like contrieved spellcasting or whatever ability that took the sorcerer's health in favor of more spell slots) among other things. But I have been *somewhat* keeping track of what's been going on in order to check the progress and to see whether I'd like it or not. However, I've only been present on the boards for a few months now and you've been developing your sorcerer for an apparently longer time than that. Thus, I must have missed most of the arguements against some of the other abilities that I outlined that've been a part of this build for longer than I. (Maybe the last 2 or 3 months of the 8.) But yes, what you say is true. In a nutshell, your analysis wasn't anything new. Truly. I don't say that in a condescending way either. Eight months has confirmed everything in your post, one way or the other. That, plus playtesting on the Real D&D/d20 Boards. Also, the reason, as I stated in my large synopsis, is because I feel that your build doesn't do enough in the way of fixing the two largest problems of the sorcerer -- that is -- the lack of flavor and the lack of versitility. I attempted to fix both in one fell swoop. I also attempted to fix the 'secondary' problems the sorcerer has, that is, lacking skills (some argue points, others the skills themselves: I opted for the skills), the "Im-not-a-shut-in-like-the-wizard" d6 HP, and suggestions of giving the sorcerer abilities that reprent the magical nature of sorcerers (like a continueally active detect magic effect). I personally disagree about the flavor part. A class shouldn't provide flavor... the player should. I agree, but that only pertains to roleplaying venues and that isn't the same as "flavor" (or how I define "flavor" that is.) What a sorcerer lacks is something that sets it apart from all of the other classes and makes it shout "I'm a sorcerer!" while its spellcasting does do that, it only really makes it more generic. And I don't like generic. generic is modern d20's system, which is ok, but I'd rather be a "Fighter" or a "Technition" or a "Wizard," as opposed to a "Stong/Smart/Fast/Tough/Charismatic/Dedicated Hero." and the sorcerer, as it is, is more of a generic spontaneous arcane spellcaster than a sorcerer as far as anyting that's granted to it. While spontaneous casting is powerful, it isn't enough to make the class otherwise barren. Even its spellcasting power is heavily restrained and, as much as i believe the class is balanced, I also think its limited spells known is somewhat restrictive. In other words, the class needs a power up. The class you've provided doesn't do that. You've attempted to try to keep the class at its barely balanced state by subtracting from its spells/day and adding some abilities in place of that. While I do find it a problem to take its spells/day, but I do think you should at least upgrade the special abilities to suit the spell slots you've taken and make the abilities scaling to show 2 things: that is that the sorcerer is learning how to better himself by being a better and better spellcaster (by scaling the specials in power) and the other way is to make the speicals appropriate for the relative spell slots. If you're wondering what I mean by that, take the archmage for example. For 5 (or more) spell slots and three feats, look at what I, as a sorcerer, am capable of doing and work from there. I think that would suit what you're trying to do in the context in which you're doing it better, but that's just my opinion. The versatility problem really isn't a combat-situation issue... it is a non-combat issue. The wizard has the luxury of a slew of skill points for knowledge skills, etc., by virtue of INT being his casting stat. That's not a problem in itself... wizards should be smarter than sorcerers. If the wizard wants to use magic to be more versatile out of combat, he either has to prepare those spells (which is X number of spells that he can't prepare for combat) or scribe utility scrolls (at an XP cost). This is not a problem, to me. I never felt it was either. Part of the reason why I hate any semblence of giving the sorcerer its own spell list is that any suggestions for what spells should be on such a list tend to make the sorcerer nothing but create and enforce the hyped-up evoker/blaster sorcerer stereotype. There's nothing a new spell list for the sorcerer can do that'll help it, other than give it access to some divine spells, which it can already get via Use Magic Device. (and yes, I am referencing to the PHB sorcerer.) Now, on the one hand, sorcerers get short-shrifted in the skills department as a consequence of their casting stat. On the other hand, sorcerers just aren't a skill-based class... it's all about the magic. Enter the cantrips per day and known. The cantrips are basically the sorcerer's "skills", and being able to add the CHA modifier to his slots/day pretty much guarantees that he'll have a minor trick up his sleeve that enables him to help out the party in minor yet fun ways. This also re-affirms the creature-of-magic fluff. I don't like giving the sorcerer additional skill points any more than you do, but I have no problem with giving them more skills. Giving them more cantrips does little for the sorcerer, IMO, but giving them more skills at least gives them both the option of being good at something out of combat and nonmagically related whereas more cantrips nets the sorcerer very little in any way I can think of. Also, making the # of cantrips available to a sorcerer makes it a pain to keep track of what cantrips a particular sorcerer has available during which times. Like before and after a charisma drain. Also, I agree that a sorcerer isn't a skills class and it really shouldn't be. That's why skills aren't a large part of my sorcerer design, but the option of having a particular set of skills if the sorcerer has a high enough intelligence can be more rewarding, IMO. ... and if that sorcerer is using those rather large number of cantrips/day in combat for Rays of Frost, Dazes, or Disrupt Undead, so what? He's obviously expended all his "real" spell slots in this case, and will probably not survive the battle. yes, but there is only so many cantrips/day that any spellcaster can cast, so, a "large number" isn't possible, since charisma doesn't affect the # of cantrips/day. (unless i'm mistaken and I forgot something, your sorcerer's charisma only increases the # of cantrips available and not the #/day. Since I don't have the class in front of me, I'm only saying what I remember.) I've also heard people say the sorcerer in and of itself is inherantly weak, because it lacks all of the above, and barely passes as a viable class in comparison to the other spellcasting classes, and often put it below them. While I believe that the PHB sorcerer is balanced, I don't think boosting their power (not by a lot, obviously) is a bad idea nor would it destroy balance unless it were done excessively. Nobody can argue that primary casters are the absolute pinnacle of power, if you can survive the crucial early levels. That's a problem. All we've done with this alt.sor is push a little bit of survivability to the front of the class, and take some off the end, when spell slots are copious, in the form of "not-quite-a-feat" specials. As a side effect, those special abilities are opportunities to mitigate some of the sorcerer's straitjacket drawbacks. I disagree that the survivability of your sorcerer is any more, if not less than that of the current sorcerer, for reasons I've recently stated on the "Options" thread. That, being the problem of trying to maintain maintain a balancing act with your sorcerer and the PHB sorcerer and trying to cater to those who think little, if any change is necessary, when, I think a much more drastic measure would be necessary to put it up at the height it needs to be. I'm not saying my sorcerer is balanced, I haven't determined that yet, but I think my build's going in the more "appropriate" direction through attempting to cater to the "anti-sorcerer" group by adding power to give the sorcerer what I think is necessary to make it a more viable class than it already is. But remember, my alt is just in the beginning stages and nothing is written in stone, but I think trying to make the alt sorcerer, yours or mine, balanced with the original sorcerer, is self-defeating in purpose. A sorcerer outstrips a wizard with his ability to adapt to the battlefield from round to round, merely by rifling through his rolodex of spells available and going at it. By adding nine non-cantrip spells to his list of spells known, you aren't adding flavor... you've outright boosted him past a wizard in power... arguably the most powerful class in existence. You also cheapen the feat Extra Spell. First, Extra spell was worthless to begin with. 1/7th or 1/8th of all the feats a sorcerer will ever have available without going epic makes the value of that feat almost completely worthless. One feat for one spell might be worth something if the sorcerer had bonus feats, but bonus feats would only make the sorcerer look even more like an offshoot of the wizard than it already is. Also, a sorcerer doesn't outstrip the wizard. Especially the specialist wizard. Both have the one thing that my sorcerer nor the PHB sorcerer will ever have, and that's a massive library of spells. The bonus feats give the wizard additional metamagics, and give the wizard more breathing room for PrC feats among other things. Plus, the more spell slots the wizard has, the more versitle his selection of spells for that day. Something the sorcerer cannot replicate. Plus, the wizard can afford to get whatever spell that class can get and can get away with occasionally using them. The sorcerer can only afford that because of the few spell swaps it gets, but that's level dependant and only can go to a certain degree. (and prestige classes don't continue spell swapping.) Giving the sorcerer more breathing room as far as his spell selection and allowing them to pick spells that fit their character concept without a relative sacrifice in power. (especially true with higher level spells) Now, if the spells on the domain lists were 100% non-combat applicable, then that would be a boon without being unbalanced. However, we both know that that is not the case (i.e.- domains are not created equal, and most have combat spells). with the PHB at hand, I can safely give you all the domains (in the PHB) that have spells that also have out-of-combat uses as well and the names of said spells. (I'll only give the domains that have roughly 50% spells that are useful out-of combat) Air: Obscuring mist, gaseous form, air walk, control winds, control weather, whirlwind Earth: Soften Earth and Stone, Stone Shape, Wall of Stone, Iron Body, stoneskin Knowledge: All Luck: Entropic Shield (maybe), freedom of movement, break enchantment, mislead (maybe), miracle Protection: Sanctuary, Shield other, Spell Resistance, antimagic field, repulsion, mind blank travel: All Trickery: Disguise self, invisibility, nondetection, false vision, mislead(maybe), screen, polymorph any object Water: Obscuring mist, fog cloud, water breathing, control water Although most Domains are more combat oriented, that just leaves more spells that the sorcerer can choose for being outside of combat, which, IMO, should be just as capable in, anyway. That, also, is something else people complain about when the sorcerer is reguarded. that is, in a similar way to a fighter, that the sorcerer is less viable out of combat. What you've done, however, is seemingly trying to keep your alternate balanced with the PHB sorcerer, which I actually find better than your alternate sorcerer (and the specialist wizard much much better) is headed in the wrong direction. That is, you've given your sorcerer bonus feats with a small selection of weak feats to choose from. While the feats you've created are appropriate, I don't think they do much in accomplishing anything in the way of fixing the problems people see, and that, Krynus, is the reason I dislike your alternate. But I digress... tell me what you think. Here is the crux of the matter. Those of us who have put a lot of time into this thread, and all its precursors, don't find the sorcerer to be weak, at all, and therefore does not need a power-boost. The main complaints have been flavor (it has none), out-of-combat versatility (he blasts just fine), and no incentive to actually continue being a sorcerer (PrC at first chance). and I agree, but the sorcerer is balanced and only minimally so. the sorcerer isn't seen as weak for no other reason that because it is still a primary caster and casters are inherantly powerful and I do think something should be done. The lack of much of anything other than its spellcasting ability, IMO, is proof enough of that. Though, while I do sound somewhat passionate about that, I feel no complection to use anything other than the PHB sorcerer. In other words, like I said on Xun's thread, I'd pick a sorcerer as soon as any other class." and I mean it. I don't feel the sorcerer is weak nor do I feel any strong compunction to improve upon it unless I was restricted from Prestige classes. Because, the sorcerer has nothing else other than its spellcasting ability. Which is a problem. While some players complain about how "painful" it is to try and pick spells or feats, it's not that bad. A 20th-level sorcerer/wizard comparison shows that the sorcerer has 34 non-cantrip spells known, while the wizard has approx. 45 spells in his book (as his freebies from level-ups... anything more costs money/time). Some see that and say "how unfair that a wizard gets more", but the flexibility that being able to cast your spells without preparing them in advance far outstrips having to ponder over a spellbook and prepare. I agree. But that still hasn't prevented me from taking (with my epic sorceress) the feat "Spell knowledge" enough times to get 5 spells known/level. (right now, she has 5 at level one and two and 4 all rest of the way to 9th) While she hasn't achieved that yet, she will. Because if I were still restricted to the sorcerer's normal allotment, I'd go nuts. (but only with that specific character, rather than sorcerers in general.) Now, with other sorcerers, I'd feel less constrained, but the selection of spells is rather limited and, while I don't particularly find that to be a problem, other people do. A lot of other people do. I personally feel that while the sorcerer is perfectly fine the way it is, it's still very much a blank slate and could be improved upon without making it significanty more powerful and I don't think expanding the sorcerers spells known list by one/level does that, even in light of everything else it gains. (domain power, eschew at 5th level, etc.) In addition to that, what I've given isn't much more than what a prestige class would grant. Thus, my build would be loosing quite a bit if a PrC can be taken, which my build also has easier access to.[color] This alt.sor has 5 slots/level, just like a specialist wizard, true enough. But, when those 5-per are capable of being used for any spell known, rather than preparing something in them, the sorcerer's five are much more powerful than the specialist's five. Add to that the fact that the sorcerer doesn't take nearly as long to top out at 5-per, and you're looking at a serious firepower advantage, in the chaos that is a battlefield. [color=orange]but that's the problem, you've essentially decreased the sorcerer's power where it counts the most. That is, you decreased the # of spells/day and kept the # of spells known the same. With that in mind, I can get more milage out of a specialist wizard than a sorcerer with fewer spell slots/day. 6-per just doesn't help that much, after mid-levels, and this alt.sor pretty much maintains slot quantity prior to mid-levels (when compared to the PHB.sor), when they're needed most. I might agree with you if your alt had better abilities to back up its loss. and Ive always, whenever playing any kind of spellcaster, went with the philosiphy that "every spell slots counts, no matter what was memorized." that's probably from my better "power gaming" side of me, though.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-11-03, 04:36 AM	JasperDM, that's a great story, and an awesome use of those cantrips. Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: When I first discovered your attempts to create an alternate sorcerer, I took a quieter ground More and more, I'm finding this out. It's pretty neat, actually, that while there is a vocal faction on the thread, there is also a silent majority out there lurking and observing. :) What a sorcerer lacks is something that sets it apart from all of the other classes and makes it shout "I'm a sorcerer!" while its spellcasting does do that, it only really makes it more generic. And I don't like generic. Fair enough. It's a matter of personal taste, really. I prefer generic, because it doesn't exclude anything. It is completely up to the player to fill the sorcerer's slate with whatever he desires. While spontaneous casting is powerful, it isn't enough to make the class otherwise barren. Even its spellcasting power is heavily restrained and, as much as i believe the class is balanced, I also think its limited spells known is somewhat restrictive. In other words, the class needs a power up. The class you've provided doesn't do that. You've attempted to try to keep the class at its barely balanced state by subtracting from its spells/day and adding some abilities in place of that. While I do find it a problem to take its spells/day, but I do think you should at least upgrade the special abilities to suit the spell slots you've taken and make the abilities scaling to show 2 things: that is that the sorcerer is learning how to better himself by being a better and better spellcaster (by scaling the specials in power) and the other way is to make the speicals appropriate for the relative spell slots. I'm not sure what to make of this. Either it's balanced or it's not. You say it is balanced, then argue that it needs a power-up, which seems to mean that it is not balanced. Part of the reason why I hate any semblence of giving the sorcerer its own spell list is that any suggestions for what spells should be on such a list tend to make the sorcerer nothing but create and enforce the hyped-up evoker/blaster sorcerer stereotype. Totally agree here. I don't like giving the sorcerer additional skill points any more than you do, but I have no problem with giving them more skills. The problem with giving more class skills, aside from the fact that the class is not skills-based, is that you start treading on another class' territory. Now that there are no forbidden skills, spending cross-class points on something totally un-sorcerish is do-able, if a bit expensive (2 points for 1 rank). There's also the option of feats that make cross-class skills into class skills (albeit non-core material, such as OA and FRCS). yes, but there is only so many cantrips/day that any spellcaster can cast, so, a "large number" isn't possible, since charisma doesn't affect the # of cantrips/day. (unless i'm mistaken and I forgot something, your sorcerer's charisma only increases the # of cantrips available and not the #/day. Since I don't have the class in front of me, I'm only saying what I remember.) You're a bit confused here. The cantrips known do continue to increase (up to 12 known at 20th), but also your CHA modifier is added to the number of cantrips you can cast per day. As many as 9+modifier at 20th level. That's quite a few tricks up the sorcerer's sleeve. At most, 22 per day (pre-epic), if I'm not mistaken. (18 CHA to start, Spellcasting Prodigy, +5 from levels, +5 from inherent, +6 from Cloak) I disagree that the survivability of your sorcerer is any more, if not less than that of the current sorcerer, for reasons I've recently stated on the "Options" thread. Survivability isn't greatly increased, but it is there. I jested in a previous post about how cruel a joke it is for Toughness to be a special (thereby creating an option for a d6 HD sorcerer), but at 2nd level, +3 hit points is a big deal. ExpMM[Still Spell] gives the sorcerer a real chance at firing off a spell when being grappled, or eliminates ASF in armor. Spell Secret [Stilled "X"] would work for one spell. Heck, getting your move-action back while using metamagic is pretty sweet. Eschew while grappling is a huge benefit, considering that it takes a full-round action to retrieve a component during a grapple. Arcane Skill Enhancement + almost any skill is a nice perk, in a pinch. First, Extra spell was worthless to begin with. 1/7th or 1/8th of all the feats a sorcerer will ever have available without going epic makes the value of that feat almost completely worthless. Serious disagreement here. Another spell known, that you can use at any time you have a slot available, is a big deal. Also, a sorcerer doesn't outstrip the wizard. Especially the specialist wizard. Both have the one thing that my sorcerer nor the PHB sorcerer will ever have, and that's a massive library of spells. Again, big disagreement. The wizard has a handful (or so) more spells, unless he spends money on it. Huge library = huge expense. For every spell he adds to his book by spending time/money on it, that is less gear he'll be equipped with for adventuring, according to the wealth-by-level table. The bonus feats give the wizard additional metamagics, and give the wizard more breathing room for PrC feats among other things. By the way, your sorcerer doesn't adequately address the one very real problem of the PHB.sorcerer... jumping ship ASAP. If a player leaves the alt.sor, he gives up specials, spell-swapping, and familiar boosts. If a player leaves your sorcerer or the PHB.sor, he gives up nothing but the familiar powers. I find that to be the number one PHB.sor problem. with the PHB at hand, I can safely give you all the domains (in the PHB) that have spells that also have out-of-combat uses as well and the names of said spells. (I'll only give the domains that have roughly 50% spells that are useful out-of combat) Which confirms my point that there really aren't any domains that are 100% non-combat oriented, if not in your class, then in the entire PHB. Even the spells that you list as useful out-of-combat do have combat applications, mostly. I personally feel that while the sorcerer is perfectly fine the way it is, it's still very much a blank slate and could be improved upon without making it significanty more powerful and I don't think expanding the sorcerers spells known list by one/level does that, even in light of everything else it gains. (domain power, eschew at 5th level, etc.) Nine more spells known is huge. There's nothing more I can say on this, because apparently I won't be convincing you otherwise. *shrug* In addition to that, what I've given isn't much more than what a prestige class would grant. This alone is telling. PrC's are more powerful than core classes (almost without exception), and you've admitted that your sorcerer gives more than a PrC. Thus, my build would be loosing quite a bit if a PrC can be taken, which my build also has easier access to. Bloodline Mastery and Imp. Natural Casting aren't going to keep anybody hanging in there. Greater Natural Casting might, depending on how many spells with expensive components the caster has (and it's easy to not have any). Spell Swap is a nice option to have, but isn't a must, if planned properly. but that's the problem, you've essentially decreased the sorcerer's power where it counts the most. That is, you decreased the # of spells/day and kept the # of spells known the same. With that in mind, I can get more milage out of a specialist wizard than a sorcerer with fewer spell slots/day. I don't see how, considering that the wizard has to pick and choose in advance. 5 spontaneous >>> 5 prepared I might agree with you if your alt had better abilities to back up its loss. and Ive always, whenever playing any kind of spellcaster, went with the philosiphy that "every spell slots counts, no matter what was memorized." that's probably from my better "power gaming" side of me, though. Slots are not inconsiderable, certainly. That's why Extra Slot is an option. If a player would like more cantrips and maybe Eschew, but otherwise likes the 6 slots/level that the PHB.sor gets, he can almost exactly get those slots back.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-12-03, 04:53 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane JasperDM, that's a great story, and an awesome use of those cantrips. Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: When I first discovered your attempts to create an alternate sorcerer, I took a quieter ground More and more, I'm finding this out. It's pretty neat, actually, that while there is a vocal faction on the thread, there is also a silent majority out there lurking and observing. :) to the player to fill the sorcerer's slate with whatever he desires. What a sorcerer lacks is something that sets it apart from all of the other classes and makes it shout "I'm a sorcerer!" while its spellcasting does do that, it only really makes it more generic. And I don't like generic. Fair enough. It's a matter of personal taste, really. I prefer generic, because it doesn't exclude anything. It is completely up as do I, but it should have some amount of focus that brings the class a natural flavor. Like with a druid's wildshaping ability. Or a bard's bardic music, skills, ect. that bring the class its natural flavor of being a druid or a bard. Then there's a more generic sort of class, like the fighter or any of the d20 modern base classes. I'd much rather be a ranger. Its abilities are focused toward naturely things enough to be a "ranger," not to be confused with the dual-wielding/archer fighter that spends a lot of time in the woods, but a real-life ranger. A sorcerer gets his spells. that's it. While spontaneous casting is powerful, it isn't enough to make the class otherwise barren. Even its spellcasting power is heavily restrained and, as much as i believe the class is balanced, I also think its limited spells known is somewhat restrictive. In other words, the class needs a power up. The class you've provided doesn't do that. You've attempted to try to keep the class at its barely balanced state by subtracting from its spells/day and adding some abilities in place of that. While I do find it a problem to take its spells/day, but I do think you should at least upgrade the special abilities to suit the spell slots you've taken and make the abilities scaling to show 2 things: that is that the sorcerer is learning how to better himself by being a better and better spellcaster (by scaling the specials in power) and the other way is to make the speicals appropriate for the relative spell slots. I'm not sure what to make of this. Either it's balanced or it's not. You say it is balanced, then argue that it needs a power-up, which seems to mean that it is not balanced. I mean that your specials give little in return from what you've taken, and yes, that is what I'm saying. Its unbalanced in your disfavor. Part of the reason why I hate any semblence of giving the sorcerer its own spell list is that any suggestions for what spells should be on such a list tend to make the sorcerer nothing but create and enforce the hyped-up evoker/blaster sorcerer stereotype. Totally agree here. spiffy I don't like giving the sorcerer additional skill points any more than you do, but I have no problem with giving them more skills. The problem with giving more class skills, aside from the fact that the class is not skills-based, is that you start treading on another class' territory. I agree with that, but it would only be true if I gave the sorcerer a lot of skills and additional skill points. as of right now, each bloodline grants two additional skills appropriate to each bloodline. Now that there are no forbidden skills, spending cross-class points on something totally un-sorcerish is do-able, if a bit expensive (2 points for 1 rank). very expensive, considering the sorcerer's limited access to skill points, which is why i don't think giving them access to a few additional skills as class skills is "stepping on anyone else's toes" as badly as you say it. Especially since sorcerers are limited in skill points that they have to spend in that direction. Thus, my reason to be more lienient on expanding skills rather than skill points. Essentially to ease that expense without making the sorcerer more skilled. There's also the option of feats that make cross-class skills into class skills (albeit non-core material, such as OA and FRCS). yes, at the cost of feats and also forcing the PC to be from a specific region or such to take it. (I'm referring to the FRCS more than OA, because I don't have OA.) yes, but there is only so many cantrips/day that any spellcaster can cast, so, a "large number" isn't possible, since charisma doesn't affect the # of cantrips/day. (unless i'm mistaken and I forgot something, your sorcerer's charisma only increases the # of cantrips available and not the #/day. Since I don't have the class in front of me, I'm only saying what I remember.) You're a bit confused here. The cantrips known do continue to increase (up to 12 known at 20th), but also your CHA modifier is added to the number of cantrips you can cast per day. As many as 9+modifier at 20th level. sooo charisma applies to both cantrips known and cantrips/day? seems like some small amount of balancing power better spend elsewhere. seems rather useless to me. That's quite a few tricks up the sorcerer's sleeve. At most, 22 per day (pre-epic), if I'm not mistaken. (18 CHA to start, Spellcasting Prodigy, +5 from levels, +5 from inherent, +6 from Cloak) I disagree that the survivability of your sorcerer is any more, if not less than that of the current sorcerer, for reasons I've recently stated on the "Options" thread. Survivability isn't greatly increased, but it is there. I jested in a previous post about how cruel a joke it is for Toughness to be a special (thereby creating an option for a d6 HD sorcerer), but at 2nd level, +3 hit points is a big deal. ok, so its only worthwhile at level 2~4. not much a stickler for higher levels, are ya? ExpMM[Still Spell] gives the sorcerer a real chance at firing off a spell when being grappled, or eliminates ASF in armor. Spell Secret [Stilled "X"] would work for one spell. Heck, getting your move-action back while using metamagic is pretty sweet. doesn't really make much of a difference. Besides, what spell would a sorcerer bother to fire off during a grapple that isn't teleport or dimension door? both have no somatic components and I always take teleport. That makes that ability worthless. Also, using still to negate ASF just makes the sorcerer act as if he were two levels lower (to account for the level adjustment of the feat) and the sorcerer could do that anyway. no need for that ability at all. Eschew while grappling is a huge benefit, considering that it takes a full-round action to retrieve a component during a grapple. grapples don't come up that often. besides, teleport, dimension door, and a few other spells that escape that sort of thing only have verbal components. Arcane Skill Enhancement + almost any skill is a nice perk, in a pinch. why have this when you argued that giving the sorcerer additional skills is wrong because it steps on the other class' toes. doesn't this do that only with more many more skills? First, Extra spell was worthless to begin with. 1/7th or 1/8th of all the feats a sorcerer will ever have available without going epic makes the value of that feat almost completely worthless. Serious disagreement here. Another spell known, that you can use at any time you have a slot available, is a big deal. It'd be more worthwhile to simply have a better spell selection and use those feats toward a more constructive purpose. that feat is completely worthless and no single spell is worth giving up a feat for unless the PC made some horrible mistake reguarding spell selection. Also, a sorcerer doesn't outstrip the wizard. Especially the specialist wizard. Both have the one thing that my sorcerer nor the PHB sorcerer will ever have, and that's a massive library of spells. Again, big disagreement. The wizard has a handful (or so) more spells, unless he spends money on it. Huge library = huge expense. For every spell he adds to his book by spending time/money on it, that is less gear he'll be equipped with for adventuring, according to the wealth-by-level table. I was actually referring to the additional 20 spells over its more versitile kin that a specialist wizard gets for free. not the fact that they can scribe scrolls into their spellbook. The bonus feats give the wizard additional metamagics, and give the wizard more breathing room for PrC feats among other things. By the way, your sorcerer doesn't adequately address the one very real problem of the PHB.sorcerer... jumping ship ASAP. If a player leaves the alt.sor, he gives up specials, spell-swapping, and familiar boosts. If a player leaves your sorcerer or the PHB.sor, he gives up nothing but the familiar powers. most people don't even get a familiar and getting familiar boosts isn't gonna help that much, if at all. Your specials are weak, at best, and provide little more reason to keep going with the class all the way to 20th. My alt looses the two more advanced natural spellcasting and bonuses to save DCs and charisma checks, in addition to familiar progression. I find that to be the number one PHB.sor problem. I personally don't know what the #1 problem is, but I see a lot of people who hate sorcerers strike the lack of versitility as the sorcerer's worst problem. with the PHB at hand, I can safely give you all the domains (in the PHB) that have spells that also have out-of-combat uses as well and the names of said spells. (I'll only give the domains that have roughly 50% spells that are useful out-of combat) Which confirms my point that there really aren't any domains that are 100% non-combat oriented, if not in your class, then in the entire PHB. Even the spells that you list as useful out-of-combat do have combat applications, mostly. most spells in all of D&D have out of combat applications that also have combat applications. few spells have no place in the battlefield. I personally feel that while the sorcerer is perfectly fine the way it is, it's still very much a blank slate and could be improved upon without making it significanty more powerful and I don't think expanding the sorcerers spells known list by one/level does that, even in light of everything else it gains. (domain power, eschew at 5th level, etc.) Nine more spells known is huge. There's nothing more I can say on this, because apparently I won't be convincing you otherwise. *shrug* I disagree that adding more spells known will change it so significantly as to unbalance it as severely as you suggested and I have no reason to believe otherwise. If you could explain just how this is, you could give me insight as to why you think this is. My alt is very much a work-in-progress and is far from written in stone. In addition to that, what I've given isn't much more than what a prestige class would grant. actually, its worse. I can think of a lot of prestige classes that I would choose over your specials. In fact, nearly all but the weakest ones. This alone is telling. PrC's are more powerful than core classes (almost without exception), and you've admitted that your sorcerer gives more than a PrC. I've also admitted that my alt sorcerer is far from incomplete and is a work-in-progress more than once. (and not just in the above statement.) What my alt sorcerer is gearing to do is give the sorcerer both a boost in power and a reason to keep in the class. (at least until it can qualify for archmage). Thus, my build would be loosing quite a bit if a PrC can be taken, which my build also has easier access to. which would only get me out faster. take both ten levels in a full-blown PrC and 5 levels as an archmage. Bloodline Mastery and Imp. Natural Casting aren't going to keep anybody hanging in there. Greater Natural Casting might, depending on how many spells with expensive components the caster has (and it's easy to not have any). that depends. the bonuses to DCs that bloodline mastery stacks with the DCs provided by Spell focus. All of which offer sorcerer-specific powers or bonus feats. I can replace the special abilities from your alt. sorcerer with a good selection of feats or spells with the PHB sorcerer and I can still benifit from a secret or two AND still qualify for a PrC at level 5 or 6. Spell Swap is a nice option to have, but isn't a must, if planned properly. but that's the problem, you've essentially decreased the sorcerer's power where it counts the most. That is, you decreased the # of spells/day and kept the # of spells known the same. With that in mind, I can get more milage out of a specialist wizard than a sorcerer with fewer spell slots/day. I don't see how, considering that the wizard has to pick and choose in advance. but that only really hurts the wizard if the player using him isn't experienced or knowledgeable. A specialist wizard with a good intelligence can get a huge number of spells available to cast/day and keep quite well on par with a sorcerer in terms of being prepared. because, although the sorcerer has the spells/day and they are spontaneous spells/day, they are selected from a very tight list of spells, whereas a wizard's isn't. 5 spontaneous >>> 5 prepared I might agree with you if your alt had better abilities to back up its loss. and Ive always, whenever playing any kind of spellcaster, went with the philosiphy that "every spell slots counts, no matter what was memorized." that's probably from my better "power gaming" side of me, though. Slots are not inconsiderable, certainly. That's why Extra Slot is an option. If a player would like more cantrips and maybe Eschew, but otherwise likes the 6 slots/level that the PHB.sor gets, he can almost exactly get those slots back. no, they aren't. especially since your alt has no greater versitility in his spells than a PHB sorcerer does. Like I stated before. I DO think that the sorcerer is balanced, but only barely so. that being said, I think that the sorcerer CAN get a reasonable boost in power without loosing its balance in comparison to the other classes, hence, my alt. Your alt does little in the way do allieviate that, also. The PHB sorcerer has reletively little to give in terms of taking anything the class can give away in order to decrease its stance on the pedistal of balance, which is why I think it's a fallacy to attempt to balance your alt with the PHB sorcerer because there is little that can be taken. There is the simple weapon proficiency, its short skill list, its few spells known, its spells/day, and its familiar. You took its advantage in its spells/day in order to gain its bonuses, which add little in the way of allieviating the class's woes. One more thing. although 5 spontaneous slots >>>>>> 5 prepared slots is true 5 spontaneous slots & limited spell list === 5 prepared slots & costly, but unlimited spell list. Thus, what does that leave? But anyway, there're some things we'll agree on, but some... well... a lot on which we don't. But one thing is for certain... whether or not one alt is better than the other is uncertain, but reguardless, I'll still be using the PHB sorcerer and I'll still be Prestiging out at or around level 6. And I'm happy with that. :)
Thot 12-12-03, 07:44 AM	DoA : Since I don't know if you read it before, here's my suggestion about BSK (Bonus Spells Known) : make them available but at a cost (namely XP), and limited by CHA (as much as bonus slots). What I plan to house-rule is : Buy one BSK = 500 XP + 500 XP/level; must have at least as much BSK the level before this one; can only buy one by level (?). Ex : Hennet is a 10th level Sor. He wants to add Light to his cantrips known. It will cost him 500 XP. It is a prereq to buy Grease (at 1000 XP) at level 11. I know that Talcoram Cyndar will implement a former version of it : Buy one BSK = 1000XP/spell level. No other prereq. You more or less buy the Extra Spell feat with XP. I don't have time to comment more for now, but maybe one day... *shrug* > LINK < (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144776) to your alt Sor...
friendlyfire515 12-12-03, 11:51 AM	Tsk, tsk. Version 8.x and still no more skills? You cut all the other useless crap down to feat options(bravo), but summon familiar and spell swapping are still mandatory? And it seems like you can get the best specials right away, so why even list toughness at all? You call this flavor? Take a few notes from Darkestofangels' post on the "Options to make the sorcerer class better" thread. I just want a sorceror that can rp. With version 8.04, I still have to take cosmopolitan and a low dex and con to do that. It would also be nice if sorcs wheren't pigeonholed into human by their lack of skills and feats. Lets quit :censored::censored::censored::censored: :censored:ing about cantrips and familiars, and get to the real issues!
Finarin Panjoro 12-12-03, 05:45 PM	Krynus, You should submit this in Shadowfoot's Core class competition. You'd be going head-to-head with Darkest Of Angel's variant. Here's the <LINK> (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=145557&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) PS. The ranger I submitted is not the Hear Me Out ranger, but a multi-class variant I did on my own.
mellowship 12-12-03, 07:58 PM	Originally posted by friendlyfire515 Tsk, tsk. Version 8.x and still no more skills? You cut all the other useless crap down to feat options(bravo), but summon familiar and spell swapping are still mandatory? If anything deserved to be an unshakable class feature, spell swapping is it. As for the familiar, we went over that a few pages back. If you can swap out the familiar for another special, it makes it too easy to take a one-level dip into sorcerer. And it seems like you can get the best specials right away, so why even list toughness at all? You can't get Spell Secrets or Extra Slots right away. I'd say Spell Secrets are some of the best specials out there. And Augment Familiar doesn't really come into its own until you take it at least twice. Toughness is a compromise for those who wanted the sorcerer to get a d6 hit die. You call this flavor? Take a few notes from Darkestofangels' post on the "Options to make the sorcerer class better" thread. I just want a sorceror that can rp. With version 8.04, I still have to take cosmopolitan and a low dex and con to do that. It would also be nice if sorcs wheren't pigeonholed into human by their lack of skills and feats. Eh? My primary character in Living Greyhawk is a gnome sorcerer. He's planning to go into Divine Oracle after 9th level, though. Sure, the lack of skill points and feats does hurt, but that +2 Con has been a lifesaver on several occasions. And your complaints about the sorcerer's lack of flavor contradict your earlier approval of the principle of feat-like specials. You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of flavor. This alt.sorcerer is supposed to be a replacement for the core PHB sorcerer. The fact that it doesn't have flavor is a feature, not a bug. A core class is supposed to be usable in all settings. If it makes too many assumptions for flavor purposes, every DM will have to fundamentally rewrite it in order to make it fit his setting. This core variant is supposed to be a base that each campaign setting and DM can build on and add things to.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-13-03, 02:15 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: Like with a druid's wildshaping ability. Or a bard's bardic music, skills, ect. that bring the class its natural flavor of being a druid or a bard. Then there's a more generic sort of class, like the fighter or any of the d20 modern base classes. I'd much rather be a ranger. Personal preference. There is no right or wrong. I mean that your specials give little in return from what you've taken, and yes, that is what I'm saying. Its unbalanced in your disfavor. You misunderstand. Either the PHB sorcerer is balanced or it is not. You have said that it is, and then proceed to add nine spells and a handful of other gimme's. very expensive, considering the sorcerer's limited access to skill points, which is why i don't think giving them access to a few additional skills as class skills is "stepping on anyone else's toes" as badly as you say it. I didn't specify how badly anyone's toes would be stepped on... only that more class skills does step on toes. Especially since sorcerers are limited in skill points that they have to spend in that direction. Thus, my reason to be more lienient on expanding skills rather than skill points. Essentially to ease that expense without making the sorcerer more skilled. Bottom line -- the sorcerer is not a skills-based class. yes, at the cost of feats and also forcing the PC to be from a specific region or such to take it. (I'm referring to the FRCS more than OA, because I don't have OA.) Of course! The class is magic-based, not skills-based. sooo charisma applies to both cantrips known and cantrips/day? seems like some small amount of balancing power better spend elsewhere. seems rather useless to me. Wrong. Again. The sorcerer gets X+charisma modifier cantrips per day. The cantrips known are fixed, according to the table (twelve at 20th level). ok, so its only worthwhile at level 2~4. not much a stickler for higher levels, are ya? :bored: Nope. Not really. High-level magic works just fine, thanks. doesn't really make much of a difference. Besides, what spell would a sorcerer bother to fire off during a grapple that isn't teleport or dimension door? both have no somatic components and I always take teleport. That makes that ability worthless. No, it doesn't make it worthless. The earliest a sorcerer can get Dimension Door is 8th level. What happens before then? Grappling is a real threat before the mid- to high-level magic kicks in. Also, using still to negate ASF just makes the sorcerer act as if he were two levels lower (to account for the level adjustment of the feat) and the sorcerer could do that anyway. no need for that ability at all. Say it with me: "you get your move action back". If this isn't a big deal for you, and you're playing the alt.sorcerer, then select something else. It really is that simple. grapples don't come up that often. besides, teleport, dimension door, and a few other spells that escape that sort of thing only have verbal components. DM-specific assertion. For you, this may be true. However, grappling is an extremely effective way to deal with spellcasters. Grapple, pin, prevent speaking, all in a full attack action. Now what are you going to do? Answer: die, probably. why have this when you argued that giving the sorcerer additional skills is wrong because it steps on the other class' toes. doesn't this do that only with more many more skills? Hello? It's not permanent. It can't be used on a skill that requires training unless you have ranks in it. It lasts for minutes at a time. It only works on one skill. You have to expend a spell slot each time for each skill. It'd be more worthwhile to simply have a better spell selection and use those feats toward a more constructive purpose. Nine more spells known is an unmitigated power-up. Period. that feat is completely worthless and no single spell is worth giving up a feat for unless the PC made some horrible mistake reguarding spell selection. Sure it is, if you have up to nine more than the PHB sorcerer. I was actually referring to the additional 20 spells over its more versitile kin that a specialist wizard gets for free. not the fact that they can scribe scrolls into their spellbook. :rofl: You need to read the rules more closely. "The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school." Spells Gained at a New Level 3.5 PHB, p. 178-179 3.0 PHB, p. 155 I personally don't know what the #1 problem is, but I see a lot of people who hate sorcerers strike the lack of versitility as the sorcerer's worst problem. A sorcerer is a very specialized arcane caster. If you want versatility, then learn versatile spells. A sorcerer will never have the right spell for every circumstance, but he will have everything he knows available to him, as long as he has an uncast slot. The sorcerer is not a wizard. I disagree that adding more spells known will change it so significantly as to unbalance it as severely as you suggested and I have no reason to believe otherwise. If you could explain just how this is, you could give me insight as to why you think this is. My alt is very much a work-in-progress and is far from written in stone. (standard array, INT boosted each time, non-cantrips)... A 20th-level wizard has, at most, 42 spells available to cast. He has to prepare them in advance, from his spellbook. Metamagic has to be added and decided during the preparation process. A specialist wizard has the same stipulations as a generalist wizard, except that he has 51 spells available for casting, but is prohibited from making use of 1/8 or 2/8 of the schools. A 20th-level sorcerer, OTOH, has 34 spells available to cast, but he can cast them 60 times. Metamagic can be added, or not, on the fly, allowing much more adaptability to any given situation. Hell, he could cast Magic Missile 60 times, if he needed to. Now, you want to make that 43 available spells, to cast 60 times. If you can't see the imbalance, then never mind. You'll never see it. actually, its worse. I can think of a lot of prestige classes that I would choose over your specials. In fact, nearly all but the weakest ones. If they give up something, anything, in the process, then I'm OK with that, even if it is spell slots that have to be selected as a special. But the players using the PHB.sorcerer give up nothing. I've also admitted that my alt sorcerer is far from incomplete and is a work-in-progress more than once. (and not just in the above statement.) What my alt sorcerer is gearing to do is give the sorcerer both a boost in power and a reason to keep in the class. (at least until it can qualify for archmage). Full-stop. There's really nothing more to say, in light of this little revelation. If you think that any spellcaster needs a power-boost, even the "lowly" sorcerer, then you're hopeless. Primary casters own, yet you want more. Pfft.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-13-03, 02:24 AM	Originally posted by friendlyfire515: Tsk, tsk. Version 8.x and still no more skills? Tsk, tsk. Since when is the sorcerer a skills-based class? It's all about the magic, baby. You cut all the other useless crap down to feat options(bravo), but summon familiar and spell swapping are still mandatory? Swapping is not mandatory, and neither is summoning a familiar. However, they are fixed abilities. And it seems like you can get the best specials right away, so why even list toughness at all? You haven't read the dissection, have you? I even put it there on page 1, so people like you could find it real easy-like. But hey, I'll clue you in, since I'm a nice guy, and you're being so constructive and all. The cruel joke is that the sorcerer can have an effective d6 hit die, by choosing Toughness each time a special pops up, but he passes by the opportunity to improve his magic in some way. You call this flavor? Take a few notes from Darkestofangels' post on the "Options to make the sorcerer class better" thread. No thanks. The sorcerer doesn't need a power-boost. I just want a sorceror that can rp. With version 8.04, I still have to take cosmopolitan and a low dex and con to do that. It would also be nice if sorcs wheren't pigeonholed into human by their lack of skills and feats. Since when do you need a feat to role-play? Since when do sorcerers need skills to be effective? Some people... :rolleyes: Lets quit :censored::censored::censored::censored: :censored:ing about cantrips and familiars, and get to the real issues! Hey, it's right there on page 1, bub. If you think the sorcerer needs a power-boost, then this class is not for you. Buh-bye now.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-13-03, 04:24 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane You misunderstand. Either the PHB sorcerer is balanced or it is not. You have said that it is, and then proceed to add nine spells and a handful of other gimme's. I DO think the sorcerer is balanced as is and I'll likely keep using it and the prestige classes (archmage and ten levels as something else) and be happy with that. However, I've recently come under the conclusion that "balance" is less a thin line and an entire grey area, thus, I'm being more lenient in reguards to what I'm doing with it. Right now, I'm forfeiting balance to include everything that's wanted before later cutting the edges. If that's spells day and/or spells known. fine. but right now.... but anyway, I changed the subject. Yes, I think it IS balanced, but I do think it needs some improvement. My sorcerer isn't perfect, but it hasn't been in existance for 8 days, let alone 8 months. I didn't specify how badly anyone's toes would be stepped on... only that more class skills does step on toes. but more class skills do very little in this way unless i also give the class additional points to spend in that direction. all it does is give the sorcerer a few (not at all many) more skills to be good at. Bottom line -- the sorcerer is not a skills-based class. I agree. Of course! The class is magic-based, not skills-based. I agree. Wrong. Again. The sorcerer gets X+charisma modifier cantrips per day. The cantrips known are fixed, according to the table (twelve at 20th level). Oh! ok. makes much better sense now. :bored: Nope. Not really. High-level magic works just fine, thanks. well, I'm a stickler for high and epic level play. No, I'm not a munchkin, I just like having my character either retire after level ten, or even coming across the exiting moment of time when my character either ascends to godhood or simply has god-like power at the end of their career. I also like participating in adventures thats planet-threatening or existance-threatening or otherwise fit a high-level adventure, where, at the end, I retire as something better than a simple town protectorate until I die. But then again, I suppose that's just due to creative differences, or just different likes and dislikes of those aspects of D&D. That's fine with me though, but I won't go further into that. The earliest a sorcerer can get Dimension Door is 8th level. What happens before then? Grappling is a real threat before the mid- to high-level magic kicks in. tough it. don't get into combat and you might avoid that one time you'll get grappled. If this isn't a big deal for you, and you're playing the alt.sorcerer, then select something else. It really is that simple. very true. DM-specific assertion. For you, this may be true. However, grappling is an extremely effective way to deal with spellcasters. Grapple, pin, prevent speaking, all in a full attack action. Now what are you going to do? Answer: die, probably. grappling and pinning are two different actions. a character spends his first round grappling and can spend his/her second to attempt to pin the character (and thusly prevent verbal components from being spoken.) the caster gets one turn. that's all that's necessary. Before level 8, there are preventive measures that are actually very superior choices. at level one, the character could choose expedicious retreat and simply move at 60ft/round and simply make sure the caster is nowhere near any tanks or high strength grapplers. level 4 offers levitation and level 6 offers fly and haste. Hello? It's not permanent. It can't be used on a skill that requires training unless you have ranks in it. It lasts for minutes at a time. It only works on one skill. You have to expend a spell slot each time for each skill. minutes/level and a lot of spell slots is essentially perminant for all intents and purposes. Nine more spells known is an unmitigated power-up. Period. very true. an unmitigated power up must be what the class needs, then. You need to read the rules more closely. "The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school." Spells Gained at a New Level 3.5 PHB, p. 178-179 3.0 PHB, p. 155 Hmm... I've got a few unfortunate specialist wizard players to inform of this who told me otherwise. hehe. I was under the impression that specialists recieved 2 spells in addition to one from their specialty school, and although it hurts a few of the specialist wizards that I have, I get to tell this to a few munchkins I know. :devil: Ah well... that's what I get for believeing people without checking their information. A sorcerer is a very specialized arcane caster. If you want versatility, then learn versatile spells. A sorcerer will never have the right spell for every circumstance, but he will have everything he knows available to him, as long as he has an uncast slot. The sorcerer is not a wizard. very true, but 9 additional spells doesn't turn the sorcerer into a wizard and it in no way makes them comparably versitile with the wizard. Wizards still very much hold the versitility banner in comparison to the sorcerer. (standard array, INT boosted each time, non-cantrips)... A 20th-level wizard has, at most, 42 spells available to cast. He has to prepare them in advance, from his spellbook. Metamagic has to be added and decided during the preparation process. A specialist wizard has the same stipulations as a generalist wizard, except that he has 51 spells available for casting, but is prohibited from making use of 1/8 or 2/8 of the schools. A 20th-level sorcerer, OTOH, has 34 spells available to cast, but he can cast them 60 times. Metamagic can be added, or not, on the fly, allowing much more adaptability to any given situation. Hell, he could cast Magic Missile 60 times, if he needed to. Now, you want to make that 43 available spells, to cast 60 times. If you can't see the imbalance, then never mind. You'll never see it. maybe so, but a wizard can still devote each and every single slot to a different spell and a wizards # of spell slots/day can only go up as they get more powerful. Something the sorcerer cannot come close to in reguards to versitility. The sorcerer is not only restricted to having a number of "necessary" spells at certain levels, but has both little room to err and still absolutely must choose effective and versitile spells to make up for their lack of choices. While this, to me, isn't too much of a problem for me, personally, I can easily see that sorcerers will end up looking very much the same with spell selections with their upper level spells, when they only have 4 (at levels 3, 4, and 5) and 3 (Lv6~9) spells at each level. By adding one spell/level, it laxes that enough for some extra variation in spell choices. If they give up something, anything, in the process, then I'm OK with that, even if it is spell slots that have to be selected as a special. But the players using the PHB.sorcerer give up nothing. ok. that's understandable. Full-stop. There's really nothing more to say, in light of this little revelation. If you think that any spellcaster needs a power-boost, even the "lowly" sorcerer, then you're hopeless. Primary casters own, yet you want more. Pfft. I don't think the sorcerer is "lowly." This isn't what "I" think at all. I just want to make an alt. sorcerer just for the hell of it, really. AND, in light of everything I said in defense of the sorcerer on every thread I've participated in, especially Xun's anti-sorcerer hate thread, I started the alt. sorcerer in question, because, I wanted to try to fix the problem that OTHER people saw in the sorcerer for by my insight and the benifit of others. AND like I stated earlier several times, my sorcerer is far from complete and very young. So far, few people have argued against my adding of additional spells/level. I'm going entirely by my own opinion of how other people's opinions of what should be done about the sorcerer and manifesting it toward the goals of making its abilities unique to the sorcerer and different from just bonus feats or just outright "sorcerers get X feat because it represents them." ALso, I keep in mind the following things (this isn't in any particular order) A) if the mystic from Dragonlance is "balanced," then why is the sorcerer also considered balanced? B) people generally put the sorcerer on the low end of the balance stick (as far as the primary casters go) and the druid and the cleric contending more #1. Thus, the sorcerer could get some "unmitigated" power ups w/o being overbalanced. C) the ranger was considered balanced, if a little on the weak side in 3e. the ranger was given nothing but unmitigated power ups (aside from the d10 HP becoming d8 in the transition). The sorcerer, is reguarded in a similar way now by a large number of people. D) if prepared spellcasting + large variety in spell list = smaller spell list + spontaneous casting, then the two, in a determinant for balance, should eliminate each other. If you do that with the wizard and the sorcerer, what do you get? or with the cleric and the sorcerer, what do you get? same thing, but with the druid, what do you get? Spontaneous spellcasting isn't so powerful that it should strip the class of everything else. And the druid and cleric and sorcerer even have nearly the same number of spells/day and the druid and cleric have total access to their entire spell list. E) the class needs something other than bonus feats. F) the sorcerer should comply with the same rules for spontaneous casting as all of the other spontaneous classes. (ruling out faster metamagic casting) G) the sorcerer shouldn't be more skilled but should have greater variety in skills H) the sorcerer should not have d6 hp. there's other general guidelines that I'm going by as I create my alt, but this is all I can remember at this time. We have a number of disagreements, but I'm sure that comes from both being different people and having different gaming experiences and finally having different forms of reasoning. that's fine. I'm just glad we can discuss this like civil people. I guess I'm still happy that Xun's thread was closed. :D It was funny when he tried to start, like three or four more. :D By the way, though, I agree with you that primary casters "own" and such. but... "phht" as I was saying before, the class I'm working on is far from complete and I'm not really doing much other than accepting/refusing suggestions and interpreting them according to my opinions and interpretations. that is, I've stated that I wouldn't get to balancing out what I've done until later. that is, the sorcerer I have posted on page one of "options" is a prototype of the first class and it seems to hold promise, according to several people who attend my thread. But its still very much in the beginning stages.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-14-03, 02:03 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: grappling and pinning are two different actions. a character spends his first round grappling and can spend his/her second to attempt to pin the character (and thusly prevent verbal components from being spoken.) the caster gets one turn. that's all that's necessary. Actually, grappling and pinning are attacks. A 6th-level fighter can grab (first attack), hold (free action), pin (second attack), and prevent you from speaking (as part of the pin attack)... all in one round. Before level 8, there are preventive measures that are actually very superior choices. at level one, the character could choose expedicious retreat and simply move at 60ft/round and simply make sure the caster is nowhere near any tanks or high strength grapplers. level 4 offers levitation and level 6 offers fly and haste. Provided you have these spells, and you are able to cast them first, sure. This isn't always the case. minutes/level and a lot of spell slots is essentially perminant for all intents and purposes. Not really. Would you rather have that Expeditious Retreat, from the previous grappling example, or a +2 to Escape Artist for 3 minutes? It depends on the situation, really, which is the point. A small skill boost, in a pinch, at the cost of a slot that is normally much more useful to cast a spell, is fine. very true. an unmitigated power up must be what the class needs, then. You have yet to prove a need. A desire, certainly. Who wouldn't want more spells? A need. Nah. Hmm... I've got a few unfortunate specialist wizard players to inform of this who told me otherwise. hehe. Har! They're in for a nasty surprise! very true, but 9 additional spells doesn't turn the sorcerer into a wizard and it in no way makes them comparably versitile with the wizard. Wizards still very much hold the versitility banner in comparison to the sorcerer. Caveat - potential for versatility. They still have to prepare what they want to cast, and if (for example) he's facing a fire giant and he's packing fireballs... it sucks to be a wizard. Having nine more options, on the fly... my inner munchkin drools at the prospect... and that is why I see red flags and hear klaxons. The sorcerer is not only restricted to having a number of "necessary" spells at certain levels, but has both little room to err and still absolutely must choose effective and versitile spells to make up for their lack of choices. While this, to me, isn't too much of a problem for me, personally, I can easily see that sorcerers will end up looking very much the same with spell selections with their upper level spells, when they only have 4 (at levels 3, 4, and 5) and 3 (Lv6~9) spells at each level. There is no such thing as a necessary spell. There are only character preferences. I don't think the sorcerer is "lowly." I don't either. But where we disagree is that, of the primary casters, you seem to think that the sorcerer is low man on the totem pole of power. ALso, I keep in mind the following things (this isn't in any particular order) A) if the mystic from Dragonlance is "balanced," then why is the sorcerer also considered balanced? I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, it's atrocious (uber). B) people generally put the sorcerer on the low end of the balance stick (as far as the primary casters go) and the druid and the cleric contending more #1. Thus, the sorcerer could get some "unmitigated" power ups w/o being overbalanced. I wouldn't say that people put sorcerers on the low-end, in general. This is a highly divided dispute. C) the ranger was considered balanced, if a little on the weak side in 3e. the ranger was given nothing but unmitigated power ups (aside from the d10 HP becoming d8 in the transition). The sorcerer, is reguarded in a similar way now by a large number of people. Gotta disagree here. 3.0 Rangers were considered balanced by a small minority. Very small. D) if prepared spellcasting + large variety in spell list = smaller spell list + spontaneous casting, then the two, in a determinant for balance, should eliminate each other. If you do that with the wizard and the sorcerer, what do you get? or with the cleric and the sorcerer, what do you get? same thing, but with the druid, what do you get? Spontaneous spellcasting isn't so powerful that it should strip the class of everything else. And the druid and cleric and sorcerer even have nearly the same number of spells/day and the druid and cleric have total access to their entire spell list. (emphasis mine) No, it shouldn't strip the class of everything else, if for no other reason than the PrC-at-first-chance issue inherent in such a faulty class design. However, spontaneous casting shouldn't be underestimated. E) the class needs something other than bonus feats. Indeed. For the record, this alt.sor does not have bonus feats. F) the sorcerer should comply with the same rules for spontaneous casting as all of the other spontaneous classes. (ruling out faster metamagic casting) ... and the fighter should comply with the same rules for, oh, sundering a weapon. An AOO is provoked... but then there's that whole Improved Sunder thing. Imagine that. An ability that lets a player change the way rules work for his character. G) the sorcerer shouldn't be more skilled but should have greater variety in skills Every skill in existence is available to the sorcerer. If some of the sorcerer's cross-class skills are changed into class skills, then he has become more skilled. Likewise for increasing skill points. We have a number of disagreements, but I'm sure that comes from both being different people and having different gaming experiences and finally having different forms of reasoning. that's fine. I'm just glad we can discuss this like civil people. I guess I'm still happy that Xun's thread was closed. :D Amen. By the way, though, I agree with you that primary casters "own" and such. but... "phht" as I was saying before, the class I'm working on is far from complete and I'm not really doing much other than accepting/refusing suggestions and interpreting them according to my opinions and interpretations. that is, I've stated that I wouldn't get to balancing out what I've done until later. that is, the sorcerer I have posted on page one of "options" is a prototype of the first class and it seems to hold promise, according to several people who attend my thread. But its still very much in the beginning stages. Good luck. It's a lot of work and time.
Castlmike 12-14-03, 12:22 PM	Hey Krynus OgreBane I was following the earlier Heighten Spell issue and never noticed the answer you guys finally decided on was curious would a Level 3 Fireball Heightened to Level 4 by a level 12 caster do 10D6 or 12D6 damage considering 3.5 DMG page 36 maximum damage for arcane spells. Thanks. You might want to check out the Dragon #315 Sha'ir much improved variant of the sorcerer and the wizard for your alt sorcerer. Doesn't need a spell book, has some nice specials...... Knows spells like a Sorcerer (in fact a few more) but needs gen familiar to go get them 1D4 rounds + spell level. After returns can hold in memory 1 hour a level before losing for casting. Can find common unknown spells in 1D4 + spell level minutes + Can find 9 clerical domain spells in 1 hour per level
Krynus Ogrebane 12-14-03, 11:21 PM	Originally posted by Castlmike: Hey Krynus OgreBane I was following the earlier Heighten Spell issue and never noticed the answer you guys finally decided on was curious would a Level 3 Fireball Heightened to Level 4 by a level 12 caster do 10D6 or 12D6 damage considering 3.5 DMG page 36 maximum damage for arcane spells. Thanks. Basically, it's sparkster4242 and me against the world on Heighten Spell. Fortunately, the majority isn't always right. (Actually, the majority is usually wrong, but what are ya gonna do?) However, neither interpretation of Heighten would bump the damage cap. The hit dice are listed in the body of a spell's description. If you're looking for a feat that bumps hit dice, the feat "Energy Admixture" from Tome & Blood does this. Also, "Twin Spell" from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting basically enables you to cast the same spell twice. Both of these feats have a slot cost four levels higher than the spell's actual level. Now, going by the literal interpretation of Heighten (which is in the minority, but backed by core rules), you could cast a Heightened Twinned Fireball, it would require a 7th-level slot, it would do 10d6 of fire damage twice, and the save DC would be 17+mod twice. Notice that even though this spell took two feats to modify it to that point, it still isn't as good as a Delayed Blast Fireball (DBF is a 7th-level spell). You might want to check out the Dragon #315 Sha'ir much improved variant of the sorcerer and the wizard for your alt sorcerer. I just got my issue on Saturday, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-15-03, 01:10 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane Actually, grappling and pinning are attacks. A 6th-level fighter can grab (first attack), hold (free action), pin (second attack), and prevent you from speaking (as part of the pin attack)... all in one round. damn it! that was the primary arguement against me on a wizards vs. fighters thread. If I had known that, my arguement would have been much easier. (I had taken the side of fighters.) Oh well. At least I know I'm right now. (now that I've actually re-perused the rules, despite the vagueness of them. As much as I like most of the improvements in 3.5, they did little in the way of clarification, as they had advertised.) Provided you have these spells, and you are able to cast them first, sure. This isn't always the case. depends on initiative and the sorcerer's dexterity and whethor or not the sorcerer has improved initiative. Not really. Would you rather have that Expeditious Retreat, from the previous grappling example, or a +2 to Escape Artist for 3 minutes? It depends on the situation, really, which is the point. A small skill boost, in a pinch, at the cost of a slot that is normally much more useful to cast a spell, is fine. I'd rather not be in an area that threatens a grapple in the first place. I'd rather have a good fighter on my side than either of those or an good AC bonus. You have yet to prove a need. A desire, certainly. Who wouldn't want more spells? A need. Nah. if sorcerers don't need more spells at their current # of spells known, then well... let me ask this... How many spells known can you remove from the sorcerer's current # in order to be effective? The sorcerer has barely the minimum necessary in order to fill the number of spells the class'd need to be effective a spellcaster if it doesn't already have the minimum currently. Caveat - potential for versatility. They still have to prepare what they want to cast, and if (for example) he's facing a fire giant and he's packing fireballs... it sucks to be a wizard. Having nine more options, on the fly... my inner munchkin drools at the prospect... and that is why I see red flags and hear klaxons. because spells are useful for a spellcaster. wizards are royally screwed if they don't have the right spells prepared, but sorcerers suffer a worse fate if they don't have the right spells known. while its stupid for a sorcerer to not have a wide variety of spells known, its also smart for a wizard to have a wide variety of spells memorized in the same fashion, but while the sorcerer banters out a few spells known at high levels (only 3 spells known per spell level from levels six to nine.) the wizard can have as many different spells prepared as he has spells/day, which, is very tight quarters and leaves little room for err or flavor picks. Also, the sorcerer has 3 ninth level spells versus the wizards' up to 8 ninth level spells. (assuming the wizard didn't buy and scribe more), which hurts. I don't either. But where we disagree is that, of the primary casters, you seem to think that the sorcerer is low man on the totem pole of power. as far as all classes considered in all, no it isn't. as far as all primary casters then, yes. and by "low" i mean, it's generally considered to be low, I take no sides. (if it sounds like I did before, then I misspoke, because I prefer neutral ground, in general.) I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, it's atrocious (uber). indeed. I wouldn't say that people put sorcerers on the low-end, in general. This is a highly divided dispute. hense, all the different alt sorcerers and all of the resulting different ideas on how it should be dealt with. I suppose there won't be one sorcerer for everyone until WotC releases a better official one than the one that exists now. Though I think that if and when they do, it'll be in a similar, if less drastic than the ranger was, but that's speculation. Gotta disagree here. 3.0 Rangers were considered balanced by a small minority. Very small. but my point still remains. which is that sorcerers suffer a similar problem, although the sorcerer's problem isn't quite as bad, but its still a problem. No, it shouldn't strip the class of everything else, if for no other reason than the PrC-at-first-chance issue inherent in such a faulty class design. However, spontaneous casting shouldn't be underestimated. yes, but that also doesn't mean that the class needs to be balanced against itself in order for the new one to be balanced against the other classes, and to do just that, you'd need to strip the class further of its spellcasting power, which you did, minimally, but you still did in order to derieve its special abilities. The archmage does something similar, except that it does it better. I can get better versitility and power in five levels at the cost of 5ish spell slots and three feats (for prequisite feats that are good in and of themselves) than I can with your sorcerer at the cost of 10 spell slots, and that's partly why I dislike it. Indeed. For the record, this alt.sor does not have bonus feats. touche' :smirk: ... and the fighter should comply with the same rules for, oh, sundering a weapon. An AOO is provoked... but then there's that whole Improved Sunder thing. Imagine that. An ability that lets a player change the way rules work for his character. yes, but no feat would do so much for a single character as faster metamagic casting would for a sorcerer. Every skill in existence is available to the sorcerer. If some of the sorcerer's cross-class skills are changed into class skills, then he has become more skilled. but not enough to step on the toes of the other classes if the skills granted are restrained and the # of skill points remain at 2+INT modifier. Now, if I went by the suggestions that say to grant the sorcerer all charisma skills (and then some) AND grant 4+INT modifer in skill points, then I'd agree with you, but the change I have in my alt presently is very minor. Likewise for increasing skill points.
Thot 12-15-03, 03:45 PM	Quickly, as usual now... A pity, when the thread is revived... :( BSK : I like the idea of some modicum of BSK for the alt.Sor. (I know it's just a wish, but, heh... He may not crave for it, it doesn't mean that he can't accomodate some very nicely...) Not just some straight ES Feat, of course... I'd rather have it as a fixed class feature, to tell the truth... Among my many crazy ideas, I got those two : 1) For every two bonus slots of a given level (nat CHA only), the Sor can pay "Some Price" (gp, XP, ritual with saves and nasty side effects...) and gain a BSK of that level. 2) Major revamping : divide the Sor spell list into Offensive/Defensive/Other spells. MAke it so that at some set levels, he has to choose from one list. Since he's a bit less flexible in design, make it so that he gains more SK... (I don't really like this one, to be honest) PrC : IMHO, all of these bloodline stuff from DOA alt.Sor screams "PrC !". And very hard at that... (Elemental Savant, Dragon Disciple, Divine Disciple, ...) I'd much rather give the Sor flavor thanks to some other, more generic, abilities... Say : Natural Casting and Mask Spell, for example... Well that may be just me... and I truly mean no offense... Stuff : From DOA, about Archmage : I can get better versitility and power in five levels at the cost of 5ish spell slots and three feats (for prequisite feats that are good in and of themselves) than I can with your sorcerer at the cost of 10 spell slots, and that's partly why I dislike it. /QUOTE] Power, yes. Versatilty in the meaning of out of combat use, I doubt it... [QUOTE]From DOA, about skills : the sorcerer shouldn't be more skilled but should have greater variety in skills Why, apart of OOC/balance/pleasure reasons... I can see some reasons IC, but, well, they could apply to any other class, so we're turning in circles. Hint : that's why some feats allow some skills to become class skills (to accomodate concept needs), IMHO. Some things just really can't be helped to anyone's satisfaction... That's all for now, folks. See ya.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-17-03, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels: damn it! that was the primary arguement against me on a wizards vs. fighters thread. If I had known that, my arguement would have been much easier. (I had taken the side of fighters.) Oh well. At least I know I'm right now. Glad I could help. (now that I've actually re-perused the rules, despite the vagueness of them. As much as I like most of the improvements in 3.5, they did little in the way of clarification, as they had advertised.) The rules in general are much better with clarification in 3.5. I'd rather not be in an area that threatens a grapple in the first place. I'd rather have a good fighter on my side than either of those or an good AC bonus. The point is that your situation is not always in your control. if sorcerers don't need more spells at their current # of spells known, then well... let me ask this... How many spells known can you remove from the sorcerer's current # in order to be effective? The sorcerer has barely the minimum necessary in order to fill the number of spells the class'd need to be effective a spellcaster if it doesn't already have the minimum currently. Good point. In another post, I'll step outside my "sorcerers know enough spells" persona and argue in favor of more spells known. because spells are useful for a spellcaster. wizards are royally screwed if they don't have the right spells prepared, but sorcerers suffer a worse fate if they don't have the right spells known. If they both died because of their spell selections, then their fate is identical. However, if you survive to fight another day, then that's all that really matters, isn't it? Also, the sorcerer has 3 ninth level spells versus the wizards' up to 8 ninth level spells. (assuming the wizard didn't buy and scribe more), which hurts. So 4 for the sorcerer versus 8 for the wizard will fix this perceived hurt? Why not give the sorcerer eight? (I'm being facetious) hense, all the different alt sorcerers and all of the resulting different ideas on how it should be dealt with. I suppose there won't be one sorcerer for everyone until WotC releases a better official one than the one that exists now. Though I think that if and when they do, it'll be in a similar, if less drastic than the ranger was, but that's speculation. ... and the complaining will begin anew. :) yes, but that also doesn't mean that the class needs to be balanced against itself in order for the new one to be balanced against the other classes, and to do just that, you'd need to strip the class further of its spellcasting power, which you did, minimally, but you still did in order to derieve its special abilities. In this thread, yes it is necessary to balance it against the PHB. The premise is that the sorcerer is fine, power-wise. The archmage does something similar, except that it does it better. You can't compare core classes to PrC's. Almost without exception, PrC's are more powerful. I can get better versitility and power in five levels at the cost of 5ish spell slots and three feats (for prequisite feats that are good in and of themselves) than I can with your sorcerer at the cost of 10 spell slots, and that's partly why I dislike it. The archmage should never have granted spellcasting progression. The original, unreleased version of the archmage (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/prestige/ZZZoriginalarchmage.html) did not, and I wish that this was the official version. yes, but no feat would do so much for a single character as faster metamagic casting would for a sorcerer. So you think a move action is all-powerful? If it was available by the core rules, Quicken would probably be extremely useful for a sorcerer, but with this alt.sor, it becomes a much tougher choice.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-17-03, 02:06 PM	Here is a little something I'm using to play devil's advocate. Should sorcerers get more spells known? For this analysis, I will leave cantrips out of the discussion. By 20th level, a sorcerer will have 34 spells known. A wizard will have 43 spells in his spellbooks, as part of his levelling up. If it was a low magic campaign, this would probably be acceptable. However, what wizard worth his salt is going to settle for 43 spells? In 3.0, the cost of scribing an extra spell into a spellbook was 100 gp/page, but each spell required 2 pages per spell level. There were also fewer spells in existence, but quite a few spells were rather flexible in their applications. In 3.5, this cost was cut in half (only one page per spell level is required), but a number of spells were created ("Mass" versions of existing spells), broken up into individual spells (Symbol and Emotion, to name a couple), nerfed (most notably, Haste and Polymorph), or changed level (a lot of the Shadow spells, Daylight, Project Image, to name a few that got bumped in level... in fairness, some spells moved down in level). "Purchasing" scrolls and placing them in his spellbook is a mere 2 days, 100 gp/page, one page per spell level, and the cost of the scroll itself (CL×SL×25gp). Adding just one spell per caster level, above and beyond what you get free, would increase the number of spells from 43 to 63, at a relative cost ranging from 1% to 14% of the wizard's wealth by level (it gets numerically more expensive at higher levels, but relatively cheaper). That's just a single extra spell every level. I would suggest that wizards add many more than one spell per level above their free allotment. Furthermore, if the wizard finds another wizard willing to exchange spells with, the cost of acquiring the spell becomes nil. The cost to add it to the spellbook still applies (now half of what it used to be), unless the wizard has a Boccob's Blessed Book. This item pays for itself after 125 of its 1000 pages have been filled, whether it's purchased or created. Yet another wizard benefit. The wizard at least has the option to expand his spell library, while the sorcerer does not. When the spells were nerfed and the cost to scribe was halved, the wizard suffered almost no loss in power, and actually gained in wealth. The sorcerer, on the other hand, does suffer a power loss... quite a bit... and gained absolutely no wealth in the bargain.
mellowship 12-20-03, 06:01 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane The archmage should never have granted spellcasting progression. The original, unreleased version of the archmage (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/prestige/ZZZoriginalarchmage.html) did not, and I wish that this was the official version. Then nobody in their right minds would play one. He'd be as lame as the Hierophant. Spellcasting progression is just too good to give up. And don't overlook the entry costs. Three feats, including one totally deadweight Skill Focus, is not peanuts. And the skill rank requirements are not trivial if you're a nonhuman with less than 14 Int. Let's run some numbers from my personal experience. I've been playing a gnome sorcerer in Living Greyhawk this past year. When plotting out his future progression (which will be slowed down quite a bit since he just got killed today. Shook hands with a bad guy disguised as a cleric of nicey-nice god Rao, got nailed by a Slay Living. At 6th level), I'm facing some hard choices if I want to get him into Archmage, especially if I want to get Divine Oracle first. The dilemma comes from the fact that he's got only a 12 Int (best I could do on a 28-point build), Archmage requires 15 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft, and Knowledge (arcana) is not a class skill for Divine Oracle. Basically, in order to get both Divine Oracle and Archmage, he's got to cannibalize Concentration, and he can forget about getting any Bluff. The Archmage is a nifty class, but he's not an all-the-time no-brainer.
Krynus Ogrebane 12-21-03, 02:28 AM	Originally posted by mellowship: Then nobody in their right minds would play one. He'd be as lame as the Hierophant. Spellcasting progression is just too good to give up. Then it would be a PrC almost exclusively taken in epic levels (as it should be, IMO). And don't overlook the entry costs. Three feats, including one totally deadweight Skill Focus, is not peanuts. And the skill rank requirements are not trivial if you're a nonhuman with less than 14 Int. Firstly, all those feats are extremely useful, including Skill Focus [spellcraft], plus most wizards and sorcerers will max out both Knowledge [arcana] and Spellcraft. Second, the prerequisites for the archmage at that link are much easier to meet, for both classes. The Archmage is a nifty class, but he's not an all-the-time no-brainer. For a wizard, it is, and that's my point. As it stands, it doesn't fit with what Sean K. Reynolds' originally wanted for the class.
mellowship 12-23-03, 08:08 AM	Originally posted by Krynus Ogrebane re: the Archmage Then it would be a PrC almost exclusively taken in epic levels (as it should be, IMO). The Archmage's powers are good, but not quite epic-worthy. Firstly, all those feats are extremely useful, including Skill Focus [spellcraft], plus most wizards and sorcerers will max out both Knowledge [arcana] and Spellcraft. Skill Focus (Spellcraft) is one of those feats that, if it weren't a prereq for a hot PrC, would hardly ever be taken. Maybe it's not totally useless, but on its own it isn't worth the opportunity cost. If you weren't trying to qualify for Archmage, the feat slot would be better spent on a metamagic. Second, the prerequisites for the archmage at that link are much easier to meet, for both classes. Eh? For a wizard, it is, and that's my point. As it stands, it doesn't fit with what Sean K. Reynolds' originally wanted for the class. For the wizard, yes, Archmage is a no-brainer. The spell-slot costs for those High Arcana tricks do bite the wizard a bit harder, though. I'm willing to concede that the Archmage is a little bit too good for what it makes you give up, but Sean Reynolds' original build errs in the other direction. Maybe giving 3/5 spellcasting progression and full caster level progression along with the High Arcana specials would be a happy medium. But fixing the Archmage is off-topic for this thread. It does give me ideas for alt.sorcerer specials, though. I'm thinking that the High Arcana mechanic, where you give up spell slots to gain nifty special powers, could be applied to our alt.sorcerer. How about this: give the alt.sor a spells/day table more like the PHB.sor (capping at 6), with 1's at the odd levels in the highest-level slot and +Cha mod cantrips. The kicker is that you make the sor pay for specials with spell slots. Relatively weak specials, like Augment Familiar or Toughness, would only cost a 1st-level slot. Spell Secrets would cost a slot equivalent to the spell level + metamagic of the spell you're Secreting. You could even have Extra Spell as a special if the slot cost was steep enough. A slot of the spell's level plus another slot of the next higher level (meaning two slots total) would be fair, I think. You could add in all kinds of specials as long as they balanced with the slot costs. Maybe an extra two skill points for a cantrip slot?
Haldrik 01-05-04, 05:44 AM	I love this Sorcerer. Eschewing material components is so important for the mood of Sorcerer spells. Thank you much for this version, thus far! It's the one I'm gonna use in my campaign! A Sorcerer needs material components .. like a fish needs a bicycle!
Krynus Ogrebane 01-05-04, 10:43 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik I love this Sorcerer. Eschewing material components is so important for the mood of Sorcerer spells. Thank you much for this version, thus far! It's the one I'm gonna use in my campaign! A Sorcerer needs material components .. like a fish needs a bicycle! Thanks for the compliments! Let us know how your game turns out with it.
Mercurius 01-07-04, 11:41 AM	Gah! Every time I turn around, you've changed this class! Please, please stop it. I've seen three different versions of it, and every time I'm like "okay, now I've got a sorcerer I'd rather have in a campaign," I find a newer version that's either got more options, or actually has less (no cannabalistic casting, for example). I'm starting to be confused as to which version I should really go with. Do you see an upgrade happening anytime soon, or should I feel more secure in this one? I do, honestly, like what you're doing for this class. I like the way you've done spell level progression, and the specials really do encourage one to stay away from PrCs at times. I've liked your alternate for a while now, and will likely use one of them (not sure which) once I start a new campaign, though I think I'll add the bloodline feats from Dragon 311 into the list of specials, since I really like what they do for the utility of a sorcerer's spells (granting them spells they more than likely wouldn't take unless they had more spells known, that is). Anyway, good job.
Krynus Ogrebane 01-08-04, 02:46 AM	Mercurius, this alt.sorcerer hasn't changed since Halloween, and probably won't change again. The only two possible additions would be some sort of version of Contrived Casting and/or Mask Spell. As they were written, they raised more questions than we were comfortable with, so I emailed WOTC (more than 6 weeks ago) about certain aspects of magic and the Spellcraft skill. If I ever receive a reply on this topic (doubtful), we'll be able to make a final decision on these two special abilities. As for Cannibalistic Casting, I highly recommend forgetting you ever heard of it. To be blunt, it is broken. IMO, those Bloodline Feats are too powerful as well, but to each his own, I guess.
Althor Enchantor 01-12-04, 06:04 PM	BLAH-dee BLAH blah blah... Look, Krynus, your alt.Sorcerer is horribly underpowered. And as for you, DoA, yours is the most broken thing I've ever seen. Both of you, stop making posts three times as long as my poor little monitor is tall. Be concise. And when you're done that, put your heads together and make a new alt.sorcerer whose power level is precisely right smack in between. Then everyone will be happy, the Red Sox will win the World Series, and the Messiah will come (and whether this is His first or second visit, I leave to the philosophers). [/rant]
Krynus Ogrebane 01-13-04, 05:41 AM	Originally posted by Althor Enchantor: Look, Krynus, your alt.Sorcerer is horribly underpowered. This alt.sorcerer is just as powerful as the PHB.sorcerer, and that's the way we wanted it. If you had bothered to read the dissection part of the class, you'd already know that. From page 1: "However, we didn't really think the sorcerer needed a "power-up"." Both of you, stop making posts three times as long as my poor little monitor is tall. Be concise. And when you're done that, put your heads together and make a new alt.sorcerer whose power level is precisely right smack in between. I'll make my posts as long as I require to convey the message that I want to get across. No more, no less. And I'm not here to make you happy. If you want a sorcerer that is more powerful, then make your own. Then everyone will be happy, the Red Sox will win the World Series, and the Messiah will come (and whether this is His first or second visit, I leave to the philosophers). It is impossible to make everyone happy, I hope the Red Sox never win the Series while I am alive (or even after I'm dead), and there is no Messiah. Eat my shorts, Manny Ramirez! Hey Pedro... thrown any old men to the ground lately?! Thus endeth the sermon. :smirk:
NestroEmichae 03-20-04, 05:18 PM	It's been awhile. This is still the best sorceror version I have seen.
Krynus Ogrebane 03-28-04, 04:08 AM	Howdy again, and thanks for the nice comments!
mellowship 03-28-04, 09:21 AM	Howdy, Krynus. For what it's worth, I posted my own alt.sorcerer on this board. It's on this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=209743) thread.