Post/Author/DateTime	Post
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-24-04, 12:12 PM	First of all, this is a continuation of that miles long thread I had a way back. Second, watch the language, and watch who you insult. Third, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is okay to disagree and argue with someone, but don't call them a liar, or insult them just because they don't agree with you. If somone makes a mistake on an issue that has proof, then point it out to them, don't rub it in their face and call them stupid, because they might just know more about the game than you. This thread continues the discussion between the Wizard and the Sorcerer. This is not a trolling board, so if you think about trolling you will be reported. Many discussions come up about these two classes. Some think that cause a Sorcerer casts his spells more per day, that makes him superior to the Wizard who may not be able to cast his spells more times per day, but has access to all arcane spells. Have fun, argue back and forth, but lets not act like children. Thank you.
elindred 07-24-04, 12:24 PM	the extra spells per day only makes up for the delayed spell level progression. i think it's a good idea, but it doesn't make them superior by any means. a specialist wizard will have almost as many spells per day anyway.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-24-04, 12:30 PM	Personally I find that having a limited selection is a big disadvantage. I really enjoy the idea of being able to change my selection, than being stuck with one for the rest of my career. It's easier to choose what you will need that day, instead of what you will need for the rest of your career.
Ax'Orl 07-24-04, 01:04 PM	The choice comes down to which you prefer to play and which fits better in your campaign/play style. Do you want more spells per day or more spells known. Personally I like the greater fire power of a sorcerer. Now, before getting all huffy lets analyze this. A sorcerer of 6th (sixth) level (lets be a bit moderate here because arguing the extremes in level is not really productive) has the ability to cast: (w/ minimum casting stat) 6/7/6/4 spells per day Further break this down: thats 23 0-level spells OR 17 1st + 6 0 OR 10 2nd and 13 0-level etc. This is the power of the sorcerer-not sheer numbers of spells but the ability to decide spontaneously which of his spells is best suited for the situation at hand. Note: I did not say which SPELL was the best...but which of HIS spells is best. Now, where fireball might be THE optimum spell for the job flaming sphere will work...it might not bet the best extant but perhaps it is the best the sorcerer has. Not to belittle the wizard, in fact I will state unequivocly (sp?) that when PROPERLY prepared (i.e. all his spells chosen correctly with NONE inappropriate for the day) a wizard is a force to be watched (preferably from a great distance) BUT the fact remains that if the wizard, for all his known spells, does not choose them correctly he is stuck. Yes a sorcerer must choose correctly, yes it is likely that he will not have the BEST spell to apply to a situation BUT even if the wizard knows the spell, if he did not prepare it, did not prepare it enough, cast it too soon/too often then he is in as bad a shape (at least) as the sorcerer. I say at least because where as if the wizard prepared the wrong spell for the situation AND did not prepare a lower level spell that would do in a pinch then he is SOL. However, wise sorcerer players know their limitations will generally (note that word GENERALLY) have a spell that will suffice. Example: 6th level wizard: Spells Prepared: Daze, Detect Magic, Read Magic (2); Mage Armor, True Strike, Magic Missle, Ray of Enfeeblement; Web, Invisibility, Knock; Lightning Bolt & Fly 6th level sorcerer: Spells Known: Daze, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Ray of Frost, Prestidigitation, Disrupt Undead Resistance; Mage Armor, True Strike, Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement; Web, Invisibility; Fly. Facing a creature who takes extra damage from electrical damage the wizard does have the upper hand BUT once he casts those 3 spells (magic missle, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Lightning bolt) he is done with the damaging magics for the day. If he casts Invisibility and fly at eh same time he is almost done in. At best we are looking at 3 combats in the day more than likely one. Now, the sorcerer although lacking in the higher damage spell (Lightning Bolt) can cast Fly and Invisibility and still manage 21 more damaging spells for the rest of the day Hmmmm lose the 6 for ray of frost (might not hit) and we see 15 damaging spells. Wizard can do 6d6 damage with the lightning bolt (save for half) PLUS 3d4+3 with the magic missile (no Save); spread over a possible 2 combats. Sorcerer can do 45d4+45 (no save) spread over a possible 15 combats. Granted, in one action the wizard and possibly do 36 pts of damage, but with a save that could drop to 18 WITH maximum damage rolled, add in MM and you get another 6 minimum (15 max) but, if the combat lasts longer than 2 rounds, or the creature is immune to electricity, or the creature makes his save what is going to happen? The sorcerer in the same situation can last another 13 rounds of combat. Maybe he only does 3d4+3 per round BUT he is contributing to the combat, what is yon wizard doing? Yes I like sorcerers better, it is a personal preference and I dont expect everyone (or most) to agree with me. But, while the sorcerer is not the be all end all of magic, he is also NOT the weaker of the two. Yes, in the above situation the wizard could come back tomorrow with better spells ready, but is the BBEG gonna hang around and wait for that? Yes he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day, BUT to the victor go the spoils, and if you don't have to run away, you stand a better chance of getting to those spoils because BBEG might take his toys and run away himself.
satyrgrrrrl 07-24-04, 01:08 PM	Ok, XunValDorl of HouseKilsek, I'll bite. Even though this topic has been discussed to DEATH and we all already know that you think the Wizard is better no matter what, I'll give my two cents. The Sorcerer was made to be an alternative arcane spellcaster, like a Druid is an alternative to the Cleric. I don't think either one is better, just different. I prefer to play Sorcerers, just because they fit my style of play, not because I think they're more powerful. I would rather have a limited spell selection and be able to draw from any of them than to have to memorize spells per day. It's not that I think it's better, I just like playing that way. While I am disappointed with how the Sorcerer interacts with other rules and items (metamagic rods being my sore spot), I think the base classes are equal. I've seen Sorcerers and Wizards played (and played well), and I think that both classes are equally useful, powerful, and good to have in a D&D party. So, just to reiterate: The Sorcerer was made to be an alternative arcane spellcaster so not everyone would have to play a Wizard. It expands the core classes, and provides a different flavor/mechanic for players (and GM's) to choose. It's a matter of taste, XunValDorl of HouseKilsek. As we saw in the other, pages-long thread, people are going to support one or the other, pretty much to their graves. No amount of "logic" on either side of the "debate" (and I use that term loosely) will convince the other side that they are superior. Basically, what this thread will amount to is a bunch of people sticking to their "facts" and "opinions" and spouting them back and forth at each other, with neither budging an inch either way. Just like the other thread ended up.
RaKhan 07-24-04, 01:08 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Personally I find that having a limited selection is a big disadvantage. I really enjoy the idea of being able to change my selection, than being stuck with one for the rest of my career. It's easier to choose what you will need that day, instead of what you will need for the rest of your career. That's if you get some type of forewarning of what you might expect the next day. Otherwise, most people who play wizards memorize a whole assortment of spells like a Swiss army knife. This is fine if you don't have to do any prolonged combat (either all at once or multiple times during the day), but you start running out of useful spells that you probably have not memorized enough of them. However, having a super-high Int score can also help aleviate this as it would give you more spells to memorize per spell level, giving you much greater leeway in trying to do both Swiss army knife preparation and combat endurance preparation together. If you play onto epic levels, there's always Spell Knowledge available to pick up 2 new spells known for each purchase of that feat. This can reduce the pain of being restricted as you are with the sorceror in the spells known department. The importance of being able to cast any of my 43 spells known as a 20th level sorceror spontaneously is a huge advantage over a wizard so long as you pick the most useful spells as the perfect balanced assortment of offensive, defensive, and miscellaneous utilitarian spells. Preplanning of all 43 spells known is very important for anyone wanting to play a sorceror. One must also determine which PrCs you plan to take as things like Mastery of Elements from the Archmage PrC would make you want to purchase an assortment of energy-based offensive spells to make full use out of this Archmage special ability. Spending this time during the character creation stage is much better for me as it allows me to focus on just playing my character during gaming sessions instead of spending 15 minutes each time I level being indecisive as to which spell to pick without having planned my spells known ahead of time. Going into epic levels, wizards have the advantage with epic level spells since their primary casting stat (and thus most likely their highest stat by far) is Int, which adds to your Spellcraft checks for which all epic level spells force you to make for each cast of such epic spells. This allows the wizard to access such epic spells quicker than the sorceror. Also, when progressing through epic levels, the bonuses going to your Int will help greatly in providing you with a hell of a lot more spell slots per day, making it easier for you to do both Swiss army knife preparation and combat endurance preparation together.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-24-04, 01:10 PM	Another thing that I find that I don't like is when you gain a new spell level you get 1 spell known. Now, you really need that oh say Fireshield, but you don't need it 5 times. Some may do this, but most may want to choose an offensive spell first, and then choose something on the defense next time. This is a really limiting factor to me.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-24-04, 01:22 PM	Another advantage I find of the Wizard is the element of surprise. Lets say an enemy uses divinations or spies on your party. He watches and keeps notes on the spells your Sorcerer has. Eventually he will know pretty much what spells you have, and will be prepared. Since the Wizard changes his spells usually twice a day, that can keep him guessing. Yes he could find out what you have in your spellbook, but you can gain new spells anytime without having to gain a level which you must do when you are a sorcerer.
Cross Hatch 07-24-04, 01:30 PM	I think the Sorcerer as written was a mistake. I do think that the goal of having more than one form of arcane magic is a good idea. Off the top of my head, I think that alternative form of arcane magic should have looked more like the Sha'ir.
trapspringer 07-24-04, 04:17 PM	I think the classes fill very different roles. The sorcerer better fits the destruction incarnate deal, while the wizard can break out the mad utility spells, and hold his own in a few combats. In a combat-light campaign, the wizard is definantly superior. In a war-based campaign, all those fireballs sound pretty good.
Cross Hatch 07-24-04, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by trapspringer I think the classes fill very different roles. The sorcerer better fits the destruction incarnate deal, while the wizard can break out the mad utility spells, and hold his own in a few combats. In a combat-light campaign, the wizard is definantly superior. In a war-based campaign, all those fireballs sound pretty good. Sorry, wrong. In a war-based campaign, the wizard will rule. In a hack-n-slash campaign, the sorcerer has a chance.
Ax'Orl 07-24-04, 04:28 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Another advantage I find of the Wizard is the element of surprise. Lets say an enemy uses divinations or spies on your party. He watches and keeps notes on the spells your Sorcerer has. Eventually he will know pretty much what spells you have, and will be prepared. Since the Wizard changes his spells usually twice a day, that can keep him guessing. Yes he could find out what you have in your spellbook, but you can gain new spells anytime without having to gain a level which you must do when you are a sorcerer. 1. Element of surprise-a sorcerer can deal better with being surprised, that is the essence of the power of spontaneous casting. 2. AFAIK IIRC You can only prepare spells once in 24 hours ( or a day in what ever world you are in ). 3. You can onlly gain new spells when your DM allows it. A wizard is only guaranteed 2 spells per level to add to his spellbook. The others cost time and money (and some times blood)
Stuntman 07-24-04, 06:41 PM	If you only plan on using a limited number of spells of each spell level, then the sorcerer will appeal to you more. In this case you can really take advantage of the spontaneous casting ability of the sorcerer. If you want to have access to a wider range of spells, then the wizard will appeal to you more. There are times when you need to use a spell that is seldom used. A wizard will be more likely to have access to such a spell. The disadvantage is that you need to prepare it. If the spells are generally used outside of combat, a wizard can simply leave some spell slots open. A wizard can just take some time to prepare the spell and cast it. Note that this ability is not as useful for spells generally used in combat unless you can buy some time before combat starts to prepare. The most interesting differences between the sorcerer and wizard is the fact that sorcerers learn higher level spells one level later than a wizard and that a sorcerer casts more spells per day than a wizard. I can only speculate what the reasons for this is. I have seen two versions of a divine spontaneous caster. One had a progression similar to a sorcerer, the other similar to a wizard. I would be interested to hear any experiences with either. So far, I have not seen a spontaneous arcane caster that has a spell progression similar to a wizards.
Slasher X 07-24-04, 07:00 PM	I personally favor the sorcerers in high level campaigns, and wizards in low level campaigns. Sorcerers imo needs a reason for us to take it all the way to level 20 instead of switching to a prestige class. The only thing I really want to complain on the topic of Sorcs and Wizs is that WotC supports the wizard a lot more than Sorcs. Metamagic rods, etc, gives the wizard class a lot more versatlity. I think the Battle Sorcerer is what the sorc should've been like. A more combat oriented wizard to give it more flavor.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-24-04, 08:35 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek First of all, this is a continuation of that miles long thread I had a way back. Why? We've already been through this again and again and again. We all know that you (falsely) think the wizard is vastly superior to the sorcerer and you've proven that you won't budge from that stance. What's the point of this? Oh well... This is not a trolling board, so if you think about trolling you will be reported. I'll believe that when I see it. and I think you mean "thread" instead of "board" and you should likewise watch yourself from trolling. I remember the previous thread quite well. (and the short-lived spinoffs you attempted to make shortly after the first thread closed.) Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Personally I find that having a limited selection is a big disadvantage. I really enjoy the idea of being able to change my selection, than being stuck with one for the rest of my career. It's easier to choose what you will need that day, instead of what you will need for the rest of your career. Anything is only a disadvantage if you make it one. Honestly, what's the difference between a sorcerer that doesn't have a spell know in comparison to a wizard that doesn't have a particular spell prepared for that day? All the difference in having spells known/casting spontaneously vs. prepared casting/indefinate spells known means is that a wizard's abilitiy to handle a certain challenge can change on a daily basis. That means a wizard has the ability to handle some challenges and not others. What those challenges are and what ability the wizard has to deal with them changes on a daily basis. A sorcerer, on the other hand, can also handle some challenges, but not others. What challenges the sorcerer can and cannot tackle on any given day does not change. That just means that the sorcerer is more predictable in that fashion -- which makes it a flaw that is frighteningly easy to circumvent. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Another thing that I find that I don't like is when you gain a new spell level you get 1 spell known. Now, you really need that oh say Fireshield, but you don't need it 5 times. Some may do this, but most may want to choose an offensive spell first, and then choose something on the defense next time. This is a really limiting factor to me. Then select something more useful than fireshield. Fireshield is rarely ever a useful spell anyway for either class. Nifty, but generally unnecessary. (there are far, far better choices that a sorcerer could take over fireshield. Phantasmal killer, bestow curse, polymorph, charm monster, and enervation all come to mind.) Everyone has their preferences, but don't try to pin blame on the sorcerer's design for not being like a wizard. It's not a wizard. It's not like a wizard at all. We all know wizards has a wider array of spells at their disposal. We all know sorcerers sometimes only have one spell at a certain level at their disposal at certain levels. It's not really that much of a limiting factor any more than the wizard having only one spell slot available at a given level. I know. I'm currently playing one cleric, a fighter/transmuter, and a wizard right now in addition to a number of wizard's and sorcerers I've played in the past plus the sorcerer varient I've been working on for the past several months. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Another advantage I find of the Wizard is the element of surprise. Lets say an enemy uses divinations or spies on your party. He watches and keeps notes on the spells your Sorcerer has. Eventually he will know pretty much what spells you have, and will be prepared. Since the Wizard changes his spells usually twice a day, that can keep him guessing. Yes he could find out what you have in your spellbook, but you can gain new spells anytime without having to gain a level which you must do when you are a sorcerer. Knowing what the sorcerer is capable of is one thing. Using that knowledge against them is another. I think the false assumption here is that if a BBEG knows what spells the sorcerer is capable of casting, then the BBEG can neutralize the sorcerer, whereas the wizard rotates spells constantly and never uses the same tactic twice. In either case, neutralizing either caster usually involves the same tactics, anyways, so it hardly matters. Attempts to bring down either caster in a mage-mage fight between the Divining BBEG and a poor ol' sorcerer can end quickly with a dispel magic (to end precast spells) and a charm monster or enervation or some other crippling or disabling spell. Or heck, a strait up fireball does the trick too. It's not really different for a wizard, as most tend to pick similar spells or use similar tactics time and time again. Another item of note is that DMs using this tactic is about as rare as the ye olde 'rogue steals spellbook' arguement. Having more is not synonymous with "better" or "more prepared" for a given situation. Originally posted by Cross Hatch I think the Sorcerer as written was a mistake. I do think that the goal of having more than one form of arcane magic is a good idea. Off the top of my head, I think that alternative form of arcane magic should have looked more like the Sha'ir. I've no idea what the "Sha'ir" is. In any case, I agree that the written PHB sorcerer was poorly done, which is why I came up with my own varient. However, since I'm sure you meant that the sorcerer itself as a whole entity is a mistake, I'll just say that I disagree. Originally posted by trapspringer I think the classes fill very different roles. The sorcerer better fits the destruction incarnate deal, while the wizard can break out the mad utility spells, and hold his own in a few combats. In a combat-light campaign, the wizard is definantly superior. In a war-based campaign, all those fireballs sound pretty good. Considering that a sorcerer defines his exact role in a campaign (and in his or her individual party of adventurerers) with his or her spell list, couldn't a sorcerer just pick more utility spells and be able to handle a combat-light campaign? It's not like it requires a vast number of spells known to handle pure combat, anyway. After all, fireball is just one spell. What about the other 42 spells spread across all 10 levels of (pre-epic) spells? Originally posted by Slasher X I personally favor the sorcerers in high level campaigns, and wizards in low level campaigns. Sorcerers imo needs a reason for us to take it all the way to level 20 instead of switching to a prestige class. I agree. However, in high levels, niether the limited spells/day nor the limitations of prepared spellcasting nor the sorcerer's limited spells known list are hardly much of a limitation as they would have been at earlier levels. The only thing I really want to complain on the topic of Sorcs and Wizs is that WotC supports the wizard a lot more than Sorcs. Metamagic rods, etc, gives the wizard class a lot more versatlity. I think the Battle Sorcerer is what the sorc should've been like. A more combat oriented wizard to give it more flavor. Ick. I do NOT like the battle sorcerer (as a replacement for the standard sorcerer.) I hope that's not what they were intending to do with it. I don't know about WotC "supporting" wizards more than any of the other standard core classes.
Sensei Gith 07-24-04, 10:56 PM	I might as well get rid of the "wizard's limited spells" myth on the first page. Wizards get spells from three sources: -Two or more spells every level. -Captured spellbooks. -Scrolls. The first is guaranteed. The second is common. Wizard opponents are hardly rare, and wizard BBEG's are very popular. Every captured spellbook adds more spells unless the DM carbon-copies you. But while it will pay off greatly in a realistic setting, it can't be 100% counted on. The third clinches it. By the core rules, scrolls cost under 4,000 gp and can be readily found in any decent-sized community. Unless you run a very nonstandard campaign with only hamlets, wizards will have easy access to any spell they want at a low price. I expect to hear a lot of whining about how "D&D is not Final Fantasy" and "There are no magic shops." A wizard, it will be said, can't expect to find any scroll he wants. He'll need to go on a quest to find spells, and the party won't go along with it, I've heard. Don't complain to me. I didn't write the rules. And yes, you can take away wizards' spell access by changing the rules, but that's not what this thread is about.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-24-04, 11:45 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I might as well get rid of the "wizard's limited spells" myth on the first page. Wizards get spells from three sources: -Two or more spells every level. -Captured spellbooks. -Scrolls. The first is guaranteed. The second is common. Wizard opponents are hardly rare, and wizard BBEG's are very popular. Every captured spellbook adds more spells unless the DM carbon-copies you. But while it will pay off greatly in a realistic setting, it can't be 100% counted on. The third clinches it. By the core rules, scrolls cost under 4,000 gp and can be readily found in any decent-sized community. Unless you run a very nonstandard campaign with only hamlets, wizards will have easy access to any spell they want at a low price. I expect to hear a lot of whining about how "D&D is not Final Fantasy" and "There are no magic shops." A wizard, it will be said, can't expect to find any scroll he wants. He'll need to go on a quest to find spells, and the party won't go along with it, I've heard. Don't complain to me. I didn't write the rules. And yes, you can take away wizards' spell access by changing the rules, but that's not what this thread is about. Thank you. Some people feel like since the Sorcerer doesn't get many spells, then the Wizard should have a hard time finding spells. I believe there is a spell out there that allows you to transfer spells from one book to another. Also, there are alternatives to actual pen and paper spellbooks. the Kiira is one. It is actually rather easy to find new spells, unless the DM is not letting you find any on purpose. There are colleges out there, your Wizard had to learn form someone didn't they? Your Wizard is not the only one in the whole world. It's easier than people want it to be.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-25-04, 12:00 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I might as well get rid of the "wizard's limited spells" myth on the first page. Wizards get spells from three sources: -Two or more spells every level. -Captured spellbooks. -Scrolls. I agree with you, except I think scrolls are more common than captured spellbooks by a wide margin. I expect to hear a lot of whining about how "D&D is not Final Fantasy" and "There are no magic shops." A wizard, it will be said, can't expect to find any scroll he wants. He'll need to go on a quest to find spells, and the party won't go along with it, I've heard. Don't complain to me. I didn't write the rules. And yes, you can take away wizards' spell access by changing the rules, but that's not what this thread is about. That's also the arguement against D&D being a "Roleplaying" game rather than a "Rollplaying" game. (that D&D is not final fantasy.) However, you are correct. By the core rules, scrolls are some of the most common magic items available. (with potions likely being more common as there is likely a much better market for them in the general adventuring populace.)
Polaris 07-25-04, 12:15 AM	Guys, I remember the late days of ADnD 2E (and I have played off and on again since 1976). In short, the sorcerer was made because gamers in general were FED UP with the Vancian "Fire and Forget" magic system and were demanding something different....yet TSR put themselves into a corner and demanded that Magic wasn't really "DnD" without "Fire and Forget" magic. Enter the sorcerer in DnD 3E. Now you have the spellcaster that doesn't have fire-and-forget magic....but in order to play a spellcaster "correctly", you still have to use the Vancian spell system (which is why the Sorcerer sucks). -Polaris
Ax'Orl 07-25-04, 01:10 AM	Ok, for the record I was stating that the only GUARANTEED spells that the wizard gets are the 2 he gets for levelling. Yes scroll etc are plentiful but to my knowledge there is no spell for transcribing a spell to a spell book (there was in 2e though). Therefore transcribing a spell costs money and time. As for the use of scrolls, there is the added problem of if you find them and need them before you have that time and money for the appropriate materials to scribe the scroll in your book you have a choice. Secondly, the spell book is described in the wizard text as being a book it even gives the number of pages a typical version of this book will have and howmany pages each spell level will require...Therefore the spellbook is a book. Further, if you want to have a non standard book in your game, does everyone use the same form? If not how do you know that you have the BBEG's spellbook(spellnonbook as the case may be). However, whatever form your spellbook takes (standard RAW version or house ruled version) it does not change the fact that by having to prepare spells the wizard limits himself as to what he can cast and how often....prepare to many of one spell and you must give up another spell...wizards-however powerful they are when prepared, cannot match the firepower/tactical versatility of the sorcerer. Strategically they are superior, but every battle plan fails at the first contact with the enemy.
Polaris 07-25-04, 01:14 AM	Ax'Orl, With Teleport, Planeshift, and Bocobb's Blessed Book (all core), your statements about the limitations of spellbooks goes right out the airlock. Point in fact, a well designed wizard will be festooned with wands and scrolls...and thus actually has MORE casting power than the sorcerer. -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-25-04, 01:42 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Ax'Orl, With Teleport, Planeshift, and Bocobb's Blessed Book (all core), your statements about the limitations of spellbooks goes right out the airlock. Point in fact, a well designed wizard will be festooned with wands and scrolls...and thus actually has MORE casting power than the sorcerer. -Polaris Amuzing. Planeshift doesn't become available (for wizards) until level 13, teleport until level 9, and boccobs blessed books require a hefty 12,500gp (which essentially means that the wizard has to wait until mid levels to buy it. Perhaps a little earlier if the wizard devoted a large quantity of gold to get it asap) to buy or it otherwise requires the caster to be level 7, in addition to spending 6,250gp and 500xp to make it. So none of this is actually viable until mid levels (roughly levels 7-15.) By that time, both casters would have a large enough list of spells for that limitation to be, in reletive terms, easily circumvented. Also, is there even a point to you saying that wizards have more casting power when they're "well designed?" A rather vague statement. It implies that a superiorly constructed wizard can have more casting power than a sorcerer. Considering you didn't specify what kind of sorcerer, I can only deduce that you mean all sorcerers. I suppose the sorcerer this "well-designed" wizard was compared to was buck-naked, has a 6 charisma, and has a baboon for a player? This comparison is extremely flawed, as the opposite can easily be true as sorcerers can very easily be "well designed" as people, in general, are as intelligent as people who play wizards and can likewise make use of the class's strengths. Given that a sorcerer can have the same items as a wizard, a sorcerer with the same items has the same level of casting power in addition to having increased stamina, even though it casts from a more limited list of spells.
Polaris 07-25-04, 02:09 AM	DarkestOfAngels, Nope. I stand by what I said. 1. Clerics get Planeshift by level 9 and it is on both class lists. In addition, I left out such things as Mordy's Mansion and many others. 2. Bocobb's Book actually has a negative cost. This was analyzed before. 3. Wizards always get double the items for their CR and wizards always have at least one item creation feat (scribe scroll) and the bonus feats to get more. That means that the wizard: A. Has the spell reperatoire for scads of wands and scrolls. B. Has the feats to make them. C. Has the XP to make them (1 level Xp gravy train) That means that the wizard will have much more casting power than any sorcerer by mid levels if not sooner. The sorcerer does have an early advantage, but that is not enough to save the sorcerer as a pure caster. Really, it seems clear that the sorcerer was supposed to suck....so anyone that wanted to play a "real" wizard had to play it WOTC's way, i.e. "Fire and Forget". -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-25-04, 02:36 AM	Originally posted by Polaris DarkestOfAngels, Nope. I stand by what I said. You do that. 1. Clerics get Planeshift by level 9 and it is on both class lists. In addition, I left out such things as Mordy's Mansion and many others. Yeah. Clerics get it by level nine. Wizards get it later. We're not talking about clerics. We're talking about wizards. 2. Bocobb's Book actually has a negative cost. This was analyzed before. You actually have to own the book first to do that. It only has a negitive cost becuase of the money you save from scribing. Scrolls still cost money and scribing still costs time -and- you still have to buy or make the book before you can say anything about negitive costs and the loophole that's likely to not be enforced by any competant DM who's aware of this loophole. 3. Wizards always get double the items for their CR and wizards always have at least one item creation feat (scribe scroll) and the bonus feats to get more. Which means that everything I stated before in relation to when the wizard can get what is delayed further by one level. I also say that this is close to impossible short of making your character from scratch that way. To say nothing of doing this in play short of a Monty-Haul DM. That means that the wizard: A. Has the spell reperatoire for scads of wands and scrolls. Only after paying for that repituare in some fashion or another. B. Has the feats to make them. if by that you mean they have their bonus feats, then yes. But every class gets feats. and anyone that can make items can abuse this also. including the sorcerer, especially at upper levels when the sorcerer has more spell known slots to use for item creation. C. Has the XP to make them (1 level Xp gravy train) Heh. This again. 1. Good luck finding a DM that'll go through the trouble to actually use this xp system that, for whatever reason, is being enforced by the WotC. It's a nifty and horribly broken loophole, but it exists, yes. 2. All classes gain xp and can therefore spend it in some manner or another. 3. The gravy train is difficult to pull off unless the DM and the wizard's party is literally handing all of time, money, and spells to you. That means that the wizard will have much more casting power than any sorcerer by mid levels if not sooner. The sorcerer does have an early advantage, but that is not enough to save the sorcerer as a pure caster. I disagree based upon lack of evidence. all theory, mental exorsize, and technicalities, but no real substance to any of them. Really, it seems clear that the sorcerer was supposed to suck....so anyone that wanted to play a "real" wizard had to play it WOTC's way, i.e. "Fire and Forget". ... you want to think that way, that's fine for you. You obviously loathe the vancian spellcasting system for your own reasons. It seems to me that the hatred as irrational, but to each his own, I suppose.
BlaineTog 07-25-04, 02:49 AM	:eek:
Cross Hatch 07-25-04, 09:05 AM	Darkest of Angels, why don't you create a well-designed 4th level Sorcerer and put it in this thread. I or someone else will design a well-designed 4th level Wizard and put it in this thread. Then, we'll see which one is better. We'll make this an all-purpose challenge in order to help the Sorcerer out.
Cross Hatch 07-25-04, 09:10 AM	I've no idea what the "Sha'ir" is. A Sha'ir is a spontaneous caster who uses extraplanar creatures (djinn in this case) to get their magic. Its from Al'Quadem. In any case, I agree that the written PHB sorcerer was poorly done, which is why I came up with my own varient. I've never seen your variant, but as long as you agree that the Sorcerer was poorly done, I'm not sure what you are arguing about in this thread. However, since I'm sure you meant that the sorcerer itself as a whole entity is a mistake, I'll just say that I disagree. huh? You just said that the Sorcerer was poorly done. What do you mean by "the sorcerer itself as a whole entity"?
Ax'Orl 07-25-04, 09:29 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Ax'Orl, With Teleport, Planeshift, and Bocobb's Blessed Book (all core), your statements about the limitations of spellbooks goes right out the airlock. Point in fact, a well designed wizard will be festooned with wands and scrolls...and thus actually has MORE casting power than the sorcerer. -Polaris Hmmmm let us see.... How exactly does teleport help with the limitations of the spell book again? Planeshift?? The primary emphasis of my argument about the spellbook is that you are NOT guaranteed more than 2 spells per level. BBB does not help if you only have 61 spells in it this is by no means ALL the spells. These are the only spells you are guaranteed (and that only if you have an 18 int at 1st level) and of those 16 are Cantrips, leaving 45 spells that you are guaranteed to know. Yes, a wizard has an advantage in spells known, I admit that, but he is by no means guaranteed to know all the spells extant. None of the points you bring up negate the cost/time of scribing a spell into the spell book. Or, rather if they do it is because the DM allows it to. We have already proved (in other threads) that there are wizard and sorcerer nerfing and boosting campaigns. A campaign which negates the sorcerer's charisma abilities by forcing plaryers to role-play all social interactions w/o the use of dice nerfs the sorcerer, while one that allows for all the downtime/money/XP gravytrain boosts the wizard. A DM that steals/destroys spell books and limits downtime by running time sensitive games nerfs the wizard, where as one which has the party w/o items etc. benefits the sorcerer. The XP gravy train also limits the wizard to the same spell progression as the sorcerer. Further, it ties the wizard even MORE to items. The wizard is already the only class that is reliant on an item for it's class abilities, using item creation further excacerbates this problem.
MattD121 07-25-04, 01:04 PM	I prefer sorcerors purely for their roleplayability. Wizards may be slightly better in a practical sense but I beleive there are only so many personalities a wizard can have, bookish, insane and bookish, bookish bookish and bookish with a side of mysterious. Sorcerors on the other hand, when they specialize its a life choice, forever. So a fire sorceror, in my opinion, is more dedicated to fire than a wizard who specializes in evocation and casts fireballs a lot. Gennerally sorcerors can have any personality they like, and the high charisma can make them extremely interesting characters. Sorcerors could be pretty much anything, and therefore they are my personal favorite. No dis to wizards though any arcane spellcaster is better than anything else, except bards. ;)
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-25-04, 01:16 PM	Originally posted by MattD121 I prefer sorcerors purely for their roleplayability. Wizards may be slightly better in a practical sense but I beleive there are only so many personalities a wizard can have, bookish, insane and bookish, bookish bookish and bookish with a side of mysterious. Sorcerors on the other hand, when they specialize its a life choice, forever. So a fire sorceror, in my opinion, is more dedicated to fire than a wizard who specializes in evocation and casts fireballs a lot. Gennerally sorcerors can have any personality they like, and the high charisma can make them extremely interesting characters. Sorcerors could be pretty much anything, and therefore they are my personal favorite. No dis to wizards though any arcane spellcaster is better than anything else, except bards. ;) You must not play Wizards often. With the Wizards multiple spell selections, they can assume many many more roles than the Sorcerer. A Wizard can be anywhere from a battle-mage, to a diplomat, to a merchant etc....
IceFractal 07-25-04, 01:53 PM	Ok, first, does anyone think the metamagic rod of quicken makes any sense at all? If Sorcerers have to take a FRA to use it then Wizards should have to use it at the beginning of the day when preparing spells shouldn't they? But lets not get into the fact that splatbooks screw Sorcerers because that's not really important in the question of who is inherently better. First thing, the Sorcerer does not have twice as many slots per day as the Wizard, he has 1 more/spell level than a specialist Wizard, making him kind of a super specialist. Wizard - All Sor/Wiz spells can be known, 4 spells/day/spell level Specialist - 2 or 3 schools banned, 5 spells/day/spell level Sorcerer - Small selection of spells known, 6 spells/day/spell level. See how that works? The main factor is really spontaneous casting & slow progression vs normal progression, being able to quicken, and bonus feats I really thinks it wrong that the Sorcerer gets a kind of half-assed progression compard to every other primary caster. For some reason, people keep saying that faster spell progression is a feature of the Wizard ... well it isn't! Sorry about that but it gets on my nerves. Look at the chart, the Cleric/Druid has the same spell progression as the Wizard, and at about half the spell levels, as many spells/day as the Sorcerer. It isn't as much a case of the Sorcerer getting more spells than normal as the Wizard getting less. I'm also tired of solutions like give the Sorcerer better skills/fighting ability/whatever, at the expense of spellcasting. I want the Sorcerer to be primary caster! Not some idiot who can't learn spells at the normal pace (yes, I'll say it again, the normal pace, NOT the wizard pace, the Wiz/Clr/Drd/Everybody but Sorcerer pace). Also, I'm tired of the assumption the Sorcerers would somehow rule the game if they could quicken spells. They don't have that many *%^%!! spells per day! If you compare them to a specialist Wizard they get 1 more spell/day/spell level and a lot less spells available, ok? Stop whining about how many spells they have! Lots of spells aren't worth anything if other spellcasters always beat you in duels because they can cast more than one spell per round and you can't. Yeesh. Ok, I'm sorry about that outburst but I'm sooooo tired of hear how "Sorcerers get so many spells per day that they should count themselves lucky to get 9th level spells at all". Also, saying the Wizard should have a hard time finding new spells to learn besides the two free ones is like saying the Fighter should have trouble buying weapons and armor, or having random encounters every single night to prevent anyone regaining spells. Yes, you can do it, but when you overuse it then its called "screwing the players", not "balancing the game".
Ax'Orl 07-25-04, 02:56 PM	Although I am the one who started the whole "only 2 spells per level" argument, I agree with you IceFractal, yes cutting the wizard that low is "screwing the players" BUT my argument still stands, a wizard is NOT guaranteed to know all the spells as some posters would have us believe. I for one have no problem with sorcerer's knowing less spells, but I cannot sit idly by while wizards are touted as being the be all end of of magic because they carry a book and can because of that, "have access to every spell ever thought up, written or what have you". Spells for a wizard (other than the 2 freebies per level) cost money and time-even if you FIND the scroll laying around you still have to pay both of those to scribe it in yoiur book. Also, w/o BBB a wizard is gonna be totin a lot of books around...what is it 1pg per level of spell? in a book that holds 100 pages? You can fit 11 9th level spells in one book-a wizard who wants access to all his spells will have to carry a freakin library with him. And as pointed out, the SpellBOOk is just that a book, with pages and a cover and binding. If you change the type of item that the spellbook is then that new item should have the same limits as a spellbook (max 11 9th level spells or 100 spell levels worth of spells per item)
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-25-04, 02:57 PM	Originally posted by Cross Hatch Darkest of Angels, why don't you create a well-designed 4th level Sorcerer and put it in this thread. I or someone else will design a well-designed 4th level Wizard and put it in this thread. Then, we'll see which one is better. We'll make this an all-purpose challenge in order to help the Sorcerer out. I don't see what the point of such an exorsize would be. What, exactly, would it proove other than that we could both design a PC with a decent chance of survival. Originally posted by Cross Hatch A Sha'ir is a spontaneous caster who uses extraplanar creatures (djinn in this case) to get their magic. Its from Al'Quadem. Okay. I've never seen your variant, but as long as you agree that the Sorcerer was poorly done, I'm not sure what you are arguing about in this thread. I've said that the sorcerer is poorly designed. What that means is that I think the sorcerer is poorly designed because it has no worthwhile class features to speak of. It's an empty column. My varient filled that column and solved its only problem. This doesn't mean that I think the sorcerer either sucks nor do I think it needs to be replaced, nor do I think it's underpowered in comparison to the other spellcasting classes. I do think that the "compensation" that the sorcerer recieved for getting spontaneous casting was a little much (as it stripped the sorcerer of anything in the specials column) but I don't think it has any real problems otherwise. BIG difference from what other people have been complaining about. huh? You just said that the Sorcerer was poorly done. What do you mean by "the sorcerer itself as a whole entity"? I said the sorcerer was poorly done. But that statement is rather vague. I specifically said that because it's design is not without flaws, like a few other classes I could mention. What I mean by the "whole entity" is the entire class. I'm sure you meant by your statement that the entire class in and of itself is crap or "poorly done" as opposed to what I meant by "poorly done" in which I was referring to its blank specials column, so I'll just say that I disagree with that. The sorcerer class is fine in reletive terms. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek You must not play Wizards often. With the Wizards multiple spell selections, they can assume many many more roles than the Sorcerer. A Wizard can be anywhere from a battle-mage, to a diplomat, to a merchant etc.... Heh. Given the sorcerer's high charisma, life as an adventurerer, and the sorcerer's "blaster mage" stereotype, the sorcerer is naturally all three of those. Knowing one attack spell and using it often can make the sorcerer be percieved as a battle mage. All sorcerers are naturally charismatic (and therefore diplomatic.) Though charm person or charm monster can help with that also. All adventurers are merchants by trade. They do, after all, have to buy and sell often.... unless you're under a vow of poverty. Originally posted by IceFractal Ok, first, does anyone think the metamagic rod of quicken makes any sense at all? If Sorcerers have to take a FRA to use it then Wizards should have to use it at the beginning of the day when preparing spells shouldn't they? But lets not get into the fact that splatbooks screw Sorcerers because that's not really important in the question of who is inherently better. Since I own the bulk of the WotC produced splatbooks, I can easily say that splatbooks help the sorcerer more than harm them. after all, arcane preparation is extremely helpful for getting quicken spell to work in addition to reducing the increased casting time of using metamagic'd spells. Of course, if you don't like arcane preparation, there's stuff like twin spell (Which still allows you to get off 2 spells in one round.) In addition to a large number of prestige classes. (though most of the good sorcerer PrCs are from FR.) But there's always the PrCs I made. First thing, the Sorcerer does not have twice as many slots per day as the Wizard, he has 1 more/spell level than a specialist Wizard, making him kind of a super specialist. Wizard - All Sor/Wiz spells can be known, 4 spells/day/spell level Specialist - 2 or 3 schools banned, 5 spells/day/spell level Sorcerer - Small selection of spells known, 6 spells/day/spell level. See how that works? The main factor is really spontaneous casting & slow progression vs normal progression, being able to quicken, and bonus feats I remember saying this a few times before. The sorcerer certainly has all the traits. Particularly since "signature spell" allows for sorcerer-like spontenaety (at a heavy cost). I really thinks it wrong that the Sorcerer gets a kind of half-assed progression compard to every other primary caster. For some reason, people keep saying that faster spell progression is a feature of the Wizard ... well it isn't! Sorry about that but it gets on my nerves. Look at the chart, the Cleric/Druid has the same spell progression as the Wizard, and at about half the spell levels, as many spells/day as the Sorcerer. It isn't as much a case of the Sorcerer getting more spells than normal as the Wizard getting less. The sorcerer recieves their staggard progression from being an undisciplined class. Undisciplined classes use charsima in some fashion as a spellcasting stat and all of them share the staggard progression. Look at every class that has a full spellcasting progression and you'll be able to see that pattern. I'm also tired of solutions like give the Sorcerer better skills/fighting ability/whatever, at the expense of spellcasting. I want the Sorcerer to be primary caster! Not some idiot who can't learn spells at the normal pace (yes, I'll say it again, the normal pace, NOT the wizard pace, the Wiz/Clr/Drd/Everybody but Sorcerer pace). Also, I'm tired of the assumption the Sorcerers would somehow rule the game if they could quicken spells. They don't have that many *%^%!! spells per day! If you compare them to a specialist Wizard they get 1 more spell/day/spell level and a lot less spells available, ok? Stop whining about how many spells they have! Lots of spells aren't worth anything if other spellcasters always beat you in duels because they can cast more than one spell per round and you can't. Yeesh. Y'know, it's not like it costs them that many feats, but sorcerers can technically be able to quicken. But I know where you're comeing from. Ok, I'm sorry about that outburst but I'm sooooo tired of hear how "Sorcerers get so many spells per day that they should count themselves lucky to get 9th level spells at all". Also, saying the Wizard should have a hard time finding new spells to learn besides the two free ones is like saying the Fighter should have trouble buying weapons and armor, or having random encounters every single night to prevent anyone regaining spells. Yes, you can do it, but when you overuse it then its called "screwing the players", not "balancing the game". Some DMs unfortuantely don't know the difference. I see that they often laud themselves as "roleplayers" or use "realism." and other crap.
Cross Hatch 07-25-04, 03:30 PM	I don't see what the point of such an exorsize would be. What, exactly, would it proove other than that we could both design a PC with a decent chance of survival. its for my own edification really. I've never seen a Sorcerer who could, in a general sense, give a Wizard a run for his money. Please show me what one would look like at 4th level.
hot_fusion 07-25-04, 04:17 PM	I'm kinda in the middle regarding wizard vs sorcerer casting, since I like both styles depending on the campaign and the other players. I think both progressions are more or less balanced, though that comparison between specialized wizards and sorcerers one page back affected me. With that aside, I do think that the sorcerer is weaker than a wizard. To get a better idea of my reasons, first picture both classes as sides of an equation. Now, cancel out everything that is similar. That eliminates the familiar and spellcasting progression (remember, I believe the progressions are more or less balanced in comparison to each other). In doing so, we are left with: Wizard: 5 bonus feats while Sorcerer: Simple weapon proficiency Extended casting time for metamagic In my opinion, the features of the sorcerer cancel each other out, so the sorcerer is left with...nothing. :( I would be a lot happier with the sorcerer class if it offered more to the player. Simple weapon proficiency is nice (in case I play a strong spellcaster), but the d4 really hurts in combat, so I guess it's not so nice after all. >_< Moreover, it makes sense to me that a sorcerer should be able to learn how to manipulate her/his magical energy with metamagic in a manner that won't take the spell longer to cast. He/she would simply have to push more energy into the spell (in essence, increasing its level). Meh...my brain's going numb now. I hope my rambling has provided someone with another view on things. Not that it'll really affect much... :/
Sensei Gith 07-25-04, 04:30 PM	The sorcerer recieves their staggard progression from being an undisciplined class. Undisciplined classes use charsima in some fashion as a spellcasting stat and all of them share the staggard progression. Look at every class that has a full spellcasting progression and you'll be able to see that pattern. Maybe you house-ruled that sorcerers are "undisciplined." Perhaps that they just sit around, slay dragons and wait for better spells to effortlessly appear in their heads. But this thread is about core D&D. The bard has a lower progression because he is not a primary spellcaster. The sorcerer has no such excuse.
Ranthanas 07-25-04, 04:57 PM	*sigh* The sorceror was made because not everyone likes vancian magic (and indeed some of us find it silly)- so WoTC made an alternative who uses Arcane Magic in a non-fire and forget manner. WoTC also made the Sorceror underpowered, although I don't know why (possibly that they prefer the wizard, possibly that hte sorcerors extra spells per day actually matter if you have the recommended 4 encouters per day rather than one) Neither of these seem to be contraversial, so I'm wondering why you bothered to have another thread on this subject after already starting a massive one and being given all the answers there. Over and out. P.S. If you want to base traits of the sorceror on your understanding, IMC Sorcerors are more disciplined than wizards- they actually learn and understand their spells rather than just read them out of books. This is why they can cast them spontaneously rather than needing to prepare them.
Slasher X 07-25-04, 06:05 PM	Originally posted by hot_fusion <snip> Wizard: 5 bonus feats while Sorcerer: Simple weapon proficiency Extended casting time for metamagic In my opinion, the features of the sorcerer cancel each other out, so the sorcerer is left with...nothing. :( Not that it'll really affect much... :/ <Snip> You also forgot about the fact that the Sorcerer has a horrible class skill list, (since it doesn't have a lot of chr base skills) and a slower spell progression. Simple weapon profiency is a tiny bonus for the first levels, but after that it's not that much useful. The fact that Sorcs get simple weapon profiency makes me believe that the Battle Sorcs were what WotC was trying to aim for. TheDarkestofAngels, I like the battle sorcs, but that doesn't mean I would not like a primary caster sorcerer too.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-25-04, 08:15 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Maybe you house-ruled that sorcerers are "undisciplined." Perhaps that they just sit around, slay dragons and wait for better spells to effortlessly appear in their heads. But this thread is about core D&D. The bard has a lower progression because he is not a primary spellcaster. The sorcerer has no such excuse. ... sigh. No, I've "houseruled" nothing. Look at every spellcasting class and compare them. Every class that has a staggard progression uses charsima as the primary spellcasting stat (or a component of multiple primary casting stats). This is true for both divine and arcane spelllcasters, regardless of whether they spontaneously cast their spells or prepare their spells ahead of time. Every class that uses intelligence or wisdom has an unstaggard spellcasting progression. All of the classes that have the staggard spellcasting progression is regarded as a "Simple" class. All spellcasting classes that are "complex" use intelligence or wisdom. Take the psion and the wilder. Both classes spontaneously manifest their powers. Psion doesn't have the staggard progression. The wilder does. The wilder uses charsima as the primary casting stat. The psion uses intelligence. The psion is a "disciplined" or "complex" class while the wilder is not. The sorcerer has the staggard progression. The sorcerer uses charisma as the primary casting stat. The wizard doesn't have the staggard progression and it uses intelligence as the primary casting stat. The wizard is complex and the sorcerer is simple. One class, the wizard, is "Trained" or "disciplined" class, while the sorcerer is not. The favored Soul uses both wisdom and charisma as a primary casting stat, is considered an "undisciplined" class (according to the flavor text), and has a staggard spellcasting progression. The cleric, uses wisdom, is considered a "complex" class, and has an unstaggard spellcasting progression in addition to preparing spells beforehand. See the pattern yet? Regardless of whether you like it or not, the sorcerer conforms to a rigid structure within the core rules itself. Furthermore, don't quote me "core D&D" crap. I KNOW what this discussion is about and what "core D&D" is. Originally posted by Ranthanas The sorceror was made because not everyone likes vancian magic (and indeed some of us find it silly)- so WoTC made an alternative who uses Arcane Magic in a non-fire and forget manner. Though I still don't understand the supposed "problem" with vancian magic, more choices is, in general, is always better. WoTC also made the Sorceror underpowered, although I don't know why (possibly that they prefer the wizard, possibly that hte sorcerors extra spells per day actually matter if you have the recommended 4 encouters per day rather than one) While I disagree that the sorcerer is, in and of itself underpowered, I see a lot of people saying that those extra two spells per level isn't that big of a deal (which is the primary arguement to why a specialist wizard is underpowered in comparison to the standard wizard. Another thing I disagree with) but I also see a lot of people looking at the "big picture" when they do that. Yeah, generally at level 10+ when your casting stat also gets really high, 4 spell slots/level isn't really much of a limitation any more. However, before then, during the time most people play D&D at levels 10 and under, that extra one or two spell slots REALLY counts and it's a very powerful thing to have. Variety is great, but if you can't back it up with some stamina, all could be for naught. Neither of these seem to be contraversial, so I'm wondering why you bothered to have another thread on this subject after already starting a massive one and being given all the answers there. Blainetog has, in his massive sig, a link to "Tell me again, why the sorcerer was ever made" thread, as well as most if not all of the sorcerer vs. wizard debate threads that exist on the classes board. Most of these issues were already discussed at length multiple times between all of them. I don't know why this has been continued. All I can say is that it'll likely be a matter of time before Catoblepas closes this thread as he did to the thread that was this thread's predecessor. P.S. If you want to base traits of the sorceror on your understanding, IMC Sorcerors are more disciplined than wizards- they actually learn and understand their spells rather than just read them out of books. This is why they can cast them spontaneously rather than needing to prepare them. And then there's my varient in my sig as well. :D along with five varients of that class. Although it is still not finished. Originally posted by Slasher X You also forgot about the fact that the Sorcerer has a horrible class skill list, (since it doesn't have a lot of chr base skills) and a slower spell progression. meh. not really much better or worse than the wizard's skill list. However, yes, I agree that more charisma skills are required. (or at least replace bluff with diplomacy, if nothing else.) Simple weapon profiency is a tiny bonus for the first levels, but after that it's not that much useful. The fact that Sorcs get simple weapon profiency makes me believe that the Battle Sorcs were what WotC was trying to aim for. either that or it might have something to do with the class's basic design. I don't know. It just seems so unlikely because the sorcerer has as much business in melee as the wizard does, which pretty much means that that perk is worthless. Like giving the fighter the ability to choose metamagic feats with his bonus feats. Even at level one, good use of spells could likely mitigate the need for weapons for the bulk of the sorcerer's time. TheDarkestofAngels, I like the battle sorcs, but that doesn't mean I would not like a primary caster sorcerer too. Fair enough. A lot of times when I hear proposed fixes for the sorcerer, it's essentially to pull them in the same direction as the psion, wilder, or combat specialists or just a class that's kinda like a sorcerer, but not really. Not all the time. Some are quite neat fixes, but a lot are still... off. EDIT: My sorcerer. may or may not be "well designed" but here it is. (used 25 point buy & starting gold for 4th level characters.) The character is a 4th level human sorcerer. Human Sorcerer4; CR4; Medium-Sized Humanoid; HD 4d4+8 (19 hitpoints); Initiative: +2; Speed: 30ft; AC 12 (16 w/ Mage Armor), Touch AC 12, Flat-Footed AC 10 (14 w/ Mage Armor); Attack +3 melee (touch, spell) or +3 melee (1d3-1, unarmed strike) or +6 ranged touch (spell); SA: Summon Familiar;SQ: Additional Feat at Level one, Additional 4 skill points at level one and one additional skill point at every level thereafter; AL: N; SV Fort: +3, Reflex +3, Will +3; Str 8 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha 17. Height 5'6 Skills and Feats: Concentration +6, Knowledge: Arcana +4, Spellcraft +6; Silent Spell, Eschew Materials, Extend Spell Sorcerer Spells/day: 6/7/4 Sorcerer Spells Known: (DC=13+Spell Level) 0 Level Spells (Cantrips) -- Resistance, Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Message, Prestigitation, Disrupt Undead 1st Level Spells -- Mage Armor, Grease, Magic Missile 2nd Level Spell -- Glitterdust Equipment: 350gp, Ring of Sustinence, Potion of Cure Light Wounds x5, Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds x2, scroll of Expedicious Retreat x2, Necklace of Fireballs Type 1 With more points in point buy, would contribute more points to Charisma, Constitution, and Wisdom, respectively. The other 350 gp can goto nonmagical equipment, which the sorcerer would do well to get some cloths among other utilities for light travel. The spell list I picked is decent, but I don't consider it, by any means, the "best." others can work just as well or better. I'm just not gonna claim that this is the best to pick.
Sorxores 07-26-04, 01:12 AM	The sorcerer: Casting stat: Cha: Cha his use for spell, and Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device. From this list the sorcerer (3.5). So he have 1 class skill and 6 cross slass skills Sponteneous casting New spell level every 2level past level 4 Spell per day: one more spell then a specialiste wizard / 2 more spell then a wizard. Spell Known: Limited Skill: 2+int Feat: every 3 level HD: 4 Special ability: none Profiency: every simple Metamagic: Cannot use quicken spell, can add them whenever he want, need to spend a full round action. Prc: lose nothing excpet familiar advancement and caster level(except if the Prc give caster level), but have difficulties to get the manay metamagic requirement, knowledge skill rank requirement and the special of knowing spell. The Wizard: Casting Stat: Int: Int his use for spell, give bonus skill points, bonus languages and Alchemy, Appraise, Craft, Decipher script, Desable device, Forgery, Knowledge(any), read lips, scry, search, Spellcraft. So he have 5 class skills and 3 cross class skills. preparation Spell New spell level every 2 level after level 3 Spell per day: if specialise, one less then the sorcerer if not specialise 2 mores then the sorcerer Spell Known: 2/wizard level+ any spell add by transcription Skill: 2+int(spell casting cast) Feat: every 3 level + every 5 level HD: 4 Special ability: none Profiency: every simple exept spears Metamagic: can use Quicken spell, must prepare the spell with the metamagic without time penalties. Prc: lose bonus spell, familiar advancement and caster level (if the prc do not give them). Can easyli qualifie for metamagic, knowledge skill, special of knowing spell requirement. So the wizard have the best main stats, best feat, best skill list, best spell known, best spell advancement and can easyli aquire PrC, can use quicken spell The Sorcerer cast sponteneously, the best spell per day, best weapon profiency and he lose nothing when multiclassing (exept Familiar and caster level), can add metamagic anytime he need it I only dipose the fact, I won't judge what more importante between different abilities. I may have forgot something, but it because I'm sleepy and I don't have my book with me For the Prc I only use the one I know, so if you know any Prc giving full spellcaster level advancement, and doesn't have metamagic nor cross class skill requirements, please them me.
mercurywyrm 07-26-04, 04:10 AM	I, being a big fan of psionics, far perfer the weilder to the sorcerer. It is a charisma based manifester who has more skill points, bab, and as a psychic rather than an arcane caster, can use armor, plus has reasonable weapon proficiencies, psionic powers are generally far more versitile and powerfull in combat than spells, and they are VERY spontaneous. Despite having a total of 11 powers known at level 20 they are far more versitile than most sorcerers I have seen. Why you ask? Well, for one, the attack powers equivalent to evocation spells basically come what I would call "metable" as in metamagic, upon manifesting, you choose the element of the power, from a list that only excludes acid, spend a number of powerpoints equal to the base damage dice you want, which also affects the save DC for every two power points, and effectively changes the "spell's" level. Thus they generally need a fraction of the number of attack spells a sorcerer needs because just one covers more potential evocation spells than the sorcerer could ever learn, and with about two more, one for area effect damage and the other for something that bypasses saves and spell resistance and energy resitance (deals slashing damage, crystal shard). This leaves 8 slots for rather versitile utility and defensive powers by level 20. They also can enter an emotional state, not dissimilar to a barbarian rage, which boosts their manifester level, whenever they want, at the risk of suffering a backlash (one with a set percentage chance of going off with no way of changing that chance availible) and as said earlier also have non-casting based perks beyond the sorcerer. They have similar flavor too. However, they are in no way superior to the sorcerer. In fact, a sorcerer is probably far better in a combat heavy game, why, you ask? This is because the sorcerer's spells are basically "augmented" for "free" within a limit. The sorcerer casting fireball uses up a third level spell slot and does damage equal to his caster level in d6 up to 10d6. The equivalent psionic power, allthough you are free to change the element, does base damage of 5d6 when un-augmented, no matter what level you are. In the end, the people on the psionics board have shown me that by cost, a psychic character usually uses up ALL their power points in a single combat, but REALLY finishes that combat fast and gives their enemies little chance, if they don't work hard to conserve and try to leave allot to the others, even if they are just trying to keep up with the damage caused by party wizards and sorcerers with low level spells, but the sorcerer or wizard, even if 3.0 haste were brought back, would likely continue casting through about 3 more combats! No wonder the psychic classes tend to have so many advantages in how their powers work and what they do out of combat, cause if a wizard was given a choice of only ever being able to cast spells in one combat a day and have a bigger skills list and ignore all but XP components or stay the way they are, I think they would stay! Sorcerer has the advantage of a HUGE mass of replenishable resources, even if those recorces are limited in what they can DO, they still last a while and don't cost the party nearly as much as wizard spellbook entries, or even a wand charge, this is because they come back, again and again, every day, and often cost nothing to begin with. Yeah, psychic powers are the same in that way, but as I said earlier, they generally only last one combat because of the way sorcerer/wizard spells scale compared to the way psionics scales. As far as flavor is concerned, the wielder and sorcerer are very similar and even use the same casting stat. However, in terms of class build, the sorcerer looks far more similar to the wizard or... the psion, the "kinda" psionic wizard equivalent. They are far more versitile in powers than the wielder, have the same powerpoints per day, but have the same hit dice, BAB, and skills per level as the sorcerer and wizard, as well as similar weapon and armor proficiencies to the wizard and INT manifesting stat. Their advantage is more powers known, no backlash potential manifester level boost abilities, and bonus feats about equivalent to the wizard. Neither get a familiar but there is a psionic feat that offers the equivalent of a familiar in the form of a psicrystal, or "pet rock" which lacks the death backlash of a familiar, but has most of the same benifits. In the end, it can be difficult to tell a sorcerer apart from a weilder except for the wielder's greater skill from combat to charisma skills, and the psion from the wizard, except for two major differences, the psychics rarely use powers in much more than one combat a day or end up having REALLY weak powers, but, they never use somatic, verbal, or material components, especially material components, and never carry around spellbooks, in addition, they carry a "telepathic" "rock" with them instead of a super inteligent magical animal following them around. (the psicrystal can move on it's own but that tends to attract pretty bad attention out of or in combat... lol) In the end, psionics really helped me see the differences between sorcerer and wizard, sure, the wizard is more versitile day to day, both about equal second to second depending on the wizard's planning and sorcerer's spells known, and the wizard can catch up with the sorcerers spells per day pretty cheap with items. But why the sorcerer truely shines is because of how many combats and encounters each day he can deal with WITHOUT dipping into scrolls and wands, they can cast and cast with huge amounts of potential for each spell, even if it isn't allways the right spell, what they are good at, they can be relied to be good at, at a VERY low cost. Whereas the wizard maintains a steady cash drain for all their scrolls and wands used to keep the right spells availible day to day and supplement their spells known and the psychics just flat tend to run out real quick, the sorcerer stays around for the longhaul with their favorite spells. In the end it is a choice bettween six fireballs at 10d6 one fireball at 10d6 and a bunch of really usefull utility spells, or two whateverballs at something like 15d6 pulled out a round for 3 rounds of one combat at the cost of lower lower and level "spells" as well. My math here is a little sketchy here but I hope it gives you the picture. If you want to sling your singature spell around in every combat, deal devastating damage without wearing yourself out in less than a minute, and not spend a ton of money doing so, you really should go for the sorcerer. To me, psionics really put magic in perspective, and I hope it does for you. Not that I don't think the sorcerer was poorly designed, just that it is usefull and actually a good idea, for what it was intended. With that over, I would say the sorcerer is somewhat neccesariliy restricted in ways that don't make too much sense given flavor, and comparisons with other casters in a more crunchy way. Especially their increased casting time for metamagic, being behind a level on learning higher level spells, and being in the same boat as fighter and cleric of why does everyone else in my category get amazing scaling class abilities, nearly everthing I get, AND get the benifit of highter skill points either through the base, or through INT casting stat! I don't know why I am posting this here but it seems relative for some reason, here is what I think is wrong with some of the base classes. •Wizard, slows down the game if the player doesn't spend time with the DM outside of game to memorize and research spells, generally a pen and paper pain. •Sorcerer, over-restricted but would be broken without restrictions without significant changes to the way magic works or the way they cast. •Palladin, too cut and dried, the evil guys allways know it is a palladin coming when they come mounted on something and in an adventuring group, because only the pally usually has access to a mount worth riding into combat at any given level. And not just mounts being the problem. •Rouge, sneak attack mechanic confuzes more people than backstab ever did despite making more sense in many situations, takes up nearly as much time as wizard keeping track of inventory instead of memorizing spells and picking skills instead of learning new spells each level. •Monk, abilities rely so much on sterotypes and it becomes like a conglomerate of too many things, better separated into a spiritual monk class and a martial artist class, as it is now if feels like an I am from the orient class, which is a bad class to be. Especially because it makes everyone from the orient seem like clones who walked out of the crouching tiger hidden dragon movie. •Ranger, has been transformed into a sort of geurilla warfare type class, from a I hate you guts and am gonna track you down. They lack some of their older combat survivability in a strait fight but now can hide in tall grass or sparse trees and pick the opponent off with little likelyhood of being seen. Lacks viability for monsterous races due to mechanics of combat style, despite many monterous races perferering ranger class, needs more options for combat style, just as pally's should all ride teleporting summonable, horses. •Fighter, lacks any viability out of combat unless horrendously inteligent (why aren't you a wizard or rouge or ranger in such a case?) all the while barely keeping up with the other classes IN combat, which is they only thing they are any good at. Needs to be changed from just a feat stop or an intensive military training at the exclution of everything else class to a class of, this guy knows how to fight, and knows quite a bit about things related to combat, knows how to deal with combat situations, and has the skills neccesary for combat situations, and still has room for backstory support of WHY they learned to fight and what they do when they are not killing people. Also needs to really keep up with the other classes at higher levels, something which it has a lot of trouble with, due to the lack of scaling abilities beyond BAB, unlike ranger, barbarian, and palladin. ((Can you tell I don't like the way they did the fighter?)) •Druid, too versitile, restrictions have been removed too many times and their spells now seem to have the power of arcane spells, the healing of divinde spells, plently of spells perday which are easily maintained, PLUS class abilities that are so powerfull that adding anything else would allready unbalance the class and they had to give it 9 levels of SPELLS on top of that wildshaping and those skills, hitpoints, and BAB!? Talk about the best of all worlds! •Cleric, too powerfull in the hands of a munchkin, too many balancing factors removed, should never have been given 9th level spells, and many spells are poorly balanced even according to what the DMG says! Given so much power to make up for being treated as a resource that tended to get looked down upon as the healer who was only usefull if you got hurt, you needed them, but they didn't really do anything that made them worth playing to people who like to be the hero. •Bard, bardic music is much the same as the palladin's mount or the ranger's combat style, sure it is cool and good, but it sure as hell shouldn't be on EVERY bardly character?! Offer us some reasonable alternatives and the bard will become far more playable, uses magic in funky ways, when looked at carefully, behaves like some sort of spontaneous divine magic, I belive they should just finish the job and make it a new kind of divine magic that draws on the power of music, rather than breaking so many arcane magic rules just so that it can be arcane magic, for some obscure reason, I for one don't see why the druid's magic would be divine when the bard's is arcane, and visa versa. Probably best ballenced class next to the psion. •Barbarian, chaotic?? If anything I would say that is the realm of densly populated CIVILIZATION I can understand the bard's chaoticness but many "barbaric" cultures make far more sense as lawfull, if not most, and sticking with old ways instead of adopting new and not trusting new as much is obviously very much a lawfull behavior. The raging sure could be chaotic, but who says only "barbarians" rage, I would say rage would make more sense as a feat, possibly a regional one, and maybe some sort of berzerker class, but not an base ability for anyone from a tribal culture! Go ahead and make an illiterate "savage" but don't go make them all "rage" or even all be tough combatants, how about some spiritual mystics? Yeah the class is good but it, like the monk, tries to lump too many different things together, with little wiggle room and doesn't make sense for many of the characters built with it. What about a "noble" savage, one who sticks to the old ways regardless of incourging civilization, lives in harmony with nature rather than destroying it but isn't some crazed, illitarate berzerker (might be illiterate but that isn't the point) but one of wisdom, who lives an orderd life led within strict cultural rules which teach respect, bravery, and skills! And so goes the base classes! Really, the mechanics are there because it takes allot of effort to come up with, even if they aren't to perfect, they are mostly just for dealing with things that are random chance or deal with capabilities of the characters different from the players, but as a role playing game, the player determines far more about their character that statistics ever could, just by the way they play them. D&D is popular because it makes everything much more cut and paste and generally more fair and easy to learn than allot of other systems, especially some of the more dubious and time consuming for the DM to prepare for point buy games. The glory of D&D is that so much has been done for you, even if not done perfectly, using it this way is generally done to save time and make everything easier.
Zelphi 07-26-04, 05:53 AM	I don't get it... Wiz - massive down time What the hells everyone else doing? It can take ages to make those metamagic wands (a fairly crap invention for any spellcaster)... how long does an adventure take? What does it matter if you've got access to every spell in the game (on a broken book)... if you can only cast a handful of them a day. Got scrolls? So's a Sorc... write them into a book? That's down time and less scrolls. Got wands - so's the Sorc Made your own? That's down time and less GP and XP Got Books - have fun carrying them around Got one book to rule them all... hope it don't get ripped. If the enemy can watch a sorc and learn what spells they have. What stops them just stealing the Wizards spell book(s)? Or any number of better options. Sorcs - use summoning spells - enmasse - have fun.
quetzyl 07-26-04, 07:12 AM	This comparison is based on my experience of the two classes in the Living Greyhawk RPGA Campaign. In that setting, around level 10, I have seen several demonstrations that make me realise the superiority of the sorceror in some fairly common senarios. The most prominant one is when the party comes upon a challenging encounter that has a particular weakness, for example fire-resistant trolls, or incorporial enemies. Sometime, the enemy will be weak against one type of effect, and very hard to damage in any other way (eg Incorporial, damage resistant creatures with high AC). In that situation, the wizard will certainly have a couple of useful memorised spells, but when they run out, which they will, he has very little left to do. Whereas the sorceror, provided he has one useful spell on his list, can sit back and unleash magic missiles for the next 17 combat rounds. Over the last year, I have seen the party saved by the sorcerors ability to channel his entire days load of spells into one particular type of spell on several occasions, and INHO that kind of situation is a more common problem than one that can only be solved with a particular unusual spell. I think that that ability is worth the sacrifice of total spellcasting power and range of spells. Cheers, quetzyl
Cross Hatch 07-26-04, 08:03 AM	Originally posted by Zelphi I don't get it... Wiz - massive down time What the hells everyone else doing? It can take ages to make those metamagic wands (a fairly crap invention for any spellcaster)... how long does an adventure take? What does it matter if you've got access to every spell in the game (on a broken book)... if you can only cast a handful of them a day. Got scrolls? So's a Sorc... write them into a book? That's down time and less scrolls. Got wands - so's the Sorc Made your own? That's down time and less GP and XP Got Books - have fun carrying them around Got one book to rule them all... hope it don't get ripped. If the enemy can watch a sorc and learn what spells they have. What stops them just stealing the Wizards spell book(s)? Or any number of better options. Sorcs - use summoning spells - enmasse - have fun. It is a rare campaign indeed that adventures 24/7 and it doesn't take that long to pen a scroll. So, the Wizard is going to have twice as many scrolls as the Sorcerer and will have an easier time getting them. He'll have, generally, twice as many wands and will have an easier time getting them. As for books and stealing them, there are too many level dependent variables to look at and I don't feel like doing all that typing right now.
Zelphi 07-26-04, 08:34 AM	Did I say 24/7? No. It can take weeks to months to make some items, especially at higher levels... and the rest of the party doesn't need to sit around potentially loosing ability because they don't do anything During that period... they might be able to gain a level or establish something else... Their downtime is only useable if they have it. What if some catastrophe happens whilst they're making it. It takes at least a day to make the simplest of potions... and then you might have to rest again. How exactly did the Wizard have more wands... if it's taking xp and gold and time to make the ones he really needs, when a Sorc is in a better position to UMD any wand... and not have to spend time making them. And with a move equivelent action to draw a wand... and the capacity he needs to carry all this gear.. it doesn't always help... especially as those items are either unattended, or weaker than normal for casting spells. How many wands (or rods) does he need? Oh sure they help compensate, but they don't replace actual power do they? It isn't that huge an advantage over the Sorc... who has the same... but perhaps at more cost (but not in xp).
MattD121 07-26-04, 09:50 AM	Hehe its funny you mention a wizards book getting torn or stolen... funny because I never even thought of that... As for wizards having many personalities "Merchant, Guard" and all that, Those are backstories, not personalities. Sorcerors still have more personality than any wizard. Sorcerors are also the best diplomatic class anyone will want to play. (Come on who plays a bard, seriously?) Good charisma and flashy tricks, plus they usually arent dim-witted.
Cross Hatch 07-26-04, 10:00 AM	Originally posted by Zelphi Did I say 24/7? No. It can take weeks to months to make some items, especially at higher levels... and the rest of the party doesn't need to sit around potentially loosing ability because they don't do anything During that period... they might be able to gain a level or establish something else... Their downtime is only useable if they have it. What if some catastrophe happens whilst they're making it. It takes at least a day to make the simplest of potions... and then you might have to rest again. How exactly did the Wizard have more wands... if it's taking xp and gold and time to make the ones he really needs, when a Sorc is in a better position to UMD any wand... and not have to spend time making them. And with a move equivelent action to draw a wand... and the capacity he needs to carry all this gear.. it doesn't always help... especially as those items are either unattended, or weaker than normal for casting spells. How many wands (or rods) does he need? Oh sure they help compensate, but they don't replace actual power do they? It isn't that huge an advantage over the Sorc... who has the same... but perhaps at more cost (but not in xp). You mentioned scrolls in your previous post. Most wizards aren't going to need a month to pen a scroll. And I can't speak about your game, but in my game, most of the game takes place in cities and often over a period of time. I think the difference between your game and mine might be that mine is more strategic and roleplaying, whereas yours is more hack-n-slash, but I don't know.
Sensei Gith 07-26-04, 12:45 PM	No, I've "houseruled" nothing. Look at every spellcasting class and compare them. Every class that has a staggard progression uses charsima as the primary spellcasting stat (or a component of multiple primary casting stats). A sample size of one charisma-based caster is hardly a pattern. If they took a bad idea and put it in splatbooks, it has nothing to do with the class's balance and is not core besides. This is true for both divine and arcane spelllcasters, regardless of whether they spontaneously cast their spells or prepare their spells ahead of time. Every class that uses intelligence or wisdom has an unstaggard spellcasting progression. See the problem? It makes no sense to connect use of charisma with inferior spellcasting. Charisma is a mechanically inferior stat to intelligence and wisdom. If their casting was based on dexterity, a reduction in spellcasting would make sense. Of course, it is just as true to say that all spontantous casters (the sorcerer) have staggered casting, and since spontaneous casting actually has a significant effect on balance, this is the better comparison. Either way, there is no justification beyond "that's how it is" for the nerf. All of the classes that have the staggard spellcasting progression is regarded as a "Simple" class. All spellcasting classes that are "complex" use intelligence or wisdom. Page number? Take the psion and the wilder. Noncore. The sorcerer has the staggard progression. The sorcerer uses charisma as the primary casting stat. The wizard doesn't have the staggard progression and it uses intelligence as the primary casting stat. The wizard is complex and the sorcerer is simple. One class, the wizard, is "Trained" or "disciplined" class, while the sorcerer is not. Or any number of other correlations. And where did you get that "simple" versus "complex" BS? It sounds like you're confusing your preconceived notions of sorcerers' flavor with game balance. The favored Soul ...is not core. The cleric, uses wisdom, is considered a "complex" class, and has an unstaggard spellcasting progression in addition to preparing spells beforehand. See the pattern yet? Yes. The class with staggered casting happens to be one of the classes with charisma-based casting. No other class got the unneeded nerf. Do you have a point? Or maybe some justification for the staggered casting besides "it's like that in splatbooks too"? By your reasoning, one could give sorcerers a better primary stat (intelligence) and boost their spells to accompany a flavor change. And do you actually think that any (non-NPC) class is "unskilled?" Skill is a factor of level, not class. It is ridiculous to assume that the wizard has to gain his spells through research and hard work while the sorcerer sits around and goes to bars between adventures, and yet still casts progressively better spells. I could say the reverse: charisma is skilled and intelligence is not. Wizards' spells appear in their spellbooks every level as a gift from Mystra while sorcerers spend their spare time meditating and practicing. It makes just as much sense, which is to say very little.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-26-04, 03:01 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith A sample size of one charisma-based caster is hardly a pattern. If they took a bad idea and put it in splatbooks, it has nothing to do with the class's balance and is not core besides. One? I mentioned 3 charisma based classes and compared them to 3 preparation-based intelligence and wisdom based classes. See the problem? It makes no sense to connect use of charisma with inferior spellcasting. Charisma is a mechanically inferior stat to intelligence and wisdom. If their casting was based on dexterity, a reduction in spellcasting would make sense. Staggard spellcasting is what charisma is "connected to." Not "inferior" spellcasting. Two different things. You might consider having a staggard progression to be inferior but that's just your opinion and not unbridled fact. Of course, it is just as true to say that all spontantous casters (the sorcerer) have staggered casting, and since spontaneous casting actually has a significant effect on balance, this is the better comparison. Either way, there is no justification beyond "that's how it is" for the nerf. How is it a nerf if that is the way it's always been. The sorcerer has never had unstaggard spellcasting except when people make their varients. Page number? One of two things always mentions whether a class is "disciplined" or "complex" or not. It's either in the starting age chart or the description of the class among the flavor text. Noncore. ... I'm sorry, that's not a good excuse to disinclude "noncore" material. Or any number of other correlations. And where did you get that "simple" versus "complex" BS? It sounds like you're confusing your preconceived notions of sorcerers' flavor with game balance. The class's decription texts state more than just flavor. Furthermore, it reflects in the starting age of the class. ...is not core. ... you keep retreating to this as if it mattered. Yes. The class with staggered casting happens to be one of the classes with charisma-based casting. No other class got the unneeded nerf. Do you have a point? Or maybe some justification for the staggered casting besides "it's like that in splatbooks too"? By your reasoning, one could give sorcerers a better primary stat (intelligence) and boost their spells to accompany a flavor change. better primary stat? a different primary stat, yes. And do you actually think that any (non-NPC) class is "unskilled?" Skill is a factor of level, not class. It is ridiculous to assume that the wizard has to gain his spells through research and hard work while the sorcerer sits around and goes to bars between adventures, and yet still casts progressively better spells. I could say the reverse: charisma is skilled and intelligence is not. Wizards' spells appear in their spellbooks every level as a gift from Mystra while sorcerers spend their spare time meditating and practicing. It makes just as much sense, which is to say very little. I don't believe that I mentioned skill at all. I mentioned "class complexity." It isn't ridiculous to assume that the wizard researches to gain his spells known. After all, it is a factor in the rules that involve the use of his free time to study his spellbook, learn new spells (his 2 free spells/level don't just come out of the sky), they must, to scribe scrolls, spend a day or multiple days writing in their spellbook. A wizarrd's studious nature is written all over the class description and the rules regarding the use of his spellbook and how he/she gains more spells. The sorcerer, however, gains his spells though an unspecified learning method that doesn't involve study as a wizard would. Such as through intuition. ... in any case, charisma has nothing to do with skill. It has more to do with force of personality and attractiveness, among other things, rather than skill. Disciplined PC classes use intelligence for cognative thought to control their powers (as a wizard or psion would). You want to houserule it differently, go right ahead. "This is how it is." as you like to say, for the core rules. Despite having a staggard progression, they still have a number of advantages that overrides this.
Mad Miso 07-26-04, 03:05 PM	Don't be obstinate Gith. DOA simply pointed out that every spontaneous caster-type ever created by Wizards uses charisma and has a staggered progression. Its a crystal clear pattern and a perfectly valid point. Now, if you want to argue that it shouldn't be the pattern, go right ahead, it's also a completely valid point . But Wizards clearly has a template in their heads for "natural" casters.
mercurywyrm 07-26-04, 03:34 PM	Originally posted by MattD121 Sorcerors are also the best diplomatic class anyone will want to play. (Come on who plays a bard, seriously?) Good charisma and flashy tricks, plus they usually arent dim-witted. I play bards, they actually HAVE the diplomacy skill, don't scare normal folk as much as a Sorcerer (who many assume is related to dragons or made a pact with some sort of deamon) give the party really high combat bonuses, can sing/play an instrument. They also have good skill points, tend mechanically to be more knowledgeable than ANY other class due to skill points, class skills, and Bardic Knowledge ability, by comparison it is the sorcerer that is dim witted. They are also amazing in combat, using their primariliy buff and illusion spells they controll the terms of the encounter and their bardic music ensures that their side has the advantage. If given a choice bettween a bard or a sorcerer for a party I would pick the bard any day, the bard can heal if needed, gives huge bonuses to everyone, is a GREAT party front, and has the very usefull bardic knowledge ability. Bards also tend to make great puzzle solvers for puzzle locked doors in many dungeons. My two most played classes are probably Ranger and Bard! Maybe I just like being skilled at a variety of things, having a defined place in the party, and being in charge. Not that sorcerer's are bad diplomatic classes, I just don't like you dissing the bard, who by the way, also has flashy tricks like prestidigitation and actually has the "flashy trick" ability facinate.
mercurywyrm 07-26-04, 03:37 PM	Here is a question, what happended to the Leomund's Secret Chest spell, how the :censored: does the enemy steal the wizard's spellbook if the wizard keeps it in THAT? It IS a core spell you know.
MattD121 07-26-04, 09:27 PM	Originally posted by mercurywyrm I play bards, they actually HAVE the diplomacy skill, don't scare normal folk as much as a Sorcerer (who many assume is related to dragons or made a pact with some sort of deamon) give the party really high combat bonuses, can sing/play an instrument. They also have good skill points, tend mechanically to be more knowledgeable than ANY other class due to skill points, class skills, and Bardic Knowledge ability, by comparison it is the sorcerer that is dim witted. They are also amazing in combat, using their primariliy buff and illusion spells they controll the terms of the encounter and their bardic music ensures that their side has the advantage. If given a choice bettween a bard or a sorcerer for a party I would pick the bard any day, the bard can heal if needed, gives huge bonuses to everyone, is a GREAT party front, and has the very usefull bardic knowledge ability. Bards also tend to make great puzzle solvers for puzzle locked doors in many dungeons. My two most played classes are probably Ranger and Bard! Maybe I just like being skilled at a variety of things, having a defined place in the party, and being in charge. Ive never seen a bard be the party leader. Maybe the diplomat but whenever someone asked who our leader was we always pointed to the wizard or, failing having one of those, the cleric, who, by the way, makes a bard's healing ability obsolete. Bards are a good class if its a 2 man party. They can be a rogue a fighter and a sorceror all at once... badly. And your "huge bonuses" you speak of are puny things like +2 to saves from morale... frankly Id rather have another actual party member then a guy singing in the back so I get a +2 to my save. As for more knowledgeable then any other class... its a different kind of knowledge. Rarely the kind you need in a threatening situation or, lets say, talking to a politician. A bard knows stories, has heard of things, and is gennerally good at talking to the peasents. Meanwhile a wizard could easily impress a politician and a sorceror could effectively defuse the angry orc chieftan. As for puzzle solvers I dont know what the heck your talking about. That dosent rely on your class, or your character at all. It depends on you. And if they are amazing in combat its rarely actually at harming the enemy. Gennerally they can confuse some rather idiotic minions while the real classes kill them but Ive never seen a bard actually kill something themselves, either by poking them with a shortsword or using their most powerful damaging spell "nightmare" which does like 2d6, oh and it requires the enemy to be asleep.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-26-04, 10:53 PM	Originally posted by MattD121 Ive never seen a bard be the party leader. Maybe the diplomat but whenever someone asked who our leader was we always pointed to the wizard or, failing having one of those, the cleric, who, by the way, makes a bard's healing ability obsolete. A cleric and a bard in the same party has much more healing power than one with just a cleric. A bard makes everyone's life easier. Bards are a good class if its a 2 man party. They can be a rogue a fighter and a sorceror all at once... badly. A bard is a JoAT, so to speak, but it is not a rogue, fighter, or sorcerer (or cleric). It has its own powers, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. And your "huge bonuses" you speak of are puny things like +2 to saves from morale... frankly Id rather have another actual party member then a guy singing in the back so I get a +2 to my save. those "huge bonuses" are a bonus to attack, damage, and saves vs. fear and charm effects. (From the bard's inspire courage bardic music). Quite frankly, last time I checked, bonuses of that nature were helpful. Clerics and wizards actually have to prepare and cast similar boosting spells like... well... spells. A bard, on the other hand, can sing -and- still fight. (heck, the bard can cast a spell too, but has to end the singing, but it still "lasts" for up to 5 rounds after the singing stops.) As for more knowledgeable then any other class... its a different kind of knowledge. ... yeah... bardic knowledge is like having ranks in all knowledge skills simultaneously and is the single most useful ability I've ever had the pleasure of using both in and out of combat. At high levels, bards know -everything-. Rarely the kind you need in a threatening situation or, lets say, talking to a politician. A bard knows stories, has heard of things, and is gennerally good at talking to the peasents. Meanwhile a wizard could easily impress a politician and a sorceror could effectively defuse the angry orc chieftan. As for puzzle solvers I dont know what the heck your talking about. both of those classes require the use of spells to do that. A bard doesn't. Just a diplomacy or bluff roll. And just what do you mean by "a wizard can just impress a politicion?" "Yeah, Mr. Wizard, that rain of meteors is nice and all, but how does that handle our economic situation or that orc tribe that keeps testing our defenses?" That dosent rely on your class, or your character at all. It depends on you. And if they are amazing in combat its rarely actually at harming the enemy. Gennerally they can confuse some rather idiotic minions while the real classes kill them but Ive never seen a bard actually kill something themselves, either by poking them with a shortsword or using their most powerful damaging spell "nightmare" which does like 2d6, oh and it requires the enemy to be asleep. Everything's just d6's and big, jagged swords to you, isn't it? The bard is one of the most powerful classes in the PHB in the hands of someone that can certainly play them to their strengths. Of which, they have many to exploit.
Riplox 07-26-04, 11:22 PM	I say the Wizard is better ONLY becuase he gets those extra feats. Those can make or break a spellcaster in the end. If you give the Sorcerer bonus feats the way the Wizard does, I think they'd be very even. The thing I don't like about the Wizard is that you have to keep track of all those darn spells. It gets annoying after a while. Basically what I'm saying is that a Sorcerer is an easier class to play if you want to play a mage of sorts because all you have to do is select the spells you want to know and then you're set. You can cast whatever ones you want that you know and you don't have to worry about how may you have left that are prepared. It doesn't come down to power, but flexability. The Wizard is for more advanced players mostly.
mercurywyrm 07-27-04, 12:28 AM	Thanks the Darkest of Angels for helping me out there. By the way, why a bard is good at solving puzzles is because they often are the only ones who: •Know the language the puzzle is IN! •Have the knowledge of mythology and history that the puzzles often use as a basis in order to make sure the people solving the puzzle agree with or at least know the beliefs of those who build the puzzle lock in the first place. •Spend much of their carrers working with jokes, riddles, rhymes, and studies of sentient philosiphy and thought. They also make excellent party leaders because they know what inspires people, they know the stuff needed to make the right decicsions, they have the skills to get people to follow them, or the spells if they won't follow them willingly, and can represent the intrests of all the classes, they understand a wizard's need for study, a rouge's need for sublty, the energy and vigor as well as the cause of the fighter, and know as much if not more about the deeds of the cleric's religion than the cleric does. Bards bonuses are larger than those granted by a barbarian's greater rage in some ways, and without the penalties associated, many affect the whole party, inspire courage at high levels is a +4 to attack rolls, damage rolls (that is ALL damage rolls, including those of spells like magic missile I belive) and will saves to resist enchantment, possibly more but I don't have the book on hand, as well as other types of bardic music availible. Facinate can be quite usefull of an ability as well, even in combat! I also know that a bard can be VERY capable in combat, cabable of casting their own buffs, their own dispells, their own healing, their own offensive spells, and their own illusions. NO OTHER CLASS in the core rulebooks can cast BOTH healing spells and good illutions. No other class offers as plentiful bonuses to the whole party as the bard does. Of all the classes, only three can be truly called, highly skilled, the ranger, the rouge, and the bard. (and of those three only bard doesn't start with "r" :D ) As the only other spontaenous caster in the core books the bard is the only support some people have for how spontaneous casting is balanced by wizards and it certainly sends VERY mixed messages in comparison with the sorcerer!
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 12:33 AM	As has been noted, this has all been discussed to death before. I note, though, that some people are still toting around misconceptions. In particular, one common misconception is that Wizards are not strongly limited in the number of spells they can have. This is simply not the case; at all but the highest levels, Wizards can not AFFORD large numbers of spells, and even acquiring relatively modest numbers of spells puts a large hole in the Wizard's wealth that even crafting items for the party can not fill. A numerical analysis of this limitation of Wizards is here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=3633474&highlight=sorcerer+wizard#post3633474 Bottom Line: Wizards only have all the advantages if you ignore what it costs; at all but the highest levels, you can't do that.
Polaris 07-27-04, 01:03 AM	DireCelestialBonobo, :nonono: You know that this isn't so. In the first place the wizard starts with more spells than the sorcerer (by virtue of starting with more and getting two per level). These spells are free. In the second place, scrolls are dirt cheap and the most common sort of magical item (and are available even in the smallest of towns). As a result the wizard will have even more. Finally, you forget that neither wizards nor sorcerers ever use all their prepared slots for the day after mid levels. As such, haveing a few utility scrolls and wands goes a long ways.....and the wizard can supply items for everyone because of the cooperative way that item creation works (which is why the wizard gets access to planeshift scrolls and wands at 9th level assuming a cleric in the party which is likely). -Polaris Edit PS: I also note that you don't account for the existance of Rope Trick (and later Mordy's Mansion and Teleport) which allow either the wizard to have only as many encounters per day as they wish. This doesn't help the sorcerer a great deal, but it is pure gold to the wizard.
the Horc 07-27-04, 01:15 AM	Originally posted by Mad Miso Don't be obstinate Gith. DOA simply pointed out that every spontaneous caster-type ever created by Wizards uses charisma and has a staggered progression. Its a crystal clear pattern and a perfectly valid point. But what of the Mystic? (Dragonlance)
Ax'Orl 07-27-04, 01:27 AM	Originally posted by Polaris In the second place, scrolls are dirt cheap and the most common sort of magical item (and are available even in the smallest of towns). As a result the wizard will have even more. 1-They still cost money, and it still costs money to scribe them AND time. 2-You are NOT guaranteed that these items will be available when you need/want them. A mean dm could make all the scrolls be spells you already have in your spellbook. 3-You forget that if the wizard can buy the scrolls so can the sorcerer-for those little used utility spells he might want but not want to waste a slot for. Thereby closing the gap in spells known. Edit PS: I also note that you don't account for the existance of Rope Trick (and later Mordy's Mansion and Teleport) which allow either the wizard to have only as many encounters per day as they wish. This doesn't help the sorcerer a great deal, but it is pure gold to the wizard. [/B] Um, I hate to be a spoilsport but the DM decides ultimately how many encounters you have a day. RT and MM all you want but guess what, the DM might decide to have the BBEG and ALL his minions waiting on you when you come out if you do it TOO often ya know...He who fights and runs away too much makes the DM mad. Plus, if everyone else in the party says "No mr. wizard, we want to press on today because we have to finish this quest by midnight, you should have prepared your spells better", the wizard is likely to be in that RT/MM by himself.
Polaris 07-27-04, 01:57 AM	Ax'Orl, Yes, scrolls cost money. Here's the thing: The wizard only has to purchase the scroll for full price once (assuming he doesn't get it in loot which is very common) while the sorcerer has to pay the full price every time. Thus in terms of cost, the sorcerer is hosed not the wizard. Secondly, if the DM wants to hose you, he can hose you just as bad if you are a sorcerer as a wizard. However, assuming the world is set up according to the core rulebooks, the wizard can reasonably assume to get any scrolls he might need at any reasonably sized town. As for deciding how many encounters you are going to have in a day, I suggest that you stick with core rules. Under core rules, the party wizard does in fact have veto power. If the wizard says, I am going to stop and rest, period. The party may: 1. Go on without the wizard (and die). Notice that the wizard has basically no risk of the same. 2. Acceed to the wizard's demand and live. There is nothing that the party can do that will force the wizard to go on....but there is a lot the wizard can do to (effectively) make the party stop. -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-27-04, 02:02 AM	Originally posted by Polaris 1. Go on without the wizard (and die). Notice that the wizard has basically no risk of the same. 2. Acceed to the wizard's demand and live. There is nothing that the party can do that will force the wizard to go on....but there is a lot the wizard can do to (effectively) make the party stop. I really like that assumption that the party's life expectancy is entirely dependant on the wizard's presence. It isn't. At any level. Though I find those statements odd, especially coming from the individual who I know has previously stated that clerics are not only superior to wizards, but every other party member who isn't another cleric or druid. I'm sorry, while a party may stop because a wizard's help is always appreciated (and to not be a bunch of collective jerks), they're not gonna stop because the wizard said so.
Polaris 07-27-04, 02:09 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels I really like that assumption that the party's life expectancy is entirely dependant on the wizard's presence. It isn't. At any level. Especially coming from the individual who I know has previously stated that clerics are not only superior to wizards, but every other party member who isn't a wizard or druid. I'm sorry, while a party may stop because a wizard's help is always appreciated (and to not be a bunch of collective jerks), they're not gonna stop because the wizard said so. That's what you think. It is true that Clerics and Druids far overpower every other class. However (baring certain domains) it is equally true when facing a dangerous encounter that the party will (probably) die without the wizard. That's becasue the wizard (and only the wizard baring some domains) has Teleportation, Alarm, Mordy's Mansion and the other spells the party needs to keep them safe. For that matter, the wizard is likely to have most of the wands and other nuking items the party will need. So even if the party survives the major encounter, it is likely to die without the wizard. However, the wizard has no such risk. If this sounds a bit like blackmail, it is. It is also the result of teleportation and sanctuary magics. Of all the other character classes only the Druid can mimic this to some degree....and only if there are the right type of plants nearby (or the cleric with the Travel domain). Otherwise, the wizard can tell the party to go play with themselves and there isn't much the party can do about it. -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-27-04, 02:25 AM	Originally posted by Polaris That's what you think. It is true that Clerics and Druids far overpower every other class. that's a matter of opinion. However (baring certain domains) it is equally true when facing a dangerous encounter that the party will (probably) die without the wizard. *some* encounters against certian opponents. Not nearly all of them. This is very highly circumstantial. That's becasue the wizard (and only the wizard baring some domains) has Teleportation, Alarm, Mordy's Mansion and the other spells the party needs to keep them safe. For that matter, the wizard is likely to have most of the wands and other nuking items the party will need. So even if the party survives the major encounter, it is likely to die without the wizard. However, the wizard has no such risk. You can't teleport the entire party all at once unless they're all in roughly the same area. In a pitched battle, that's isn't always possible, nor it is always feasible, short of giving them all contingent teleports. Alarm is only useful for people who need to sleep for 8 hours. Other people who don't need to rest to regain spells take up watch. You don't ~need~ any of those spells to get by. Furthermore, only some encounters actually ~rely~ on the wizard's presence usually to counter a monster that's especially resistant to physical blows, but not magical ones. When it's the reverse (or the encounter monster is resistant to both,) then the wizard's presense is reduced to that of a buffing and support character. If this sounds a bit like blackmail, it is. It is also the result of teleportation and sanctuary magics. Of all the other character classes only the Druid can mimic this to some degree....and only if there are the right type of plants nearby (or the cleric with the Travel domain). Otherwise, the wizard can tell the party to go play with themselves and there isn't much the party can do about it. I find that to be hooey, barring extraordinary circumstances. No party I've ever been in has been so reliant on a spellcaster that they'd be ineffective without them, except in the aforementioned rare instances when a monster is especially resistant to physical attack (regeneration with really odd requirements for bypass, or especially high DR or both.)
Polaris 07-27-04, 02:36 AM	Darkest of Angels, I am not going to bother to argue with you. I know what I know regarding wizards after literally years of seeing them in play from all angles. If you don't think that wizards can and *do* control the number of encounters in a party, then you, sir, are simply being naive. The real problem (as discussed elsewhere) is that once you get beyond the core class descriptions, every other single game mechanic favors the wizards and favors them extremely strongly. Add to that the stagged spell progression, and bonus feats...not to mention the completely cruddy spell-stat, and the sorcerer is nearly a total loss. What WOTC is saying is "It is OK to play a non-Vancian spellcaster....just as long as you suck at it." -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-27-04, 03:50 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Darkest of Angels, I am not going to bother to argue with you. I know what I know regarding wizards after literally years of seeing them in play from all angles. If you don't think that wizards can and *do* control the number of encounters in a party, then you, sir, are simply being naive. Then apparently, you've seen some real overpowered wizards in otherwise underpowered parties. Wanna take a guess as to what class I've been playing more often than any other? I'm playing two wizards right now of the three games I'm presently in. Before that, I was wizard and wizard multiclass in addition to having other wizards in the same party. And no, wizards are not the center of the party's power and it isn't because I or anyone else I've gamed with has used or otherwise had weak wizards. The real problem (as discussed elsewhere) is that once you get beyond the core class descriptions, every other single game mechanic favors the wizards and favors them extremely strongly. Add to that the stagged spell progression, and bonus feats...not to mention the completely cruddy spell-stat, and the sorcerer is nearly a total loss. "extremely strongly?" I'll just assume that you put those words in that particular combination for emphasis. In any case, I disagree. I disagree that those particular things hinder the sorcerer in such a way as to be inferior, I disagree that charisma is mechanically inferior as an ability score, and I disagree that the sorcerer is inferior to the wizard. You, nor Xun have ever made any arguement to the contrary that was, in any sense of the word, a strong arguement otherwise. What WOTC is saying is "It is OK to play a non-Vancian spellcaster....just as long as you suck at it." Because, of course, everything that exists that's a part of the sorcerer is tainted with WotC hatred for all things non-vancian, right? Perhaps I should start wearing duct-tape laced tin-foil hats to prevent WotC from using their mind-rays from space probes to prevent them from brainwashing me to thinking that vancian spellcasting is a good thing. :rolleyes: I've played the sorcerer. I personally know people that have played the sorcerer. I know of people that have played the sorcerer. I've heard of people that have played the sorcerer. They either like it or they don't. So far, I've never, ever heard any real arguements or statements or discussions saying or otherwise involving the use of the sorcerer in such a way as to say "my experience with the sorcerer or a person who has played a sorcerer absolutely paled in comparison in reletive power to the party wizard or other spellcaster." All I've heard from you and Xun and other people who've had negitive comments concerning the sorcerer is either blatent dislike of the class itself for its mere existance, or dislike of it because it isn't like the wizard, or dislike based upon a combination of opinion and/or theory. And lets not forget the overexaggeration of the wizard's strengths and sorcerer's weaknesses and underexaggeration of the wizard's weaknesses and sorcerer's strengths. Furthermore, teleportation is a convienience that makes travel faster and sometimes safer. Not a neccessary mode of travel. Same with any other travel spell from any of the spellcasting classes. Bells and whistles. Not a necessity, except in very rare circumstances. Same goes with things like rope trick, MMM, and alarm. Handy, yes. But unnecessary.
Polaris 07-27-04, 04:19 AM	Darkest of Angels, 1. Charisma is the weakest stat mechanically in the game. In fact it is nearly useless. This is a point I have proven (at length) elsewhere. In the case of the Sorcerer, only one skill (in 3.5) on the sorcerer's class list is a charisma based skill....which further adds insult to injury. FWIW, the Sorcerer was originally supposed to be an INT based caster (and certainly Skip's initial design was)....and if you read the class skill list, this ancestery is evident. 2. Many people (Angleroble, Xun, myself, Blaine-Tog IIRC, and others) have showed that: A. The wizard gets all the best item creation feats for free when compared with the sorcerer. B. That the wizard gets a one level bump on the sorcerer in terms of spell casting power. C. The wizard can leverage his item creating powess and that extra level to replicate every single advantage the sorcerer has without losing any advantage the wizard has (such as quicken spell). In short, the item creating wizard simply blows the sorcerer away (see "one level XP gravy train"). D. The very best PrCs, Feats, and Items have vastly more utility for the wizard (or any Vancian caster type) than the sorcerer. Rods of Metamagic anyone? Quicken Spell anyone? Rings of Wizardry anyone? I also add that Jaimas was kind enough to quote a series of letters that he had with Skip Williams that pretty much proves that WOTC hates any non-Vancian caster (and in particular the Sorcerer...who by Skip's accounting is not 'really' a full fledged spellcaster). -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-27-04, 04:54 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Darkest of Angels, 1. Charisma is the weakest stat mechanically in the game. In fact it is nearly useless. This is a point I have proven (at length) elsewhere. proven to whom? Big impact that's had. Don't lob around statements like "In fact," or "I have proven" unless it is actually fact or it has actually been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, all I see is your opinion based on theories you or someone else has conjured. In the case of the Sorcerer, only one skill (in 3.5) on the sorcerer's class list is a charisma based skill....which further adds insult to injury. How many does a nonskilled class need? A sorcerer is a primary spellcaster. Not a bard, rogue, ranger, or whathaveyou. Skills for a sorcerer are next to irrelevant. Even moreso than with a wizard. (whom is still inferior to a bard in overall knowledgeability.) FWIW, the Sorcerer was originally supposed to be an INT based caster (and certainly Skip's initial design was)....and if you read the class skill list, this ancestery is evident. Whether it was supposed to be using INT or not, it isn't now. It's hardly an indicator to whether charisma is weak or not. A. The wizard gets all the best item creation feats for free when compared with the sorcerer. Given that the wizard is pretty much suited for item creation with access to the best spell list in the game, an idiot could have surmised this. A sorcerer is not a wizard. A sorcerer is not meant to fill a wizard's shoes. This is like saying that a paladin is obviously superior to a sorcerer because they have a better BAB and proficiency in martial weaponry, among a number of other things. B. That the wizard gets a one level bump on the sorcerer in terms of spell casting power. No, a wizard gets his next level of spells one level sooner. Not a "one level bump in terms of spellcasting power." Big difference in terminology and meaning. C. The wizard can leverage his item creating powess and that extra level to replicate every single advantage the sorcerer has without losing any advantage the wizard has (such as quicken spell). In short, the item creating wizard simply blows the sorcerer away (see "one level XP gravy train"). a leverage that is all of 1. difficult to pull off in real gameplay due to the many costs of item creation that this "gravy train" ignores, among other problems 2. more complex (and therefore less oft used) than the system that most DMs use. (which is set by average party level rather than individual party member level) 3. requires costs that remove the wizard from gameplay more often than what he could most likely afford, short of a monty-haul DM. 4. the benifits of which only weakly and expensively "replicate" what a sorcerer can already do without the aid of such an obtuse and obviously a potential game-breaking system. 5. This is not a real advantage. This is a loophole in the rules. Just like the spiked chain (and all its abuses). Just like the bag-of-rats trick. Just like any other loophole that needs to be closed. D. The very best PrCs, Feats, and Items have vastly more utility for the wizard (or any Vancian caster type) than the sorcerer. Rods of Metamagic anyone? Quicken Spell anyone? Rings of Wizardry anyone? Right. The best things _For a wizard_ NOT the best things for a sorcerer. They're not the same class. They don't qualify for the same prestige classes. The "best" items for each class is different from one another. Different feats are the "best" for a sorcerer. Different prestige classes are the "best" for a sorcerer. Different magical items are the "best" for a sorcerer. I also add that Jaimas was kind enough to quote a series of letters that he had with Skip Williams that pretty much proves that WOTC hates any non-Vancian caster (and in particular the Sorcerer...who by Skip's accounting is not 'really' a full fledged spellcaster). I've read those same letters. Not exactly incriminating evidence. Skip not only -proposed- the creation of the sorcerer and laid out its basic parameters for its design. From his first letter, it seems that he even played and liked the class and mentioned a few of the class's strengths with metamagic. This, however, is hardly an indication that WotC hates the sorcerer. However, you obviously have both of different ideas about what the sorcerer should be or should have been and a number of preconcieved notions regarding WotC's thoughts based on assumptions and theory. but no hard evidence prooving anything discernably noteworthy regarding most of the negitive connotions of the sorcerer.
Polaris 07-27-04, 06:02 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels proven to whom? Big impact that's had. Don't lob around statements like "In fact," or "I have proven" unless it is actually fact or it has actually been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, all I see is your opinion based on theories you or someone else has conjured. Check out the thread, "Charisma Should Be Dumped". I proved my point to at least get the posters there to ask how Charisma should be improved...including such house rules as using the Cha mod for initiative. This thread also spawned at least one other non-WOTC thread that I know about on Andy Collin's site as well (as a design issue). In addition to that, pretty much every non-sorcerer/bard/paladin has rock bottom charisma scores and this fact has been lamented innumerable times here and elsewhere. I consider the fact that charisma is the weakest stat in the game to be sufficiently proven. IMHO you just haven't been paying attention. How many does a nonskilled class need? A sorcerer is a primary spellcaster. Not a bard, rogue, ranger, or whathaveyou. Skills for a sorcerer are next to irrelevant. Even moreso than with a wizard. (whom is still inferior to a bard in overall knowledgeability.) A Sorcerer should (and NEEDs) to PrC as soon as humanly possible. That makes it relavent right there (since most PrCs have skill requirements that a sorcerer finds very difficult to meet). In addition the "big three" for any arcane caster is "Concentration", "Spellcraft", "Knowledge: Arcana". Note that two of the three are Int based (which favors the wizard) and that the sorcerer is already out of core skill points while the wizard (who will always have an Int bonus) is not. As for the knowledgbility of the Bard, don't overstate the case. First of all this thread is about wizards and sorcerers...not bards. In the second place, Bardic Knowledge is vastly inferior to the correct knowledge skill. I strongly suggest you reread that class feature (which btw is Int based). Whether it was supposed to be using INT or not, it isn't now. It's hardly an indicator to whether charisma is weak or not. Actually it is. It shows that the sorcerer was deliberately weakened...and thus provides at leas annecdotal evidence that WOTC does indeed hate the sorcerer. Given that the wizard is pretty much suited for item creation with access to the best spell list in the game, an idiot could have surmised this. A sorcerer is not a wizard. A sorcerer is not meant to fill a wizard's shoes. He wasn't? That is news to me since both have exactly the same class features. The wizard just fills the role better, that's all....and items are the reason why. This is like saying that a paladin is obviously superior to a sorcerer because they have a better BAB and proficiency in martial weaponry, among a number of other things. Nope. Sorcerers and Wizards share the same class features. Paladins and Sorcerer's don't. Thus your counterpoint is a strawman. No, a wizard gets his next level of spells one level sooner. Not a "one level bump in terms of spellcasting power." Big difference in terminology and meaning. Actually it does. It means that he gets the bonus spells from his Int one level sooner than the sorcerer will get the same bonus spells. It also means the wizard at these levels actually has more spells than the sorcerer. Finally, for the cost of 15000 (half that of the sorcerer), the wizard gets the +1 level effects as well (Orange Ioun stone). a leverage that is all of 1. difficult to pull off in real gameplay due to the many costs of item creation that this "gravy train" ignores, among other problems What problems? You failed to show that they existed before I might add. 2. more complex (and therefore less oft used) than the system that most DMs use. (which is set by average party level rather than individual party member level) /b] House-Rule (and thus irrelevant). [b] 3. requires costs that remove the wizard from gameplay more often than what he could most likely afford, short of a monty-haul DM. Time is not a balancing issue (already discussed elsewhere). 4. the benifits of which only weakly and expensively "replicate" what a sorcerer can already do without the aid of such an obtuse and obviously a potential game-breaking system. Again disproven elsewhere. The wizard can completely negate the sorcerer's casting advantage and have the XP and Gold left over to make even more items (and indeed must to keep the extra XP coming). 5. This is not a real advantage. This is a loophole in the rules. Just like the spiked chain (and all its abuses). Just like the bag-of-rats trick. Just like any other loophole that needs to be closed. An advantage is an advantage is an advantage. The item creator gets more XP and more items than anyone else. Since the wizard has the spells and feats to make items, this must be considered a class advantage for the wizard. Anything less is less than honest. Right. The best things _For a wizard_ NOT the best things for a sorcerer. They're not the same class. They don't qualify for the same prestige classes. The "best" items for each class is different from one another. Different feats are the "best" for a sorcerer. Different prestige classes are the "best" for a sorcerer. Different magical items are the "best" for a sorcerer. Actually, there ARE no good PrCs for the sorcerer. I refer you to Jaimas' posts. However, the sorcerer pays less after entering a PrC making PrC entry mandatory for the sorcerer. It is just one more example of how the WOTC supporting material hoses the sorcerer. Let's not even talk about Rods of Metamagic (that scream wizard favoritism) or Quicken Spell (which is blatent wizard favoritism). I've read those same letters. Not exactly incriminating evidence. Skip not only -proposed- the creation of the sorcerer and laid out its basic parameters for its design. From his first letter, it seems that he even played and liked the class and mentioned a few of the class's strengths with metamagic. This, however, is hardly an indication that WotC hates the sorcerer. However, you obviously have both of different ideas about what the sorcerer should be or should have been and a number of preconcieved notions regarding WotC's thoughts based on assumptions and theory. but no hard evidence prooving anything discernably noteworthy regarding most of the negitive connotions of the sorcerer. Those letters (especially when he justified how Wee Jas, the Ruby Sorceress had no sorcerer levels) seemed quite incriminating to me...especially in conjunction with all the other evidence. -Polaris
Zelphi 07-27-04, 08:00 AM	Cha being mechanically weaker doesn't mean anything. Because it's variably stronger than any stat. UORA. The benefit of a High Cha is either 0 or 1, that is to say "It's value is either all or nothing". It can end a battle in ways another without it never could. It can also be of no use what so ever. Just like Silent and Still spell can either win or lose a situation... they can also be of no use. That doesn't matter because it's still an option that can end a battle or even stop it happening. It's potential far outstrips most of the other stats. It's mechanical disadvantage is nothing. It's variable advantage is where it's power truly lies. That is a variable impossibility to calculate, but it certainly makes it functionally better than you think it is. Certainly not an ill powerful stat.. considering it is potentially more powerful than all of them. If a Wizard keeps his book in a Secret chest, then he'll need to cast the spell to get it again. Which doesn't really help him much. Also leaves him without a spellbook if he's somehow caught off guard. If the Wizard thinks the rest of the party need him so badly... when he needs to rest before he can be of any use. Then they're probably going to stuff this arrogant waste and find someone more robust. As for the Sorcs skill needs... what does he really need. Concentration - only if he gets threatened, but it's almost a cert. Spellcraft - PrC's only, this doesn't really serve the Sorc too much IIRC Knowledge Arcana? Yeah sure... because he's into reading books and stuff on magic. What does he really need. Please note that a High Stat bonus with a cross class progression can usually match a class progression with a low stat bonus. So all those Cha skills he may want can probably function well enough. A Bard might do it better, but he's not exactly shifting into Dragons or causing mass destruction is he? At least not in a mechanical manor.
Ax'Orl 07-27-04, 11:01 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Yes, scrolls cost money. Here's the thing: The wizard only has to purchase the scroll for full price once (assuming he doesn't get it in loot which is very common) while the sorcerer has to pay the full price every time. Thus in terms of cost, the sorcerer is hosed not the wizard. You still do not get the point-SCRIBING those spells costs (Time and Money) not just the purchase of the spell. Secondly, if the DM wants to hose you, he can hose you just as bad if you are a sorcerer as a wizard. However, assuming the world is set up according to the core rulebooks, the wizard can reasonably assume to get any scrolls he might need at any reasonably sized town. I note that you said that " the wizard can reasonably assume to get any scrolls he might need at any reasonably sized town. " but what if you do not ever get to GO to a resonably sized town? What if your adventure takes you far in the the hinter-lands away from civilization for months? Further, what if you do not have TIME (a time sensative campaign or adventure) to A-scribe scrolls from your book OR B-Scribe spells from scrolls INTO your book? EDIT: Assuming core rules then you must assume "Average Party Wealth by Level" In which case the DM has every right to deny the party all those nifty magic items that he wizard is creating by means such as theft, loss, or destruction. Further, As far as item creation goes, what skills are needed to craft a wand? Does your Wizard have the correct skill to actually MAKE the wand? How bout the paper for the scroll, or the inks to write it? IIRC these have to be of exceptional quality to hold the spell. Where are you going to get them out in the boonies? As for deciding how many encounters you are going to have in a day, I suggest that you stick with core rules. Under core rules, the party wizard does in fact have veto power. If the wizard says, I am going to stop and rest, period. The party may: Actually in that case every party member has veto power-the rule of -1 : You don't dm the way I like I will leave the game. There is no core rule that says the party MUST do what the wizard says. Further, the DM can have the BBEG send all his minions to wait for the party to return from Mordy's or the Rope Trick. RT only lasts 1 hour per level-not long enough to recall spells unless you are 9th level (8 hours rest + prep time) As for the mansion, yes it will last long enough to prepare and rest etc. But, the BBEG is gonna notice that "faint shimmering in the air that is 4 feet wide and 8 feet high" And have all of his minions and perhaps himself stationed there for when the party attempts to return. Further, about RT, the rogue will balk at enterring the trick with his Heward's Handy Haversack, Bag or Holding etc. Because you cannot take a extradimensional space into an extra dimensional space. 1. Go on without the wizard (and die). Notice that the wizard has basically no risk of the same. The wizard is not THAT powerful that the party cannot exist w/o him. From personal experience (20+ years of gaming) There has rarely been an encounter that the NON-arcane (even the non-magical) party members could not overcome. True, it makes thing more difficult but you do not NEED an arcanist in most cases. 2. Acceed to the wizard's demand and live. There is nothing that the party can do that will force the wizard to go on....but there is a lot the wizard can do to (effectively) make the party stop. There is nothing the wizard can do to make the party stop either. Wizard tries to force the party to stop and the party says "sorry gramps, you can stop if ya wanna, but you gonna be all alone in the BBEG's house until we finish clearing it up. Hope you can catch upto us before his spell resistant minions find you" -Polaris [/B][/QUOTE] As a final note on the wizard determining the pace of the party: The DM actually determines it when he decides on what type of adventure to run. If he wants a fast paced one the wizard is SOL. If the adventure is time sensitive (Rescue the princess in 2 days---Or DIE) then I guess you have 48 hours to do so dont you?
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 11:12 AM	Horc: Dragonlance is a 3rd party product these days. That said, I'll have to take a look at the mystic. Polaris: First off, ditch the hyperbole for once. It does get old. Regardless, the "magic-item gravy train," is pure theory, like many other obscure exploits that have no effect on the game. Tell you what. Go out and find yourself a DM. Explain to him how you plan on spending 3/4ths of your time crafting so you can drop a level and then catch up again, every level. Don't be too offended if he laughs. Once you find a DM that accepts this proposition for some reason, attempt to fully exploit this advantage in play, "blackmailing" the party into never doing anything just so you can make more items and become more powerful. Try not to be kicked out of the group/butchered by the party while doing so. If you pull this off, come back and tell me about it, so I can switch my position from "it's pure fantasy" to, "it should probably be fixed eventually, for that one DM who doesn't just houserule it away." Regardless, pretending that this silly trick is the exclusive domain of the all-powerful Wizzie is absurd. Your Wizard isn't going to feel so clever when the party Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer start borrowing his lab equipment so they can all make zillions of magic items as well. Heck, once a Sorcerer gets Limited Wish, he can burn XP and create magic items at will, obviously making him the most powerful class in the game. Nerf, Nerf! And yes, I realize the Wizard gets bonus feats. Its not enough to make this trick his and his alone. Besides, if we're bring up loopholes, we can always go back to the "Sorcerer picks up leadership and gets a nice item-crafting Wizard buddy for all his XP burning needs," proposition. I'd rather not, but that avenue is still open. Honestly, the subject is very, very, tired. There is nothing left to discuss, so just let those interested in the subject read the prior debates and make up their own minds, instead of listening to someone or other declare themselves "victorious."
Cross Hatch 07-27-04, 12:39 PM	Originally posted by Mad Miso Horc: Dragonlance is a 3rd party product these days. That said, I'll have to take a look at the mystic. Polaris: First off, ditch the hyperbole for once. It does get old. Regardless, the "magic-item gravy train," is pure theory, like many other obscure exploits that have no effect on the game. Tell you what. Go out and find yourself a DM. Explain to him how you plan on spending 3/4ths of your time crafting so you can drop a level and then catch up again, every level. Don't be too offended if he laughs. Once you find a DM that accepts this proposition for some reason, attempt to fully exploit this advantage in play, "blackmailing" the party into never doing anything just so you can make more items and become more powerful. Try not to be kicked out of the group/butchered by the party while doing so. If you pull this off, come back and tell me about it, so I can switch my position from "it's pure fantasy" to, "it should probably be fixed eventually, for that one DM who doesn't just houserule it away." Actually, my current GM paces the game as you said - offering much time off. In fact, we have taken several years of in-game downtime. My GM is against the idea of people being 17th level at 24 years of age, so he tries to pace the calendar year with our level advancement. That gives us a lot of off time. We are only about 4th level on average, but the Fighter has created his own town, the Cleric has built her own system of churches, the Rogue has extensive trade networks, etc. All of which provide plot points.
Sensei Gith 07-27-04, 12:46 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels One? I mentioned 3 charisma based classes and compared them to 3 preparation-based intelligence and wisdom based classes. Two were non-core. I don't even own the books they're in. One was not a spellcaster. And even if there is a "clear pattern," it is clear that the sorcerer, having predated either by years, would be its source. Staggard spellcasting is what charisma is "connected to." Not "inferior" spellcasting. Two different things. You might consider having a staggard progression to be inferior but that's just your opinion and not unbridled fact. Getting spells one level later is worse than having an unstaggered progression. This is a fact, not an opinion. ]How is it a nerf if that is the way it's always been. The sorcerer has never had unstaggard spellcasting except when people make their varients. The sorcerer is in its first incarnation (with only minor exceptions). Saying that "it's always been that way" is technically true, but since it's been the same class the whole time, it's meaningless. It is a nerf because it is a clear and explicit loss of power versus other spellcasters. It is not a nerf in the sense that it might have been powered down since a previous edition. One of two things always mentions whether a class is "disciplined" or "complex" or not. It's either in the starting age chart or the description of the class among the flavor text. First of all, define "disciplined" and "complex" as pertains to classes. The starting ages are suggestions, indicating that sorcerers begin casting extremely minor magics naturally and can quickly tun them into cantrips. This does not mean that sorcery is any less "complex" or that sorcerers are less "disciplined." The only way around this is to assume that sorcery is just as complex, but sorcerers are undisciplined and lazy. ... I'm sorry, that's not a good excuse to disinclude "noncore" material. Sorry you feel that way. The class's decription texts state more than just flavor. Furthermore, it reflects in the starting age of the class. The starting age reflects the average age that a random character will have attained first level. It has nothing to do with discipline or complexity. If that was the case, sorcerers would leanr magic faster because their magic is less complex. ... you keep retreating to this as if it mattered. It does. Or are sorcerers balanced because they can cast Simbul's Spell Trigger to overcome their lack of Quicken Spell? Or do wizards pull ahead again because of the Dweomerkeeper? better primary stat? a different primary stat, yes. You know as well as I do how much better of a casting stat intelligence is. The only thing besides spellcasting that charisma gives to sorcerers is a bonus on bluff. I'll take bonuses to spellcraft and all the knowledge skills plus tons of bonus skill points over that anyday. I don't believe that I mentioned skill at all. I mentioned "class complexity." If you're going to distinguish between the two, you might as well define what you're talking about. It isn't ridiculous to assume that the wizard researches to gain his spells known. After all, it is a factor in the rules that involve the use of his free time to study his spellbook, learn new spells (his 2 free spells/level don't just come out of the sky), they must, to scribe scrolls, spend a day or multiple days writing in their spellbook. A wizarrd's studious nature is written all over the class description and the rules regarding the use of his spellbook and how he/she gains more spells. The sorcerer, however, gains his spells though an unspecified learning method that doesn't involve study as a wizard would. Such as through intuition. You say that it's unspecified, then assume that they just "get" their spells? While every other class has to work for them, through study or prayer? That's a pretty big assumption, not to mention ridiculous. ... in any case, charisma has nothing to do with skill. It has more to do with force of personality and attractiveness, among other things, rather than skill. Disciplined PC classes use intelligence for cognative thought to control their powers (as a wizard or psion would). You want to houserule it differently, go right ahead. I don't have to house rule it back since I'm not including your variant. Intelligence is not skill. Neither are strength, dexterity, constitution, or wisdom. Class levels are skill. Skill ranks are skill. Feats are usually skill. You have also yet to show any evidence that intelligence-based classes are disciplined and charisma-based classes (including the paladin) are not. "This is how it is." as you like to say, for the core rules. Despite having a staggard progression, they still have a number of advantages that overrides this. Go right ahead. I'm not here to disprove that assumption, but don't try to justify mechanical gimps with bogus flavor text. I should note, though, that the sorcerer's staggered progression cances out the one-level disadvantage of a wizard on the xp gravy train.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 01:41 PM	It is worth noting that many of the methods suggested for Wizards to overcome their weaknesses are strongly limited by cost for all but the highest class levels (i.e., the large majority of Wizard characters in actual play). In particular, for most character levels Wizards can not AFFORD large numbers of spells, and even acquiring relatively modest numbers of spells puts a large hole in the Wizard's wealth that even crafting items for the party may not be able to fill. Even at fairly high levels (10th), acquiring spells is still a major expense. One numerical analysis of this limitation of Wizards is here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=3633474&highlight=sorcerer+wizard#post3633474 Bottom Line: Wizards have many options, but - for most levels - they simply do not have enough money to take advantage of all of those options. Any argument that fails to take into account this need to choose carefully between available options will artificially and unrealistically inflate the apparent power of Wizards. (I'm hardly anti-Wizard - it's my favourite class - but some of the "Wizards are uber" arguments are based on assumptions that are unreasonable or impossible for most Wizard characters.)
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 01:46 PM	Crosshatch: There is more to the gravy train than simple downtime. The assumption is that you can spend a levels worth of xp crafting items, and then earn it back by earning more experience for being lower level, repeatedly. No sensible DM would permit it. Even if you allow it, its not a huge wizard advantage. The Wizard can do it more effeciently, with his bonus feats, but the Cleric, Druid, and even Sorcerer are all perfectly capable of crafting mountains of treasure in order to ride the "gravy-train."(The Sorcerer can do a lot with the craft wonderous item feat and a few select scrolls. A wizard henchman is also a great help.) Edit: DCB is quite correct as well. Acquiring spells and crafting items is an extremely expensive endeavor, that most characters shouldn't be able to do casually.
Dunbar 07-27-04, 02:35 PM	The whole sorceror vs. wizard debate will never get anywhere because no two games are entirely the same. And the power difference between these classes is highly dependant on the game and the DM. 1. a wizard's spellbook. If the DM decides to go after it, all the time, 24-7-365, wizards are dead meat. Some DMs do; mostly the same ones that will pervert any wish, no matter how reasonable. In such a campaign, sorcerors are much better. 2. downtime. In the games I play in, there is little downtime. Either because the DM pushes the party along with time dependant quests (the last one I was in had an evil god who was going to be ressurected at a certain time as the over-arching campaign goal...), or the party wants to go adventure and not sit around in town. Yeah, that second one may seem silly to some as it's just virtual time being spent, but I ran into it, so it happens. Without downtime, the wizard can't use his item creation feats; nor can he scribe many additional spells. 3. hack-n-slash. Wizards are great with their versatility. Able to deal with many challenges, such as finding the BBEG, or determining his weaknesses, or getting around obstacles, etc. But many games come down to a lot of "roll initiative, you are being attacked." In such games, having blaster spells, and a lot of them, is a good thing. How common are these facets of game play? Well, I'd say 1 isn't that common. Most DMs aren't that cruel to players. 2, on the other hand, I'd say is common. I've seen it a lot, and posters in this thread have indicated they experience a lack of down time in their games. And as far as 3 goes...I'd have to say a LOT of the games being run in the real world contain a lot of hack and slash. Look at the PHB...what portion of it is concerned with interacting with NPCs peacefully? What portion is concerned with the nuts and bolts of combat? I'm not saying that is the right way to play, only that it is the way many people play. Basically, while the wizard is certainly better than the sorceror mechanically, and far better in a game played by the book with the XP gravy train and handled by a competent wizard player. And yes, even compared to a competent sorceror player...there is only so much one can do to make up for the sorceror's shortcomings. However, and this is a very important point, games in reality vary quite a bit from games in theory. And given that, there are many games out there where a sorceror is preferred over a wizard, often by a wide margin. Does this make the mechanical shortcomings less real? No. But it does mean that posters are going to have very different opinions of the sorceror and wizard, and those opinions will be based on games that have been actually played. And if in many games that are actually played the sorceror is balanced with or even preferred to the wizard (just as there are many games played where the opposite is true), then isn't that a kind of real-world balance, mechanical balance be damned? I'd still like to have a mechanically balanced sorceror, but in the end balance is very campaign specific. Moreso for some classes than others...and maybe that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Maybe classes should be structured to function in a variety of campaign settings...it's a problem with the 1-dimensional fighter, who is pretty well useless in the vast areas between the end of one combat and the next "roll initiative."
Arbitrary Aardvark 07-27-04, 02:45 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I might as well get rid of the "wizard's limited spells" myth on the first page. Wizards get spells from three sources: -Two or more spells every level. -Captured spellbooks. -Scrolls. Also, other wizards. In 2nd edition, TSR really discouraged this. (They suggested that the going rate of exchange for learning a new spell was a spell of a higher level and a magic item.) In 3.5, it flat out states that a typical price charged by a wizard for teaching a new spell is 50gp per spell level.
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 03:08 PM	Originally posted by Polaris I am not going to bother to argue with you. I know what I know regarding wizards after literally years of seeing them in play from all angles. If you don't think that wizards can and *do* control the number of encounters in a party, then you, sir, are simply being naive. Do you really think that the party controls the number of encounters they face in a day? Don't you think that, maybe, the situation and the actions of thier enemies (as handled by the DM), might have something to do with it, too? It's certainly in the interest of the wizard - and, to a lesser extent any caster, or any character with non-trivial abilities that have limitted uses - to recover resources as much as possible. A party would be foolish to press on with a depleted wizard - for no other reason than to screw the wiz - when they don't have to. They'd be very lucky indeed, though, if they always had that choice to make...
Polaris 07-27-04, 03:16 PM	Tony, Actually by mid levels (especially after 9th), the number of encounters is solely in the hands of the PCs. That's what Teleportation magic, Planeshifting, and spells like Mordy's Mansion do for you. At pretty much any time, the wizard can say "Time Out" and allow the party to rest in complete safety with almost total impunity. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 03:18 PM	Originally posted by Dunbar I'd still like to have a mechanically balanced sorceror, but in the end balance is very campaign specific. Moreso for some classes than others...and maybe that's a problem that needs to be addressed. That is a problem, but it would be very hard to address in the rules, themselves. Some classes are more subject to power variations based on campaign-dependent factors than others. Wizards & Sorcerers are two rather extreme examples - the wizard being almost totally dependent on the particulars of a campaign for it's effectiveness, and the sorcerer barely being touched by those factors. A sorcerer can't do much to take advantage of excessive character wealth, copious downtime, extensive information, introduction of abuseable non-core spells, and a soft-hearted DM; he also doesn't suffer as much from unpredictable enemies, lack of downtime, low character wealth, or equipment loss. In a theoretically perfect campaign, the sorcerer and wizard would have the same power level (overall - through time, the wiz will still experience greater peaks (perfectly prepared) and deeper troughs (spellbook loss) than the sorcerer). As you deviate from that rarefied state, the wizard's power will change much more dramatically (up or down) than the sorcerer's. That's the source of the 'problem' with sorcerers. There are similar problems with all the classes. Fighters suffer if they can't acquire magic items they need to be competative. Monks do extraordinarily well if stats or high and (by contrast) if items are few. Casters do extraordinarily well if they get to rest after every single encounter. And so it goes. You really can't change the rules so the classes will be balanced in every campaign... you /can/ keep a tight reign on your campaign to prevent abuse, though.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 03:26 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl Further, the DM can have the BBEG send all his minions to wait for the party to return from Mordy's or the Rope Trick. What happens if a Rope Trick expires after the space around the entrance has been blocked off, such as with a cairn of heavy stones stacked there by the BBEG's minions? Do the PCs appear inside the rocks, dying instantly? Do the PCs get thrown onto another plane? Do the PCs push the rocks out of the way when they pop back into the Material plane? What if the rocks are too heavy (or anchored) to move? Do the PCs teleport to the nearest unoccupied space, making Rope Trick a cheap, low-level way to teleport around obstacles? Relying on Rope Trick to rest in hostile territory sounds potentially as hazardous as resting out in the open.
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 03:38 PM	It never occured to me that people rely so much on rope trick before I came to these boards. It just seems like asking for trouble against enemies with any sense at all.
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 03:39 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Actually by mid levels (especially after 9th), the number of encounters is solely in the hands of the PCs. That's what Teleportation magic, Planeshifting, and spells like Mordy's Mansion do for you. ih. Nice in theory, or if your DM is a pushover (or just prefers running punctuated very-high CR encounters). Too many things can go wrong with that strategy, though. You can have time-important situations to resolve, you can have enemies that prevent you from fleeing or are able to persue, you can loose access to the particular trick at an inopportune juncture. Really, if the timing of encounters is /solely/ in the hands of the PCs, they might as well be running the game. :rolleyes: Besides, there's an implicit assumption that an ability that can only be used 1/day can be more powerful than a similar-level/value ability that can be used more often. If you assume that encounters happen only when the PCs will them, why should you get a cost break for limitted uses, or expect offensive spells to be more potent than weapons? Maybe what you're getting that is that the game is hopelessly imbalanced, because times/day is a meaningless limitation, yet lesser cost/greater power is given to such abilities? Fixing /that/ would mean changing the game fundamentally (into GURPS, really). :smirk:
Haldrik 07-27-04, 04:23 PM	Polaris: The real problem (with sorcerers) is that once you get beyond the core class descriptions, every other single game mechanic favors the wizards and favors them extremely strongly. Add to that the stagg'ed spell progression, and bonus feats ... not to mention the completely cruddy spell-stat, and the sorcerer is nearly a total loss. What WOTC is saying is, "It is OK to play a non-Vancian spellcaster ... just as long as you suck at it." :nod: That's about the size of it.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-27-04, 05:05 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Check out the thread, "Charisma Should Be Dumped". I proved my point to at least get the posters there to ask how Charisma should be improved...including such house rules as using the Cha mod for initiative. This thread also spawned at least one other non-WOTC thread that I know about on Andy Collin's site as well (as a design issue). In addition to that, pretty much every non-sorcerer/bard/paladin has rock bottom charisma scores and this fact has been lamented innumerable times here and elsewhere. I know of your thread. I haven't seen andy collin's thing. However, on your thread, I don't see a convincng point to really dump, replace, or otherwise change charisma. Except based on the supposed "fact" that it "is" useless. In addition, you've mentioned a number of times about what you think charisma was intended and still is "intended" to do. I don't see -evidence- anywhere. Personally, I agree with oakspear's sentiments near the end of the thread. I consider the fact that charisma is the weakest stat in the game to be sufficiently proven. IMHO you just haven't been paying attention. .... right. :rolleyes: A Sorcerer should (and NEEDs) to PrC as soon as humanly possible. That makes it relavent right there (since most PrCs have skill requirements that a sorcerer finds very difficult to meet). I agree that prestige classing is very nearly manditory for the sorcerer. I also agree that the sorcerer has few (non FR) prestige classes to turn to. I agree that the lack of having anything in the class specials chart is a problem -because- that in and of itself makes prestige classing manditory. However, this doesn't make the sorcerer inferior to the wizard or inferior as a class. Furthermore, quit trying to peg wizard prestige classes to a sorcerer. A sorcerer will not qualify for a wizard prestige class because it is a prestige class for wizards. Not sorcerers. Wizards. The lack of prestige classes for sorcerers is not a design flaw of the sorcerer. In addition the "big three" for any arcane caster is "Concentration", "Spellcraft", "Knowledge: Arcana". Note that two of the three are Int based (which favors the wizard) and that the sorcerer is already out of core skill points while the wizard (who will always have an Int bonus) is not. ... sigh. I'm well aware of what intelligence does. I agree that Spellcraft and Knowledge arcana are necessary. But ONLY if the sorcerer is DEFINATELY going epic. Otherwise, the sorcerer is not a skilled class. Not even as much as the wizard. ... this is getting really tiresome. The wizard gets this, THAT is a wizard's strengths. The sorcerer doesn't have this but the wizard has that. Then play a wizard. Oh right. you hate the vancian system. What you appear to want is everything that a wizard is, but with all of the sorcerer's strengths in addition to that. As for the knowledgbility of the Bard, don't overstate the case. I haven't overstated it. The bard is more knowledgeable than the wizard by a wide margin. If you don't believe that, then don't. No one's holding a gun to your back. You're free to underestimate any class or class feature you wish. In the second place, Bardic Knowledge is vastly inferior to the correct knowledge skill. I strongly suggest you reread that class feature (which btw is Int based). ... sigh. I KNOW what bardic knowledge is. I've used it before. Just because I don't agree with you on an opinion doesn't make me either unknowledgeable or a dimwit. Having max ranks and a high intelligence is not inferior to having bardic knowledge. Actually it is. It shows that the sorcerer was deliberately weakened...and thus provides at leas annecdotal evidence that WOTC does indeed hate the sorcerer. Only because you falsely consider charisma a weaker stat. He wasn't? That is news to me since both have exactly the same class features. The wizard just fills the role better, that's all....and items are the reason why. What class features? What role? The arcane spellcaster role? The druid and cleric both fill the same role as the "Divine spellcaster" but the druid recieves healing spells one level later than what the cleric does. The cleric also has resurrection spells whereas the druid doesn't, among a number of other advantages in relation to spellcasting. But a druid can fill that role in a different manner, using its other strengths to fill in a different niche in that role. The sorcerer is -not- a wizard, it doesn't fill a wizard's exact role in the party. It is a different class. With items... okay. So after spending gobs and gobs of money and vast amounts of time and using a "bag-o-rats" quality loophole in the rules he can simulate what a sorcerer can do with inferior quality by being one level behind the sorcerer. and this makes him su-perior. ... right. Actually it does. It means that he gets the bonus spells from his Int one level sooner than the sorcerer will get the same bonus spells. It also means the wizard at these levels actually has more spells than the sorcerer. and this is a problem because the sorcerer was built to be a caster backed by a wide variety of spells at their disposal, backed by item creation and a vast base of knowledge. Oh wait. That's a wizard. Finally, for the cost of 15000 (half that of the sorcerer), the wizard gets the +1 level effects as well (Orange Ioun stone). 15k gold? I think you're forgetting a few things. like the 1200 xp cost and the 30 days the caster has to spend making that -one- item. Plus, there's the spell that you have to have or otherwise have access to to make that item, if there is one. Plus, the requirement of being a 12th level caster. House-Rule (and thus irrelevant). Okay. Then like the spiked chain and the horrid bag-o-rats trick, I deem the gravy train also irrelevant. Furthermore, even if it is a houserule, it's a popular one. I've never, ever seen a DM use or employ those rules that do what the DMG suggests. Technically speaking, the spiked chain is in the core rulebooks as are the loopholes that allow for game breaking results. _this_ loophole is no different. Time is not a balancing issue (already discussed elsewhere). Right. I forgot that every DM is a monty haul DM that waves costs away. :rolleyes: Again disproven elsewhere. The wizard can completely negate the sorcerer's casting advantage and have the XP and Gold left over to make even more items (and indeed must to keep the extra XP coming). Like I said, the wizard can, at a quality that's inferior to just being a sorcerer in addition to huge costs in gold, xp, and time, replicate their casting capabilities. An advantage is an advantage is an advantage. The item creator gets more XP and more items than anyone else. Since the wizard has the spells and feats to make items, this must be considered a class advantage for the wizard. Anything less is less than honest. What's "less than honest" is the interpretation of the actual advantage and especially the viability of this... "advantage" as you call it. (that being the gravy train rather than item creation itself) Actually, there ARE no good PrCs for the sorcerer. I refer you to Jaimas' posts. However, the sorcerer pays less after entering a PrC making PrC entry mandatory for the sorcerer. It is just one more example of how the WOTC supporting material hoses the sorcerer. Let's not even talk about Rods of Metamagic (that scream wizard favoritism) or Quicken Spell (which is blatent wizard favoritism). 1. How many good arcane spellcaster prestige classes (with full caster progression) are there? How many of them are accessable to sorcerers? Furthermore, why should the sorcerer qualify for wizard prestige classes? They're wizard prestige classes. Not sorcerer prestige classes. A druid doesn't qualify for most cleric prestige classes, but the druid is far from inferior to the cleric. 2. PrC availability is not a measurement of a class's viability or reletive balance. 3. Jaimas' posts were as much assumption and theory as yours are. There is _NO_ proof. There is no ACTUAL counts of anyone at WotC hating the sorcerer. Those letters (especially when he justified how Wee Jas, the Ruby Sorceress had no sorcerer levels) seemed quite incriminating to me...especially in conjunction with all the other evidence. Incriminating to you yes. Look polaris, from all of your thread, of all of your complaints, of all of your theories, of that stupid "gravy-train" loophole, of everything that you've said concerning the sorcerer, all I seem to be getting from you is: Everything that a sorcerer is, ever was, and likely ever will be, will be weaker than a wizard. Charisma is appartly the worst stat under the sun and has no use and can be expunged. Item creation can allow a wizard to replicate everything a sorcerer has at no real cost. More spells known is superior to being able to cast more often. Metamagic rules completely hose the sorcerer and is therefore useless when the wizard can use his almighty itemcreation to make rods of metamagic (or he could just buy them). And your "list" of "obvious proofs" that the wizard is superior to the sorcerer goes on and on in that fashion. From this, I can only assume that you either A. You hate the sorcerer and everything it represents because it isn't a spontaneously casting wizard. B. You hate WotC for making said sorcerer in the fashion that it did because it isn't a wizard. C. You hate vancian casting (for whatever reason) and hate the wizard for using the vancian system while the sorcerer, whom you consider inferior, gets the desired result without the other "advantages" that a wizard gets. And you seem to either fail to understand why I dispute you or why I "disagree" with these "obvious" fallacies of the class. Well, 1. The gravy train is a loophole in the rules. Pure and simple. and therefore should be treated as such and likely already has, considering that I've never run across a DM that has used it in all the time that I've been gaming. 2. Many of the things that I percieve that you deem inferior are merely preferences. You've seem to have been grossly overstating the advantages of wizards and placing them as a fault to the sorcerer for not having the same abilities. However, I see it as a different class. It has its similarities, but it isn't a wizard. It isn't pretending to be a wizard. It can't do the same things as a wizard. It has different strengths and different weaknesses that you don't seem to wish to acknowledge. 3. You seem to be dead-set in prooving that the sorcerer is inferior. I fail to understand why you've done nothing to help fix the problem beyond forcing crap like "Why charisma should be dropped." Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't seen you attempt to pimp something like the Unearthed Arcana's spellpoint system as a replacement for the wizard and have the sorcerer folded into the wizard. Something I would also dissaprove of still (as a replacement for the core rules), but as a varient (houserule), it does fine, supposedly. 4. I have yet to see any real reasons you dislike the sorcerer as you do, other than "well, this and that sucks, so get rid of them." ... There are other things, but I'm tired of this discussion now. Originally posted by Sensei Gith Two were non-core. I don't even own the books they're in. One was not a spellcaster. And even if there is a "clear pattern," it is clear that the sorcerer, having predated either by years, would be its source. ... so? What if the sorcerer is the "source" or rather the "template" for similar classes? Does that make them... less... viable? Getting spells one level later is worse than having an unstaggered progression. This is a fact, not an opinion. Okay... if you say so. The sorcerer is in its first incarnation (with only minor exceptions). Saying that "it's always been that way" is technically true, but since it's been the same class the whole time, it's meaningless. It is a nerf because it is a clear and explicit loss of power versus other spellcasters. It is not a nerf in the sense that it might have been powered down since a previous edition. I've never seen an actual case where the sorcerer looses out because of its flaws (moreso than any other class)... beyond theory, of course. First of all, define "disciplined" and "complex" as pertains to classes. A class that is "disciplined" requires all of a degree of study, or ritualistic practice, or heavy training. Clerics go to a clergy, druids get trained by other druids, wizards are taught in schools of wizardry (or a more intimate wizard-apprentice relationship.) They require study or practice or ritual or merely mental discipline (like a monk or psion) in order to contain and control their powers and to further advance themselves. Sorcerers and like classes, however, require no such ritual beyond certain minimums (Sorcerers still require rest and a 15 minute period to "focus their minds.") However, they require significantly less in the way of training as the other "disciplined" classes. Supposedly, they can even do it without any outside influence. (which, I suppose, is why savage tribes, such as kobolds, have more sorcerers than wizards.) The starting ages are suggestions, indicating that sorcerers begin casting extremely minor magics naturally and can quickly tun them into cantrips. They're also indicators of how much time a class requires in order to "break" into it. A wizard requires 2d6 years for a human, who started training at the age of 15 to become a wizard, whereas a sorcerer only needs 1d4. This does not mean that sorcery is any less "complex" or that sorcerers are less "disciplined." The only way around this is to assume that sorcery is just as complex, but sorcerers are undisciplined and lazy. I NEVER made out being "undisciplined" as being synonymous with being lazy. The starting age reflects the average age that a random character will have attained first level. It has nothing to do with discipline or complexity. Starting age is -determined- by the class's reletive complexity. Not the other way around. If that was the case, sorcerers would leanr magic faster because their magic is less complex. That's represented in the class's ability to cast spells spontaneously without the aid of spellbooks or study. Not the class's rate of learning spells. It does. Or are sorcerers balanced because they can cast Simbul's Spell Trigger to overcome their lack of Quicken Spell? Or do wizards pull ahead again because of the Dweomerkeeper? Sorcerers cast metamagic on the fly. Wizards don't. Advantage: sorcerer. You know as well as I do how much better of a casting stat intelligence is. The only thing besides spellcasting that charisma gives to sorcerers is a bonus on bluff. I'll take bonuses to spellcraft and all the knowledge skills plus tons of bonus skill points over that anyday. Wow... more skilll points to an unskilled class that has few skills that actually matter. At most, the sorcerer only needs knowledge: arcana and spellcraft to cast epic spells and concentration in those rare moments where the sorcerer is in melee range of a creature that has reach or the sorcerer can't otherwise make a 5-foot step to leave. Big whoop. But if you want me to say it, I will. In regards to SKILLS and SKILLS alone, intelligence is better. Which is why arcane tricksters are vastly superior when the arcane spellcasting class is a wizard. However, that doesn't make intelligence better overall. It just makes it a different choice with different advantages. If you're going to distinguish between the two, you might as well define what you're talking about. a "skilled" class is a rogue, bard, and ranger. They use skills and have numberous skill points. A disciplined/moderately disciplined/undisciplined class or complex/moderate/simple class has to do with a class's easibility for a person, in game, to break into. You say that it's unspecified, then assume that they just "get" their spells? While every other class has to work for them, through study or prayer? That's a pretty big assumption, not to mention ridiculous. *I* have always assumed that pre-sorcerers, before they learn their spells, had wild, untapped energy flowing in and out of them (sort of in the way the flavor text in the sorcerer description describes it.) Eventually, with sorcerers that I play, they learn how to cast individual spells in the same way wizards do, through a mentor, though without the strenuous requirements that a wizard otherwise would have, and, on their own, learn how to cast it the way that they do, that being with greater ease (spontaneously) than what a wizard would have. But that is the way *I* do it. Beyond anything the flavor text says, the rules do not indicate any clear-cut method of how sorcerers learn their spells, except though leveling up. As such, there is no indication that sorcerers -require- any way of learning their spells other than through gaining experience. I don't have to house rule it back since I'm not including your variant. :confused: What varient? Intelligence is not skill. Neither are strength, dexterity, constitution, or wisdom. Class levels are skill. Class levels represent experience. Skill points represent skills earned. You have also yet to show any evidence that intelligence-based classes are disciplined and charisma-based classes (including the paladin) are not. ??? when did I ever mention that a paladin was a "disciplined" class? The training a paladin requires makes it fall into the same catagory as the bard, fighter, and ranger. All of which require more training than the barbarian, rogue and sorcerer, but less than the wizard, cleric, monk, and druid. The "proof" is in the starting ages chart in combination with what the flavor text states about each class. Specifically in the background description. Go right ahead. I'm not here to disprove that assumption, but don't try to justify mechanical gimps with bogus flavor text. Oh, ok. Perhaps it was stupid of me to think that a barbarian's illiteracy is a mechanical gimp justified by "bogus flavor text" as well. :rolleyes: I should note, though, that the sorcerer's staggered progression cances out the one-level disadvantage of a wizard on the xp gravy train. I could care less about the gravy train for all the same reasons I could care less about the spiked chain and bag-of-rats trick in relation to a fighter's reletive power.
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 05:42 PM	I'm going to have to add one thing. Quite frankly, if the best point you(as in anyone) have in proving a class imbalance is pointing to an obscure loophole....than you are only demonstrating your own lack of supporting arguements. You don't get anything(not even cookies!:( ) for "winning" an arguement on these boards, so don't shame yourself with dishonest proofs. I think the Sorcerer is lacking in some areas, but I don't think that raw power is one of them. A few more skills, some flavorfull perks as you level, and I'd be a happy Sorcerer player. As far as the power of charisma-it's harder to determine than most. Charisma is unusual in that it powers the special abilities of many classes, Prc's, feats, and skills. Its unique in thats it has very little value if you aren't built to use it, but for some characters, its gold. DM style also plays a large role in its power. Staggered progression is technically a disadvantage compared to "normal" spell progression, but it invariably comes packaged with spontaneous casting. Wizard's obviously feels that this is balanced, but if you don't, feel free to explain why.(Hint, saying its "not as good" as regular advancement, isn't really an arguement)
Polaris 07-27-04, 06:19 PM	Guys, The "one level XP gravy train" isn't an 'obscure loophole' at all. It is using the plain language XP rules in the DMG and that language is very easy to understand. Furthmore it existed in 3.0 FR before 3.5 was ever published so it is hardly new. Secondly, all I have to show is that you get new spells at a slower rate with staggered casting to prove that it is a disadvantage. The proof is in the comparison. For the wizard to have the same progression, he gets to give up a level. For that level he gets to have double items which more than makes up for any spontaneous casting the sorcerer gets. That by definition makes the staggered progression weak. It is like I and others have said before....it is OK to play a non-Vancian caster....just as long as you suck at it. -Polaris
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 07:57 PM	Its an unintended consequence of altering the XP rules so high-level characters can't get more experience by adventuring with rookies. Its a loophole. The bag of rats trick was a simple interpretation of existing rules. It was still cheesy and not allowed by any sensible DM. It has nothing to do with "understanding" the rules, any more than your silly interpretation of the Mystic Theurge and Imbue with Spell Ability. And no, saying staggered progression is not as good as normal progression is not good enough because it comes bundled with spontaneous casting. What you must do is prove that spontaneous casting with staggered progression is inferior to Vancian casting with normal progression. Furthermore, in regards to "The Wizard can safely remain one level behind. Really? Lets take a look: (minus cantrips) 5th Level Sorcerer: 6 1st, 4 2nd. 10 slots. 4th level Wizard: 3 1st, 2 2nd. 5 slots. 10th level Sorcerer: 6 1st, 6 2nd, 6 3rd, 5 4th, 3 5th. 26 slots 9th level Wizard : 4 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd, 2 4th, 1 5th. 14 slots 15th level Sorcerer: 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 4-7. 40 slots. 14th level Wizard : 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 3-5, 3-6, 2-7. 24 slots. I'm rather shocked that you would consider the Sorcerer casting almost twice as many spells a favorable spell progression. Now, specialization will give you more slots, but at the cost of your much-vaunted versatility. Lets not forget that the Sorcerer can better leverage the power of his spell slots, leaving the lower-level Wizard in the dust. You'd have to do an awful lot of magic-item making to make up for that kind of gap. Unfortunately, to get spells, you'll need a considerable amount of money. To turn those spells into magic-items, you'll need even more money. I'd refer you to DCB's link to his calculations on the cost of extensive crafting. You'd more than likely have a difficult time even scraping together enough cash to even benefit from the stupid gravy-train loophole. And again, its nothing special. Clerics and Druids can do the same thing. Even Sorcerers can get into the item business without too much trouble. It's not only a pointless loophole that should be closed, it doesn't work nearly as well in practice as some people seem to think.
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 08:33 PM	"Gravy train loophole?" What's the big deal if you want lag your party by a level your whole life so you can make a bunch of items? Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Double Items? Well, it'll aproach that. You don't get all your swag as cash and equivalents, and, as a wiz, some of that cash goes into your spellbook. So, it's really more like double bought items (less spellbook expenditures), and the rest, if you want, customized (sell for half, make for half). Of course, the more items you buy and customize, the fewer items you have that you /can't/ make - since making an item in 3E prettymuch requires being able to duplicate it's function with spells in the firstplace, that's not entirely insignificant, either. A sound strategy, certainly, but not one that's either easy to pull off (I've tried it: let's just say that not all campaigns are ideally suited to it), nor wildly imbalancing (yeah, you have a lotta items, but, you're lagging a level - that's Caster level, new spell levels, feats and all the usual hp/bab/save stuff). A wiz focused on item creation gives himself even more variety in available spells. He can prep offensive spells that work better with his save DCs and CL, and put less important offensive spells, many defensive/buff spells, and tons of utility spells into various items. Not to mention the potential in customizing items for the rest of his party. Such a character makes a great contribution, but, like a Cleric, his power probably doesn't wreck the game for everyone else. Mostly, he's helping the party through situations that would otherwise stall them out. Pulling out just the right utility spell to keep things moving conveniently along. He becomes a support character - powerful, useful, but not outshining or otherwise ruining the game for the other players. Of course, like anything, it could be taken too far, and combined with other factors (like consistent foreknowledge of challenges) could lead to an overpowered wizard. Originally posted by Mad Miso I'd refer you to DCB's link to his calculations on the cost of extensive crafting. You'd more than likely have a difficult time even scraping together enough cash to even benefit from the stupid gravy-train loophole. That depends. If downtime simply isn't an issue, you can devote quite a bit of exp to making items - if you're not just making them for yourself. You can't make items for general sale, since you'd be selling them for cost. But, you could make them for your fellow party members - for something between the 1/2 price you could sell them for, and the full price they'd normally pay. You net a 'profit' that you can put towards your spellbook and your own items. Everyone comes out ahead. At that point downtime and exp become the potential limitting factors more than money, since virtually the whole of the party's cash can end up filtering through you. The 'gravy train' keeps the exp problem from placing you more than a level behind. So, the only real issue is extensive downtime...
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 08:40 PM	You're correct, I suppose. Its not that big a deal. And its looking less and less useful the more I look at it. Losing a level to the Sorcerer is a pretty huge loss--far fewer spells, lower-caster level, lower HP's, Saves, behind on normal feat progression....ouch. Not to mention that using items is a terrible substitute for casting most combat spells raw. The Sorcerer should be able to cast higher-level, higher caster level spells with far greater frequency than the Wizard. The Devoted Crafter Wizard would make a great tool-kit, but couldn't come close to competing with the Sorcerer for raw power or combat-casting. Crafting for the party could be more of a problem, if overused, although its not a direct power-up for the wizard. I'd imagine a DM faced with a party running around with close to double wealth would have to intervene eventually, whether by enforcing downtime or simply cutting back on future treasure. Its still basically an exploit though. The Living Greyhawk system is pretty fair--every character only gets so much time to work with, forcing them to choose between adventuring and crafting. I'd say its safe to say that D&D balance begins to break down with unlimited downtime, whether its a Wizard or a Cleric who decides to craft a mountain of magic items.
Polaris 07-27-04, 08:50 PM	Mad Miso, That's what you think. In the first place items can (more than) make up for the loss of raw caster level (such as Orange Ioun stones). In the second place, what makes you think that the wizard puts his offensive spells into scrolls and wands? [Rods are another matter because the wizard does get his casting level and int bonus for those.] The upshot is that the wizard actually has more combat ready spell slots available than the sorcerer because unlike the sorcerer, the wizard doesn't have to waste slots on utility spells (because that's what his items are for). Tony, You are certainly correct that the item creating wizard on the gravy train is a support character. OTOH, if you think a support character can't unbalance the party, I would politely suggest that you might want to reconsider. The Cleric (and Druid) are classic support characters....and yet they can and do unbalance the party. The main problem here is that WOTC undervalues the power in ultility. As for clerics and druids doing this....they can. However, Clerics and Druids generally don't have the flexibility to get just the right spell for the job and (more importantly) don't have the bonus feats to pay for the item creation feats. Rather, it is far more cost effective for everyone for the Cleric or Druid to use the wizard's item creation feats to make divine items (yes this is legal). As for the sorcerer, he gets it coming and going. He lacks the bonus feats to pay for item creation, and lacks the number of known spells to make worthwhile items even if he had them. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 08:50 PM	Originally posted by Mad Miso Not to mention that using items is a terrible substitute for casting most combat spells raw. The Sorcerer should be able to cast higher-level, higher caster level spells with far greater frequency than the Wizard. The Devoted Crafter Wizard would make a great tool-kit, but couldn't come close to competing with the Sorcerer for raw power or combat-casting. Yep, that's true - if it's a competion between the Wiz and Sorc (or an actual PC Wiz or Sorc vs the hypothetical Sorc or Wiz he could have played instead). But, if there's room in the party for two archanists, just consider what that Devoted Crafter Wizard tool-kit, and an offensively-oriented Sorcerer could do in the same party. Not only does the party have customized items, and the right spell (or even item) for the occassion given 15 minute's or a few day's warning, they also have rack of Full-CL, spontaneous hurt to off-load on thier enemies at a moment's notice. Crafting for the party could be more of a problem, if overused, although its not a direct power-up for the wizard. I'd imagine a DM faced with a party running around with close to double wealth would have to intervene eventually, whether by enforcing downtime or simply cutting back on future treasure. Its still basically an exploit though. Double-wealth is pretty unlikely. There are bound to be found items as well as cash. Right there, whether they're kept or sold and used to make a more desireable item, thier contribution to party wealth isn't being doubled. And, some items that the wiz can't make (or can't make yet), may well be sufficiently desireable to keep if found, or even buy at full price - and, those may well be some of the most expensive ones, too, so may represent a fair proportion of party wealth. Further, every item a PC makes is something he could probably do (or come pretty close to), with a spell. That's not adding greatly to his overall strategic versatility the way acquiring an item that does something he /can't/ would. So, no, I don't think it'd be that huge a problem. And, of course, items are prone to being used up, lost, or destroyed... I'd say its safe to say that D&D balance begins to break down with unlimited downtime, whether its a Wizard or a Cleric who decides to craft a mountain of magic items. Truth. It's not just silly for adventurers to expect the monsters to work around thier schedules, it's imbalancing. ;)
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 08:53 PM	It seems like it might be useful to show how the hypothetical XP Gravy Train would play out in practice. In particular, how would it work for a Wizard: - of 10th level (on the high end of most real PCs) - starting with 17,000gp cash and 32,000gp items (per the DMG treasure tables) - in a standard party with a fighter, cleric, and rogue - where all characters are reasonably equipped with healing potions and other miscellaneous items - who maintains a wide variety of spells known - who has not captured an enemy spellbook (as per the DMG encounter tables, Wizard encounters are quite rare, and most spells known by an NPC Wizard are apt to be many of the common ones a PC Wizard will also know) - who must buy higher-level spells at scroll prices (as per the PHB, Wizards tend to charge more than 50gp/lvl for higher-level spells, if they sell them at all, and as per the DMG, only large and rare communities will have Wizards capable of knowing spells of above 2nd level) - who only crafts a BBB when it's reasonable to do so (i.e., he has the money), and hence pays scribing costs for spells learned before that level I believe these are all reasonable and realistic assumptions for how many or most Wizard characters will tend to see actual play; however, the Wizard appears to run out of money long before he runs out of XP in this scenario, short-circuiting the gravy train before it really starts.
Polaris 07-27-04, 08:56 PM	Tony, You said: Yep, that's true - if it's a competion between the Wiz and Sorc (or an actual PC Wiz or Sorc vs the hypothetical Sorc or Wiz he could have played instead). That's exactly the comparison I am making....and for that matter to my knowledge that is the comparison most people make. That's because there isn't enough difference between the wizard and sorcerer (they have identical class features after all...i.e. spells) to justify the existance of both classes (at least not in the same party). That brings me to the second part of your post. In the iconic party, there really isn't room for more than one Arcane Caster (especially one that evolves upward from first level). If the group were big enough to justify two, I would rather have a Druid be the second arcanist. Seriously. As a nuker, the Druid is almost as effective as the sorcerer (read fire-seeds if you doubt me....not to mention flamestrike) and (as the commercial goes) he can do much, much more....... -Polaris
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 08:59 PM	I've heard the "Wizard uses slots on combat spells, items for utility" statement before. I don't quite buy it. First off, the Sorcerer can use his items to supplement his utility needs quite effectively. Utility scrolls aren't all that expensive.(Ion stones on the other hand....) Second, the wizard who is dragging a level behind the Sorcerer is at a huge disadvantage in combat casting. The limitation of Vancian casting combined with half as many slots to work with isn't pretty. In the end, the obvious appears to be true. The Wizard will always be better at utility work, and the Sorcerer will always be a better battlemage. :) Oh, and I've always thought Flamestrike was overated, myself. It's better for the Druid because he gets it earlier, but for the Cleric its more or less as good as Cone of Cold, not exactly a benchmark for powerful arcane spells. Yeah, yeah, it does sacred damage, wowzers! If you want to blow a 4-5th level spell on a Fire immune target so you can do about as much damage as Magic Missle, go right ahead. The Druid's kind of predictible, too. All of his good nukes are firebased.
Polaris 07-27-04, 08:59 PM	DCB, The wizard uses the party's money rather than just his own....and he can use the party face to generate even more. It is in the best interests of the party and the wizard to cash out party money into items (for everyone). Run it again.....I know it will affect your conclusions :P Now, yes, eventually (around 17th level) the wizard will run out of money even with the use of party money....however, that is when the wizard gets wish which restarts the cycle (for good this time). -Polaris
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 09:02 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas But, you could make them for your fellow party members - for something between the 1/2 price you could sell them for, and the full price they'd normally pay. You net a 'profit' that you can put towards your spellbook and your own items. Everyone comes out ahead. At that point downtime and exp become the potential limitting factors more than money No - I took that into account. With a standard fighter/mage/cleric/rogue party, getting 35%/65% cash/items as treasure (as per DMG treasure tables), and all other PCs willing to pay the Wizard 75% of market value for crafted items, the Wizard tends to come out very nearly even with everyone else in terms of total wealth. The limitting factor for the analysis I did was cash, and not XP at all. The standard DMG treasure tables tend to give more items than cash, and some of the latter is assumed to be burned by levelling expenses (potions, Raises, etc.). Cash becomes less and less of a limitting factor as one goes up levels (due to the exponential increase in wealth), but I looked at a 10th-level party, which - IME - is on the high end of characters people actually play. Check the analysis; only at the highest - and rarest - levels does the gravy train have enough cash to run. [EDIT: just making this clear - party cash is the limiting factor, not the Wizard's personal cash.]
Polaris 07-27-04, 09:04 PM	Originally posted by Mad Miso I've heard the "Wizard uses slots on combat spells, items for utility" statement before. I don't quite buy it. First off, the Sorcerer can use his items to supplement his utility needs quite effectively. Utility scrolls aren't all that expensive.(Ion stones on the other hand....) The sorcerer is subject to what the last town or village has always....and has to pay full price always. That means the sorcerer can't count on having items with utility spells. The wizard can. Not only that, but the wizard will have many more items of this type....more than enough for that Orange Ioun stone (only costs the wizard 15K) and his Boccob's book....and more. Second, the wizard who is dragging a level behind the Sorcerer is at a huge disadvantage in combat casting. The limitation of Vancian casting combined with half as many slots to work with isn't pretty. Actually it isn't so. This is play experience talking. The only real limitation is the caster level check (for SR and dispells) and items can circumvent that for the wizard. The wizard one level down actually has access to the same spells as the sorcerer *and* has double items to boot. Double Items (especially starting at 10th level on up) is more than worth a level. Try fighting monsters with double items if you doubt me (double items is worth IMX at least EL+2). In the end, the obvious appears to be true. The Wizard will always be better at utility work, and the Sorcerer will always be a better battlemage. :) Yes....and no. Yes, the wizard will always be better at utility work. No the sorcerer is simply not a better battlemage, and that's because utility (via items) is that powerful a tool for a battlemage. -Polaris
BlaineTog 07-27-04, 09:05 PM	Guys: do yourselves a favor and re-read some of the Sorcerer threads I have linked to my sig. I seriously doubt that there is anything that you can say that hasn't already been said in either those or in Xun's monster thread (which I have in my geocities "My Links" page as "The Thread That Must Not Be Named." That one discusses everything sorcerous and its mother).
Polaris 07-27-04, 09:07 PM	DCB, I suggest that you recheck your numbers again. The Gravy train sputters before level 10 (true), but in 3E and 3.5E, party's typically level into the high teens and sometimes even into EPIC. In ADnD, 10th level was the usual cap. In 3E, that is a far cry from the truth. In 3E, my experience (which seems typical in 3E) has campaigns end from 15th level to the low 20s. That is because the CR/XP system encourages higher level play. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 09:09 PM	Originally posted by Polaris The upshot is that the wizard actually has more combat ready spell slots available than the sorcerer because unlike the sorcerer, the wizard doesn't have to waste slots on utility spells (because that's what his items are for). Um... the sorcerer never has to waste slots on utility spells. That's the beauty of spontaneous casting. If he needs them, all his slots can be devoted to combat. The wizard does have to 'waste' slots by prepping spells (maybe utility, maybe combat, probably both) he may or may not actually need. Item creation saves him from wasting slots by prepping (non stat/level dependent) spells he has in items - usually utility spells. That still doesn't leave him anything like a combat load to rival what the sorcerer can do - especially when he's lagging a level. You are certainly correct that the item creating wizard on the gravy train is a support character. OTOH, if you think a support character can't unbalance the party, I would politely suggest that you might want to reconsider. The Cleric (and Druid) are classic support characters....and yet they can and do unbalance the party. The main problem here is that WOTC undervalues the power in ultility. I think a support character certainly makes the party more powerful - but, I think that sort of thing is expected... and declining to meet that expectation is one reason some monster CRs look a tad low. I don't think that becoming a strong support character makes that individual character imbalanced in any important way (ruining the the game in any sense). Rather, it is far more cost effective for everyone for the Cleric or Druid to use the wizard's item creation feats to make divine items (yes this is legal). Yes. Another way for the Wiz to channel all the party's cash through his item-creation factory! At least, in theory. IMX, the DM, other players, and circumstances rarely let you make out quite that well. ;( As for the sorcerer, he gets it coming and going. He lacks the bonus feats to pay for item creation, and lacks the number of known spells to make worthwhile items even if he had them. Well, he doesn't get it. Item creation is about as relevant to a sorcerer as it is to a barbarian. He likes the results, but his contributions to the process will be minimal.
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 09:10 PM	Oh, we know BlaineTog, we know all too well. Most of us took part in that thread after all.;) Now, Polaris, I think we just got done explaining why you shouldn't be running around with double items in the first place. I'm sure its quite powerful, but it's really not intended, either. And if you gave me a choice, I would much rather have a Sorcerer with double items anyway.:D You still seem to underestimate the power of spontaneous casting as well.
Polaris 07-27-04, 09:14 PM	Tony, That's a common misconception about sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters). They do in fact have to memorize utility spells. The difference is this: A wizard (or cleric or druid) only has to memorize the utility spell(s) that he might need for the day. The Sorcerer OTOH has to "memorize" (i.e. learn, i.e. spend a precious and limited known spell slot on) a utility spell for at least the next two levels. When you look at it that way (and IMHO and IMX that is the right way to look at it), the sorcerer doesn't look nearly so good. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 09:22 PM	Originally posted by Polaris That's exactly the comparison I am making....and for that matter to my knowledge that is the comparison most people make. That's because there isn't enough difference between the wizard and sorcerer (they have identical class features after all...i.e. spells) to justify the existance of both classes (at least not in the same party). I think we've just illustrated a huge difference. A wizard is an ideal item-creator - a master of utility and long-term startegic versatility, and a surprisingly potent support character. The Sorcerer is a direct, full-on caster, well-suited to offense with both power (full CL, plenty of spells/day) and tactical flexibility (spontaneous casting). Similar as thier class spell lists and HD may be, they couldn't be more different in aplication. Heck, the Wiz could be better replaced by a cleric than a sorcerer - and sorcerer better subbed for by a favoured soul than a wiz. Spontaneous vs prepped casting is just that different. That brings me to the second part of your post. In the iconic party, there really isn't room for more than one Arcane Caster Well, in a party of 4. My group runs six or so players, so we often have room for a little 'reduncancy.' We're also a little less than perfectly coordinated, so I've gotten to see how parties that are heavy on one character type or another work out. Extra clerics are great. Extra warrior-types certainly seem to work. And a sorc-wiz team is quite impressive (again, IMX). If the group were big enough to justify two, I would rather have a Druid be the second arcanist. Seriously. As a nuker, the Druid is almost as effective as the sorcerer (read fire-seeds if you doubt me....not to mention flamestrike) and (as the commercial goes) he can do much, much more....... I have to admit to being unimpressed with flamestrike. The damage isn't that awe-inspiring. The mixed damage type only really helps if you're facing fire immunity (ER still comes right off the top), in which case you're just sucking less. Divine casters just don't have the variety of offensive spells to be great blasters - they /can/ blast, but thier much more useful picking a different role. Besides, they're still prepped casters. A prepped and a spontaneous caster is better than a pair of either.
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 09:22 PM	Polaris: A Sorcerer may have to learn utility spells, but it doesn't drag him down that much, IMX. And learning a spell isn't the same as prepping it. Half a Sorcerer's spells can turn out to be useless for any given adventure and he still gets full use of his slots--the same cannot be said of the Wizard. As Tony as said, the two play very differently.
Polaris 07-27-04, 09:35 PM	Mad Miso, You are really trying to claim that learning a utility spell doesn't hurt the sorcerer that much? :uh-huh: The sorcerer only gets four known spells at each level ever and for the first level he gets his new spell level, he can only know one spell, and only learns his second spell just when the wizard is getting two spells at one spell level higher. This sounds extremely crippling to me. Casting one spell over and over again is not what I call flexibility. -Polaris
RaKhan 07-27-04, 09:39 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels ... sigh. I'm well aware of what intelligence does. I agree that Spellcraft and Knowledge arcana are necessary. But ONLY if the sorcerer is DEFINATELY going epic. Otherwise, the sorcerer is not a skilled class. Not even as much as the wizard. ... this is getting really tiresome. The wizard gets this, THAT is a wizard's strengths. The sorcerer doesn't have this but the wizard has that. Then play a wizard. Oh right. you hate the vancian system. What you appear to want is everything that a wizard is, but with all of the sorcerer's strengths in addition to that. Sorry, but you can't be a wizard and cast all your spells spontaneously unless you're a lesser deity with the correct divine salient power. Until then, the sorceror is the next best thing, and good luck on trying to convince even 1% of the DMs out there to let you play a wizard lesser deity.
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 09:39 PM	Originally posted by Polaris That's a common misconception about sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters). They do in fact have to memorize utility spells. The difference is this: A wizard (or cleric or druid) only has to memorize the utility spell(s) that he might need for the day. The Sorcerer OTOH has to "memorize" (i.e. learn) a utility spell for at least the next two levels. When you look at it that way (and IMHO and IMX that is the right way to look at it), the sorcerer doesn't look nearly so good. :uh-huh: /That's/ a fundamental misconception about spontaneous casting. The power of spontaneous casting is to be found at the moment you decide to cast a spell, not when you're learning spells. Over the course of a level, a spontaneous caster always has the same spells available, and may cast those spells each day in whatever proportion suits the situation, as it developes, from one round to the next. A prepped caster, OTOH, may know many spells, but, in any given day, he starts with only those spell he has prepped available (usually, a number comparable to what a spontaneous caster knows, btw), and may use them only in the proportion he has them prepared - if you have a mix of offense and defense, you can't go all-offense. And, as spells are cast, that selection contracts. You don't just have to pick the right spells to prepare, you have to pick the best time to cast them. A day's worth of spontaneous casting (same level, even with staggered progression) generally beats a day's worth of prepped casting all hollow - because every one of those spontaneous slots is going to be used usefully, while some of the prepped slots (and there were fewer of them), won't get used at all, or won't get used at the best time (used too soon or hoarded too long). Prepped casting only comes into it's own when you push the time horizon out beyond a day, and get to prepare for encounters with a meaningful degree of foreknowledge, or (as we've been discussing) make magic items.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 09:46 PM	Originally posted by Mad Miso learning a spell isn't the same as prepping it. Half a Sorcerer's spells can turn out to be useless for any given adventure and he still gets full use of his slots To illustrate this point with a particular example, imagine that of the 15 spells a 10th-level Sorcerer knows, 13 of those spells are absolutely useless for a given encounter, and only two - say, Magic Missile and Fireball - are useful. The Sorcerer can still cast those two useful spells thirty-two times before he runs out of spells. If, to take the corresponding example, a 10th-level Wizard had only 3 of his 22 memorized spells be at all useful for the encounter, he'd only be able to cast his useful spells three times before running out. Spontaneous casting is a marvelously effective way to avoid ever running out of useful spells. In general, if the Sorcerer has even one spell that's appropriate to the situation, he can usefully cast for pretty much the entire encounter. That's a huge advantage of spontaneous casting. (Whether or not it's enough of an advantage to make the Sorcerer equal in power to the Wizard is something that can be usefully debated only once the strengths and weaknesses of each class are fairly and honestly recognized and accepted. And even then, opinions will probably differ. :) )
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 09:49 PM	[QUOTE]Mad Miso, You are really trying to claim that learning a utility spell doesn't hurt the sorcerer that much? Yes. Yes I am. And I'm astounded you think otherwise. You do realize that a "utility" spell for a Sorcerer are things like Alter Self, Polymorph Other, and dispel magic, all spells that can be used in a variety of ways. You do realize that Dispel Magic can be used to more or less counterspell at will? Or that the Sorcerer can drop a Dispel on that buffed up Cleric he wasn't expecting, just because he feels like it, instead of memorizing the spell once and hoping not to cast it at the wrong time? Not to mention the fact that a Sorcerer can ignore his less useful spells whenever he wants. An Empowered Magic Missle or Fireball is never a bad thing to have up your sleeve, and a Sorcerers sleeve will always be stuffed. You simply don't seem to understand that Sorcerers flat out play differently than Wizards. Its not about knowing 600 spells. Its about being able to make yourself useful all day long, by drawing on a very flexible set of spells.
Polaris 07-27-04, 09:50 PM	Guys, Several things. 1. I agree that Vancian casting sucks. I hate it; I have since I saw other systems (starting in the early 80's handle magic spontaneously and so much better). 2. In spite of point 1, the fact remains that in an Iconic party (of four people) the Wizard (even with silly Vancian casting) beats the holy snot out of the Sorcerer as an Arcane caster. That party role not only includes nuking (which is actually very weak in 3E and 3.5E but also transportation and party support). 3. Wizards do get all the advantages and almost none of the disadvantages....and even those can be mitigated. When you add in supplemental material, it gets even worse (since it is all geared towards the wizard). Finally, I want to point out that all the arguments and counterarguments have been hashed to death elsewhere and IMHO we are accomplishing nothing except further bruising feelings and egos. The fact remains, though, that WOTC favors the wizard over the sorcerer.....and more generally Vancian casting over non-Vancian castings regardless and even in spite of player feelings to the contrary. The message does indeed seem to be, "You can play a spontaneous caster....just as long as you suck at it." [FWIW, the Psion is a far better sponteneous caster than the sorcerer will ever be....and that merely shows just how BAD the sorcerer really is.] I mean seriously...in an iconic party of four, which would you rather have in the party? A wizard who can support the group AND be a good combat caster, or a sorcerer who might] be a good combat caster but is otherwise totally useless? [Hint: This is not a hard choice.] -Polaris
Tony Vargas 07-27-04, 09:55 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Mad Miso, You are really trying to claim that learning a utility spell doesn't hurt the sorcerer that much? Well, starting with Erase and Animate Rope would probably hurt. ;) But, yes, after he has basic offense and defense covered, the sorcerer doesn't give up much in picking the occassional utility spell. Doing so doesn't reduce his offensive capacity at all, since he can have the utility spell ready to go at any time, while still having the option to devote all his daily slots to combat spells, if that's what the day brings. This sounds extremely crippling to me. Casting one spell over and over again is not what I call flexibility. Sounds? I'll admit, it sounds that way. I've played sorcerers more than I have 3E wizards (though no where near as much as I played 1E magic-users), and, i have to say, I haven't found the small number of spells known cripling, at all. Casting the same spell repeatedly - when it's called for - is a manifestation of the sorcerer's tactical flexibility, yes. A sorcerer might know a solid offensive spell of each level he can cast, for instance. One might be a fire spell, and he might cast it repeatedly - maybe empowered if it's one of his lower-level spells - against fire-vulneralbe monsters. He might cast a different spell repeatedly against a different enemy, and not use the fire-based one at all that day. Though you have only a relatively small number of spells to choose from, you can choose any of them, in any given round, so you're generally casting the best spell from that list for the current round's situation.
Haldrik 07-27-04, 09:57 PM	To spontaneously choose which spell to cast is stupid if you only have one spell known. The scarcity of spells that the Sorcerers can know severly limits their advantage of choice. Only 3 spells known for the highest level spells literally sabotages their non-vancian spellcasting.
Polaris 07-27-04, 10:02 PM	Tony, That still doesn't change the fact (and sorcerer's don't get bonus feats to buy metamagic lest we forget) that in a party of four (the iconic party), the wizard is hands down the better choice in a core game....and when you add supplemental material, the sorcerer should not even be considered. That's because not only can the wizard nuke...perhaps not as well as the sorcerer but that is still disputable (and I am not about to conceed that point), but he can also provide item support, transportation support, buffing, and so much more....and that's just with his spells and feats. Add in the vastly better skill list (centered around knowledge skills) and it is literally no contest (espeically when you look at available PrCs). That is why the Sorcerer is in dire need of help (and it's not just me....that seems to be the Conventional Wisdom not only here but elsehwere). The wizard is just a better arcane caster because he fulfills his party responsibilities so much better in spite of his silly Vancian casting. IMHO WOTC severely overvalued spontaneous casting and it shows (especially with regard to the wizard). It would seem (based on the Favored Soul, Battle Sorcerer, and Psion) that WOTC is revising this cost downward...but that does little to save the sorcerer until the next edition of the game (unless the Sorcerer is redone in Complete Arcane.....and I have heard rumors of just that though I can not speak for their veracity). -Polaris
Mad Miso 07-27-04, 10:16 PM	No offense Polaris, but I don't know that I've ever seen you concede anything. ;) I don't think most of the people of these boards would object to a new and improved Sorcerer. Heck, DOA has his own varient he's been polishing for months. Its the assertion that the Sorcerer is a weak or useless class that rankles people, from what I've seen. Spotting new trends in Wizard's products is always fun though. I have to admit that I really like what I've been seeing lately, for the most part.:cool:
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-27-04, 10:46 PM	Wow lots of posts... I am just checking in on everything. I will make some comments later.
Kyuketsukiouji 07-27-04, 11:04 PM	Wow...what a truckload of spurious arguments and false assumptions in there. Honestly. It's sad to read some of this, people. 1- Charisma is a useless stat Uhh. No. Sure, it's true that charisma is the only stat that has no direct effect on combat. Strength affects BAB and Damage, Dexterity affects AC, Initiative and Reflex Saves, Consitution affects HP and Fortitude Saves, Wisdom affects Will Saves, and Intelligence gives Skill Points. Charisma? Nothing. Yes, I'm of the opinion this is a bad thing. I personally think Charisma should affect Will saves, and Wisdom should affect Initiative. But that doesn't mean Charisma is bad. In the hands of a smart player, Charisma is one of the most powerful stat. A simple excercise can show that. Take a standard mage and a standard sorcerer, and make a list of which outer planar creatures each can force into service with Planar Binding. Suddenly, the difference is staggering. The sorcerer can command half the Monster Manual with consummate ease. The Wizard? He's paying through the nose even to get imps to listen to him. That's power too. 2- Sorcerers are less "pure" casters than wisdom or intelligece-based casters. Not in a bloody million years. First of all, there is absolutely nothing in the flavour text of either class to support this. Second, there's no logic involved in the statistic description to justify this. Somehow, for instance, I'm supposed to expect that the caster who gets his spells from a third party (a god), because he has more "personal insight and awareness of his environment" is somehow better at it than a sorcerer. Or, maybe it's the guy who needs his magic in written form, and who's usless without his Cliff Notes to Blowing Things Up? Right. After all, it's not like the Sorcerer his bending the forces of the universe by act of will alone. Oh, wait, he is. Guess that makes him as "deserving" of being a "pure" caster than anybody else. 3- A Sorcerer's staggered progression is normal because all charisma-based casters have it. You've got the cart before the horse here. All Charisma-based casters have a staggered progression because the Sorcerer had it. The Sorcerer is the prototype for the other classes, not the end result. 4- The Sorcerer isn't meant to be an item creator. The Wizard is. Again, this is completely unsubstantiated. If the wizard was meant to be a primary item creator, their bonus feats would be only item creation feats. But they're not. Wizards are the "techinicians" of spellcasting, and the Sorcerers are the "martial artists" of spellcasting. If you really want to get the flavour right, comparing Wizards and Sorcerers should be like comparing Fighters and Monks. Monks have more attacks per round, Fighters have more fighting techiniques (feats). Both are good at hitting things, just differently. Both arcane caster classes can make magical items. As a matter of fact, there is a category of Magical Items that are far, far more advantagous for Sorcerers than Wizards, and that's Staves. The new Staff caster level rules is about the only thing in 3.5 D&D that I loved so much, I made it into a houserule for my 3.0 games. Sorcerers who don't take craft staff, in my opinion, are really missing out on something awesome. (By extension, Master Staff should be right up there in the list of "must take Epic feats"). Most sorcerers I play usually end up with both craft staff and craft wondrous items. 5- Wizards are better than Sorcerers at Epic levels, particularily with Epic spells Go back to the Epic spell section. Reread it. About 5 times. Or as many times more as it takes you to notice the tiny section that says . A developed epic spell becomes an indelible part of the caster and may be prepared without a spellbook (if a wizard is the caster). Characters who cast spells spontaneously, such as sorcerers, can cast a developed epic spell by using any open epic spell slot. Druids, clerics, and similar spellcasters can likewise prepare epic spells using epic spell slots. See that one? The one that says SORCERERS CAST EPIC SPELLS SPONTANEOUSLY. You'll note that there's actually no limit to how many Epic Spells you can actually know anywhere. That's right. NO LIMIT! Don't know about you, but unlimited spells and spontaneous spellcasting sounds *really* sweet to me. No way in hell will anyone convince my that +10 or +15 to your spellcraft score beats the fact my Epic Sorcerer has over 200 Epic Spells to cast from when you're stuck preparing every single last one of yours. Sure, a lot of those are low-DC utility and combat spells. But wouldn't you know it, a good chunk of those are all spells I had to skip when I was non-epic. I don't have to skip them now. Epic Spellcasting is the second feat my sorcerers take. 6- Wizards can control the pace of encounters with spells like Teleport, Mord's Mansion, ect. This is only true if you're fighting non-intelligent creatures. Or if your DM is one. In any other case, leaving in the middle of an assault for 8-10 hours is stupid. In the best case, you'll teleport/return/whatever back, and whatever it was you were killing will simply have picked up and left. In the worse case, you've got 25 symbols plastering the walls, floor and ceiling of whatever you're coming back to, they called up two pit fiends with Call Planar Ally while you were snoozing, and every single corpse you killed the day before is now a greater undead. Oh, and you lost initiative, because they had a divination telling them when you'd come back. Start making saving throws. Leaving half a bunch of anything alive for a day is just begging for them to call up reinforcements, beef up defences, and start looking for you, instead. And if they find you 5 hours in your Wizard's nap, well...time for the old "4d6 drop the lowest" song and dance. This one, of course, is my contribution to this mess. 7- Sorcerers are equal to wizards. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I've extensively played both, in numerous types of situation, and it's just not true. The Sorcerer is somewhat superior to the Wizards only in endurance situations. The more encounters, the more the Sorcerer shines. But even then, a well-played Wizard can balance things out for the most part. The breaking point, I've found, seems to be around 6 encounters per day. (Having the ability to cast low level spells in high-level spell slots sounds really neat, but, honestly, when you're forced to use magic missile in a level 4 spell slot, you're sucking about as much as the Wizard lobbing darts +1. The only way a sorcerer really can take advantage of the higher level spells slots like that is with Heighten and Maximise). Now, beyond 6 encounters per day, then the Sorcerer is supreme, no questions asked. The problem is, 6+ encounters per day seems to be pushing it, especially since the rest of the party isn't made to handle that. No matter how good a cleric is, for instance, he's going to be pretty low on spells at that rate. So what's there to do? A- Equal Spell learning level. There's no reason for the Sorcerer to learn spells slower than a Wizard. That one level is one heck of a difference at odd levels. Nuke that. B- Allow Quicken. Again, the inability to cast two spells a round is a serious handicap. Why is it the guy who has less spells who can somehow burn them faster? Shouldn't the guy with more spells to use be able to use them up faster? Not to mention combining both A and B means that, in general, Wizard vs Sorcerer battles = dead Sorcerer at anywhere above level 11 (Even one magic missle or buff spell more a round is deadly. Heck, one Quickened Melf's Acid Arrow right after a Dispel Magic is a vicious combo, since the other guy will be pulling Concentration checks every round for the rest of the fight.). Don't even mention Spell Preparation. The very fact someone had to invent a feat for a sorcerer to *force* them to be like a Wizard so they could take advantage of things like quicken is the single most blaring clue cheating Sorcerers out of Quicken was an unbalancing decision. Sure, from a blatantly logical sense, it is more in-line with established patterns to say Quicken takes full round, but logic can take the back seat to not being incinerated by a mage two levels under you, just because the fellow could drop your defences with a quickened Dispel and then fry you with his highest slot, all at once, while you have to take two rounds to do the same thing. Just those two things would go a long way towards re-establishing not only partity, but dignity to the Sorcerer. They'd no longer be the bastard redheaded stepchild of spellcasting classes, somehow halfway between full caster and half-caster classes (3/4 casters?). Other suggestions: C- Craft Staff as a level 12 bonus feat. The Wizards have their scrolls and books, why not give the sorcerers their staves? Just that would add a bit of flavour to a class that badly needs it. It also would give something...anything...for toughing it out. D- A better skill list. Sorry, but Bluff doesn't cut it. At the very least, Use Magic Device should be a class skill. If "using the force of your will to activate an unknown magical item" doesn't scream Sorcerer, I don't know what does. Finally, and this is going to spark controversy... E- Even more spells per day. Honestly, if the Sorcerer is supposed to be some kind of magical howitzer, with only 18 more spells, at a maximum, total compared to a Wizard, and only 9 compared to a specialist, I really don't see it. Not to mention that every single "more spells per day" item out there seems to be made for Wizards. Sorcerers would be a lot more capable if they had 3 or 4 more spells per day than wizards. For one thing, that would actually encourage the taking of non-offensive spells. I'd love to be able to bull's strength my entire party, and still have some slots left over for a few Acid arrows, for instance.
Spirit_Golem 07-27-04, 11:10 PM	The only thing that I have to say is about the so called "weak stats". It is my personal opinion that any stat can be a weak stat depending on what it pretains to. For instance strength and charisma. Strength is a weak stat for Wizards and Sorcerers, because, since they are supposed to be spellcasters, they have no need for brute force. Charisma, on the other hand, is not needed for many of the other classes, because they do not need to be interpersonal. But the thing that this last statement does not mention is: Many classes have skills or class abilities that corruspond (sp?) to their primary and secondary ability scores. Wizards have knowledge skills, fighters have climb, jump, etc. and bards have diplomacy, and UMD, to name a few. The sorcerer on the other hand has bluff, which is IMHO one of the most useless skills in the game (other than for feinting rogues). Anyways, it is my opinion that sorcerers should have been more based on public relations than just the lifeless class that they are.
Spirit_Golem 07-27-04, 11:17 PM	The starting age does not mean anything when it comes to sorcerers. The starting age simply corrosponds to when the sorcerer's powers have manifested fully enough to allow him to be able to function as an adventurer. By the way, I believe that the sorcerer text in the clases section states that the sorcerer gains his most rudimentary powers in his early teens. This says to me that if the sorcerer in question first manifested his spellcasting ability at the age of 13, there is an average of 4½ years of practice that he accumulates within the alotted time.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 11:19 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik The scarcity of spells that the Sorcerers can know severly limits their advantage of choice. Only 3 spells known for the highest level spells literally sabotages their non-vancian spellcasting. Many people, apparently, disagree. Without a solid and detailed analysis backing up your claim, all we have are two differing opinions. Show - in (preferably quantitative) detail and without assumptions that favour your argument - why no Sorcerer can be as powerful as a typical Wizard at a representative level (say, 10th), and you'll have a lot of people agreeing with you. Fail to provide such an ironclad argument that no such Sorcerer exists, and you leave your argument open to the criticism of "you just didn't make a very good Sorcerer". Fail to do either and stay firmly entrenched in the realm of asserting opinion. Whatever you choose is fine; however, it's much more productive to try making objective and well-supported arguments rather than repeating one's opinions repetitiously. But YMMV.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-27-04, 11:32 PM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji B- Allow Quicken. Has anyone tried allowing Sorcerers to use Quicken? Intuitively, it seems like this would be an extremely powerful ability for high-level Sorcerers, since (a) they have the spell slots to burn, and (b) they would have instant Quickened access to any of their low-level spells, rather than just the tiny handful they'd prepared. With about 35 slots per day in which a useful Quicken can be used, a 20th-level Sorcerer could be casting two spells every single round of combat, all day, with each pair of spells chosen from their list of 34 spells known for maximum situational and synergistic effect. Instead of the handful of paired spell combinations available to a Wizard of that level, the Sorcerer would have access to literally thousands of paired spell combinations (34x22 = ~7000), making the ability to Quicken spells enormously more valuable to a Sorcerer. Sorcererous Quicken seems to fail the "no-brainer" test (i.e., it's a no-brainer for every high-level Sorcerer to take it), suggesting that it's too good. Has anyone tried it with a high-level campaign and a clever Sorcerer player to test whether that's true in actual play?
Polaris 07-27-04, 11:59 PM	DCB, I have...or at least I have played in the Midnight d20 system where all 'arcane' casters (called channellers) cast as sorcerers with no added time for metamagic (allowing quicken). It wasn't a problem. The great cost of the feat restricted it's use except for the very highest of levels.....and it just meant that you burnt through your spells twice as fast. It was great, but IMHO it just made the sorcerer type on par with the wizard. -Polaris
WizO_Catoblepas 07-28-04, 12:11 AM	Ok, just a friendly reminder to keep the posts to the subject of the thread, not other guests. Most people are doing that, but some aren't. Like I said, just a reminder. Carry on.
BlaineTog 07-28-04, 12:11 AM	Originally posted by Dire Celestial Bonobo Sorcererous Quicken seems to fail the "no-brainer" test (i.e., it's a no-brainer for every high-level Sorcerer to take it), suggesting that it's too good.Ah, but it also seems to fail the same test for every other primary caster. Druids and Clerics (who's power resides in their buffs) will take it, and Wizards also almost always do. Quicken probably is one of those no-brainer feats that everyone should tkae -- which makes it all the more painful that the Sorcerer can't have it (at least spontaneously. Arcane Preperation, however, spits in the face of the sorcerer's flavor).
Haldrik 07-28-04, 12:32 AM	Bonobo: Intuitively, it seems like (Quicken) would be an extremely powerful ability for high-level Sorcerers, since (a) they have the spell slots to burn, and (b) they would have instant Quickened access to any of their low-level spells, rather than just the tiny handful they'd prepared. For you, if Quicken is "too" good for the Sorcerers, then they should not get it. But the opposite is true. Quicken synergizes so well with the Sorcerers' spontaneous magic, that Quicken obviously resonates the Sorcerers' flavor and style. Sorcerers should get Quicken. It's precisely because Quicken is awkward and doesn't synergize well with Wizards, that Wizards should not get Quicken (as part of their bonus feats).
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-28-04, 12:45 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Ah, but it also seems to fail the same test for every other primary caster. I'm not so sure I agree with that. The problem for prepared casters is that preparing a Quickened spell is a huge waste of a high-level spell slot unless you're in a situation where you need exactly that spell and you can't possibly spare a single round. If you guessed wrong - about the spell you need, about your ability to spare a round, about the combo you were thinking of using - you've wasted a high-level slot. In that sense, everything but a very few well-known combinations (and often even those) are quite a gamble. For a Sorcerer, it's no gamble whatsoever, since they only use the high-level slots they need, and they have plenty of slots to spare. They have every combo they could use available to them, whenever needed. You do have a good point that a melee Cleric might find a use for his Quickened Divine Favour every day, making it valuable and less of a gamble for that variety of high-level Cleric. I still suspect there would be a significant difference in scope, however; such a Cleric might use Quicken 2-3 times per day (DF mainly, maybe DP or RM if they're very high-level and melee-focussed), but a similarly high-level Sorcerer would use Quicken 10-15 times/day, or pretty much every single round of combat. Instead of providing a limited number of two-spell combos (as Clerics and Wizards gain from the feat), Quicken Spell seems like it would give Sorcerers many of the benefits of always being able to cast two spells per round (or 1.5 spells, since the second spell is of about 1/3-1/2 level). A Wizard would be foolhardy to Quicken many (if any) attack spells, but a Sorcerer could easily throw an extra Scorching Ray with his Meteor Swarm, or an extra Enervation with his Energy drain, increasing his effectiveness by 50% virtually for free. *shrug* It just seems like a much, much more powerful ability for spontaneous casters than for prepared casters, particularly with the large number of high-level spells/day a Sorcerer would have to throw around. Of course, it is worth noting that this is an issue that will mean nothing to the significant majority of Sorcerers that actually get played, since the lower levels of play are the most common and Quicken is only broadly useful at the highest 4-6 levels. If Sorcerers are deemed underpowered at levels below 14 or so, this change is largely irrelevant to the underlying problem.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 07-28-04, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik Quicken synergizes so well with the Sorcerers' spontaneous magic, that Quicken obviously resonates the Sorcerers' flavor and style. Sorcerers should get Quicken. Just because it fits the Sorcerer's style nicely doesn't mean it's not overpowered. Indeed, Quicken Spell may be overpowered for Sorcerers precisely because it synergizes so well with their spontaneous magic, in much the same way that 3.0's Whirlwind Attack synergized too well with Great Cleave and a bag of rats.
Polaris 07-28-04, 12:52 AM	Dire Celestial Bonobo, You are forgetting three things: 1. Some spells are always great when quickened. You mentioned Divine Favor, but don't forget True Strike and many others. 2. You can put quickened spells on scrolls which allows them to be read as a swift action (i.e. a once per round free action). 3. The Quickened metamagic feat allows the wizard to make Rods of Metamagic: Quicken which alone make the wizard (or any prepared caster) far better than the sorcerer, since the metamagic rod of quickening allows you to spontaneously use quicken spell, but only if you are a Vancian caster (and it doesn't even cost extra spell levels). OTOH neither the Sorcerer nor Bard (nor for that matter any spontaneous caster) can use these rods at all. -Polaris
BlaineTog 07-28-04, 01:15 AM	Originally posted by Polaris OTOH neither the Sorcerer nor Bard (nor for that matter any spontaneous caster) can use these rods at all.Not strictly true, going by the RAW:From the 3.5 SRD entry on Metamagic rods A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses.{[u]Emphasis[/i] mine} Clearly, its a misprint, but still...
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 01:18 AM	I leave for a few hours and the thread doubles in size. ...yeesh. Originally posted by RaKhan Sorry, but you can't be a wizard and cast all your spells spontaneously unless you're a lesser deity with the correct divine salient power. Until then, the sorceror is the next best thing, and good luck on trying to convince even 1% of the DMs out there to let you play a wizard lesser deity. I'm aware of that. When I stated that particular comment, I was being sarcastic, because a spontaneously casting wizard seems to be what polaris wants. Not a sorcerer. That post was long, but please read the whole thing or at leaset the entire portion of my statement. Originally posted by Polaris 1. I agree that Vancian casting sucks. I hate it; I have since I saw other systems (starting in the early 80's handle magic spontaneously and so much better). I don't understand this irrational hatred, nor will I claim to. I'm sure that no amount of convincing will difer you away from it, but if you don't like it so much, find an alterative that you like. There are many alt sorcerers, official varients (like UA's spellpoint system), and psions. 2. In spite of point 1, the fact remains that in an Iconic party (of four people) the Wizard (even with silly Vancian casting) beats the holy snot out of the Sorcerer as an Arcane caster. That party role not only includes nuking (which is actually very weak in 3E and 3.5E but also transportation and party support). Funny, if you looked at a number of the previous sorc vs. wizard threads, there's actually a poll Xundalvorl started that asked what class, specifically, between a sorcerer and a wizard, would a group have "at their back?" If I remember correctly, I believe that the sorcerer came out ahead. After having played both classes, I can say that, from experience, the wizard doesn't "beat the snot" out of a sorcerer. 3. Wizards do get all the advantages and almost none of the disadvantages....and even those can be mitigated. When you add in supplemental material, it gets even worse (since it is all geared towards the wizard). Right, right, all those "advantages" come from a monty-haul DM'd campaign using the "gravy train" to craft "double items." to replicate the sorcerer's advantages using items. :rolleyes: The fact remains, though, that WOTC favors the wizard over the sorcerer.....and more generally Vancian casting over non-Vancian castings regardless and even in spite of player feelings to the contrary. Polaris, That has yet to be proven. Despite your best efforts, there's -no- proof in anything that's been stated and even recieved from official letters that indicates anything of this nature. All of what you are saying is theory and opinion based on blind frustration. The message does indeed seem to be, "You can play a spontaneous caster....just as long as you suck at it." [FWIW, the Psion is a far better sponteneous caster than the sorcerer will ever be....and that merely shows just how BAD the sorcerer really is.] Except that the sorcerer can easily outlast a psion. The sorcerer also casts spells from a vastly superior list of spells. I mean seriously...in an iconic party of four, which would you rather have in the party? A wizard who can support the group AND be a good combat caster, or a sorcerer who might] be a good combat caster but is otherwise totally useless? [Hint: This is not a hard choice.] This poll was already done. Guess which of the two classes came out ahead. I'll give you a hint. It's the one that you think is absolutely worthless. Originally posted by Polaris That still doesn't change the fact (and sorcerer's don't get bonus feats to buy metamagic lest we forget) that in a party of four (the iconic party), the wizard is hands down the better choice in a core game....and when you add supplemental material, the sorcerer should not even be considered. phht. More opinion and no evidence or... really anything to support your own claims. Supplemental material only helps the sorcerer. That's because not only can the wizard nuke...perhaps not as well as the sorcerer but that is still disputable (and I am not about to conceed that point), Coming from someone who just said: "the wizard is hands down the better choice in a core game" Is someone I don't think is concedeing to anything that doesn't state that the wizard is superior. but he can also provide item support, transportation support, buffing, and so much more....and that's just with his spells and feats. Add in the vastly better skill list (centered around knowledge skills) and it is literally no contest (espeically when you look at available PrCs). I'm sorry, but a skill list "centered around" anything isn't a better skill list by any stretch of the imagination. It's not like it matters anyway, that's what divinations are for. Prestige class availability is not a measure of class balance. That is why the Sorcerer is in dire need of help (and it's not just me....that seems to be the Conventional Wisdom not only here but elsehwere). Hah! "conventional wisdom?" Who've you been listening to? Pick a class, any class. There will be people in varying numbers that think that class or even teh entire class system sucks beyond sucks, for varying reasons. Most of this blatent dislike of WotC, the vancian spellcasting system, and the sorcerer sucks is you and Xundalvorl. That's not a majority. I'm not gonna deny that the sorcerer has its flaws. I made my varient of the sorcerer to address that, however, the sorcerer is not less powerful than the sorcerer. Say that the wizard is better all you like. Say how much this and that flaw is soooo terrible. It doesn't change the fact that this is what WotC made. They haven't done anything to cripple it. (beyond what they've done to any other class for balancing measures). The wizard isn't superior to the point to where playing a wizard is the obvious choice. The wizard is just a better arcane caster because he fulfills his party responsibilities so much better in spite of his silly Vancian casting. No, the wizard isn't "Just better." I've never. Ever. Ever heard of an instance in which a sorcerer came up any shorter in filling the role of an arcane spellcaster than a wizard otherwise would have. IMHO WOTC severely overvalued spontaneous casting and it shows (especially with regard to the wizard). It would seem (based on the Favored Soul, Battle Sorcerer, and Psion) that WOTC is revising this cost downward...but that does little to save the sorcerer until the next edition of the game (unless the Sorcerer is redone in Complete Arcane.....and I have heard rumors of just that though I can not speak for their veracity). Rumors. What the complete arcane brings is still entirely up in the air. I would certainly hope to see more prestige classes oriented toward the sorcerer. That didn't suck. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if an "offical" varients of both the wizard and sorcerer showed up. However, I doubt a reconstruction of the class.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 01:20 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Clearly, its a misprint, but still... Strictly speaking, even though they're better for preparation based casters, they're still excellent rods for sorcerers. Given that they can know more MM feats by buying these rods in addition to being able to use them with no other costs. EDIT: (personally, however, if I were DM, I'd kill either the extra time costs anyway, or I'd make the preparation based casters use the rods during preparations up to three times/day**) **=if I did that, however, I'd say that a caster can only have three such prepared spells (from that one rod) at any given time. So you won't get cheeses that everntually have thier entire spell lists enhanced in such a way.
Polaris 07-28-04, 01:26 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Strictly speaking, even though they're better for preparation based casters, they're still excellent rods for sorcerers. Given that they can know more MM feats by buying these rods in addition to being able to use them with no other costs. Actually that's wrong. The wizard can know just as many metamagic feats as the sorcerer and have item creation feats too. That's because the wizard gets bonus feats and the sorcerer does not. In addition to that, the sorcerer can not use a metamagic rod of quickening at all. The wizard (and cleric and druid) can use it....spontaneously at that! As for the poll, that's just lack of game experience. I have seen both and as a party caster the wizard is far away the better choice (over the sorcerer). Polls don't prove squat....especially non-scientific ones....particularly when polling at all violates the CoC. Finally, I want to point out what others have already said: The sorcerer doesn't come into his own (when compared with the wizard) unless you have at least 5-6 encounters. When you consider that the core rule assumption is 4 encounters per day....and the wizard (or cleric) can do a lot to make that less, it should be clear which is the better class (for what it does). -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 01:36 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Actually that's wrong. The wizard can know just as many metamagic feats as the sorcerer and have item creation feats too. That's because the wizard gets bonus feats and the sorcerer does not. ... okay. Look at my post again. Did I say that the sorcerer had ... more metamagic feats than the wizard? No. I didn't. In addition to that, the sorcerer can not use a metamagic rod of quickening at all. The wizard (and cleric and druid) can use it....spontaneously at that! ... okay. Did I say otherwise? Do you even understand what I'm saying in my posts? As for the poll, that's just lack of game experience. I have seen both and as a party caster the wizard is far away the better choice (over the sorcerer). Polls don't prove squat....especially non-scientific ones....particularly when polling at all violates the CoC. Like I said. Xundalvorl started the thread. Sorcerers came out ahead between all of the posters that responded. I never said it was the definative word on the subject. However, it does indicate that the sorscerer doesn't suck as much as you say it does because people use it and aren't griping and griping and griping about oh how poor and stupid the sorcerer is. In fact, look at any of the sorc. vs. wizard threads. If it sucks so much, how come there's so much controversy, as opposed to unanimous agreement, eh? Finally, I want to point out what others have already said: The sorcerer doesn't come into his own (when compared with the wizard) unless you have at least 5-6 encounters. When you consider that the core rule assumption is 4 encounters per day....and the wizard (or cleric) can do a lot to make that less, it should be clear which is the better class (for what it does). Y'know, it doesn't make it true the more times you say "the sorcerer is inferior to the wizard." You can say it all you want. That's what makes it your opinion. However, that doesn't make it fact.
Polaris 07-28-04, 01:50 AM	Darkest of Angels, OK, I will make this as simple as arithmetic: Here is the question: Is spontaneous casting + 2 extra spell slots per spell level worth the following: Scribe Scroll+4 other metamagic/item-creation feats of your choice An Inferior Spell Table (where you get new spells one level later than normal) An inferior casting stat (Int is a much better casting stat than Cha) A severe limit on the spells you can possibly know (as compared with the wizard who will start with much more and can learn more). An inferior skill list (with only one class skill keyed to your casting class) The inability to quicken spells The inability to use metamagic rods to their full potential (or at all in the case of quicken metamagic rods. The loss of useful PrCs If you can truly say that spontaneous casting is worth the items listed above, then I supposed you are right. I, for one, don't believe that for a moment....and neither, I suspect, do most other people....especially when it is laid out in this fashion. -Polaris
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 02:06 AM	Originally posted by Polaris OK, I will make this as simple as arithmetic: Here is the question: Is spontaneous casting + 2 extra spell slots per spell level worth the following: Scribe Scroll+4 other metamagic/item-creation feats of your choice An Inferior Spell Table (where you get new spells one level later than normal) An inferior casting stat (Int is a much better casting stat than Cha) A severe limit on the spells you can possibly know (as compared with the wizard who will start with much more and can learn more). An inferior skill list (with only one class skill keyed to your casting class) The inability to quicken spells The inability to use metamagic rods to their full potential (or at all in the case of quicken metamagic rods. The loss of useful PrCs If you can truly say that spontaneous casting is worth the items listed above, then I supposed you are right. I, for one, don't believe that for a moment....and neither, I suspect, do most other people....especially when it is laid out in this fashion. -Polaris When it is laid out in such a fashion, it does seem that way. When it is laid out in such a fashion. You grossly devalue a sorcerer's power. You devalue the sorcerer for not having the wizard's primary strengths and not having access to what that class has access to. You devalue the sorcerer for using a different stat. That's right. I didn't say "inferior" stat. I said "different." You want to think charisma is inferior to intelligence. That's your perogative. I finished a game not three hours ago. A diplomacy check by our rogue saved my party's life against an enemy we couldn't otherwise defeat. (Thanks to some really bad rolls against fear from our party.) Just because charisma doesn't damage something or have some other combat-oriented point value on a character sheet, doesn't make it inferior. The sorcerer isn't a wizard. If you expect a sorcerer to fill in a wizard's shoes. It will fail. Regardless of the "gravy train" theory, the wizard can't fill the sorcerer's role either. What you want, is a spontaneously spellcasting wizard. Furthermore, I've always gone by the saying "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Many of the older posters here, such as myself and blainetog, have all worked on a solution of some kind. Even Xun attempted to make a sorcerer class. None of them involved lamblasting the sorcerer for being so inferior as you unequivically -think- that it is. Now, I'm not saying that the sorcerer isn't without its flaws. However, I am saying that it is NOT inferior to the wizard. Charisma is not inferior to intelligence or wisdom. I say this because I -know- what a sorcerer and what a wizard are each capable of and incapable of. I've played both.
lanilifar 07-28-04, 02:11 AM	I like the sorcerer fine as is. My group prefers the sorcerer over the wizard (I am the only one who prefers the wizard). I like the wizards versatility. I like changing tactics and using a variety of spells and spell combos over the course of a campaign. When I play a sorcerer, I don't do either of those things (that would be kind of stupid). I focus on the talents of the class. None of the sorcerers I have seen (and since my group prefers them to wizards, I have seen a lot) were underpowered relative to the rest of the party. This includes many people who would never play a caster in 2e. People with relatively little experience playing casters at all, could play a sorcerer and play it well and make large impacts on party power. This is in spite of the fact that they occasionally made obvious tactical mistakes. I have enjoyed the sorcerers I have played, despite preferring the wizard, and did not find them to be unplayable, underpowered, lacking in flavor, or overall weaker than a wizard. Dumber (as in the characters Int is lower and they don't know as many things), usually, but not weaker. A sorcerer with Craft Wondrous Item can actually be quite a good item crafter (especially in a party with other casters). Although, that is not a bonus feature of the class (it is not a bonus feature of any class except the wizard). As for the poll, that's just lack of game experience. I have seen both and as a party caster the wizard is far away the better choice (over the sorcerer). Polls don't prove squat Your experience is all that matters then? On a public message board? While in your game, your experiences may be all that matters, I would dare say that is not the case here. You are really implying (or maybe explicitly stating) that anybody who finds the sorcerer balanced as is, is just not experienced enough to know better (ie they are ignorant, and their views should be ignored as ignorant drivel).
Polaris 07-28-04, 02:17 AM	Darkest of Angels, Charisma is an inferior casting stat vs Intelligence. This is a simple fact that shouldn't be in dispute...especially when it is worth noting that only one class skill (Bluff) uses charisma for the sorcerer while most of the wizard's class skill depend on Intelligence. Furthermore, intelligence gives extra skill points which is gold for anyone in addition to skill bonuses for many skills. Charisma gives bupkis. As for Diplomacy, I have already showed elsewhere that: 1. Charisma only comes into play via social skills. 2. Social skills depend more on intelligence (Diplomacy gets a +6 synergy bonus via high Intelligence from other skills) than on charisma. Finally, if you skill think the sorcerer didn't get shafted, then I suggest you do a side by side comparison between the Cleric and the Favored Soul (out of Complete Divine). Not only do I think that the sorcerer got the shaft, but (albeit indirectly) WOTC seems to be coming around to that view as well (or at least that is what the evidence is suggesting). -Polaris
mercurywyrm 07-28-04, 02:23 AM	Here Here! Darkest is right! Charisma may not have much to do with combat, but only munchikins don't care about how their character interacts with people because munchkins will find some way to screw it up no matter how charming their character is or how good they look. The problem is some people don't realize that you are supposed to role play your character for the large part based on your mental stats, possibly more so than class, race, abilities, who you are, how powerfull you are, and what level you are. If you have a low charisma and remember to bow before the king and don't expect NPCs to make fun of you often for looking or acting funny you are role playing VERY poorly. If you have an 18 charisma and go around doing things which would make people angry with you, whining, treating people like dirt, you are role playing poorly. An evil character with an 18 charisma might think of other people like dirt but they certainly wouldn't treat them that way unless they wanted to intimidate. An evil character with 3 charisma will probably never be taken seriously, never really evoke much other than putrid hatred, not fear. Low charisma characters don't make rousing speaches, they stutter, are unsure of themselves, avoid confrontation, crouds, or they constantly seek attention and allways mess it up, for instance, telling not really funny vulgar jokes in a polite setting and laughing at it really loud and forget their manners all the time. Charisma stat should be chosen according to how your character will be played BEFORE any other stat, disreagarding whether you are "wasting" good rolls. This is because most people can only properly role play a character with approximately their charisma. A large number can only roleplay well in their own alignment (kinda), and a HUGE number can't play well at all characters with ANY mental stat that would be higher than theirs.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 02:30 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Charisma is an inferior casting stat vs Intelligence. This is a simple fact that shouldn't be in dispute...especially when it is worth noting that only one class skill (Bluff) uses charisma for the sorcerer while most of the wizard's class skill depend on Intelligence. I've already said it wasn't. The sorcerer isn't even a skill-using class. It doesn't need any skills at all for all the same reasons as any other class that has 2+INT modifier for their gainable skill points. The wizard only has more -because- its casting stat is intelligence. However, the sorcerer doesn't require such skills. In the rare event that it is needed, the base minimum number of skills is all that is needed. Such as to fill in the requirements for archmage and epic spellcasting. Just because it's a dump stat for some classes, doesn't make it useless. What constitutes a "dump stat" for one class changes with each and every class you go through. Furthermore, intelligence gives extra skill points which is gold for anyone in addition to skill bonuses for many skills. Charisma gives bupkis. It's gold for skill using classes, but means "bupkis" for either the sorcerer or the wizard. Finally, if you skill think the sorcerer didn't get shafted, then I suggest you do a side by side comparison between the Cleric and the Favored Soul (out of Complete Divine). Not only do I think that the sorcerer got the shaft, but (albeit indirectly) WOTC seems to be coming around to that view as well (or at least that is what the evidence is suggesting). What of the favored soul? Look, you probably missed it like many, many of my points between here and our first discussion, but I did state, several times that, yes, the sorcerer is flawed. It flawed in the same mannerisms as any class is "flawed" in certain manners. And in others as well. however, that doesn't make the sorcerer inferior. You've never -ever- at any point, made any actual, factual evidence beyond "This is how it is -- Blah sucks" since this thread started. You furthermore don't have any new or convincing arguements supporting your position. Lastly, I -know- you think the sorcerer got the shaft. You think every single aspect of what makes a sorcerer a sorcerer means that WotC hates it and nerfed it in every possible manner that it could. It's not true, but that, as what seems to me, appears to be what you think of the sorcerer. however, your opinions is not proof of fact.
BlaineTog 07-28-04, 02:33 AM	Yeah, but only the party rogue or bard needs a high Charisma.
mercurywyrm 07-28-04, 02:35 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Darkest of Angels, Charisma is an inferior casting stat vs Intelligence. This is a simple fact that shouldn't be in dispute...especially when it is worth noting that only one class skill (Bluff) uses charisma for the sorcerer while most of the wizard's class skill depend on Intelligence. Furthermore, intelligence gives extra skill points which is gold for anyone in addition to skill bonuses for many skills. Charisma gives bupkis. As for Diplomacy, I have already showed elsewhere that: 1. Charisma only comes into play via social skills. 2. Social skills depend more on intelligence (Diplomacy gets a +6 synergy bonus via high Intelligence from other skills) than on charisma. Finally, if you skill think the sorcerer didn't get shafted, then I suggest you do a side by side comparison between the Cleric and the Favored Soul (out of Complete Divine). Not only do I think that the sorcerer got the shaft, but (albeit indirectly) WOTC seems to be coming around to that view as well (or at least that is what the evidence is suggesting). -Polaris Please understand that D&D isn't a computergame where the object is to win combats leading up to some high level confrontation or being the best in the world or some such nonsence, D&D is a game where you role play a character from another world, work together with a team of friends to weave a story of bold adventure. The rules are there to keep things consistent and meaningfull in the world of the game, not so everybody has their fair share of the limelight, not so that under ultrastandard circumstances everyone does equally well, or even to be realistic or make complete sense. The main intention is to make it so that one day fireball explodes in a blast of force and flame and flings people outwards, and the next it disrupts their position not at all and sears their flesh off right there. It is a way to keep things consistent, to help remember things, to keep things a little random rather than making everything decisions of DM and players and to guide everything into a more meaningfull sense of continum. They aren't there for people to prove wether sorcerers or wizards are better than one another or to try to make them equal in power, allthough the game would be allot more fun for many people if all classes and races were in the end equal. Don't take your guides and reminders as useless unneccesary statisics. Treat them as a mathematical outline of the character you are attempting to play.
lanilifar 07-28-04, 02:38 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Is spontaneous casting + 2 extra spell slots per spell level worth the following: Scribe Scroll+4 other metamagic/item-creation feats of your choice An Inferior Spell Table (where you get new spells one level later than normal) An inferior casting stat (Int is a much better casting stat than Cha) A severe limit on the spells you can possibly know (as compared with the wizard who will start with much more and can learn more). An inferior skill list (with only one class skill keyed to your casting class) The inability to quicken spells The inability to use metamagic rods to their full potential (or at all in the case of quicken metamagic rods. The loss of useful PrCs Yes, almost. The rods tip it in the wizards favor. The PrC point is a non-factor (as detailed below). If it wasn't for the rods, I would simply say yes. Spontaneous casting with a lot of spell slots is simply that good. PrC are supposed to be campaign specific generally, so that is really not a valued part of this discussion. There are an infinite number of great PrC for sorcerers (infinite because any group can make them). The lack of good sorcerer PrC in published material is an issue, but is not a factor in the balance of the sorcerer class. I think this issue should be resolved, but has no real impact on whether or not sorcerers and wizards are balanced as classes in themselves. Metamagic Rods - This is an issue. They should function the same for all casters. Or they should not exist. Casting stat - Int is not a much better casting stat than Cha. It may be a better stat than charisma (which I don't agree with), and therefore is better to have as a casting stat, but all other things being equal, an 18 Int wizard is not a better caster than a 26 Cha sorcerer. An inferior spell table - this would be the same table that has +2 spell slots. But I know you meant staggered progression. Staggered progression is not that horrible IME. It is slightly annoying as a player to see other members of the group casting 7th level spells one level sooner. It does not however extremely cramp the sorcerers power. OTOH, because I think it is negligible, I have never been opposed to eliminating staggered progression. Quicken - I am glad sorcerers can't quicken. At higher levels it is way too good with spontaneous casting. Has anyone tried allowing Sorcerers to use Quicken? Yes. When the designers first made sorcerers, there was no restriction on quicken. They (or at least enough of them that it mattered) thought it was too strong in combination with spontaneous casters. What do you think spontaneous casting is worth? How many of those balance factors would you eliminate? Which ones would you eliminate?
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 02:58 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Yeah, but only the party rogue or bard needs a high Charisma. Yes. The rogue The Bard The Sorcerer The Paladin The Cleric All aren't using charisma as a dump stat without some negitive side effects. That's 5 of the 11 core classes that are using charisma.
Polaris 07-28-04, 03:15 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Yes. The rogue The Bard The Sorcerer The Paladin The Cleric All aren't using charisma as a dump stat without some negitive side effects. That's 5 of the 11 core classes that are using charisma. As Samuel Clemmons once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Let's look at this a bit more carefully shall we. Other than class abilities, which class really needs charisma? The Rogue? Not really. The rogue needs intelligence before charisma.....and remember that Diplomacy can get up to +6 synergy bonus as well. Granted the rogue doesn't want a charisma penalty, but that is a far cry from saying he needs a good charisma. The Bard? Same deal. The Paladin? If it weren't for his class abilities, he would have no use for Charisma at all. The same applies to the sorcerer. The Cleric? HAH! I have played clerics, and clerics do just fine with a 10 Charisma or even less. Level is far more important than charisma for turning. As such, your list of five is really zero if you exclude class abilities. If you include class abilities, then only the sorcerer really needs to max out charisma over all other stats. The Bard only needs a charisma up to 16 (since he is not a primary caster), and the Paladin can get by with much the same. The cleric does just fine with a charisma of 10....as does the rogue. See how the picture changes when you analyze this a bit more carefully. Charisma as a stat really does suck. [I note that Intelligence does the same thing for the wizard that Charisma does for the Sorcerer....and does much more as well.] -Polaris
lanilifar 07-28-04, 03:25 AM	Other than class abilities, which class really needs charisma? Other than class abilities, which class really needs any stat? All classes can make choices with their stats, that can be viable. Constitution is about the only stat I can see that would not fit this category. The main damage absobers (fighters, barb, paladins) probably should really consider carefully before putting an 8 in Con. Although there are builds with those classes that could work like that (archers don't necessarily need Con), they would really cease to be damage absorbers. Of course one could say that damage absorption, is a class ability of these high HD classes, in which case we are back to a null arguement.
Polaris 07-28-04, 03:32 AM	Lanilifar, I wouldn't take that argument too far. This has been analyzed before....and Charisma always comes up wanting. The fact remains that every stat gives something concrete in addition to class abilities and boosts to certain skills. All stats that is except Charisma. That means that (for example) the Wizard gets bonus skill points (always good) in addition to the class abilities that a high intelligence grants. The sorcerer OTOH gets nothing. That seems pretty damning to me. -Polaris P.S. If you continue to doubt that the sorcerer got screwed, compare the Favored Soul out of "Complete Divine" to the standard Cleric....and see how WOTC valued spontaneous casting in that comparison. It is an eye-opener, let me tell you.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 03:34 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Other than class abilities, which class really needs charisma? Other than the wizard, what class really -needs- intelligence? or wisdom (other than the cleric and druid?) Consitution is the -only- stat that qualifies as being absolutely necessary. Other than with class abilities? Yes, if we exclude class abilities, then charisma is significantly less useful. But also, if we exclude skills, intelligence is useful only to a wizard. If we exclude Will Saving throws, only the druid and cleric need charisma. So, this is... a... terrible arguement. The Cleric? HAH! I have played clerics, and clerics do just fine with a 10 Charisma or even less. Level is far more important than charisma for turning. I'm playing a cleric with an 8 charisma right now. I won't be turning undead anytime soon. Nor will I ever be doing the social interactions either. Furthermore, I never said something along the lines of "Charisma is uber important to all these classes." I said, specifically, "All aren't using charisma as a dump stat without some negitive side effects." As such, to these classes, charisma is not useless, as you claim it to be. As such, your list of five is really zero if you exclude class abilities. uh... er... no. This... these... "reasons" as you seem to pimp out to be actual fact, isn't an indicator that charisma is useless. In fact, I don't see anything amongst the crap you've stated to be of any value that indicates anything of that nature. Why do you keep insisting that charisma is useless? Because it doesn't do what intelligence or wisdom does? Of course it doesn't. That's why those stats exist. While charisma may have been useless before 3.0, it isn't now. And no, "the class can get by with an absolute minimum charisma" doesn't qualify as proof, of any kind, that charisma is less viable than any other mental stat. See how the picture changes when you analyze this a bit more carefully. Charisma as a stat really does suck. [I note that Intelligence does the same thing for the wizard that Charisma does for the Sorcerer....and does much more as well.] From what I see, it looks like I've been analyzing everything just fine. Just because I don't share your opinion or thought processes doesn't mean that I am ignorant or otherwise less capable of knowing or figuring anything out. However, as a final note on this post, I have not said nor have i indicated that the sorcerer shouldn't have more synergistic skill list. That's why, in my alt of the sorcerer, I added three charisma based skills (diplomacy, intimidate, and use magic device) and sense motive to the sorcerer's class skill list. Given that, intelligence doesn't do much more for the wizard than charisma does for the sorcerer. Sorry, skill points for those particular arcane spellcasters isn't that important. Especially the wizard. Even moreso with diviners and loremasters. EDIT: I've said this before, not on this thread, but I have stated that I think that if WotC were to "fix" the sorcerer, they'd just plug a bonus feat at level one, level 5, 10, 15, and 20 with the ability to choose any item creation or metamagic feat (like with the psion). I think that would be the only result WotC would have to address these demands. If they do anything beyond that, if that, then I'd be surprised. EDIT II: Cross Hatch, I've posted my 4th level sorcerer (page 2, second post that I made on that page.) Since you seem to have missed it, I'll post it again. However, I've yet to see your wizard. Human Sorcerer4; CR4; Medium-Sized Humanoid; HD 4d4+8 (19 hitpoints); Initiative: +2; Speed: 30ft; AC 12 (16 w/ Mage Armor), Touch AC 12, Flat-Footed AC 10 (14 w/ Mage Armor); Attack +3 melee (touch, spell) or +3 melee (1d3-1, unarmed strike) or +6 ranged touch (spell); SA: Summon Familiar;SQ: Additional Feat at Level one, Additional 4 skill points at level one and one additional skill point at every level thereafter; AL: N; SV Fort: +3, Reflex +3, Will +3; Str 8 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha 17. Height 5'6 Skills and Feats: Concentration +6, Knowledge: Arcana +4, Spellcraft +6; Silent Spell, Eschew Materials, Extend Spell Sorcerer Spells/day: 6/7/4 Sorcerer Spells Known: (DC=13+Spell Level) 0 Level Spells (Cantrips) -- Resistance, Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Message, Prestigitation, Disrupt Undead 1st Level Spells -- Mage Armor, Grease, Magic Missile 2nd Level Spell -- Glitterdust Equipment: 350gp, Ring of Sustinence, Potion of Cure Light Wounds x5, Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds x2, scroll of Expedicious Retreat x2, Necklace of Fireballs Type 1
Zelphi 07-28-04, 06:08 AM	Staggered spell progression doesn't really equate to much except for a few spells castable of a higher level. The biggest killer is at 7th where a Wizard can cast LGoI (once or twice) and be immune to any spell the Sorc directs at him. Except it doesn't help at all if they just summon a hoarde of monsters to swarm you now does it? I don't know why the party give you all their money... so you can take weeks making an item.... where they can spend less time and just buy it from the store. With that method - the Wizard doesn't have to bog himself down with an array of craft skills, crafting feats and can focus on being more persistantly useful throughout the day... and they don't have to adventure for longer whilst he plays catch up on xp. Nore will the Wizard ever really play such a party breaking rule that they can't live with out him (at least till he teleports back in). Not only that, but there's less chance of being caught off guard without this gear... less cost over all to the rest of the party who can then buy better gear, etc... Sounds like your campaign is crapped up if you get away with all that. Maybe this will end it for you. If the Sorc is so bad, why do some people swear by him? Please don't make me tell you the answer, there's only one logical conclusion.
Cross Hatch 07-28-04, 08:08 AM	"I don't know why the party give you all their money... so you can take weeks making an item.... where they can spend less time and just buy it from the store." In many campaigns, the party has all the time the party wants. There is no need to rush from one thing to another - there are no consequences. But gold more commonly tightly controlled by the GM.
Haldrik 07-28-04, 09:59 AM	Charisma is a crappy stat. The worst of the six.
Mad Miso 07-28-04, 10:14 AM	Incidently, since so many people are saying that want to see the Sorcerer with an unstaggered progression, does anyone want to post an example of what it would look like? You can't just copy the wizard progression. The Sorcerer has his own pattern of gaining spell slots that's already very fast. If you left if more or less as it is, but accelerated it by one level, you'd be looking at the Sorcerer having twice as many spell slots or more than the wizard at most levels. Not to mention overhauling the Spells Known progression. Its not so small a change, and I don't really think it'd be balanced. The "gravy-train" can be shut down by a DM in many different ways. The simplest solution is to just cut down on treasure until the parties wealth levels wind up where they should be.
Kyuketsukiouji 07-28-04, 10:19 AM	A 12th level sorcerer with 26 charisma (18 base + 3 increases, + 3 item + 3 inherent) has a 50% chance (barring spells to help that) of Greater Planar Binding a marilith into serving him for 12 days, for free. A 20th level Wizard with 8 charisma has 80% chance of failing to get an IMP to listen to them. Unless they use a level 9 spell to call up a 3 hit dice creature. Charisma is useless? Don't think so.
Haldrik 07-28-04, 10:43 AM	Mad Miso: Incidently, since so many people are saying that want to see the Sorcerer with an unstaggered progression, does anyone want to post an example of what it would look like? Sure. Check out the first post of the Composite Sorcerer Fix (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=224419).
Mad Miso 07-28-04, 10:50 AM	Well, thanks, but not quite what I was looking for. Your composite Sorcerer has fewer spells per day and more spells known....I was looking for a translation of the existing Sorcerer. Naturally, its easier to pull off with a class thats closer to the wizard in progression.
Kyuketsukiouji 07-28-04, 11:21 AM	Mad Miso: At a guess, I would say simply tack 2 spells of the next level at level 3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and level 17, and cut the level 2 row out of the "spells known" list, bump everything up by one, and make the level 20 row the same as the level 19 one. So at the odd levels, the Wizard would get two spells known, but 1 spell cast, while the Sorcerer would get 1 spell known, but 2 spells cast.
Mad Miso 07-28-04, 11:52 AM	Would probably work, yes. I'm not so sure it would be balanced though. Just a curiosity on my part. I haven't seen anyone use planar binding extensively. What are some of the more interesting uses?
MattD121 07-28-04, 11:52 AM	At epic levels if your sorceror takes automatic quicken 3 times (0-9th level spells AT WILL AT ANY TIME) Then they can metamagic just as easily as a wizard and deliver more of a punishing due to their more spells. As for charisma being a weak stat, it just so happens to be my favorite stat. Not all stats are good in COMBAT but charisma is the best out of combat. People with charisma make the best diplomats, the most intimidating to the enemy, and gennerally the face and mouth of the group. I cant tell you how often a situation has been averted purely through my epic sorceror's amazing diplomacy checks. (Indeed it once threw a wrench in the DM turbine when he managed to worm the parties way out of a legal situation that was supposed to put us in an arena of doom of sorts.) Intelligence is different. It gives the wizard more skills. Some say it also makes them "Better at solving puzzles" which is ridiculous, I dont make an intelligence check to figure out a puzzle I figure it out myself. "Intelligence" really relies more on the player than the character. So all intelligence is is some skills. Sorcerors can support the group better than any wizard, although a wizard may be better at supporting themselves. As for who is more powerful in combat, if done right a sorceror is better than a wizard although a wizard is more simple for the noobies who arent certain how to make their character.
Tony Vargas 07-28-04, 01:17 PM	Originally posted by Polaris 1. I agree that Vancian casting sucks. I hate it; I have since I saw other systems (starting in the early 80's handle magic spontaneously and so much better). I'm curious which systems you mean. I remember a variety of 'mana point' systems and no-memorization variants (I even used one myself, though it only aplied to spells 5 levels /below/ the highest you could cast, and was only part of some pretty extensive variants). Most of them, especially the ones I played under, wildly over-powered magic-users (and druids, the other class I habitually played in the 80's, for that mater). I can recall many high level games that consisted exclusively of casters of various sorts, as a result. There have also be a lot of systems that dumped the whole limitted-use take on magic entirely - starting with RuneQuest. Some of them were great systems, but they did balance spells much lower on the power scale than D&D did, as a result. Others, like Ars Magica, used spectacular magic and what could only be called 'spontaneous' systems and, as with the old mana point systems, the mages were wildly overpowered. In Ars Magica, you played a mage, or the lackey of a mage, those were the options. 2. In spite of point 1, the fact remains that in an Iconic party (of four people) the Wizard (even with silly Vancian casting) beats the holy snot out of the Sorcerer as an Arcane caster. It /really/ depends on the campaign. It's very, very easy to unintentionally favor or cripple wizards. The fact remains, though, that WOTC favors the wizard over the sorcerer.....and more generally Vancian casting over non-Vancian castings regardless and even in spite of player feelings to the contrary. I hate to say it, but I think that conspiricy theory stuff stems from players' dissapointment with the Sorcerer, in that it doesn't live up to the vision of a spontaneously-casting, spellbook-independent uber-wizard. Something that would be insanely overpowered and dominate every concievable campaign, not just those where the DM doesn't keep the wizards in check with apropriately varied challenges. I mean seriously...in an iconic party of four, which would you rather have in the party? A wizard who can support the group AND be a good combat caster, or a sorcerer who might] be a good combat caster but is otherwise totally useless? Having been in parties with Wizards, with Sorcerers, and with both. I'd have to say that, in general, if I could only have one, I'd rather have a sorcerer, and depend on the cleric for miscellaneous and strategic casting duties. Not so much because the sorcerer is mechanically superior, but because, if I don't know what I'm getting into in terms of the campaign, I do know that I can count on the sorcerer to be an effective contributor, even if things don't always go his way, and, because, strangely enough, I've found from experience that even the worst players can, with a little help, do OK as a sorcerer, while even relatively good ones can flub a wizard. OTOH, if I know the campaign will favor wizards (wealth will run high, it'll be weighted towards cash, we'll have plenty of downtime, when we want it, and generally expect to know our enemies well), I'd obviously rather have one of those along - as long as the player isn't a jerk who will abuse his god-like power, anyway. ;) But, ideally, in a largish party, I'd like to have a wiz-sorc tag-team - it's just too awesome. You get consistent arcane firepower from the sorcerer, double the firepower when it really counts (when the wiz uses his precious daily spells for offense), and spells stored by the wizard in scrolls & wands can be brought into play twice as fast, since both characters can use them. Plus, you have the wizard's knowledges, and the sorcerer's 'face' (so the rest of you can casually dump CHA :smirk: ). FWIW, the Psion is a far better sponteneous caster than the sorcerer will ever be.... My feelings about psionics in D&D are comparable to yours on vancian magic. Psi is a SF convention, it has no place in a fantasy setting. I could live with no-component, mind-effecting spells and the like, as long as they're clearly magic, and are consistent with the magic system, but the old 1E psioncis, and even the lastest versions I just cannot stand. d20 Psi for a supers or X-Files or near-future or space-opera type setting, fine, the system could have it's place, but D&D isn't it.
Tony Vargas 07-28-04, 01:36 PM	Originally posted by Mad Miso Incidently, since so many people are saying that want to see the Sorcerer with an unstaggered progression, does anyone want to post an example of what it would look like? .... Not to mention overhauling the Spells Known progression. Its not so small a change, and I don't really think it'd be balanced. I'm honestly not sure why the sorcerer has more spells/day but gets new spell levels a level later. It seems to me that the key to keeping spontaneous casting balanced is spells known. As long as the number of spells known by a spontaneous caster are comparable to the number of spells a conventional caster of the same level could have prepared, the two remain relatively balanced - they bring a comparable variety of spells to the day's first challenge. I suppose you could reduce the sorcerer's spells/day, and un-stagger their level progression, or give them bonus feats. But, really, you wouldn't be balancing them any better, just making them more like the wizard - and that's hardly desireable, is it?
Mad Miso 07-28-04, 01:56 PM	Oh I agree. I'd hate to see the Sorcerer made more like a Wizard. I was just comparing the progressions last night and I realized that they balance better than most people assume. It occured to me that too many people give a psychological edge to the Wizard progression without examining it closely. "The Wizard can do just fine staying a level behind" arguement is good proof of that. People figure that since the Wizard earns a new spell level sooner, he's fine. In reality, that one level advantage gives the Sorcerer an enormous edge in spells per day, as I showed earlier. With equal levels, the Sorcerer mantains a small edge in spells per day on odd levels, and a much larger edge on even levels. The Sorcerer progression isn't really worse, its just different. :)
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 02:16 PM	Originally posted by Mad Miso Well, thanks, but not quite what I was looking for. Your composite Sorcerer has fewer spells per day and more spells known....I was looking for a translation of the existing Sorcerer. Naturally, its easier to pull off with a class thats closer to the wizard in progression. *Ahem* (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248817) :D Although it still isn't finished, technically, I'm still running it through my DMs. So far, 2 of the 3 approved it and the 3rd hasn't seen it yet. Although one of those two that already saw it thought that "permanent spells" were a little to much, so I might either replace them or remove them and make modifications to the varients of my alt. as well to compensate.
Mad Miso 07-28-04, 02:54 PM	Your varient has really come a long way since the last time I've seen it! I have to agree that if you have to dump something, I'd lose permanent spell. I do like it though. :)
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 03:11 PM	Originally posted by MattD121 At epic levels if your sorceror takes automatic quicken 3 times (0-9th level spells AT WILL AT ANY TIME) Then they can metamagic just as easily as a wizard and deliver more of a punishing due to their more spells. While technically true, that's only true in epic levels and not before. However, the sorcerer has a number of options to quicken spells before then: Simbul's Spell Trigger (and the like spells) --Except that this requires spells known slots and... well... sucks since its recent incarnation in the player's guide to faerun Contingency/Chain Contingency --See above, except these spells are actually superior to the Simbul's spells by a wide margin. THerefore, they don't suck. But they still require spells known. But These... might just be worth it, depending on what spells you choose. Arcane Preparation/Quicken Spell --I personally prefer this method because it allows for quicken and the decrease of the time required to cast spells by giving what advantages that prepareing spells actually gives. As a result, the sorcerer has the best advantages of both forms of casting. Plus, Metamagic rods (including the quicken rod) are useful for sorcerers with the arcane preparation feat. Repeat Spell/Twin Spell --One spell or the other are useful for getting two spells off simultaneously without necessariliy using quicken. (Indeed, using these metamagic feats allows a caster who can use quicken to get more than just two spells off at the same time. A quickened, Twinned Magic Missile and a regular twinned magic missile is four spells that come off in a single round. (and then we can get a repeated, twinned, quickened, intensified spell in epic in addition to a repreated, twinned, and intensified spell. However, this is only possible in epic, however... that's a lot of damage if you can actually cast it.) As for charisma being a weak stat, it just so happens to be my favorite stat. Not all stats are good in COMBAT but charisma is the best out of combat. People with charisma make the best diplomats, the most intimidating to the enemy, and gennerally the face and mouth of the group. I cant tell you how often a situation has been averted purely through my epic sorceror's amazing diplomacy checks. (Indeed it once threw a wrench in the DM turbine when he managed to worm the parties way out of a legal situation that was supposed to put us in an arena of doom of sorts.) I agree. Even the sorcerer's bonus from charisma is often enough to be a party "face." Especially since some people still sway away from taking the bard class. (Which is very unfortunate.) Intelligence is different. It gives the wizard more skills. Some say it also makes them "Better at solving puzzles" which is ridiculous, I dont make an intelligence check to figure out a puzzle I figure it out myself. "Intelligence" really relies more on the player than the character. So all intelligence is is some skills. I never really got how people say that intelligence and wisdom is soo much better than charisma. Intelligence controls the number of skill points. But really, if you don't need skill points, who cares? Intelligence is as much of a dump stat (if not more, in some cases) for a number of classes. Wisdom, of course, controls the Will Save mod. Which is important to... any class that doesn't have a -good- will save. Any other class, save those that have it as a casting stat, don't need it and it can be dumped. This is in the same way that charisma controls PC - NPC interaction. If your class isn't designed to handle PC - NPC interaction (such as a bard or rogue) or charisma doesn't control some class power or powers (such as with the cleric and paladin), then it can be dumped. Sorcerors can support the group better than any wizard, although a wizard may be better at supporting themselves. As for who is more powerful in combat, if done right a sorceror is better than a wizard although a wizard is more simple for the noobies who arent certain how to make their character. Wizards are generally good and doing anything related in the field of arcane spellcasting, since they can access more of the spell list than any other class that I am aware of. Then there are specialist mages that can fill up "sub-niches" of the group. Abjurers being buffers and defenders and generally capable of both raising defenses or bringing down defenses. Diviners being experts at getting information and contacting otherworldy sources. Evokers being the atypical "blaster mages." Sorecerers fill the "arcane spellcaster" niche in their own fashion. Much in the same way that a barbarian or paladin fill in the "tank" niche in contrast to the fighter. They're both capable, they just use different methods. They have different strengths and different weaknesses. EDIT: Originally posted by Mad Miso Your varient has really come a long way since the last time I've seen it! I have to agree that if you have to dump something, I'd lose permanent spell. I do like it though. :) Sweet! :D
Tony Vargas 07-28-04, 03:35 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels I agree. Even the sorcerer's bonus from charisma is often enough to be a party "face." It depends very much on the campaign. Some DMs go soley by how you RP the encounter. Some DMs will look at your CHA, and gauge many NPC reactions and attitudes based on that, alone. Others will call for rolls, with fairly static difficulties. Others will scale the difficulty with, say, diplomacy checks scaled to present a challenge to serious 'face' characters (high CHA, diplomacy, Negotiator, etc). In the first case, CHA is meaningless, all that matters is what the player says. In the last case, the sorcerer won't perform well as a face once you get into double-digit levels - though... he.. makes a good... ...liar. :rolleyes: I never really got how people say that intelligence and wisdom is soo much better than charisma. It's simple powergamer math. All stats give you a bonus to some skills and stat checks. /In addition/, INT gives you a bonus to skill points. That's a number, a positive number, which stacks with other bonuses. That is good. Likewise, WIS gives you a bonus to WILL saves, again, bonuses are good, they add up, giving your character BIGGER numbers. CHA doesn't give you a bonus to anything besides the basic skill & stat checks that every other stat also does. It's not /adding/ to anything, not making your numbers bigger. That is bad. It's easy enough to dismiss the idea as minimally important - since CHA is /the/ stat that logically should most influence NPC attitudes; since it's the stat that makes a character come off as 'cool' or 'attractive' or 'compellilng' or 'menacing' or well a lot of stuff many heroic fantasy characters should be; since it adds to all sorts of class abilities of Paladins, Bards, Sorcerers, & Clerics; since it adds to Leadership; since it adds to critically important skills that can overcome the challenge of a specific encounter with a single die roll... But, even so, it should be fairly easy to see the idea: CHA doesn't give a universeally useful, /tangible/ bonus - unlike the other 5 stats.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-28-04, 08:11 PM	First of all Charisma is no substitute for Intelligence or Wisdom. Someone might be able to act like it, but when confronted by someone who knows the facts, their is no more faking. Anyway, another problem I have with Sorcerers are when they gain a new spell level, they only get one known spell for that level. Now, this is a disadvantage, because you may need to get a defensive spell, but you won't need to cast it 5 times in a day. They should get at least 2 known so they can get an offensive and defensive spell. And, over time, certain spells become useless, which the Sorcerer has to keep while the Wizard can change. Someone stated earilier that the Sorcerer is able to assume more roles than the Wizard. The answer is no i'm afraid. Because of the vast selection, and ability to change his spells per day, this gives the Wizard the advantage of being better for more roles in the game than the Sorcerer. Sorcerers are fine when their are other spellcasters in a group, or for multi-class. But by themselves in a campaign, they aren't as reliable as the Wizard. Sure than can blast things here and their, and so can the Wizard, but you get a better sense that you will be prepared more for a campaign with a Wizard than a Sorcerer.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 08:43 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek First of all Charisma is no substitute for Intelligence or Wisdom. Someone might be able to act like it, but when confronted by someone who knows the facts, their is no more faking. ??? :confused: ??? Did _anyone_ say that charisma is better or a substitute for intellligence or wisdom? Anyway, another problem I have with Sorcerers are when they gain a new spell level, they only get one known spell for that level. Now, this is a disadvantage, because you may need to get a defensive spell, but you won't need to cast it 5 times in a day. How is the sorcerer getting one new known spell at a particular level different from when a wizard only gets _one_ spell/day at a new level? At least the sorcerer can cast that one spell more often enough for it to really be useful. In addition to spells that Metamagic'd up from lower levels. For instance, in my sorcecerer4 build that crosshatch wanted to see (for whatever reason), That sorcerer only has glitterdust as a 2nd level spell. But I can use those spell slots for an extended grease or an extended mage armor rather than just 4 glitterdusts that day. Or silent forms of the 1st level spells. With a wizard, I have to conserve those two spell slots for something that's more universally useful, otherwise my one or two spell slots at that level do jack. They should get at least 2 known so they can get an offensive and defensive spell. They don't need another one. Why get redundant abilities? And, over time, certain spells become useless, which the Sorcerer has to keep while the Wizard can change. When spells get useless, change them out when the "Spell exchange" comes into effect. The sorcerer gets one at level 4 and every two levels thereafter. That's what it's there for. Of course, the obvious answer is: don't select spells that have very, very limited use (animate rope, anyone?) or spells that eventually become useless (such as mage armor.) Someone stated earilier that the Sorcerer is able to assume more roles than the Wizard. The answer is no i'm afraid. I don't believe anyone stated anything of that nature. Because of the vast selection, and ability to change his spells per day, this gives the Wizard the advantage of being better for more roles in the game than the Sorcerer. That really, really depends on the player of the PC class. Not the class itself as far as what "roles" a particular class can fill. Sorcerers are fine when their are other spellcasters in a group, or for multi-class. But by themselves in a campaign, they aren't as reliable as the Wizard. Wait a second... reliable? The same class whose strengths is that his spell list can keep changing on a daily (or quicker) basis? That's not very reliable at all. Reliability depends on stability. A sorcerer's spells known is very stable. It doesn't change very fast and it can very reliably get by the challenges that that particular selection of spells was chosen to overcome. A wizard's ever changing selection of prepared spells doesn't have any semblence of "reliability" unless the wizard started preparing the same spells or using the similar tactics. However, you lauded that as the sorcerer's primary weakness not too long ago. Sure than can blast things here and their, and so can the Wizard, but you get a better sense that you will be prepared more for a campaign with a Wizard than a Sorcerer. Opinion. Not fact or hard truth.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-28-04, 09:31 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels ??? :confused: ??? Did _anyone_ say that charisma is better or a substitute for intellligence or wisdom? I have heard that plenty of times from the old thread How is the sorcerer getting one new known spell at a particular level different from when a wizard only gets _one_ spell/day at a new level? At least the sorcerer can cast that one spell more often enough for it to really be useful. In addition to spells that Metamagic'd up from lower levels. For instance, in my sorcecerer4 build that crosshatch wanted to see (for whatever reason), That sorcerer only has glitterdust as a 2nd level spell. But I can use those spell slots for an extended grease or an extended mage armor rather than just 4 glitterdusts that day. Or silent forms of the 1st level spells. With a wizard, I have to conserve those two spell slots for something that's more universally useful, otherwise my one or two spell slots at that level do jack. Because you may need to take a defensive spell, but you won't need to cast it that many times a day. It would be better to gain two spells known so you won't be stuck waiting a whole level in order to gain that offensive, or defensive spell that you needed. They don't need another one. Why get redundant abilities? Actually they do need it. From the comment above. When spells get useless, change them out when the "Spell exchange" comes into effect. The sorcerer gets one at level 4 and every two levels thereafter. That's what it's there for. Of course, the obvious answer is: don't select spells that have very, very limited use (animate rope, anyone?) or spells that eventually become useless (such as mage armor.) Ohh so I am supposed to think ahead that far, but may not even make it that far, unless I take what I need now? My point exactly, there are spells that the Sorcerer will not even take because he may want something else. There is that limitation factor. What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need them? That can cripple you. Spell swapping doesn't help out a lot because you can only do it a certain number of times. The Wizard doesn't have to worry about what will be obsolete in the future. With his daily changing, he doesn't have the pressures on deciding what will be best in the long run. I don't like a class that puts limits like this in spell selection. I want a class that can use, and make a use out of all spells. I don't believe anyone stated anything of that nature. Someone on this very thread said that. That really, really depends on the player of the PC class. Not the class itself as far as what "roles" a particular class can fill. Actually it does depend on the class, skills, feats, main stat, player, and spells. Wait a second... reliable? The same class whose strengths is that his spell list can keep changing on a daily (or quicker) basis? That's not very reliable at all. Reliability depends on stability. A sorcerer's spells known is very stable. It doesn't change very fast and it can very reliably get by the challenges that that particular selection of spells was chosen to overcome. A wizard's ever changing selection of prepared spells doesn't have any semblence of "reliability" unless the wizard started preparing the same spells or using the similar tactics. However, you lauded that as the sorcerer's primary weakness not too long ago. A Wizard has a bigger selection, and a more flexible selection of spells, making him more reliable in almost any kind of situation. With regards to spells that are not common, and are needed for a not so common situation, the Wizard is more likely to have that spell. What would you rely more on, a bowie knife, or a survival knife? Both can kill, but one comes with a few accesseries that can help you out more. Opinion. Not fact or hard truth. If thats how you feel.
Ax'Orl 07-28-04, 10:43 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek I have heard that plenty of times from the old thread 1-That was then, this is now. 2-Charisma CAN be a substitute for those abilities-I.E. BLUFF skill. Look at the definition of Bluff. If you succeed in a bluff check you can make anyone believe anything. Oh right, you dont allow those Skill checks because you would rather ROLE play them, even though it is RAW. Ohh so I am supposed to think ahead that far, but may not even make it that far, unless I take what I need now? My point exactly, there are spells that the Sorcerer will not even take because he may want something else. There is that limitation factor. What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need them? That can cripple you. Spell swapping doesn't help out a lot because you can only do it a certain number of times. The Wizard doesn't have to worry about what will be obsolete in the future. With his daily changing, he doesn't have the pressures on deciding what will be best in the long run. I don't like a class that puts limits like this in spell selection. I want a class that can use, and make a use out of all spells. 1-If you wanna play a sorcerer you should plan ahead like that. 2-A wizard must prepare every day,What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need them? That can cripple you. A spell that is unprepared might as well NOT even be known for a wizard.(barring those 15 minute open slots). Say a wizard prepares for Orcish oponents-mind control spells would work wonders no? Ahh, but you find that they are UNDEAD Orcs...whats the mind controlling wiz gonna do now? Sorcerer justs casts that 0-level cantrip, Disrupt Undead. With the right meta magic (which he can apply spontaneously) he can do damage to a bunch of the buggers. What if the party suddenly needs to be quiet for some reason but still needs magic support-Wizo did not prepare any silent spells, gag the bugger, let the sorcerer spontaneously cast his spells. Actually it does depend on the class, skills, feats, main stat, player, and spells. This from somone who would let the barbarian with a 8 charisma out do the bard or sorcerer with a 18 charisma just because he (the barbarian PLAYER) was a better speaker? What happened to ROLE playing? Any class can fill any role if you ROLE play the part. Some do certain roles better but any PLAYER can play any role no matter what his character's class is. A Wizard has a bigger selection, and a more flexible selection of spells, making him more reliable in almost any kind of situation. With regards to spells that are not common, and are needed for a not so common situation, the Wizard is more likely to have that spell. What would you rely more on, a bowie knife, or a survival knife? Both can kill, but one comes with a few accesseries that can help you out more. WRONG-a sorcerer can be relied on to cast spells X, Y, and Z as needed, when needed. A wizard who did not prepare X cannot cast it, a wizard who only prepared 1 Y can not cast it a second time that day even if needed (i.e. the first casting was dispelled or wore off, or was cast too soon), and the wizard might not want to cast Z spell right now because he only has one of it and might need it later-and it turns out he did not. You assume that a wizard ALWAYS has the right spells for the job handy. That is patently incorrect unless you have a uber-forgiving DM that lets you know in advance what you will be facing, and when and never surprises you. The sorcerer is the ULTIMATE in flexibility-you need 10 X spells, you gottem, you need 6 X and 4 Y gottem, 3X, 2Y and 1Z can do...If a wizard did not prepare them in the combination needed he might as well not know them. period. Especially if by not being able to cast that spell he gets killed. Yes, a sorcerer is less likely to KNOW the spell, but if known he can cast it at need, the wizard not only needs to KNOW the spell but had better have prepared it, prepared it correctly (with the correct metamagic) AND prepared it often enough. You would prefer to be able to know more and use less than know less and be assured of being able to use all that you know. I and many others would rather be able to use what we know when we need to use it A wizard cannot make use of all he knows when he needs to ALL the time, a sorcerer can.
BlaineTog 07-28-04, 11:06 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl 2-Charisma CAN be a substitute for those abilities-I.E. BLUFF skill. Look at the definition of Bluff. If you succeed in a bluff check you can make anyone believe anything. Oh right, you dont allow those Skill checks because you would rather ROLE play them, even though it is RAW.Sense Motive is rare. Not a lot of classes have it. And misc. bonuses (including skill points and the all-powerful glibness) far outweight the Cha mod. 2-A wizard must prepare every day,What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need them? That can cripple you.What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need that spell known? Wizards can make mistakes in spell selection; so can sorcerers. At least the wizard can amend the mistake the next morning. WRONG-a sorcerer can be relied on to cast spells X, Y, and Z as needed, when needed. A wizard who did not prepare X cannot cast it, a wizard who only prepared 1 Y can not cast it a second time that day even if needed (i.e. the first casting was dispelled or wore off, or was cast too soon), and the wizard might not want to cast Z spell right now because he only has one of it and might need it later-and it turns out he did not.I've found that wizards can still get by, even with a poor spell selection. If you prepared a less-than-perfect spell but still chose good spells, you can improvise. And if the wizard makes use of his Item Creation feat(s)... You assume that a wizard ALWAYS has the right spells for the job handy.You assume that the wizard will waste 9/10ths of his slots on useless spells whereas the sorcerer's selection will be flawless. If a wizard did not prepare them in the combination needed he might as well not know them. period.A) Rarely will you absolutelly "need" a certain spell. And those are the spells that are perfect candidates for scrolls. B) Remember Item Creation. Yes, a sorcerer is less likely to KNOW the spell, but if known he can cast it at need, the wizard not only needs to KNOW the spell but had better have prepared it, prepared it correctly (with the correct metamagic) AND prepared it often enough.DnD isn't like a jigsaw puzzle. Its not "Insert Y (and ONLY) Y into target 3." Its "Get around obstacle 4 any way you can." If you need it more often, you either use Pearls of Power (an especially good idea for low-level spells) or consumable items.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-28-04, 11:34 PM	I have heard that plenty of times from the old thread That's nice. Please, if you want to interject a comment, make it refering to something a little more recent or something someone recently stated. Because you may need to take a defensive spell, but you won't need to cast it that many times a day. It would be better to gain two spells known so you won't be stuck waiting a whole level in order to gain that offensive, or defensive spell that you needed. ... that isn't even necessary most of the time. That's not even a good idea for wizards to do on a new spell level. In no instance is this really necessary. Not even for a wizard. This is just plain wrong. Ohh so I am supposed to think ahead that far, but may not even make it that far, unless I take what I need now? ... that... jumble of words made so sense. A sorcerer isn't a wizard. They require different methodologies in order to operate effectively. You're faulting the sorcerer for not being a wizard or for not having the exact same strengths and weaknesses as a wizard, essentially. That, is what you seem to indicate, from my position. there are spells that the Sorcerer will not even take because he may want something else. I have a harder time selecting my two piddly new spells every time I level up as a wizard than I do deciding what new spells I want as a sorcerer. In any case, every time I level up as a wizard, I have to do that. As a sorcerer, there are lots and lots and lots of spells I simply don't need. There is that limitation factor. What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need them? A limitation factor? Lets see, I'm a wizard going into the tomb of the darned. I heard that it originally belonged to a lich-priest, but I also heard that a new dragon settled in and this tomb is a likely lair. I have 120 spells, 8 metamagic feats, and two spell slots at my highest level, three at my next highest level, and four at my third highest level. What about _that_ limiting factor? Spell swapping doesn't help out a lot because you can only do it a certain number of times. For a sorcerer, it's more than enough. The Wizard doesn't have to worry about what will be obsolete in the future. I certianly hope that one of my two selections that I made when I leveled up certainly don't go obsolete in the near future. I call those spells "wasted space" on the spellbook. I wouldn't even waste my "scroll buying/scribing" money on them. With his daily changing, he doesn't have the pressures on deciding what will be best in the long run. I don't like a class that puts limits like this in spell selection. I want a class that can use, and make a use out of all spells. That's your preference. It isn't a flaw in the class that you don't like it. Someone on this very thread said that. ?? *looks around* I don't see any statements to that effect. This, Xun, is why people quote and make use of copy/paste. A Wizard has a bigger selection, and a more flexible selection of spells, making him more reliable in almost any kind of situation. How does being able to change your selection more often mean you're _more_ reliable? Where I come from, when things change more often, it becomes _less_ reliable. Not more reliable. With regards to spells that are not common, and are needed for a not so common situation, the Wizard is more likely to have that spell. The wizard might have the spell in his or her spellbook. But that doesn't mean it'll be prepared for that day when it is needed. Especially the ones that are less useful. What would you rely more on, a bowie knife, or a survival knife? Both can kill, but one comes with a few accesseries that can help you out more. I suppose you never read The Hatchet (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0689826990/002-6026432-8100866?v=glance). One of the best High School books I ever read.** In any case, the difference between a survival knife and a bowie knife amounts, essentially, to "bells and whistles." What really matters is how much knowledge you have -about- survival. If you're some survival nut who lives in the wilderness chopping trees and fighting bears, he'll tell you that all he needs to get by is a bowie knife. Find a new york tourist out in the middle of the wilderness, and he'll need all the help he can get from all the bells and whistles that a survival knife offers. It's all in how you use your tools and how well you know your environment. EDIT: **= it might have been Jr. High. Don't remember too well.
Ax'Orl 07-29-04, 12:28 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Sense Motive is rare. Not a lot of classes have it. And misc. bonuses (including skill points and the all-powerful glibness) far outweight the Cha mod. But the Sorcerer has acces to all that as well AND the CHA mod. What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need that spell known? Wizards can make mistakes in spell selection; so can sorcerers. At least the wizard can amend the mistake the next morning. My point is concerning the KNOWING of all spells does not equate to being able to cast those spells. If a wizard does not prepare the spell, he is no better off than a sorcerer. You might look at the spells prepared by a wizard as his 1-Spells per day AND 2-His spells KNOWN per day. Known/=prepared and Unprepared = unable to cast. I've found that wizards can still get by, even with a poor spell selection. If you prepared a less-than-perfect spell but still chose good spells, you can improvise. As can a sorcerer, improvise that is AND they have the ability to spontaneously decide which of the spells they know will apply to the situation. A wizard who prepares the same spells that a sorcerer knows will suffer, because they cannot decide spontaneosly which of their spells to cast because they do not know if they MIGHT need that spell later AND if they cast it now they cannot cast it later. And if the wizard makes use of his Item Creation feat(s)... He has less money and XP than a sorcerer, if he tries to ride the "gravy train" his spell progression is now no better than that of a sorcerer (per day) AND his spells have a lower DC AND He has even FEWER spells per day than before. You assume that the wizard will waste 9/10ths of his slots on useless spells whereas the sorcerer's selection will be flawless. No, I assume that a sorcerer (player) will be smart enough to choose spells for his limited selection that are useful in a variety of situations. I argue that a wizard CANNOT always have the best spell ready to use w/o DM intervention/aid. Further, as long as a sorcerer has even ONE of his highest level slots he can cast ANY spell he knows, and a smart player will have at least one spell that his sorcerer knows be one that is in some (albeit small) way useful. Better to be a little useful than of little use neh? A) Rarely will you absolutelly "need" a certain spell. And those are the spells that are perfect candidates for scrolls. If it is that rare that you need it I am sure that the sorcerer can use some of hte money he has saved by not having to scribe spells into (let alone buying) a spell book to buy the needed copy of said scroll. B) Remember Item Creation. Yes, wizards do make BETTER artificers, but they are by no means the only ones that can do the job. Being a better item creation machine does not make you a better SPELL user. DnD isn't like a jigsaw puzzle. Its not "Insert Y (and ONLY) Y into target 3." Its "Get around obstacle 4 any way you can." You are correct, but a wizard who did not even prepare Y or anything similar to it cannot use Z to correct that error. A sorcerer who knows Y AND Z can us Z's slot to cast Y if needed. I never said that a sorcerers spells are the only spells that can get the job done. I say that a sorcerer can use A spell he knows to fit the situation, a wizard cannot...A wizard who knows (has in his book) fireball[color] and [color=red]lightning bolt prepares 1 of each and a sorcerer of the same level who does not have fireball but does have lightning bolt and flaming sphere which will do more damage to an electrical immune creature? Hmmmmmmm at this level the one fireball does 6d6 fire damage and lasts ONE round (Wizard is a one hit wonder here) and covers a 20ft area but the sorcerer can cast 8 flaming spheres (2d6 each or 16d6) each lasting 6 rounds and covering a total area much larger than 20 ft. Further he has contributed for 8 rounds to the combat...and 3 of those coud be heightened making the save the same as the fireball. Yes the save negates BUT, BBEG now has to make 24 saves over the next 11 rounds-failing even half of those (i.e. Save for Half) is 84 points of damage. Plus having to dodge the sphere (s) for 11 rounds meand having to make concentration checks to cast (if a spell caster) OR not being able to bring his weapons to bear on the party. If you need it more often, you either use Pearls of Power (an especially good idea for low-level spells) or consumable items. Hmmm an item that would cost 39,000 gp to duplicate the same damage potential (assuming all saves fail for both casters) and you only have 13,000gp to spend at this level. EDIT:please forgive my math, it is not my strong suit. I was a History/Philosophy/Religion major in college lo' these many years ago.
BlaineTog 07-29-04, 02:23 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl But the Sorcerer has acces to all that as well AND the CHA mod.A) No. Glibness is Bard Only. B) Against a +30 bonus, the Cha mod's impact is barely felt. C) I just realized that Glibness has no effect on the argument. I feel silly. :blush: My point is concerning the KNOWING of all spells does not equate to being able to cast those spells.Never said it did. Unless we bring item creation in. You might look at the spells prepared by a wizard as his 1-Spells per day AND 2-His spells KNOWN per day. Known/=prepared and Unprepared = unable to cast.... unless he has a scroll or something of it. As can a sorcerer, improvise that is AND they have the ability to spontaneously decide which of the spells they know will apply to the situation. A wizard who prepares the same spells that a sorcerer knows will suffer, because they cannot decide spontaneosly which of their spells to cast because they do not know if they MIGHT need that spell later AND if they cast it now they cannot cast it later. [quote][b]He has less money and XP than a sorcerer, if he tries to ride the "gravy train" his spell progression is now no better than that of a sorcerer (per day) AND his spells have a lower DC AND He has even FEWER spells per day than before.A) But thats the thing: his spell progression is no better off than the sorcerer's is off the bat, but he's getting nearly double items out of it. B) Lower DC? :bored: No, I assume that a sorcerer (player) will be smart enough to choose spells for his limited selection that are useful in a variety of situations.But wizard players arn't that smart. Gotcha. I argue that a wizard CANNOT always have the best spell ready to use w/o DM intervention/aid.Nor can a Sorcerer always know useful spells, by this logic. A good set of spells can be useful at least as much as a sorcerer's selection. Better to be a little useful than of little use neh?You greatly underestimate the abilities of wizard players. Being a better item creation machine does not make you a better SPELL user.Er. It does if it allows you to have more magic items than you would otherwise. You are correct, but a wizard who did not even prepare Y or anything similar to it cannot use Z to correct that error.Sure he can. Once again, you underestimate the wizard's ability to choose a good Z.
Zelphi 07-29-04, 05:09 AM	God dammit, stop generalisation. Just because your campaign has plenty of time doesn't mean everyone else has does it? Which is the main crux of why the Wizard isn't overpowered when compared to the Sorc. Just because your capaign is crud, doesn't mean anyone else has it that way does it? Answer the damn question, why do others like Sorcs and some even swear by them over the Wizard? Guess I'll have to tell you... It's because you broke them yourselves. Not because WOTC screwed up, but because you screwed it up for them. The mere fact that some people are fine with them suggests you are doing something wrong. It's inescapable fact. Others are fine, you aren't - you're doing something wrong. The Wizard has more potential to break the campaign, and it's easy for a DM to over cater for such things. Think about it, it's you not them.
Zelphi 07-29-04, 05:10 AM	If you notice, a simple item like the boots of speed takes 12 days to make... and that's just one item. How the hell is this acceptable at any level? During those 12 days they could've made up the difference in cost and not be stuck behind waiting for a (supposedly) essential member of the party to play catch up. It's stupid and crap. Stop doing it.
BlaineTog 07-29-04, 05:18 AM	Originally posted by Zelphi God dammit, stop generalisation.Gosh darnit, stop cursing. ;) Just because your campaign has plenty of time doesn't mean everyone else has does it?"Plenty" is different than "some," and a campaign without "some" is an unrealistic campaign. Every adventurer is going to want to take some time off after the work is done. Would you want to work nonstop for years on end? Which is the main crux of why the Wizard isn't overpowered when compared to the Sorc.Item Creation only bridges the gap. Wizards have a lot more than that going for them. Just because your capaign is crud, doesn't mean anyone else has it that way does it?Thats rather rude. I haven't insulted your campaigns, have I? Answer the damn question, why do others like Sorcs and some even swear by them over the Wizard?Why do some people like Fighters and swear by them over clerics/druids/wizards? To answer your question: because the sorcerer is much easier to play. EDIT: And flavor, of course. It's because you broke them yourselves. Not because WOTC screwed up, but because you screwed it up for them.Once again, Item Creation can rocket the wizard far up into the atmosphere, but it isn't the only thing that puts them above the sorcerer. And once again, the wizard doesn't need limitless time to function well, just a week here and a day there. The mere fact that some people are fine with them suggests you are doing something wrong. It's inescapable fact.Some people are fine with the fighter. Looks like your "fact" is, in fact, a mere "opinion." Others are fine, you aren't - you're doing something wrong.Don't you think thats more than a little bit presumptuous? Since we disagree, clearly we are the ones doing something worng. The Wizard has more potential to break the campaign, and it's easy for a DM to over cater for such things. Think about it, it's you not them.Clearly. :bored: Originally posted by Zelphi If you notice, a simple item like the boots of speed takes 12 days to make... and that's just one item. How the hell is this acceptable at any level?Because a 12-day rest is perfectly likely. I know that if I was slicing and dicing demons on a regular basis and rolling in more GP than most people ever even see, I'd want to take a break every so often and, you know, spend it. Additionally, the Wizard doesn't have to make it all at once. A day here, a day there. And since chances are that particular pair of boots is going to be very useful for the party barbarian, they probably want it made.
Zelphi 07-29-04, 05:45 AM	It's a fact that some people don't have problems. Which means it cannot be anything but over pampered Wizards, or that their campaign styles gives them to much benefit. 12 days is a lot of down time... for what reward? It's one item, it's going to continue for every other item they try to make for you, and it's actually far more efficient to just go out and do something else. It's actually more realisitic because there's no garuntees, there's no nonsensical sitting around doing nothing for months whilst all your abilities wane... How can it not be obvious that you're doing it to yourselves?
CaoSlayer 07-29-04, 07:08 AM	this is maybe a bit late... but I think that the sorcerer was created because Computers-RPGs. The sorcerer it is 100% a dungeonist compared with the wizard, it is the same that a barbarian compared to a fighter. They style is to cast, cast and cast; while a barbaria it is to rage and smash. No brain needed to use those classes (only need the right spell selection for the sorcerer). there is a little fact, if you look guides and boards about the D&D games where the sorcerer class exists (BG2, Icewind dale II, Neverwinter night), you will see that people preffers most time to be a sorcerer than a wizard and that it is because it is more reliable in battle, it is hard to run out this spells and if meet a creature inmune to a kind of spells, always can use another. Usually people only play as wizard for the flavor, like the half-elves. and in the true PnP RPG it is just the oposite, when there is more things that smash monsters, the wizard is the master and people tend to play sorcerers because it is cool to be such a magical being. my two zents.
Haldrik 07-29-04, 07:18 AM	Zelphi: 12 days is a lot of down time. In real life, how many great adventures do you go on. Going off to war? A far away vacation? Solving a murder mystery? Campaigning for a political office? Some endeavor that transcends the ordinary? I think 1 adventure a year is pretty good. 2 or 3 would make you an "adventurer". Everything else is "downtime".
mattmurdock 07-29-04, 09:18 AM	Ok...so adventuring is extremely hard work...but according to some people on this thread slaving away in a lab 8 hours a day for 12 days solid to make some magical boots is a vacation...:) I for one would rather spend the gp I am rolling about in on items from my friendly local magic shop (total time out of my vacation approx. 1 day) and spend the remaining 11 days blowing the rest of my cash on ale and *****s...now that is a vacation!! Seriously though, if your Wizard PC is both an adventurer and an item creation fiend there is something wrong there. The whole point of being an adventurer is that you couldn't do a normal 6 to 8 peasant's job in the fields, or a 9 to 5 merchant's job. You decided you would rather go adventuring. Hence big bucks and big xp compared to the other commoners in your village of birth. In order to sustain an item creation business it needs to be just that...a business. Hence you really become an NPC magic shop owner, churning out items to sell to PC adventurers. Either that or you are heavily into roleplaying shopkeepers...:D As to the Sorceror/Wizard debate, each has their specific uses and methods...and both can be viewed as superior or inferior depending on the circumstance. I could probably manufacture a scenario where each of the classes is better than any other, doesn't mean they aren't balanced. If you choose to play a Sorceror you will be better than a Wizard counterpart in some situations, and if you choose to play a Wizard you will be better than a Sorceror in some situations. In a standard 4 encounter day a properly prepared Wizard will have more spell options whilst a properly prepared Sorceror will have more spell flexibility - the Wizard lovers on the thread obviously prefer having more spell options, even if it nerfs their flexibility, whereas the Sorceror lovers prefer more flexibility, even if it limits their total options.
Ax'Orl 07-29-04, 10:04 AM	Originally posted by BlaineTog A) No. Glibness is Bard Only. B) Against a +30 bonus, the Cha mod's impact is barely felt. C) I just realized that Glibness has no effect on the argument. I feel silly. :blush: Ok, I did not know that about Glibness I apologize for not reading up on an ability for a class I rarely use. But you are correct as a bard only ability it has nothing to do with Sor. V Wiz. II Never said it did. Unless we bring item creation in. ... unless he has a scroll or something of it. If we do that then we must also bring metamagic into it which the ability to spontaneously add to a spell increases the sorcerer's spell "knowledge". I.E. add an additional spell to the sorcerers Known List for each spell that the sorcerer can apply MetaMagic to for Each metamagic feat that can be applied. A) But thats the thing: his spell progression is no better off than the sorcerer's is off the bat, but he's getting nearly double items out of it. B) Lower DC? :bored: But wizard players arn't that smart. Gotcha. I never said that, my contention is that Sorcerer players are not a stupid as many would have us believe. It is the prowizard community that feels that a sorcerer player would not know a good spell if it bit him. Further, if you are going to LIMIT your spell selection to only those that are useful in a variety of situations why not beable to cast them MORE often and have a greater staying power? Nor can a Sorcerer always know useful spells, by this logic. A good set of spells can be useful at least as much as a sorcerer's selection. Yes the sorcerer can-simply put. Why, because of spontaneous casting. Maybe none of your highest level spells is useful in a certain situation, more than likely a player will have a spell of some level that is useful. A wizard who has prepared utility spells is useless in a combat, a wizard who has prepared combat spells is useless in utility, now granted, a wizard would be stupid to focus on one or the other-but, so would a sorcerer neh? But that is the assumption that people seem to make, that fewer choices means stupid choices. You greatly underestimate the abilities of wizard players. And you you greatly underestimate those of sorcerer players. And greatly exaggerate the ability of wizards. My comment was aimed at the wizard player who prepares the wrong spells/not enough of the right spells/the wrong metamagic'd versions of spells...if the spell is wrong in your prepared list then you are of no use as a spell CASTER-that is the arcanist primary job description CAST SPELLS...if you cant cast then youare not doing your job, if you are not doing your job you are of little use. Er. It does if it allows you to have more magic items than you would otherwise. No, it makes you a beter ITEM CREATION machine...you are not a better SPELL CASTER Sure he can. Once again, you underestimate the wizard's ability to choose a good Z. Note I said did not prepare Y or anything similar to it so chooseing a good Z wouldnt help in this situation. Z is useless. It is like having prepared a utility spell when you need a combat spell-the utility spell is useless in combat but the wizard has no other combat spells prepared therefore he cannot do his job-Cast Spells. The sorcerer needs only to know 1 combat spell per level to always ahave a useful combat spell available, one defense spell per level to have a useful defense spell-As long as the sorcerer has a slot available he has a useful spell available (if the player is not an idiot) A wizard does not have that luxury-once he prepares his spells he cannot change them for 24 hours. He cannot use a 3rd level spell slot for a 1st level spell unless he prepared it that way even if all his 3rd level spells are useless. A sorcerer who does not have a useful 3rd level spell can use that slot to cast a 2nd or 1st or 0-Level spell.
Zelphi 07-29-04, 10:15 AM	When will the Mindflayers attack? What about the Elementals and the Outsiders... they're up for some sport... guess what, you're making a magical item. And that's just one item... how long are you going to be making the whole teams gear? A year? Who says it's anything as significant as a war? A simple encounter will grant a whole load of hoarde... a short adventure could be a level... and you're waiting for what? A pair of boots.. and upgrade for a sword... a selection of wands... and everyone elses wishes to be made. In those 12 days.. how much could you have done? How long does an adventure take? It's probably less time than that... except you're waiting 12 weeks for just one item and all the rest. I can probably cover enough time to find one randomly beating up evil mages or what. Then there's higher levels... what the bloody hell are you talking about? That was one example of a common mid level item. Think about it... how much time are you wasting waiting for this one guy to build gear? Then how much time do you spend recovering lost xp and recuperating more gold. They can just go off and find adventure... wherever they go... it'll be there.. and it's far better to just buy the stuff they want than wait and spend an exoborate amount of time waiting for someone to craft stuff.. Then there's the fact of what it does to the wizard who focuses on all this crafting guff... it's detracting from all their other power. Not just in all the feats they could've chosen instead.. but all the skill points they invested on the potential. They may be the best ones for the job... but it's a damn waste of time for everyone else and it costs more than it should. Not in money... but in time and experience. Just think about how much time you are wasting sitting around doing nothing... rather than actively seeking adventure. Maybe it is campaign specific, but that just enforces my point that it's you lot shoving the Sorc over, not the Sorc being rubbish or any such nonsense... you are doing it to yourselves by letting them get away with this crap.
Mad Miso 07-29-04, 10:27 AM	First off, to say that the Sorcerer is viable is no insult to the wizard. Both classes have their strengths. Here we go! A few things I notice get stated a lot. 1. The Wizard can have double items! In most cases, no, he can't. Or at least he shouldn't. The Wizard will not be rolling in cash at anything but the highest levels. Much of his wealth will be tied up in magic items and spellbook maintinance, leaving him with the ability to slightly increase his effective wealth with a lot of downtime and XP expenditure. You need to burn a lot of XP even to ride the "gravy-train", but the benefits are not so great even if you manage it. You will be a weak spellcaster compared to the Sorcerer if you are a level behind. The end result gives you a different character, not a godlike one. 2. My Wizard doesn't pick spells like a dummy! Of course not. Unfortunately, the limitations of Vancian casting will hit you regardless. The key weakness of the Wizard is the way his versatility contracts with every spell he casts. To reach full-effectiveness, a Wizard must not only prepare the right spells, but cast them at the right time. The Fireball he casts now, might be needed more later. Items are no substitute for raw casting, in many cases. Both classes are strong, IMO. Both classes have their devoted fans. Personal preference is no indicator of balance.
Tony Vargas 07-29-04, 12:51 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Anyway, another problem I have with Sorcerers are when they gain a new spell level, they only get one known spell for that level. Now, this is a disadvantage, because you may need to get a defensive spell, but you won't need to cast it 5 times in a day. They should get at least 2 known so they can get an offensive and defensive spell. That's really only true of gaining 1st level spells, when, coincidentally enough, the sorcerer does indeed start with 2. After that, when you gain a new spell level, you can pick whichever spell you want of that level, and, if it's defensive or utility, depend on your lower level spells (preferably metamagicked) for offense. And, over time, certain spells become useless, which the Sorcerer has to keep Had to keep, in 3.0 - in 3.5 he does get to swap out lower level spells. Someone stated earilier that the Sorcerer is able to assume more roles than the Wizard. The answer is no i'm afraid. Because of the vast selection, and ability to change his spells per day, I suppose that's true, to a small extent, if you mean functional roles - blaster or buffer or battlefield-control mage or whatnot. Though, really, a sorcerer can fill a given fucntional role surprisingly well with only a couple of known spells aproriate to that role. The 'utility mage' is about the only role a sorcerer can't do well - utility spells just tend to be too narrow in aplication (and generally just needed once) for a small number (possibly cast many times) of them to be of much use. However, the Wizard is otherwise presented with a set concept - the studious mage who gains his power by persuing musty old tomes. If you want to play a mage who's magic is innate or follows a set theme or comes from any source that's not either a book or a diety, Sorcerer is the class that lets you do it. But by themselves in a campaign, they aren't as reliable as the Wizard. Sure than can blast things here and their, and so can the Wizard, but you get a better sense that you will be prepared more for a campaign with a Wizard than a Sorcerer. Unless the DM really panders to the wizard, I think it usually turns out the other way round. A sorcerer is a dependable ally - you know what he can do, and he can almost always do it for you, when you need it (he rarely runs out of spells, and, until he runs out of his highest-level slots, every spell he can cast is available on a moment's notice). OTOH, a wizard may have cast a great spell for you yesterday, or 5 minutes ago, but he might not be able to cast it for you /now/, no matter how much you may need it - and, he'll go off for days to his library or lab to deal with "important researches beyond your ken, that must not be disturbed..." expecting you cool your heals in the meantime, so he doesn't miss out on any exp. Sure, under ideal circumstances, he's great - he can pull out his spellbook, and, in a quarter hour, come up with some wierd spell you've never heard of that's just the ticket for some obstacle that's holding you up; he can make you nifty magic items; he knows the difference between a dougolon and a dontgolon - but, at the same time, he can fail to contribute when the party needs him most - when you've lost a lot of your gear, he's just wringing his hands over the fate of his spellbook; when you're in a desperate battle he's out of an old standby spell; etc. Wizards are potentially awesome, but far from 'reliable.'
BlaineTog 07-29-04, 03:06 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl And you you greatly underestimate those of sorcerer players.No I don't. Where have I ever said "the sorcerer won't know the right spell!"? (note: that one time in my last post was sarcasm). No, it makes you a beter ITEM CREATION machine...you are not a better SPELL CASTERAh, but you are. Item creation machines have a much larger selection of consumable magic items which gives them a much larger selection of spells prepared. Note I said did not prepare Y or anything similar to it so chooseing a good Z wouldnt help in this situation. Z is useless. It is like having prepared a utility spell when you need a combat spell-the utility spell is useless in combat but the wizard has no other combat spells prepared therefore he cannot do his job-Cast Spells.A) Wizard's shouldn't prepare utility spells. C) Generally, I've found that a bit of creativity can make Z a very useful spell, in combat or utility. A wizard does not have that luxury-once he prepares his spells he cannot change them for 24 hours.Not true. He can leave slots open for later. That is why he doesn't prepare utility spells. Originally posted by Zelphi In those 12 days.. how much could you have done?The world is not in constant need of help from adventureres of your exact level. To belive otherwise is metagaming. And once again, I ask you: how would you personally like spending all day, every day adventuring? And once again, you forget that the wizard doesn't need a consecutive 12 days.
Ax'Orl 07-29-04, 04:17 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog No I don't. Where have I ever said "the sorcerer won't know the right spell!"? (note: that one time in my last post was sarcasm). I stand corrected on that point. :embarrass Ah, but you are. Item creation machines have a much larger selection of consumable magic items which gives them a much larger selection of spells prepared. No, on this I beg to differ, yes you are a bettter ITEM user, but the rogue can do the same with UMD (as can the bard) and a sorcerer can use those items as well. Items do not make you a spell CASTER, they make you a magic USER true, but not a spell CASTER. A) Wizard's shouldn't prepare utility spells. C) Generally, I've found that a bit of creativity can make Z a very useful spell, in combat or utility. True, and a sorcerer can do the creativity thing as well, or better because he can use z1.1 as opposed to Z1.0 if needed w/o waiting 24 hours. (or even 15 min) Not true. He can leave slots open for later. That is why he doesn't prepare utility spells. Ahhh but then that limits his COMBAT effectiveness even further by limiting his already smaller spells per day.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-29-04, 09:53 PM	Is it just me, or does anyone else find the whole "item creation makes wizards better than sorcerers" arguement heavily flawed? Here I am, using the gravy train, spending every cent I earn and remaining behind an entire level, and spending roughly half of my feats (or a least a very good portion of those feats), and a vast quantity of time and experience points to... be prepared. For anything. Yeah, that might do the trick, alright. But it would royally suck to only need 5% of all of the fruits of all that labor to be used to solve a particular problem that simply wasn't prepared that day. To think that all of those wizards I've played myself and ones that I've played with that never touched an item creation feat (even the level one freebie) were all technically crap wizards who sucked, apparently, as much as people say that the sorcerer sucks. And they didn't even have to hump the apparently all-important rope trick, mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, and contingency spells either. And those are the "clearly winning" points of many of the arguements about how inferior the sorcerer is. Seems hardly worth the effort to me. Of course you could divert some of that energy for wands, staves, or wonderous items. But why? More doesn't always mean better. Smart choices with magic items and selected spells can always do more than just more magic items. And I don't need to do all of this... crap... to get all that done with the sorcerer. Though, this is true for the wizard as well.
Mad Miso 07-29-04, 10:10 PM	Oh, you're definately not alone on that one. ;)
Sensei Gith 07-29-04, 10:11 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Here I am, using the gravy train, spending every cent I earn ...on magic items. Honestly, what do you soend your gold on, cattle options? and remaining behind an entire level, I'd rather have double items than a handful more spells. Craft pearls of power and rings of wizardry with some of the gold you save and you're ahead again. You get new spell levels one level late-- just like the sorcerer. and spending roughly half of my feats (or a least a very good portion of those feats), A level 20 wizard gets 12 feats counting scribe scroll. Scribe Scroll and Craft Wondrous Item are all you need. That is one-sixth of your feats, one-eleventh of your chosen feats. If you expect to get mileage out of forge ring or another feat, you can do so at your discretion, but it is not necessary to effectively execute the gravy train any more than it's necessary to take elemental savant to be an effective sorcerer. and a vast quantity of time Not really. There is such a thing as down time. At low levels, item creation can be easily squeezed into your spare time. You need eight hours of rest and eight hours of item crafting. That leaves eight hours of adventuring, far more than you're likely to use. At higher levels, you will have access to secure locations where you can craft for unlimited periods of time. [quolte]to... be prepared. For anything.[/quote] You gain new spell levels at the sorcerer's rate and get close to double magic items. It's that simple. I expect that you will note that it is technically possible for a sorcerer to use the gravy train, but it would be far less effective because while wizards have unlimited spell access, a sorcerer's meager spell choices limit the items that they can craft past a reasonable level of return. Plus, they would be a full spell level behind any caster that did not use it.
Sensei Gith 07-29-04, 10:17 PM	Double post.
Tony Vargas 07-29-04, 11:07 PM	Oh, I think item creation is certainly worthwhile, and worth the feats, as long as the campaign supports it (that is you actually get some non-trivial proportion of your loot as cash or equivalents, and you have time to make items, and you don't find items better than you could make - mind you: I have been in a campaign where all three of those conditions were not met). A wiz could get by with just Scribe Scroll - enough scrolls would help overcome some of the limitations of prepped casting. But, you do even better with a few more feats, not just because it gives you some additional ways of storing your spells, but because you can make items for the rest of your party, too. Item Creation is an option open to any caster, and, I think it speaks volumes to how different wizards and sorcerer are (they are often accused of being too similar), that the wizard is probably the caster best suited to item creation (bonus feats, large and varied spell list), and Sorcerer the caster that least benefits from same (why bother putting a spell in an item, when all your spells are available virtually all the time, anyway?). I'm not excluding bards or even rangers from that continuum, either. ;)
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-29-04, 11:10 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith ...on magic items. Honestly, what do you soend your gold on, cattle options? Oh, I don't know. Food Scrolls Scribing Any magic item I can't make myself or otherwise can't afford to make Resurrections additional mercenaries purchased spellcasting Taxes to a city that my tower is in bribe money equipment for followers and/or cohort tithes assorted roleplay costs prostitutes beer a room at an inn a tip to the messenger a tip to the bartender a large tip to the bar wench (and all those old cliche D&D jokes) a round to a bunch of patrons expendatures to "rattle up" someone to give information (like with a gather information check.... or straight charisma check) You know... useless crap. :rolleyes: I'd rather have double items than a handful more spells. Double items... over what? The sorcerer? Does it even matter if your group doesn't have a sorcerer? Oh, how did they (the group) ever get by without a wizard and his item creation-factory? EDIT: This whole loophole just seems so over-the-top just to say that the "wizard is superior because they can hump their item creation feats day in and day out and spend nearly all of their resources for, what you make out to be, tons and tons of items." It's along the lines of saying that a cleric is superior to the rest of the party because Blah specific race of Blah clerics of Blah specific diety can cast 12 spells, take these two prestige classes with these two specific domains with all these specific items in blah blah blah specific campaign setting with blah specific feats and exacting skill choices, all spanning across nearly all of the D&D books and splatbooks that you own is the reason why clerics are superior and no cleric player in their right mind -won't- do this. (also the reason why I say that druids and clerics aren't as overpowered as people say they are. But I'm NOT gonna open up that can of worms.) Craft pearls of power and rings of wizardry with some of the gold you save and you're ahead again. By the time you can even make Pearls of power, you're level 17 and can cast 9th level spells. Rings of wizardry? Needs to be 12th level before taking the feat itself to makes rings of anything. Those rings are expensive to make (50,000gp, 100 days, and 4000xp to make a ring of wizardry IV by itself.) And, by 12th level, you'll be casting 6th level spells (as will the sorcerer). And you need a lot of pearls to come close to what a sorcerer has, especially with their limited number of spells/day (in addition to being one level behind than what they normally are.) Good luck chugging all those pearls out to do what a sorcerer normally does without any of that help. You get new spell levels one level late-- just like the sorcerer. With a significantly smaller number of spells per day. Compare: Wiz17 and Sorc18 Spells/day: (NPC wiz & sorc used for this comparison, DMG pages 125 & 126) Wiz: 4/6/6/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 Sor: 6/8/8/8/7/7/7/7/5/3 SSK: 9/5/5/4/4/4/3/3/2/1 Even with these -temporary- items to compensate, they're only temporary and they're only to compensate. Besides, it isn't like the sorcerer is ever completely naked in these comparisons. They have items also. Just fewer of them. Of course, this is only true with the gravy-train in effect. A level 20 wizard gets 12 feats counting scribe scroll. Scribe Scroll and Craft Wondrous Item are all you need. Then I guess he's not making those rings of wizardry then. Or making wands to cover for that lack of stamina in spellcasting power (relying on scrolls to do that is.. just... subpar.) or staves (the best method, though expensive) or rods (metamagic rods, anyone?) or potions (which anyone in the party can use -- not just u and the rogue and the bard and the sorcerer) But hey, I guess that's just the bare minimum to use it. That is one-sixth of your feats, one-eleventh of your chosen feats. If you expect to get mileage out of forge ring or another feat, you can do so at your discretion, but it is not necessary to effectively execute the gravy train any more than it's necessary to take elemental savant to be an effective sorcerer. How many of the qualifying spells for any of these items are useless to a sorcerer either before or after a particular item is made? Is a sorcerer that has haste useless, even though he's made boots of speed or speed weapons? What about the sorcerer that has eagle's splendor and can make his own charisma and charisma-oriented items? (Cloak of charisma, circlet of persuasion, headband of charismatic persuasion? heck, a resistance cantrip means a crafter can make items with the resistance quality on it.) Of course, all of the "sorcerers can't get the qualifying spell for item creation becomes entirely moot when the sorcerer gets limited wish, alamanther's return, or even wish. Or even has a spellcasting buddy in the party (of any primary spellcasting class). Plus, there's noncore item creation feats, such as craft contingent item. (very useful) Not really. There is such a thing as down time. If your DM is a monty haul DM and you have literally -nothing- else to do. (of course, the only qualifier for "monty haul" DM in relation to the gravy train is the allowance thereof in the first place.) At low levels, item creation can be easily squeezed into your spare time. What items, other than perhaps scrolls, are halfway worthwhile enough to make that doesn't require the requisite feat be higher level or teh caster level also be of higher level? My cleric character once made goggles of darkvision for our party's rogue. Whoop de doo. All that effort to replace a torch. You need eight hours of rest and eight hours of item crafting. It's funny how the "wizards don't need to be doing stuff 24/7 defense goes out the window at moments notice when it's necessary. At higher levels, you will have access to secure locations where you can craft for unlimited periods of time. At higher levels, it won't even matter anymore. THe differences in teh two spelllcasters that made all the difference before higher levels is now a moot point. You gain new spell levels at the sorcerer's rate and get close to double magic items. It's that simple. ... until you try it in an actual game with a reasonable DM under normal circumstances with players that aren't dimwitted. Sure. I expect that you will note that it is technically possible for a sorcerer to use the gravy train, but it would be far less effective Depends on the sorcerer. ANd the party too. because while wizards have unlimited spell access, oh really? Unlimited, you say? That's an awful big word to be throwing around. I shouldn't have to say this, but nothing about a wizard's spell list is "unlimited." Not even the "potental" of the wizard's spell list. Unless the wizard in question is a greater god of magic. Not even any other god gets nearly all of the spells a wizard can get. a sorcerer's meager spell choices limit the items that they can craft past a reasonable level of return. I wouldn't mind seeing what items a sorcerer couldn't make because the spells required were useless otherwise. I guess a boccobs blessed book counts as something a sorcerer couldn't make because of the requirement to have the spell secret page. But... y'know... whoop de doo. I could spend two feats (Craft wonderous items and craft rings) and make -plenty- of useful items for myself and the rest of the party with just my "meager selection." Depending on the item, it might not even elimintate the need to have the spell known. Of course, the "selection" is only "meager" until the sorcerer gets 7th level spells. Plus, they would be a full spell level behind any caster that did not use it. No, they wouldn't. THey'd have teh same caster level and plenty more spell slots in order to cast the spells they do have. Of course, what advantage is there in having a higher level spell slot when all you have is two spells known and one spell slot for that level? Next level, the sorcerer gets his one spell known and three spell slots, in addition to being able to cast lower level spells "bumped up" by metamagic feats.
Tony Vargas 07-29-04, 11:23 PM	Seriously, item creation doesn't benefit a sorcerer much. It's great for a wizard, because the spells she knows aren't always going to be available - used up or not prepped in the first place - putting those spells into an item, either straight up into a scroll or wand, or functinally into a wonderous item, is great. Conversely, it's nearly worthless for a sorcerer - all his spells are going to be available, pretty nearly all the time, so he gains little (certainly not enough to justify taking a feat and burning exp). It makes much more sense for the sorcerer to acquire items that don't duplicate his own spells - whether it's accepting found items as part of his share, or buying or commissioning items. About the only scenario that would make sense would be if there were either no non-sorcerers in the setting, or a group of sorcerers willing to trade extensively with eachother. Then it might be worthwhile for each sorcerer to take an item creation feat, make items, and trade with other sorcerers who know different spells...
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-29-04, 11:44 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Seriously, item creation doesn't benefit a sorcerer much. It's great for a wizard, because the spells she knows aren't always going to be available - used up or not prepped in the first place - putting those spells into an item, either straight up into a scroll or wand, or functinally into a wonderous item, is great. I never said item creation wasn't good or that it was somehow less good for a wizard. I just mean that people are overexaggerating just how good it really is just to make the wizard look better than it is. Specifically, I percieve them as saying "Look, no wizard isn't gonna have some item creation, since we found this loophole, as such, they'll be chugging items out like automobile factories and will have a thousand, billion times the overall power that a sorcerer can only imagine in his wildest dreams, all for absolutely no cost at all, whatsoever. Which is why no one in their right mind would ascribe to playing a sorcerer with their one, useless spell that they get, ever." (*cough* disclaimer: this is obviously overexaggerated to proove my point. But proove my point it does.) EDIT: Spelling corrections... among other things. Conversely, it's nearly worthless for a sorcerer - all his spells are going to be available, pretty nearly all the time, so he gains little (certainly not enough to justify taking a feat and burning exp). Two things, For the most part, you're right. However, that does depend on the spell, the item, and the sorcerer. Second, just because it's available for the party sorcerer dosen't mean it's avialable for the party >insert character class here<. It makes much more sense for the sorcerer to acquire items that don't duplicate his own spells - whether it's accepting found items as part of his share, or buying or commissioning items. I agree. But keep in mind that I didn't say it was "better" for a sorcerer. Just not "useless." ... or something to that effect. About the only scenario that would make sense would be if there were either no non-sorcerers in the setting, or a group of sorcerers willing to trade extensively with eachother. Then it might be worthwhile for each sorcerer to take an item creation feat, make items, and trade with other sorcerers who know different spells... Well, apparently, since item creation is soooo good, I don't know why ANY caster should be without it. If fact, people should start getting parties of four wizards or three wizards and a cleric, all armed with different item creation feats to thump out items round the clock to make this party format the utmost superior party format of all and make all other classes obsolete. (That was chuck full of sarcasm, if you didn't notice. That assertion being utterly ridiculous.)
lanilifar 07-30-04, 01:08 AM	About the only scenario that would make sense would be if there were either no non-sorcerers in the setting, or a group of sorcerers willing to trade extensively with eachother. If we are assuming that any scroll can be purchased in any small town or larger, then why not assume we can find another spellcaster willing to work with you on item creation (although it would require more than small town IMO, we are assuming ample downtime, so we can just travel to the city)? With our high charisma we have a better than average chance of convincing someone to help, and we might make a useful ally/friend. Sure, someone else in the party might be a better face, but spellcasters often prefer other spellcasters as company (similiar interests and all).
Zelphi 07-30-04, 05:45 AM	Who said anything about someone needing help... How about getting rid of a threat that exists... or just having a pop at Undermountain. You're assuming that you're gonna have all this time to make items... but you're forgetting that no-ones going to bother waiting for you whilst you sit around making yourself viable to a party. Then you have to carry them all... which takes even more time and resources... and highlights why it's really you lot that kill the campaign. You can't even quickdraw all these wands... maybe a stave, but not really wands... The Sorcerer has a more consistant ability to provide what an arcane caster can add to a party. Whilst the Wizard adds specific strengths.. if they're lucky. All this extra crap about scrying and divination to prepare for a fight... I suppose it's never been used against you? Wow... you're campaigns actually are a load of crap in that case.
Haldrik 07-30-04, 09:22 AM	Fighters do not start a fight without a weapon. They wait until they acquire one. If a magic weapon is possible, they wait a little longer. If a secret weapon ( = powerful Wizard) is possible, they wait a little longer. To rush off to battle without maximum magical advantage is unwise. I have *never* been in a campaign where non-Wizard players refuse to wait for the Wizard to prepare. IMX, players want to be at maximum power. This is especially true if they are playing as a team. Not waiting is garbage.
Kyuketsukiouji 07-30-04, 09:28 AM	Haldrick: I guess you've never been in a campaign where you had a time limit. Or where you were on the defending side of a battle instead of the attacking side. Or any of the dozen scenarios I can think of where waiting for the wizard to be at max spells means you fail at what you're doing.
Zelphi 07-30-04, 09:32 AM	I didn't say anything about waiting to prepare their spells, they'd do that for the cleric too! But waiting days for someone to make an item, whilst they could just buy it from a store and save time and money (in the long run)? Then waiting months for them to make an item for some other member? and again and again each damn time we come back from an adventure.... when it's just easier to buy it still, and not have some party member who's back on xp and needs to play catch up? That's crud especially when you could dump them for someone who doesn't have to spend all that time to be "useful" and doesn't depend on a vast amount of down time to be useful. The Wizard doesn't equate to victory, just quicker ones when they actually provide a benefit. When they can teleport in anyway, it's not like they're far behind is it? Waiting up for a pointless waste of time (the Wizard) is junk. It isn't an advantage, it's a waste of time for everyone else if he needs to do these things to be of any use.
Haldrik 07-30-04, 09:44 AM	Kyu: I guess you've never been in a campaign where you had a time limit. Of course, sometimes a campaign is time-dependent. The challenge is not a time and place of one's own choosing, and the magic items cannot be made, or get interrupted. But whenever magic item creation is possible, the team waits. Zelphi, No, I meant waiting for the Wizard(s) to "prepare" the party with magic items. I wasn't using the word technically in the sense of spells. Custom-made items are never available. If you don't make them yourself, you would have to commission them and wait the same amount of time anyway. At high levels, powerful magic items are more scarce, so making them yourself might be better. Also, at low levels, 50% off the gp cost if you make the magic item yourself helps and lets you stretch the magical purchasing power of the gp.
Zelphi 07-30-04, 09:53 AM	If you commission you're not waiting for a valuable party member to catch up with you whilst you make up the costs and achieve more are you? Either way, you're willingness to let this sort of thing prevail is more a failing of the campaign than any class. You're pampering the Wizard as TV might say... and that doesn't mean anything. You over cater for a potential strength by ignoring implecations to others, and then complain that those others don't have the same exploit. That's a load of crud then isn't it?
Tony Vargas 07-30-04, 01:19 PM	Originally posted by Zelphi Either way, you're willingness to let this sort of thing prevail is more a failing of the campaign than any class. Well, it's a failing of the wizard class, too - to the extent that it's effectiveness is so strongly affected by campaign dependent factors. In a sense, the wiz a burden on the DM, as he has to keep very careful track of wealth, resources, and downtime, and has to be careful, as well, to assure that the players get just the right amount of information about what they may be facing in the near future. It's a delicate balancing act.
Zelphi 07-31-04, 06:39 AM	Aye... when I first started DM'ing with one in the party... there were just so many restrictions and requirements I didn't notice were there... Then blessed book goes and throws most of it out the window. It's like natural spell, no point in not taking one if you can. I think maybe the Wizards kinda crippled at lower levels because of all that stuff, but at higher levels it gets rediculous so they got rid of it with this book.. but that kinda does too much. Hell they screwed up the Wiz, that doesn't mean the Sorcs bad.
Lord_Naerik 07-31-04, 06:53 AM	Sorry, but you are the 1001st person to have done this (by estimation) and I just can't take it anymore. It is RIDICULOUS not REDICULOUS.
Zelphi 07-31-04, 07:06 AM	You sure it's not an Americanisation? Like Colour... not that I mind. Ridiculous, looks better to me. Back on topic - Wizards are junk - discuss.
Lord_Naerik 07-31-04, 07:48 PM	No, it isnt an Americanization. It is one of the most commonly mispelled words on this forum which leads me to believe that the majority of posters here actually believe "Rediculous" is the correct spelling. Wizards are fantastic and Sorcerers are fantastic too. IF you believe that Wizards are better you MUST accept that (due to inherent similarities) that the margin is so slim as to be insignificant when compared to Wizard vs Fighter or Sorcerer vs Fighter. Saying Sorcerers suck is like saying that last year's Ferrari sucks compared to this year's model. Mabey this year's model is "better" and mabey it isnt, but a Ferrari is a Ferrari and its still better than any Peugot
Sensei Gith 07-31-04, 09:39 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Oh, I don't know. Food -It's extremely cheap. -You can get it free with spells anyway. Scrolls Scribing AKA magic items and expanded spell and magic item selection. Any magic item I can't make myself or otherwise can't afford to make Do you have no cleric in the group? Between the two of you, you can craft almost anything. The xp gravy train works beautifully for all of the primary casters except sorcerers. If you can't afford to craft an item, you probably can't afford to pay double for someone else to. Resurrections Take it out of the dead character's share. additional mercenaries Not worth the cost when you can get flunkies free with magic. purchased spellcasting Cast it yourself. Taxes to a city that my tower is in Get a freakin' demiplane. You don't pay taxes. bribe money Is this such a large, constant expense? You have magic, remember. equipment for followers and/or cohort Magic items. tithes That's your choice. assorted roleplay costs Specify. prostitutes To each his own, but this falls under the "wasted expense" category. beer a room at an inn a tip to the messenger a tip to the bartender a large tip to the bar wench (and all those old cliche D&D jokes) a round to a bunch of patrons expendatures to "rattle up" someone to give information (like with a gather information check.... or straight charisma check) I'm sure your beer budget will bankrupt you. Here's a fun fact: at the standard price, a 20th-level character can afford 76,000,000 beers. It would take 152 villages of 500 people to brew that much beer. These trivial expenses amount to nothing next to the bulk of your treasure. Maybe you'll only have 750,000 gp worth of items instead of 760,000. As anyone can see, the vast majority of any character's gold is open to spend as they want. Double items... over what? The sorcerer? Does it even matter if your group doesn't have a sorcerer? Oh, how did they (the group) ever get by without a wizard and his item creation-factory? Nice try. On the same note, what use is this entire discussion in a party that does not have both a wizard and a sorcerer? EDIT: This whole loophole just seems so over-the-top just to say that the "wizard is superior because they can hump their item creation feats day in and day out and spend nearly all of their resources for, what you make out to be, tons and tons of items." It's along the lines of saying that a cleric is superior to the rest of the party because Blah specific race of Blah clerics of Blah specific diety can cast 12 spells, take these two prestige classes with these two specific domains with all these specific items in blah blah blah specific campaign setting with blah specific feats and exacting skill choices, all spanning across nearly all of the D&D books and splatbooks that you own is the reason why clerics are superior and no cleric player in their right mind -won't- do this. (also the reason why I say that druids and clerics aren't as overpowered as people say they are. But I'm NOT gonna open up that can of worms.) Right. Because we all know that the xp gravy train requires obscure splatbooks. It requires the expendature of one crafting feat. Calm down and be rational. By the time you can even make Pearls of power, you're level 17 and can cast 9th level spells. Nope. Try reading the rules on magic item caster levels. Rings of wizardry? Needs to be 12th level before taking the feat itself to makes rings of anything. Those rings are expensive to make (50,000gp, 100 days, and 4000xp to make a ring of wizardry IV by itself.) And, by 12th level, you'll be casting 6th level spells (as will the sorcerer). Since rings of wizardry are the central key to this trick, it falls apart right here. Nice going. :rolleyes: And you need a lot of pearls to come close to what a sorcerer has, especially with their limited number of spells/day (in addition to being one level behind than what they normally are.) Good luck chugging all those pearls out to do what a sorcerer normally does without any of that help. Because wizards have no advantages (bonus feats, unlimited spell selection) over sorcerers except their faster rate of spell level acquisition. With a significantly smaller number of spells per day. Compare: Wiz17 and Sorc18 Spells/day: (NPC wiz & sorc used for this comparison, DMG pages 125 & 126) Wiz: 4/6/6/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 Sor: 6/8/8/8/7/7/7/7/5/3 SSK: 9/5/5/4/4/4/3/3/2/1 Now give them each half a million gold to make them PC's. And put better stats in Int or Cha. And buy stat boosters to give them more normal spells/day. Then let the wizard have another half-million to toss on rings of wizardry, pearls of power, scrolls, and staves or wands if he has the feat, a better spell selection, and the rest on more generic items. Then post the figures. Even with these -temporary- items to compensate, they're only temporary and they're only to compensate. How axiomatic. Which temporary items are you referring to? Besides, it isn't like the sorcerer is ever completely naked in these comparisons. They have items also. Just fewer of them. Correct. Also note that more>less. Of course, this is only true with the gravy-train in effect. That is what your post was about, right? Then I guess he's not making those rings of wizardry then. Or making wands to cover for that lack of stamina in spellcasting power (relying on scrolls to do that is.. just... subpar.) or staves (the best method, though expensive) or rods (metamagic rods, anyone?) or potions (which anyone in the party can use -- not just u and the rogue and the bard and the sorcerer) But hey, I guess that's just the bare minimum to use it. Excellent reading. That's exactly what I meant by "necessary," as opposed to 'really nice.' Likewise, power attack is not necessary to wield a two-handed weapon, although it's certainly a good investment. The more you put in, the more you get out. You have four free feats to spend on item creation or metamagic without even touching your normal feats. How many of the qualifying spells for any of these items are useless to a sorcerer either before or after a particular item is made? Is a sorcerer that has haste useless, even though he's made boots of speed or speed weapons? What about the sorcerer that has eagle's splendor and can make his own charisma and charisma-oriented items? (Cloak of charisma, circlet of persuasion, headband of charismatic persuasion? heck, a resistance cantrip means a crafter can make items with the resistance quality on it.) You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that all spells that are item prerequisites are useless. A wizard can craft all items that require spells on his list. A sorcerer can craft any item that requires spells on his list. Getting any choice, or a handful of choices off the list is not the same as having the whole list. A sorcerer is limited to the subset of items that they have the spells for. Of course, all of the "sorcerers can't get the qualifying spell for item creation becomes entirely moot when the sorcerer gets limited wish, alamanther's return, or even wish. Or even has a spellcasting buddy in the party (of any primary spellcasting class). All of those spells have xp costs. The more xp you spend on qualifying for the gravy train, the less xp you can spend on using it. Plus, there's noncore item creation feats, such as craft contingent item. (very useful) How wonderful for you and your books. If your DM is a monty haul DM and you have literally -nothing- else to do. (of course, the only qualifier for "monty haul" DM in relation to the gravy train is the allowance thereof in the first place.) Right. Does anyone else ever have adventure down time? You're all Monty Haulers. Sorry for the bad news. :rolleyes: What items, other than perhaps scrolls, are halfway worthwhile enough to make that doesn't require the requisite feat be higher level or teh caster level also be of higher level? My cleric character once made goggles of darkvision for our party's rogue. Whoop de doo. All that effort to replace a torch. Your lack of creativity does not make item creation useless. It's funny how the "wizards don't need to be doing stuff 24/7 defense goes out the window at moments notice when it's necessary. They don't need to unless you railroad away adventure downtime. See the "Worst DM story ever!" threads that pop up from time to time on the WaPtD? board for full details. At higher levels, it won't even matter anymore. THe differences in teh two spelllcasters that made all the difference before higher levels is now a moot point. Items are unimportant at high levels. Right. ... until you try it in an actual game with a reasonable DM under normal circumstances with players that aren't dimwitted. Sure. Please refrain from insulting DM's that allow down time between adventures. Depends on the sorcerer. ANd the party too. Does your sorcerer have the standard spell level acquisition rate and unlimited spells known? oh really? Unlimited, you say? That's an awful big word to be throwing around. I shouldn't have to say this, but nothing about a wizard's spell list is "unlimited." Not even the "potental" of the wizard's spell list. Unless the wizard in question is a greater god of magic. Not even any other god gets nearly all of the spells a wizard can get. Perhaps you should provide an argument for that. You didn't even give me anything to debunk. I wouldn't mind seeing what items a sorcerer couldn't make because the spells required were useless otherwise. I guess a boccobs blessed book counts as something a sorcerer couldn't make because of the requirement to have the spell secret page. But... y'know... whoop de doo. I could spend two feats (Craft wonderous items and craft rings) and make -plenty- of useful items for myself and the rest of the party with just my "meager selection." Depending on the item, it might not even elimintate the need to have the spell known. Of course, the "selection" is only "meager" until the sorcerer gets 7th level spells. You're putting words in my mouth again. No, they wouldn't. THey'd have teh same caster level and plenty more spell slots in order to cast the spells they do have. Of course, what advantage is there in having a higher level spell slot when all you have is two spells known and one spell slot for that level? Next level, the sorcerer gets his one spell known and three spell slots, in addition to being able to cast lower level spells "bumped up" by metamagic feats. A sorcerer of one level lower would have one less caster level and spell level than a wizard. Read the rules.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-01-04, 01:21 AM	Sensei, Do you even have a point anymore? Now you're just blindly and seemingly angrily responding to bits and pieces of my previous post with no cohesive point. other than blatently bashing me with little, if any reasonings behind them. Secondly, you are insulting me and sarcastically lashing at me despite that I am calmly presenting my counterarguement to your opinions and theories. Thirdly, don't try to pull ignorance (or lack of creativity) on my part for diagreeing with you. I am not ignorant of the rules, nor do I lack any such creativity. I understand and have read the rules regarding item creation and I also fully understand the costs that those rules impliment. I did not put any words in your mouth in the entire post that you responded to, yet several times in that post, you did put words in mine. Forthly, I have been calm and rational since I started posting on this thread, I have not been irrational in any way, shape or form. Lastly, a wizard doesn't have an "unlimited" number of spells known. You should know that. I shouldn't have to explain it.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-01-04, 02:54 PM	Originally posted by Haldrik Fighters do not start a fight without a weapon. They wait until they acquire one. If a magic weapon is possible, they wait a little longer. If a secret weapon ( = powerful Wizard) is possible, they wait a little longer. To rush off to battle without maximum magical advantage is unwise. I have *never* been in a campaign where non-Wizard players refuse to wait for the Wizard to prepare. IMX, players want to be at maximum power. This is especially true if they are playing as a team. Not waiting is garbage. I agree with you 100% here Hal. Pro Sorcerers bring up this waiting fact with Wizards because they believe it fits their argument. But in a true campaign, they would wait for the Wizard cause they want to win the campaign, not just to try and prove their argument correct. The Sorcerer has to rest, the cleric has to prepare, and heal. In our campaigns we play with something called exhaustion. Fighting types can't sit their and fight for hours straight, and then go on to another battle, even if you don't lose any hit points. Everyone has to rest, and prepare. The Wizard takes just a little longer than the Sorcerer, but not much. Don't use an argument in the forums just to try and proove a point, but not stick with that argument in a true campaign.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-01-04, 02:59 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog Sense Motive is rare. Not a lot of classes have it. And misc. bonuses (including skill points and the all-powerful glibness) far outweight the Cha mod. What if you plan ahead what you think you will need, but turns out you don't need that spell known? Wizards can make mistakes in spell selection; so can sorcerers. At least the wizard can amend the mistake the next morning. I've found that wizards can still get by, even with a poor spell selection. If you prepared a less-than-perfect spell but still chose good spells, you can improvise. And if the wizard makes use of his Item Creation feat(s)... You assume that the wizard will waste 9/10ths of his slots on useless spells whereas the sorcerer's selection will be flawless. A) Rarely will you absolutelly "need" a certain spell. And those are the spells that are perfect candidates for scrolls. B) Remember Item Creation. DnD isn't like a jigsaw puzzle. Its not "Insert Y (and ONLY) Y into target 3." Its "Get around obstacle 4 any way you can." If you need it more often, you either use Pearls of Power (an especially good idea for low-level spells) or consumable items. :OMG! Blaine, were you actually taking up for the Wizard? Your comments are very much correct, but it is truly a shocker. My thanks to you my friend. :D
Sensei Gith 08-01-04, 03:29 PM	If your entire post is a nitpick of the least significant parts of my post coupled with false data and irrelevant comparisons, expect a rather large amount of sarcasm and disdain in return. Don't whine about it, refute my post. The quotes, if you would read them, constitute the vast majority of the text of your post. If I failed to address 10% of your post, you failed to address 100% of mine.
q'afuu 08-01-04, 04:03 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek In our campaigns we play with something called exhaustion. Not to put too fine a point on it, I don't give a rat's innards for houserules you use in your campaign which don't apply to a *core rules* conform campaign. Anyway, as much as I agree that from a mechanical POV wizards are much better than sorcerers, I simply like the latter better. I don't need to justify that preference by rationalizing power differences or trying to overstate the sorcerers benefits, I just do. I hate the vancian magic system with a passion (not to mention that just about every other fantasy author besides Vance refers to what in D&D terms amounts to a sorcerer when using the word wizard) so the sorcerer, though far from perfect in that respect either, is a far more palatable arcane caster to me. In all honesty, the sorcerer probably wouldn't overshadow the wizard if the class would get double the amount of spells known, but I don't care. I'm not about to submit myself to the frustrations of playing a wizard just for the mechanical benefits. I do lament the way the sorcerer class was designed (especially with regards to metamagic and 3.5 - spontaneous metamagic IMO could have been the perfect way to add some extra cachet to the class, but instead the wizard is far more suited to metamagic use for all intents and purposes).
BlaineTog 08-01-04, 04:34 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Anyway, as much as I agree that from a mechanical POV wizards are much better than sorcerers, I simply like the latter better. I don't need to justify that preference by rationalizing power differences or trying to overstate the sorcerers benefits, I just do. I hate the vancian magic system with a passion (not to mention that just about every other fantasy author besides Vance refers to what in D&D terms amounts to a sorcerer when using the word wizard) so the sorcerer, though far from perfect in that respect either, is a far more palatable arcane caster to me.My sentiments exactly.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-01-04, 04:48 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Not to put too fine a point on it, I don't give a rat's innards for houserules you use in your campaign which don't apply to a *core rules* conform campaign. Actually exhaustion is a rule. It's in the DMG.
q'afuu 08-01-04, 05:00 PM	I'm pretty sure that what's in the DMG doesn't have the effect you pointed out in your post, but I wouldn't mind a page reference so I can look it up for myself without having to go through half the book again.
lanilifar 08-01-04, 05:30 PM	Do you have no cleric in the group? Between the two of you, you can craft almost anything. A wizard can craft all items that require spells on his list. A sorcerer can craft any item that requires spells on his list. Getting any choice, or a handful of choices off the list is not the same as having the whole list. A sorcerer is limited to the subset of items that they have the spells for. You made these statements in the same post. You can't argue that a wizard's ability to access other casters shows how he has unlimited item creation potential, and then in the same breath argue that sorcerers can only make items based on the spells they know. -It's extremely cheap. -You can get it free with spells anyway. It's only cheap if you eat like a pauper. Why did you go adventuring again, risking life and limb? To live like a pauper? You could have just been a miller or a baker, it is less dangerous. You can use spells, but you probably don't while not on the road (and even on the road you probably save your spells). Any magic item I can't make myself or otherwise can't afford to make Can't afford the time to make. There will probably be a few times in any campaign where you need an item quicker than you can make it. You may be able to find one for sale. You will pay full price. Or does this never happen? Not worth the cost when you can get flunkies free with magic. My spell slots today are worth more than the money I have to pay hirelings, in the short term. Over the long term I may be coming out behind, but I want to live today to bemoan my loss in the future. Cast it yourself. Which costs more in the short term (research costs or scroll cost and scribing costs and one day at least). Especially if I am never likely to need that spell again. Sometimes buying a spell is more economically sound, as well as the only option (you need the spell, you need it now, or no one is willing to teach you). Get a freakin' demiplane. You don't pay taxes. I like living in the city. Or I prefer my house in the woods. Or my magically aware kingdom actually charges more taxes if I set up a demiplane with an entrance in their land. Because wizards have no advantages (bonus feats, unlimited spell selection) over sorcerers except their faster rate of spell level acquisition. Because sorcerers have no advantage over wizards (spontaneous casting, more spell slots, no costs involved in maintaining and protecting a spellbook) either. Nice try. On the same note, what use is this entire discussion in a party that does not have both a wizard and a sorcerer? The use is to determine whether your campaign should even ever have a sorcerer as an option. If, in your experience, wizards are just plain better, than sorcerers need to be abolished, or one of the two classes altered. Plus we all like to see ourselves type, I think. :D
baerdith 08-01-04, 05:35 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu I just do. I hate the vancian magic system with a passion (not to mention that just about every other fantasy author besides Vance refers to what in D&D terms amounts to a sorcerer when using the word wizard) so the sorcerer, though far from perfect in that respect either, is a far more palatable arcane caster to me. Actually most fantasy writers have a modified version of the D & D Sorc. Most writers have a wizards that can cast anything he knows any time he wants. But they also have many spells known and can change what they can cast fairly regularly. In all honesty, the sorcerer probably wouldn't overshadow the wizard if the class would get double the amount of spells known, but I don't care. I'm not about to submit myself to the frustrations of playing a wizard just for the mechanical benefits. I do lament the way the sorcerer class was designed (especially with regards to metamagic and 3.5 - spontaneous metamagic IMO could have been the perfect way to add some extra cachet to the class, but instead the wizard is far more suited to metamagic use for all intents and purposes). [/B] I agree. My own views of the sorc. are that it is a great concept, but the execution was flawed. I have no problem with a limited spell knowledge, I just wish it wasn't SO limited. A bonus SK per level based on high intelligence seems fair to me. Blaine and I have argued about an average Sorcs INT, but I still think that Average Joe Sorceror will have around 16 Int or no more than +3 spells known per level. By the time the sorc gets heavy stat boosters (ie magic items) there shouldn't be much of a balance issue as by then the wizard can make his pearls and Rings and have more Spellcasting power than the Sorc could dream of.
baerdith 08-01-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu I'm pretty sure that what's in the DMG doesn't have the effect you pointed out in your post, but I wouldn't mind a page reference so I can look it up for myself without having to go through half the book again. This is frrom the SRD: Exhausted: An exhausted character moves at half speed and takes a –6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. After 1 hour of complete rest, an exhausted character becomes fatigued. A fatigued character becomes exhausted by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue. Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
Sensei Gith 08-01-04, 06:05 PM	Thanks for replying, lanilifar. You made these statements in the same post. You can't argue that a wizard's ability to access other casters shows how he has unlimited item creation potential, and then in the same breath argue that sorcerers can only make items based on the spells they know. I'm not saying that sorcerers can only make items that they know the spells for. The latter statement was in the context of showing that sorcerers cannot pull off the gravy train anywhere near as effectively as other classes. While neither wizards nor sorcerers can craft cleric-only items without assistance, sorcerers need to buy scrolls or find help to craft most wizard/sorcerer items. This does not prevent them from creating items entirely, but necessitates either the existance of another character just to make the trick work (while the wizard would certainly benefit from the cleric's prescence, he can craft any wizard/sorcerer item he wants) or that the sorcerer spends his money on scrolls. The scrolls would not benefit the character beyond the creation of the item and could not be self-crafted, so they come directly out of the pool of resources that he could have used to create items in the first place. If he has neither advantage, his spell selection will limit the utility of the items he can craft-- he'll have to buy many more items at normal price than the wizard, getting less from the gravy train. It's only cheap if you eat like a pauper. Why did you go adventuring again, risking life and limb? To live like a pauper? You could have just been a miller or a baker, it is less dangerous. You can use spells, but you probably don't while not on the road (and even on the road you probably save your spells). Obviously, a wizard worth 760,000 gp would eat very good meals, but even over several years, the cost would be insignificant next to his wealth. While he should be stingy with spells on the road, most time is spent in down time-- as you said, the wizard doesn't adventure just so he can buy more stuff and head to the nearest dungeon. Can't afford the time to make. There will probably be a few times in any campaign where you need an item quicker than you can make it. You may be able to find one for sale. You will pay full price. Or does this never happen? Rarely. I can't think of an example of needing a specific item where you couldn't step around the issue with other items and spells, but ignoring that, there are ways to stretch out your time. The most (in)famous, of course, is finding a nice plane with faster time and coming back the next round with your item. An understanding of probability establishes the possibility of the tactic, if not its balance. It is not inconceivable that a wizard might find himself needing a specific item and able to locate one for purchase within a specific time limit that excludes crafting, but it's not going to be a regular occurance. My spell slots today are worth more than the money I have to pay hirelings, in the short term. Over the long term I may be coming out behind, but I want to live today to bemoan my loss in the future. What sort of hireling could not be obtained with your over-plentiful low-level spell slots? Which costs more in the short term (research costs or scroll cost and scribing costs and one day at least). Especially if I am never likely to need that spell again. Sometimes buying a spell is more economically sound, as well as the only option (you need the spell, you need it now, or no one is willing to teach you). The xp gravy train itself justifies the small expense of adding it to your spellbook. I like living in the city. Or I prefer my house in the woods. Or my magically aware kingdom actually charges more taxes if I set up a demiplane with an entrance in their land. Okay, but it's not likely that the taxes will amount to that much. Towers just aren't that big. You could probably get it waived for a service (service=quest=adventure=xp=gold) to the city. Because sorcerers have no advantage over wizards (spontaneous casting, more spell slots, no costs involved in maintaining and protecting a spellbook) either. TDOA was insinuating that a wizard's only advantage was faster spell level acquisition. There are many factors on both sides. Whether they balance or not is not what my post is about, but they need to be acknowledged. A wizard on the xp gravy train is not a sorcerer with fewer spells per day. The use is to determine whether your campaign should even ever have a sorcerer as an option. If, in your experience, wizards are just plain better, than sorcerers need to be abolished, or one of the two classes altered. Plus we all like to see ourselves type, I think. The subject of the game has almost no practical effect unless a wizard and a sorcerer coexist in the same campaign, but that does not make the question irrelevant. Likewise, wizards' use of the xp gravy train does not matter if you have no wizards, but that does not make it less powerful. That's all that I was saying.
q'afuu 08-01-04, 06:28 PM	Originally posted by baerdith This is frrom the SRD: Exhausted: An exhausted character moves at half speed and takes a –6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. After 1 hour of complete rest, an exhausted character becomes fatigued. A fatigued character becomes exhausted by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue. Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued. And this shows how fatigue affects sorcerers' effectiveness to the point where it reduces their advantage when it comes to resting compared to wizards how exactly? A mention was made of fighters resting after a fight even if they didn't lose a single hp. That leads me to believe that at the very least house rules are being used for situations that cause fatigue/exhaustion or that players assume such conditions on their own. Neither is the case for campaigns run by the letter of the rules.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-01-04, 09:50 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith If your entire post is a nitpick of the least significant parts of my post coupled with false data and irrelevant comparisons, expect a rather large amount of sarcasm and disdain in return. Don't whine about it, refute my post. The quotes, if you would read them, constitute the vast majority of the text of your post. If I failed to address 10% of your post, you failed to address 100% of mine. ... Fine. If you want me to address anything of yours, next time, give something "significant" for me to respond to. You've given me nothing other than opinion and theory and spite amounting to nothing other than "sorcerer sucks. wizard better cause they craft." I need something concrete and even the gravy train itself isn't. Beyond that, nothing you've said indicated that the gravy train even has any costs. You seem to have completely waved the downsides and actual costs of acting like a one-wizard item-factory. Even given that, you've given me nothing to say whether it even gives the wizard a significant enough advantage to truely be better. TDOA was insinuating that a wizard's only advantage was faster spell level acquisition. There are many factors on both sides. Whether they balance or not is not what my post is about, but they need to be acknowledged. A wizard on the xp gravy train is not a sorcerer with fewer spells per day. What on earth have I stated that makes you think that I insinuated that "a wizard's only advantage was faster spell level acquisition?" Just because I haven't said that a wizard only has strengths, doesn't mean I don't recognise them. I just don't say that those strengths make the wizard superior to the sorcerer. They both have strengths and they both have weaknesses. I acknowledge both and, furthermore, I also acknowledge the power of item creation and its usefulness. However, I don't think that, under any but "monty haul" DM circumstances, does it ever result in "double items." Personally, I think the new xp system was meant to help players that got behind because of loosing a level or just being behind (because they started playing later than other players) or something of that nature. perhaps it also was intended to not screw over spellcasters in this manner as well. I don't doubt that, but I do, very much so, think you're vastly overstating what the "gravy train" is capable of doing and suggesting that any and every problem merely means that the wizard can just throw more items at it. Disregarding any intelligent descision made by anyone else regarding anything. "Sorcerers can't do anything with their limited spell selection and their delayed progression in comparison to this wizard with double items has a kajillion pearls of power, scrolls, wands, staves, and wonderous items that he made. Why even play a sorcerer..." and all that ludicrous nonsense. Because items have costs. Time costs. Experience costs. GP costs. A prerequisite spell and a prerequisite caster level. You can't make a pearl of power one before 17th level. A BBB or headband of Intellect before 8th level and not without the otherwise useless "Secret Page" spell. What amuzes me, however, is that I made all these points in the post that you didn't respond to that was immediately below the one you did respond to.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-01-04, 10:01 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek I agree with you 100% here Hal. Pro Sorcerers bring up this waiting fact with Wizards because they believe it fits their argument. But in a true campaign, they would wait for the Wizard cause they want to win the campaign, not just to try and prove their argument correct. Yes that is true and I never stated that a party won't wait up for a wizard, if necessary. However, there's a difference between what a party will do when -all- of the spellcasters are out of spells as opposed to when it's just the wizard and no one else and it's reletively early in the task at hand. For instance, is a rather new Wizard player blew all of his good spells on the first or second encounter and no one else spent anywhere near that amount of their resources ready to rest again? The wizard asks to halt the party to reprepare spells. Does the party stop? I'd say no. Even if it were somewhat later in the day and the rest of the party had already been through a few encounters, but everyone else was still capable of going further, I'd still say that the party wouldn't stop, depending on the amount of the party's available resources and other members of the party with spell slots and how difficult the previous encounters were. If it were after a hard day's work and the party cleric and party wizard has most of their spells spent, then, yes. Also true just before an important battle. I don't say things just because "it fits my arguement." As a "pro-sorcerer."
Ax'Orl 08-01-04, 11:33 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek I agree with you 100% here Hal. Pro Sorcerers bring up this waiting fact with Wizards because they believe it fits their argument. We are talking about waiting for days/weeks/months for item creation not during the campaign/adventure. But in a true campaign, they would wait for the Wizard cause they want to win the campaign, not just to try and prove their argument correct. Please say "in your campaign, not everyone plays like you (thank god). Plus, having a wizard does not always equal a sure win, in many campaigns/battles my characters have been in the wizard is the first to fall or run out of useful stuff to do that is related to his class....a guy in robes tossing darts (2E) or trying to whack stuff with his staff is not really adding that much to the battle now is he esp with that lousy BAB that the wizard has. If he aint slinging spells then what use is he? The Sorcerer has to rest, the cleric has to prepare, and heal. The sorcerer does not have to rest AS OFTEN as a wizard (more spells per day AND no wasted slots=greater spell stamina), healing only takes a moment...No one has said that the party would not REST, just that they would probably not wait for the wizard to make magic items, expecially if they were on a time sensative adventure. In our campaigns we play with something called exhaustion. Fighting types can't sit their and fight for hours straight, and then go on to another battle, even if you don't lose any hit points. Everyone has to rest, and prepare. The Wizard takes just a little longer than the Sorcerer, but not much. Don't use an argument in the forums just to try and proove a point, but not stick with that argument in a true campaign. 1-your exhaustion rule is just that--->your rule=house rule 2-No one ever said that the party would not rest, that is done at the end of the day NOT in the middle of an adventure 3-What argument are you talking about? The party not resting? That is not an argument that I have seen, except to say that the wizard will have to rest more often than a sorcerer due to ineffective spell choices or lack of spells per day needed to continue. Are you talking about the time to do Item Creation? That is a valid argument because, maybe the party cannot afford to wait that long to finish their quest. 4-As for "true campaigns" what is your definition of a "true campaign" something that follows your pace? Not everyone plays or even wants to play in your style of game...some people like to mix it up more often, some less, who is to say what a true campaign is?
Oakraven 08-02-04, 02:20 AM	Ok a few notes, and realise that this is my opinions and observations. 1)the So called "Gravy train" + Ione stone has two small issues with it, One, I have yet to meet a GM (and yes I am one and I have met sevreal dozen over the years)who realy lets their players milk the Gravy train, typicaly we let them make whatever normal items they can in order to customise the partys gear to their taste, however in the long run we tend to keep them close to the recomended loot/gold value levels, Why? Because the game was Balanced that way, and if we defacto give you more loot your either not going to be getting more later, or we will be beefing up the later encounters. and then your going to be seeing your Wiz and Sorcerer burning through their spells at the 6=8 encounters/day rate in 4 encounters that others have mentiond as being the place where Sorcers shine. . . 1A) the Sacred and clearly all powerfull Orange Ione stone, Well, the first successfully stolen while actively in use by its original owner Ione stone by my group was one that added Caster levels to Sorcerers, Thus proving to my group that Ione stones are not as reliable as other items, (they are also subject to damage, Disabling Vis magic, and distruction Via magic) and should also be a warning to the people who are griping or claming that Item X makes up for the lost Wiz level(because why would a sorceress not want something that does the exact same thing, thus putting you right back were you started from, ONE LEVEL BEHIND) 1B) the Wizard with 1001 exta items from being his own Item factory will be a big magnet for Rogues and other wizards who want to relive you of thoes very same items you have thoughfully been churning out for them.(I used to work retail and security for retale with Wards, you need to realise something, Real life criminals dont see it as your property, they see it as theirs the Instant they decide to try and get it, if your lucky they are thinkng that your just holding it for them, if not, they basicaly think that your keeping them from THEIR property and they are justified in useing up to leathal force to get it) this also leads to the result of keeping the Value of items close to what you see in the DMG. 2) I have Yet to see Sorcerers at a loss for something to cast in an encounter, ever. unfortunatly the same could not be said for Mages even past 10th level, and often happens even in the late teens, when a sorceress tends to have more spells she can fire off per encounter than the wizard this tends to make them quite popular to groups no mater what. 3) Quicken is one of thoes things that is problematic no mater what you do. its too powerfull to give to sorcerers and its too disabling to them that they dont get it but everyone else can. Conversley 4) flexible spellpoints systems for sorcereses while keeping wizards with a memorize version is often a good compromise, especialy when both tend to use low level utility spells and buffs as wands/rod/staves/scrolls and keep higher level nukes/utilites memorized anyway,
Tony Vargas 08-02-04, 02:29 AM	Originally posted by baerdith Actually most fantasy writers have a modified version of the D & D Sorc. Most writers have a wizards that can cast anything he knows any time he wants. But they also have many spells known and can change what they can cast fairly regularly. Not really, typically in fantasy fiction a magic-weilding character will work one of two ways. Either he'll have a small set of tricks (like, hypnosis, or turning someone to stone or shapeshifting or scrying or whatever), that he can aparently use as often as he likes, and fairly easily; or, he'll have a great deal of arcane knowledge, possibly some sort of magical tools - a wand or staff, alchemical potions, or something - and any 'spells' he casts are longish, exacting, rituals. Outside of Vance, you rarely ever see 'wizards' using 'spells' that are potent, /and/ quick, /and/ varied. But, in an RPG with PC wizards, you need some variety, meangful power, and useabilty in 'action' type scenes (mostly combat). The 'vancian' system was actually very apropriate to RPGs, since it allowed all that, without also making any non-wizard superfluous (see Ars Magica, M:tA), even if it was a bit odd in the realms of fiction.
Zelphi 08-02-04, 05:36 AM	Aww... I remember that little dart throwing Wizard... we made him throw some enchanted rocks - that was better. As said, it's waiting months for a person (who you claim is vital to your party) to craft items for the whole party. Whilst stealing all their gold and dragging the party back even further as they play exp catch up... and potentially missing out on items (custom ones only though) if something bad happens whilst they're waiting. Go to a shop, buy them... it's better in the long run. Go to a shop, get them to commision a weapon or armour you need... and see if they have any spare workers to commision all the rest. Freeing you (and the whole party) to be free and able to respond to danger. Drow Commander: Can we attack now? Wizard: No... I've still got 7 days till I finish this item, then it's another 34 for the clerics item... 43 days later Drow Commander: Why aren't you done yet? Wizard: I failed a check... it'll be another 12 days before i'm finished. Illithid: What's the hold up? We were due to attack the party 6 days ago, right after the vampires? 12 Days later Drow: Are you done yet? Wizard: Yes... now I just need 4 days to scry and divine what's going to happen so I know what spells to cast Vampire: Hurry up, it's been 2 months of waiting in the Shadows.... and you've still got to beat the Drow! 4 Days later Illithid: Haven't you killed the Drow yet? Wizard: Sorry, prepared the wrong spells... one more day. Next Day Drow: Finaly, we get to fight! *Wizard blows them all up with 100% spell efficiency* Wizard: I really am teh ROXXOR!!111!!!!! Stupid, absolutely stupid method of running your campaign, but for some reason it's completely acceptable. This doesn't stand against all Wizards, just the Wizards who are supposedly so superior because they get all this down time and prep time and all this other time? Why, because the campaign you run says so. Crap campaign broke itself... so what. Is it different? Or is just crap like that? The Wizard has restrictions, all classes do, the Fighter isn't worse than the Paladin because the Paladin can charge everything and cast the odd spell.. he's variably better because he isn't limited to charging everything... the balance was in the spells (as a simple example). Ultimately, the Wizard can never offer more than any Sorc can in a battle... and his crafting ability is more NPC than anything... it might be alright for the odd item, but beyond that it's just stupid.
Kronk LaSworda 08-02-04, 06:06 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Another thing that I find that I don't like is when you gain a new spell level you get 1 spell known. Now, you really need that oh say Fireshield, but you don't need it 5 times. Some may do this, but most may want to choose an offensive spell first, and then choose something on the defense next time. This is a really limiting factor to me. That's what the meta magic feats are for. OK, I don't need another fireball right this second. How about a quickened _____. Pretty flexible, if you ask me.
Ashenai 08-02-04, 10:17 PM	Who knows, it might be even more flexible if the Sorcerer could actually use Quicken Spell! "Woo, I can cast a Magic Missile as a 5th level spell, in exchange for casting it as a full-round action instead of standard? Now that's what I call flexibility!"
Polaris 08-02-04, 10:25 PM	Guys, Um...how many bonus metamagic feats does the Sorcerer get so he can take advantage of this so called flexibility? -Polaris
BlaineTog 08-02-04, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by Zelphi Whilst stealing all their gold and dragging the party back even further as they play exp catch up... and potentially missing out on items (custom ones only though) if something bad happens whilst they're waiting.Its not "stealing all their gold" if they get back items worth twice what they had. And assuming that there will always be monsters of the correct CR to fight or wrongs of your caliber to right is IMO metagaming. And once again, everyone will want to take a break now and then. Go to a shop, buy them... it's better in the long run.Its more expensive, if thats what you mean. Otherwise, not better. Freeing you (and the whole party) to be free and able to respond to danger.The party can already do this. The wizard doesn't need consecutive days to work. Drow Commander: Can we attack now? Wizard: No... I've still got 7 days till I finish this item, then it's another 34 for the clerics item... 43 days later Drow Commander: Why aren't you done yet? Wizard: I failed a check... it'll be another 12 days before i'm finished.A) He could just go on the adventure and finish up the item when they got back. B) There are no checks to fail, unless he's making mundane items with the Craft skill. Illithid: What's the hold up? We were due to attack the party 6 days ago, right after the vampires?As I said, this whole scenario is metagaming. 12 Days later Drow: Are you done yet? Wizard: Yes... now I just need 4 days to scry and divine what's going to happen so I know what spells to castScry takes 1 hour. And divinations are never necessary to choose good spells. Vampire: Hurry up, it's been 2 months of waiting in the Shadows.... and you've still got to beat the Drow!More metagaming. Stupid, absolutely stupid method of running your campaign, but for some reason it's completely acceptable.Not, its not. That scenario would never happen. Well, at least not without a good deal of rule misinterpretations (thinking that you HAVE to make the items in one long stretch), wizard misconceptions (thinking that you HAVE to have just the right spells prepped or your spells are worthless), and metagaming (assuming that the party is missing out on adventures that would be the perfect level for them, and that the party will always want to just keep adventuring nonstop). This doesn't stand against all Wizards, just the Wizards who are supposedly so superior because they get all this down time and prep time and all this other time?They don't need limitless downtime, just some. And IMX item creation is just the straw the broke the camel's back. Why, because the campaign you run says so.So In your opinion, the only balanced campaigns are ones in which a whole type of feats (one of which is invariably a class feature of the Wizard) that are in the player's handbook are nerfed into uselessness. his crafting ability is more NPC than anything...Which is why it was placed in the Player's Handbook. :bored: it might be alright for the odd item, but beyond that it's just stupid.Why is it stupid for the party to want twice their gold? Why is it stupid to assume that the party won't want to spend seven days a week, 52 weeks a year fighting?
Ashenai 08-02-04, 11:01 PM	And note that you can craft just fine even if you fight 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year... assuming you fight 8 hours a day or less. (Not a huge assumption to make).
lanilifar 08-03-04, 12:08 AM	Um...how many bonus metamagic feats does the Sorcerer get so he can take advantage of this so called flexibility? 0, none, nada, zip (unless their human). Of course they really don't have a lot to do with those 7 normal feats beyond enhancing their magic. Spell Focus (once or maybe twice ; I play 3.0, which may make a difference) Spell Penetration 2 metamagic feats 2-3 other feats Why is it stupid for the party to want twice their gold? I haven't played in a "real' campaign (one where we weren't just playing a few sessions, short story, just for fun kick in the door, etc) where Item Creation wasn't used liberally. It is fun, interesting, and really enhances a groups power. It does indeed allow you to nearly double the value of cash found, normally for more than just the item creator. It also allows you to make just the item you wanted (big plus). This in no way allows you to run at double the recommended wealth guideline, IME. We normally operated at around 130% - 140% of the guideline, with the non-wizard item creators doing a little better, 150-160% (the wizards did not come out ahead in our games, but we banned the Blessed Book, and we do target spellbooks (just enough so the threat is always there), so wizards not only have to scribe every extra spell known at full cost, but like to keep backups and/or spend on good protections). The DMs in our group normally do try to stick relatively close to the wealth guidelines, and we keep track of how much wealth we have doled out. I generally see at least 3-5 item creation feats per campaign amongst the whole group, whether there is a wizard or not. I still don't see how Item Creation adversely affects the sorcerer in any way. It can only help sorcerers but yes wizards can get it as a bouns feat. Any item creation argument is really just an argument against wizard bonus feats vs. no bonus feats for sorcerers.
Ashenai 08-03-04, 12:37 AM	I still don't see how Item Creation adversely affects the sorcerer in any way. It can only help sorcerers but yes wizards can get it as a bouns feat. Any item creation argument is really just an argument against wizard bonus feats vs. no bonus feats for sorcerers. You're mistaken. If a sorcerer wants to craft, say, an Amulet of Health, he either needs to spend one of his precious "known spell" slots on Bear's Endurance, or he needs to buy an ungodly number of scrolls. Ditto for every other magic item. This makes item creation feats much less useful for the sorcerer. Also, a wizard with a Wand of Fireball has just become a lot more efficient at the "mobile turret" role, which is traditionally the domain of a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer, on the other hand, cannot easily create magic items that'll add to his versatility... because the magic items he can create only tend to duplicate the spells he already has, anyway.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-03-04, 01:25 AM	Originally posted by Polaris Guys, Um...how many bonus metamagic feats does the Sorcerer get so he can take advantage of this so called flexibility? -Polaris Um, how many "bonus" metamagic feats does it take? From what I understand of the basic rules of character generation, all PCs get a feat at level one, level three, and every three levels proceeding from level three. Selectable from any number of feats in which the PC can qualify for. This statement has all the sense of "How many bonus warrior-type feats does the barbarian (or paladin) get to take advantage of their combat prowress?" Phht.
lanilifar 08-03-04, 02:07 AM	Originally posted by Ashenai You're mistaken. If a sorcerer wants to craft, say, an Amulet of Health, he either needs to spend one of his precious "known spell" slots on Bear's Endurance, or he needs to buy an ungodly number of scrolls. Ditto for every other magic item. This makes item creation feats much less useful for the sorcerer. Or he can make the item with the cleric in the party. Or he can work with an NPC and offer to help them with a spell they don't have. Or he can work with the wizard in the party. 16 scrolls of Bear's Endurance costs 2,400 gp + 8,000 =10,400 gp which is still less than 16,000. A wand of Bear's Endurance cost's 4,500 gp + 18,000 = 22,500, substantially less than 36,000. Not as efficient as a wizard, but not a lost cause either. Please do not overstate the inability of a sorcerer to make items. They can do it fine and dandy, and with substantial savings, just not as much savings as the wizard (discussing the scribing costs and the spellbook protection/backup costs of wizards will lessen the difference even more). The feat slot is the only substantial cost, and the wizard gets 5 more than the sorcerer. This can be discussed as an advantage of the wizard. The way item creation is presented in this thread, as totally imbalancing in favor of the wizard, is hogwash. Also, a wizard with a Wand of Fireball has just become a lot more efficient at the "mobile turret" role, which is traditionally the domain of a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer, on the other hand, cannot easily create magic items that'll add to his versatility... because the magic items he can create only tend to duplicate the spells he already has, anyway. A wizard wasting his actions on inferior spells from wands has not in anyway demonstrated superiority. He will only demonstrate how much better a sorcerer, using his full DC, level, and feats, is in that role. The last sentence there is a misrepresentation of a sorcerer's ability to make items, as detailed above.
BlaineTog 08-03-04, 04:11 AM	Originally posted by lanilifar Or he can make the item with the cleric in the party. Or he can work with an NPC and offer to help them with a spell they don't have. Or he can work with the wizard in the party. 16 scrolls of Bear's Endurance costs 2,400 gp + 8,000 =10,400 gp which is still less than 16,000. A wand of Bear's Endurance cost's 4,500 gp + 18,000 = 22,500, substantially less than 36,000. Not as efficient as a wizard, but not a lost cause either.15% less efficient, give or take. And he's got to fine a place to buy those scrolls. Which he's probably buying from a wizard. They can do it fine and dandy, and with substantial savings, just not as much savings as the wizard (discussing the scribing costs and the spellbook protection/backup costs of wizards will lessen the difference even more).Except that hopping the gravvy train means that they get the new spell level when everyone else who doesn't craft is getting the next new spell level. They pick up 8th level spells when everyone else gets 9th. The gravvy train generates more spare XP than you can possible spend on crafting. That means that money is the limiting factor. And the Sorcerer is 15% behind (assuming, of course, that he can find a place that sells 16 scrolls. I've heard the defense of limited wizard spells known trotted out that scrolls are often hard to find. If 1 is hard to find, then 16 are much more so). And finally, what does the sorcerer get from Item Creation feats that make consumable magic items? More Of The Same. A scroll of web just means that he can cast web one time, when he runs out. But what does the *wizard* get from those feats? Not only does he get more castings/day of them, but he effectivelly gets more spells "known." In this respect, the wizard is *much* better at item creation as well. The feat slot is the only substantial cost, and the wizard gets 5 more than the sorcerer. This can be discussed as an advantage of the wizard."Can be"? You act as if its arguable. The way item creation is presented in this thread, as totally imbalancing in favor of the wizard, is hogwash.But it *is* significantly more in favor of the wizard that the sorcerer. On top of the availability of scrolls issue, the 15% greater cost, the harder sting of the gravvy train, and the shear uselessness of the consumable feats, the wizard gets 5 bonus feats. Those are some serious differences. A wizard wasting his actions on inferior spells from wands has not in anyway demonstrated superiority. He will only demonstrate how much better a sorcerer, using his full DC, level, and feats, is in that role.Fireball is a poor wand spell. Knock (and other such situationally useful spells that don't care about DC or caster level) is a much better example. However, Staves use full DC and caster level. Those are very useful to wizards for blaster-type spells.
Zelphi 08-03-04, 04:59 AM	What are you talking about metagaming for? It was an example of the sort of thing you're giving away. Postpone the next encounter till we're ready to take it on. You supposedly have all this free time to waste making items. It might be cheaper... but it certainly comes at a cost. If you really read what I was saying, you'd see the other costs. There doesn't have to be a major event happening, you can just go and explore and do something else to recuperate and gain on what you would've lost if you let the Wizard sit at home and waste time and money. You are giving the Wizard everything they need, with no consiquence, their should be that consiquence - if there isn't, then it's like always playing to a classes advantage isn't it? There is no crafting advantage, it's just something they can do better if they get the time and resources to do it. Generally speaking, adventurers adventure. If they don't spend any grand length of time waiting to adventure, but more powerful because they took a better time saving option, then they're going to fill up the time they would've wasted on waiting to be more powerful with becoming even more powerful. It still doesn't stop this massive time and resource disadvantage the Wizard has over the Sorc now does it? The Wizards power is variable, for some reason people can see this strength in the Wizard but not the Fighter. The Wizard can just about cover the potential of any one Sorc given a hoarde of time and resources. But they'd never match the mechanical power of the same Sorc given the same time and resources to different ends. The only point they'd be a valid asset is when that single sorc stops being useful and needs some crux resource he somehow doesn't have access to, something that can happen far less than a single Wizard who is dedicated once per day. - Basically... You can either take the 9-5 job of making items and holding the party back by days as they wait for this gear and help you get back on the xp track. Or you can buy stuff you need from the proper resource outlets and recuperate what you would've saved finacially in time gaining money, items and xp.
BlaineTog 08-03-04, 05:12 AM	Originally posted by Zelphi What are you talking about metagaming for?I'm just classifying it. You supposedly have all this free time to waste making items.You should have some time to make items. It might be cheaper... but it certainly comes at a cost.A feat and XP. If you really read what I was saying, you'd see the other costs.Yes. Time. Apparently, adventureres want to spend every spare second fighting monsters of equal CR for no real reason other than to fight monsters of equal CR so that they can gain XP and treasure. There doesn't have to be a major event happening, you can just go and explore and do something else to recuperate and gain on what you would've lost if you let the Wizard sit at home and waste time and money.In other words, kill things and take their stuff. And you get XP for it. This isn't a video game. Killing x creature doesn't net you y XP, nor should it. You can't go out into a random part of the wilderness and kill things until you level up. You are giving the Wizard everything they need, with no consiquence, their should be that consiquence - if there isn't, then it's like always playing to a classes advantage isn't it?A) By giving the wizard time, EVERYONE benefits. How would you like to pay 100,000 gp for a +10 sword instead of 200,000? Had your eye on that +6 con booster? Want a suit or armor with matching shield? Generally speaking, adventurers adventure.Generally speaking, scuba instructors instruct people in scuba technique. But that doesn't mean that they do nother else *ever.* If they don't spend any grand length of time waiting to adventure, but more powerful because they took a better time saving option, then they're going to fill up the time they would've wasted on waiting to be more powerful with becoming even more powerful.In other words, walk out into the wilderness and just start killing things to level. But they'd never match the mechanical power of the same Sorc given the same time and resources to different ends.Only if "time and resources" means "no time and way too much gold." The only point they'd be a valid asset is when that single sorc stops being useful and needs some crux resource he somehow doesn't have access to, something that can happen far less than a single Wizard who is dedicated once per day.Say what? The only thing I got out of that was that you think the wizard is useless without item creation (a serious underestimate). EDIT: I've seen this done elsewhere, but I'm doing it again anyway. Lets take a look at the adventurer who does nothing but adventure. The game assumes 5 equal CR encounters per day, and roughly 13.3 equal CR encounters befer gaining a new level. If a party were to do nothing but adventure nonstop (starting at level 1, and assuming they don't get killed along the way), they will reach level 20 in 50 days and 16 hours, level 50 in 130 days and 16 hours, and (near as i can tell) level 137 in one year. Gods are generally level 60, to give you a benchmark, and they have presumeably lived for thousands, if not millions, of years. Oh yes: and the average person is less than 10th level, probably less than 3rd. Doesn't that seem just a little bit silly to you?
Zelphi 08-03-04, 06:00 AM	At no point did I ever mention metagaming use... In the example they (Drow, Illithid and Vampires) complain because they aren't allowed to attack until you're ready for them. That is what you're doing... giving them time they might not have. It's not as simple as 100,000 gold instead of 200,000 It costs half the base price and 1/25th of the rest in xp with 1 day per 1000 gold of the base price. That's 4000xp, 100,000 gold and 200 days for one item for one person in the party. Those 200 days require the wizard be in a situation of peace for 8 hours a day. How is it not obvious that it's stupid. What the hell could you achieve in those 200 days and 100,000 gold down (this is yourself only). How long is it going to take if you adventure inbetween those times? It's going to be close to a year before you get this one item. That's just one item... not the entire parties gear, not the other 100,000 you need to spend on all the other stuff you wanted, not the other costs it takes to get the item made. Then you have to multiply it across the entire party... is this years of wasted down time for an item I wanted those many years ago? Lets not forget now the potential cost in time, gold and experience acrued from crafting the needed item (not always there). So whilst you do have Wizard bonus feats to waste on this, and plenty of skills to waste on this feature... it doesn't really help them that much in terms of being a caster? It might give them the resources to handle more situations, but at a huge cost that can be covered through more normal means. You've expended what potential bonus you had on a vast array of crafting feats and abilities to give yourself an advantage that is never garunteed and may never be ready in time to be of addvantage... then you have to carry it all. The crafting advantage isn't really an advantage, its a way of life. I don't really get the last refute? I'm potentially level 60 whilst you're still working on some item and level 20? That's the Sorcs "staggered" spell progression disadvantage out the window isn't it? That just highlights the disadvantages of what you're doing. I never said all day, but I do go on about not waiting exhoborant amounts of time for an (note the use of singular) item that I could simply play double in gold for, re-gain more by not using that time doing nothing and get an imeadiate gain. How much does an encounter gain me at 20th? How long does one take? Lets say I go up against a Balor, a fairy standard CR 20 creature. This is just one encounter... remember that. 80,000 gold items and the like... In one encounter.. divided amongst 4 people... wow that's ... 20,000 gold. It's easier and beter to just move on and do tasks... finding might not be easy, but at certain points it's deffinately better and it's not like you don't have the time to hunt out something is it?
Polaris 08-03-04, 07:12 AM	Zelphi, Have you ever heard of planeshift? A party after 9th level will have access to this assuming they have at least one cleric (which is almost always the case). Once a party has planeshift, they don't have to worry about being attacked or bothered while doing item creation...and since most of the benefit from the gravytrain acrues at higher levels anyway, this will be the normal case. -Polaris
mattmurdock 08-03-04, 08:06 AM	I've said this before on this thread but I'll say it again - how is spending 8 hours crafting any different from spending 8 hours adventuring? Pretty much everyone who is arguing for the gravy train is saying the following: 'You can't possibly want to adventure all of the time, there has to be some downtime otherwise you will be exhausted/dead/too powerful/insert other stupid reason here...' You are quite right, people need downtime...however, CRAFTING is not DOWNTIME! If I'm a blacksmith, I don't work my ass off from 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening just to say: 'Excellent, I've got some time off, tell you what, I'll just knock up another 15 swords for the fun of it...' Instead I say: 'Excellent, I've got some time off, time to spend my meager gp on some ale and something nice for the wife...' Despite what some people on this thread believe, adventurers are called that for a reason...they adventure (hence getting xp and gold beyond the dreams of Mr. Blacksmith). In the downtime between adventures they should be resting, relaxing and spending their ill-gotten gains. Instead, apparently, all the wizards in the world who have chosen to adventure rather than run a magic shop or become advisor to some king or noble would rather spend their time between adventures working their asses off crafting every day!. This does not make any sense to me at all...if the wizard wants to create lots of items he should consider settling down and starting up a magic shop in a major city - adventurers can then come to him to commission items, giving him gp and xp. Doesn't that sound like fun! Every session the rest of the party can go off and have amazing adventures that make them household names, and you can sit in your shop and play with your crafting tools. Don't worry though...if you ever get bored of being a shopkeeper you can always go off and adventure...:D
Zelphi 08-03-04, 08:46 AM	Not that planeshift crap? What next? Casters can rest and regain all their spell power instantaneously using Astral Projection and sitting on the Astral Plane? Didn't work. First off, You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension. If several willing persons link hands in a circle, as many as eight can be affected by the plane shift at the same time. Precise accuracy as to a particular arrival location on the intended plane is nigh impossible. From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane, though you appear 5 to 500 miles (5d%) from your intended destination. Note: Plane shift transports creatures instantaneously and then ends. The creatures need to find other means if they are to travel back. Focus: A small, forked metal rod. The size and metal type dictates to which plane of existence or alternate dimension the spell sends the affected creatures. So not only do you have to find a specific plane to do this all on (which takes quite a lot of adventuring and isn't always defined in stone). But you can't garuntee where you'll end up on that plane, or where you'll end up on the return journey. How many planes will be suitable? How long till you find it. You'd have to not only find the suitable focus for the correct Demi-Plane, but it'd have to be exactly the correct plane with exactly the correct properties otherwise you're stuffed. You can't just hide on the elemental plane of fire y'know. You have to find the correct and randomly determined demi-plane. That's not exactly a garuntee is it? Most others are going to either have some down side or aren't exactly safe. Or do all Wizards now have access to the absolutely perfect demi-plane for crafting somewhere in their class description? No? Is this sounding like a complete load of rubbish yet? So... we have to explore countless demi-planes, till we find exactly the correct one. Have to ensure it's completely safe and we never get waylaid or threatened by some dimension traveling creature that isn't going to nick our arcane focus and stuff us from ever getting back to the material plane. I guess... once you've done all that, it might be alright. Yes, crafting might become a more valid option. Once we've found this randomly perfect demi-plane... hopefully haven't been waylaid on the way... and have established some means for it to be acceptable for crafting.... and established that it has absolutely no other life that may decide to eat us... and garunteed passage to it and that no-one else will ever go there or somehow use it against us... It's okay to leave the wizard in there and instantaneously generate all of our gear... it's a wonder all shops don't work like this. Just pray you don't hit a dead magic demi-plane. And after all this... it still doesn't help you adventure... you still have to go through all this and at these expenses to actually craft everything and it still detracts from your overall power. It doesn't matter if you can craft anything, if you can only use certain parts at the same time does it? Or is there some other crap tastic loophole that somehow only Wizards can exploit?
Cross Hatch 08-03-04, 11:30 AM	All you guys are proving is that people play in different ways. Some of you play in games I'd never play in. Some of you play in ways I can't understand. Some of you claim "no GM would allow that" or "that doesn't make sense" and then put forth something that is just plan nutty. All it comes down to is we play differently.
lanilifar 08-03-04, 12:05 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog 15% less efficient, give or take. And he's got to fine a place to buy those scrolls. Which he's probably buying from a wizard. 15% is not a big deal, IMO. It is also a far cry from the complaint that wizards get twice (200% instead of 115%) what sorcerers do becuase of item crafting. My only point here is that Item Crafting itself is not a huge factor in wizard-sorcerer balance. While it is true that a sorcerer is probably buying those scrolls from a wizard, where does the wizard get the scroll so he can learn the spell? Another moot point really, it cuts both ways. You can't argue out of one side of your mouth that wizards have easy access to any spell they want to know by buying scrolls, and then out of the other side argue that sorcerers will have a difficult time buying items to use in crafting. In addition, this ignores all the other possible methods of gaining access to spells needed which cost 0 gp to a couple of dinners bought for an NPC. Except that hopping the gravvy train means that they get the new spell level when everyone else who doesn't craft is getting the next new spell level. They pick up 8th level spells when everyone else gets 9th. Staggered progression is another fine point to discuss in sorcerer wizard balance. This can be discussed without item crafting being beat to death and without item crafting being hailed as the death of sorcerers (I do agree that item crafting should have some impact, say about 15%, ;)) The gravvy train generates more spare XP than you can possible spend on crafting. That means that money is the limiting factor. And the Sorcerer is 15% behind (assuming, of course, that he can find a place that sells 16 scrolls. I've heard the defense of limited wizard spells known trotted out that scrolls are often hard to find. If 1 is hard to find, then 16 are much more so). I agree, but if one assumes the wizard can get what he wants based on the guidelines, then in any small city or larger the sorcerer can easily get what he needs as well. The wizard only needs one scroll, so he can get that in more places, but where is the lab he is using for the crafting? If you are assuming downtime for item crafting, then travel to a city is a non-issue. And finally, what does the sorcerer get from Item Creation feats that make consumable magic items? More Of The Same. A scroll of web just means that he can cast web one time, when he runs out. But what does the *wizard* get from those feats? Not only does he get more castings/day of them, but he effectivelly gets more spells "known." In this respect, the wizard is *much* better at item creation as well. Sorcerers get a new spell known, if they make an item with a spell they don't know. Sorcerers can use these creation feats on spells they don't know just like for any other item. Just because you are used to thinking of them as coming from your spells known, doesn't mean that is how they work. A sorcerer with craft wand could easily use his down time in a city to make 2 or 3 or 4 low level wands of utility spells he doesn't know, by getting another caster to help him. "Can be"? You act as if its arguable. It is definitely an advantage. It is arguable that this makes the wizard more powerful or out of balance with the sorcerer. But it *is* significantly more in favor of the wizard that the sorcerer. On top of the availability of scrolls issue, the 15% greater cost, the harder sting of the gravvy train, and the shear uselessness of the consumable feats, the wizard gets 5 bonus feats. Those are some serious differences. Those are four differences. The availability of scrolls will hit a wizard as well. 15% of the value of crafted items is not a huge factor in 20 level play. It will probably be around 40,000 gp by 20th, most of which will come in the last few levels. At 15th level it will be around 12,000 gp difference. A secret chest costs 5,000 gp, Blessed Book made yourself costs 5,000, add in scribing costs by 15th level and figure out where we end up. Staggered Progression is a seperate issue. Bonus feats, as I said before, is the only real issue all this discussion of Item Creation is about However, Staves use full DC and caster level. Those are very useful to wizards for blaster-type spells. Staves are expensive. And you still aren't as good as a sorcerer could be at that. I like the way Polaris summed it: (his list edited by me) Is spontaneous casting + 2 extra spell slots per spell level worth the following: Scribe Scroll+4 other metamagic/item-creation feats of your choice Delayed/Staggered Progression An inferior casting stat (Int is a much better stat than Cha) (this one is arguable, IMO) A severe limit on the spells you can possibly know (as compared with the wizard who will start with much more and can learn more). An inferior skill list (with only one class skill keyed to your casting class) The inability to quicken spells The inability to use metamagic rods to their full potential (or at all in the case of quicken metamagic rods.
Tony Vargas 08-03-04, 12:16 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Um...how many bonus metamagic feats does the Sorcerer get so he can take advantage of this so called flexibility? The same number the wizard really /needs/ to be able to do item creation: 0. Strip wizards of thier bonus feats, and they'd still do item creation - they're just that well-suited to it, and need it that much, to make up for the shortcomings of thier casting abilities. Seriously, you don't need 12 Metamagic feats to take advantage of flexibiilty, in, for isntance, offense (using a lower-level spell with metamagic in a higher level slot, so you can choose a defensive or utility spell as your first of the new level without losing firepower). For that, one - Empower if you're into 'blasting,' or Heighten if you cast save-or-lose spells, for instance - would be adequate. A few more would certainly be nice - maybe to the tune of half your feats... It's a non-trivial decision, though, which is as it should be. One of the halmarks of a balanced class is that it's not easy to choose development paths for them...
Cross Hatch 08-03-04, 12:23 PM	Sorcerers will have an easier time finding scrolls in a city due to their higher CHA ("I know a guy who knows a guy" is likely going to be the best way to find something). However, they will need more scrolls because a Wizard can make his own. Sorcerers will also be able to use Planar Binding to better effect to have access to more spells for making items and with their higher CHA should be able to pay less for components (through superior batering).
Tony Vargas 08-03-04, 12:39 PM	Originally posted by lanilifar Is spontaneous casting + 2 extra spell slots per spell level worth the following: Maybe not, but, that's not all the Sorcerer has over the wizard, there's also spellbook-independence. Delayed/Staggered Progression A severe limit on the spells you can possibly know (as compared with the wizard who will start with much more and can learn more). An inferior skill list (with only one class skill keyed to your casting class) Yep, easily. The skill list is virtually trivial. A sorcerer really, really, needs Concentration, and benefits from having a skill that builds on CHA (and, though I'd like to see more choices, Bluff is probably the most generally useful CHA-based skill). That's about it. The limitted spells known balance the flexibility of spontaneous casting. And, really, it's probably about the only way spontaneous casting /could/ be balanced. Exactly why sorcerers need more spells/day, and the staggered progression, I'm not sure, I think they'd be balanced well enough with comparable daily spells and 'normal' progression... Maybe it's to make them less wizard-like? An inferior casting stat (Int is a much better stat than Cha) (this one is arguable, IMO) CHA may well be an 'inferior' stat, but, really, that's a problem with CHA, not with the Cleric, Bard, Sorc, or Paladin... The inability to quicken spells At +4 levels Quicken is over-priced, anyway - just a way of wasting higher level slots, and wasting them at high speed. It's so minor, it almost doesn't matter. You could give sorcerers quicken and it might over-power them /slightly/ since they could do it spontaneously, and have more slots to do it with, but, in general, I think it's an over-rated feat. One possible 'fix' for spontaneous quicken would be to allow a Quickened spell to be cast spontaneously as a Move Action. Still a restriction, but it allows the two-spells/round use of quicken, which is, presumably, the most potent. Of course, sorcerers who really want to use quicken could do it with Arcane Preparation - and, it might make sense to make that feat core, for that reason. Either way, it's a problem with Quicken, and the general mechanics for sponteneous casting, not with the Sorcerer, specificaly. The inability to use metamagic rods to their full potential (or at all in the case of quicken metamagic rods. Yeah, the rods are whacked that way. Either they should overcome the limitations on metamagic (required prep, extra time to cast) or they shouldn't. Fix 'em or throw 'em out. Scribe Scroll+4 other metamagic/item-creation feats of your choice Do wizards need this to compete with spontaneous casters? Probably not - not beyond Scribe Scroll, anyway. The other 4 feats can /also/ be Spell Mastery, and that's the key. You can use those bonus feats to reduce your vulnerability to spellbook loss, or you can use them to gain extra power. The bonus feats are self-balancing. If you don't use them for spell mastery, you're buying a power-boost with total dependence on your spellbook... That is /if/ the spellbook isn't treated as sacrosanct. The spellbook is such a heavy-handed balancing factor, though, that few DMs can use it effectively, so it all too often /is/ sacrosanct. Again, not a problem with the Sorcerer, at all, but with the Wiz. You could quite easily 'fix' the Wiz somewhat by taking away both the bonus feats, and spellbook dependence (it could be a mechanism for learning spells, for instance, but re-scribing it from memory could be cheap and easy, or the wiz could get to master spells for free every level or something).
baerdith 08-03-04, 07:56 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels This statement has all the sense of "How many bonus warrior-type feats does the barbarian (or paladin) get to take advantage of their combat prowress?" Phht. The Fighter has NO class features beyond bonus feats and 'combat'. The barbarian, Paladin and Ranger have class features at almost every level. The Sorceror has no class features beyond a different spellcasting system and the familiar. The Wizard has Familiar, Scribe scroll and FIVE bonus feats. If the sorceror had ANY class features there would not be more than a handful of people out there complaining about it.
baerdith 08-03-04, 07:56 PM	DP:mad:
baerdith 08-03-04, 08:03 PM	TP :banghead: :rant:
lanilifar 08-03-04, 09:24 PM	Maybe not, but, that's not all the Sorcerer has over the wizard, there's also spellbook-independence. Yeah, there is also simple weapon proficiency, whatever that's worth. :D (that and 90 cents will buy ...) Maybe it's worth the fact that wizards can take draconic as a bonus language (although I am honestly not sure it is even worth that)? Spellbook independence is valuable in my games. However, I have the feeling it is not valuable generally (I could be wrong and am just overly influenced by those here who feel that the spellbook mechanic is poorly done). It is very hard to discuss this mechanic on the boards, as it will vary so much from game to game. If the sorceror had ANY class features there would not be more than a handful of people out there complaining about it. Spells are their class features. Spells are a really powerful class ability. At every level the sorcerer gains 1 or more spells known. At 4th level and every even level after this they gain access to a new spell level. Every level they can cast more spells/day. At 4th level and every even level after this they can swap out a spell known. Sorcerers get to choose 43 class abilities, from an extensive list, most of which they will be able to use virtually at will by higher levels. At every level the wizard gains 2 spells known. At 3rd level and every odd level after this they gain access to a new spell level. Every level they can cast more spells/day. Wizards get Scribe Scroll and 4 bonus feats. Wizards get to choose many (minimum 60) class abilities, from an extensive list, most of which they will not have immediate access to, but they will have access to a plentiful variety by mid level.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-03-04, 10:08 PM	The thing that some of you need to get out of your heads is, that not all Wizards take on the role of item creation. Please get it out of your heads that thats all the Wizard does. Yes a Wizard is the best at item creation, but he can also be the meta-magic powerhouse of the group. Stop saying that Wizards should only get Item Creation feats. It's almost like whining because the Wizard gets extra abilities and the Sorcerer doesn't. All Wizards are "not" item creators. That is just a stereotype. Wizards have more control over manipulation of magic because to them it is broken down into formulas that they understand, and can change quickly and easily. Just because you have something innate, that doesn't mean you know more about it. When it's in your face, instead of having to look into your own soul to find something it's a lot easier when it's in your face. This is why Wizards get extra feats, and scribe scrolls.
Ax'Orl 08-03-04, 10:29 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek The thing that some of you need to get out of your heads is, that not all Wizards take on the role of item creation. Please get it out of your heads that thats all the Wizard does. Yes a Wizard is the best at item creation, but he can also be the meta-magic powerhouse of the group. Stop saying that Wizards should only get Item Creation feats. It's almost like whining because the Wizard gets extra abilities and the Sorcerer doesn't. All Wizards are "not" item creators. That is just a stereotype. Wizards have more control over manipulation of magic because to them it is broken down into formulas that they understand, and can change quickly and easily. Just because you have something innate, that doesn't mean you know more about it. When it's in your face, instead of having to look into your own soul to find something it's a lot easier when it's in your face. This is why Wizards get extra feats, and scribe scrolls. The only time I start talking about item creation etc. is when wizard proponents start harping on the Wizard's vaunted prowess in that area. Further, quit confusing fluff w/ crunch.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-04-04, 12:48 AM	Originally posted by baerdith The Fighter has NO class features beyond bonus feats and 'combat'. The barbarian, Paladin and Ranger have class features at almost every level. ... that's an odd sentence if I ever heard one. Right up with the sentence "If you take away a wizard's spellcasting ability, they're just commoners with five useless feats and a good will save." The fighter has 11 levels in which the fighter gains a bonus feat. Keep in mind that those 11 bonus feats can go to anything. A Ranger has 15 levels in which the ranger gains class features in addition to minor (i.e. almost worthless) spellcasting. None of them as flexable as the fighter's bonus feats. The Paladin has 12 levels of class features and minor (i.e. crappy) spellcasting. Also inflexable choices. The barbarian has a class feature of some sort at every level. Completely inflexable in terms of what those abilities can be attributed to. While the classes other than the pure fighter get more class features, the bulk of those additonal class features aren't nearly as good as the quality of feats available for a fighter to take nor are they as flexable in terms of what choice I can make as I recieve those bonus feats. In other words, it's much better to be able to tailor make my character than to have to accept essentially useless class features that I either won't or can't use most of the time if not at any time. (like the paladin's remove disease). The Sorceror has no class features beyond a different spellcasting system and the familiar. The Wizard has Familiar, Scribe scroll and FIVE bonus feats. actually, the wizard recieves scribe scroll and four bonus feats. Not five. I never stated that the sorcerer had any class features (... let me reiterate that: any useful class features) that would be missed if the sorcerer prestiged out ASAP. I made my alt sorcerer to address this problem. However, not to address the balancing issues involved in said lack, but rather the necessity for the sorcerer to prestige out ASAP. THe wizard, to a lesser extent suffers the same problem, as those bonus feats aren't enough to make prestiging particularly less viable an option for the wizard over the sorcerer. If the sorceror had ANY class features there would not be more than a handful of people out there complaining about it. Yes, but that isn't the only thing people are whining about. Originally posted by baerdith Barbs, Pallys and Rangers get things called CLASS FEATURES. Fighters get none, thus Bonus Feats. Fighters DO get class features. Those ARE the bonus feats. They're not there because the fighter lacks class features, those are the class features. Sorcs have no class features other than familiar, but the Wizards get the bonus feats. Lah tee freaking da still doesn't detract from taking a prestige class by level 5. (for the wizard.) Even comparing a full 20 vanilla build from each of the two classes, the four bonus feats and scribe scroll only provide minimal bonuses. They're better than nothing, certainly, but the return is only good under conditional circumstances. Item creation's viability being campaign dependant more than anything else and metamagic being subpar in many instances for a wizard. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek The thing that some of you need to get out of your heads is, that not all Wizards take on the role of item creation. No one's argueing against that, however, people are pimping the "item creation" wizard as being the model of "why the wizard is superior to the sorcerer." ... which isn't true, but still... Now that this is the model for "why the wizard is superior to the sorcerer model" all other forms of wizard have dissapeared and now every PC who has "experience" and "sense" WILL USE THIS MODEL. Just like every other model wizard that's "Superior to XYZ class" that has ever existed. Please get it out of your heads that thats all the Wizard does. Yes a Wizard is the best at item creation, but he can also be the meta-magic powerhouse of the group. "metamagic powerhouse?" That's what a sorcerer is, buddy. Most metamagic feats are simply subpar for wizards. Extend spell and quicken spell, by far, being the most useful for a wizard. Being that the only other choice other than item creation IS metamagic, is why prestiging for wizards is also nearly as maditory for wizard classes as it is for sorcerers. Stop saying that Wizards should only get Item Creation feats. It's almost like whining because the Wizard gets extra abilities and the Sorcerer doesn't. All Wizards are "not" item creators. That is just a stereotype. Wizards have more control over manipulation of magic because to them it is broken down into formulas that they understand, and can change quickly and easily. Just because you have something innate, that doesn't mean you know more about it. When it's in your face, instead of having to look into your own soul to find something it's a lot easier when it's in your face. This is why Wizards get extra feats, and scribe scrolls. As Ax'Orl said, stop confusing crunch with fluff. Furthermore, wizards get bonus feats for another reason. The methodology of a wizard's spellcasting (non-staggard progression, preparation-based spellcasting, etc.) comes from a wizard's understanding of magic. Not their bonus feats. Those come from somewhere else. A sorcerer's understanding of magic is innate. Not their spellcasting ability. Which is why they know few spells (but cast them with much greater ease) and have their staggard progression.
Kolo 08-04-04, 01:57 AM	There is one point besides Item Creation and Quicken that the wizards have over sorcerers; high level spells. A sorcerer can use higher level spell slots to cast fireballs or lightning bolts all day, true. But they only get THREE known spells for spell levels 6-9. Now I for one think it hurts the sorcerer a lot to know only three different 9th level spells at level 20 when a wizard will have up to 8 different ones with just his 2 spells per level class feature. Sure, the sorcerer can meteor swarm 6 times per day, but the wizard can meteor swarm, or shapechange, or wish, or cast shades, or... Well, you get the drift. I can honestly say that at levels 1-6 (or even 8), a sorcerer will really do quite well in any party- usually slightly better than a wizard by margin of simply being able to cast more of the same over and over again. This ability is really useful and underestimated at those levels. Having the spellcasting endurance of a bull is pretty damn good when the wizard is straining to prepare as many useful spells as he can. Go only a bit higher than that, though, and a wizard who gets even so little as 2-4 days of non-dungeon crawling time (maybe even while he is traveling, if he has a wagon and no distractions) and the craft wand feat can have a wand that can cast the same low-level spell up to 50 times should he need it. And even barring Item Creation, he still has by that time enough slots to prepare enough spells to last him through most encounters without having to resort to casting the same spell over and over again, besides which he can also leave slots open in case he needs a certain spell that day- maybe the choice is between Knock and Rope Trick, both of which are not spells you need to cast in a hurry most of the time. The sorcerer is really great at being a moving, sentient staff that can cast a few spells really often, and this only remains REALLY useful (and more useful than many wizards) at low levels. This, btw, is also about the common point at which sorcerers multiclass or go into a Prc because of lack of other abilities. Also, the way people carry on about skills being "completely useless" for a sorcerer... No. just no. I see no logical reason for a sorcerer getting both fewer feats AND fewer skills/skill points than the wizard JUST because the wizard "studies more". Even the BARBARIAN is getting both more class skills AND more skill points (4+int modifier), as well as getting fewer class skills than the fighter (the non-skill using poster boy!) Why doesn't the sorcerer get a like number of skills? Does his daily 15 minutes of prepping meditation completely inhibit the learning functions of the brain or something? :confused: A wizard can, besides spells and items, distinguish himself by learning more languages or gaining knowledge in many varied fields or learning a craft or two and maybe pick up a profession besides. The sorcerer only gets the option of being good at lying to people (bluff) but can never learn how to make people see your side (Diplomacy) or even sense when other people are lying to him (sense motive). No sense at all. Wow, that turned into quite the rant didn't it? sorry, but both sides of the argument annoy me- it always boils down to the one thing everybody agrees on; sorcerers need more features.
q'afuu 08-04-04, 04:25 AM	Originally posted by Kolo it always boils down to the one thing everybody agrees on; sorcerers need more features. I don't. They can be fine with the features they have, if only those features work properly for them. I'm specifically refering to metamagic: spontaneous metamagic could be a huge benefit (especially if one abolishes those stupid metamagic rods), but as it is it veritably reeks.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-04-04, 08:09 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels "metamagic powerhouse?" That's what a sorcerer is, buddy. Most metamagic feats are simply subpar for wizards. Extend spell and quicken spell, by far, being the most useful for a wizard. Being that the only other choice other than item creation IS metamagic, is why prestiging for wizards is also nearly as maditory for wizard classes as it is for sorcerers. [/B] Actually the Wizard is the meta-magic powerhouse. They can have way more than the Sorcerer. Also, when you get up to epic levels, there is no more preparing ahead. There are feats like Automatic Quicken that dominate. It even says in Tome and Blood that Sorcerers need to stick with basic feats. This is coming from a book written by the designers who know a bit more about the game than you do. You say it is a splat book, but when it comes from the designers, it does hold merrit.
q'afuu 08-04-04, 09:39 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Actually the Wizard is the meta-magic powerhouse. They can have way more than the Sorcerer. 'More' isn't the only factor. Wizards have to figure out on beforehand which metamagic to apply to which spell, while Sorcerers can do that spontaneously. The extra bonus feats wizards get compared to sorcerers are actually less important than they might seen when considering metamagic only, since metamagic raises the level of the required spell slot - it doesn't matter if you can get the feat earlier if you can't really use it earlier as well.
Ax'Orl 08-04-04, 09:44 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Actually the Wizard is the meta-magic powerhouse. They can have way more than the Sorcerer. Also, when you get up to epic levels, there is no more preparing ahead. There are feats like Automatic Quicken that dominate. It even says in Tome and Blood that Sorcerers need to stick with basic feats. This is coming from a book written by the designers who know a bit more about the game than you do. You say it is a splat book, but when it comes from the designers, it does hold merrit. As most "Wizards are Superior to Sorcerer" proponents do, you have mistaken quantity for Quality. More does not always equal better. More Spells Known-->big freakin deal, if you cant cast them because you did not prepare them what good do they do? More Skills-->This is only useful outside of combat, which is over half of what a normal D&D game session is. More Magic Items-->At the expense of GP, XP and Time all three of which are controlled by the DM. Further, items can be stolen, lost or broken. A class that relies on items for power is weak from the get go. and Now More Feats-->If you go item creation, then you are going to be wasting your time if you find yourself away from your labratory or what have you alot and if you find you have little down time to use them. If you go metamagic yes you gain power but you still cannot match the ability to match the feat to the situation. A wizard cannot suddenly prepare a MetaMagic'd spell when it is needed, the sorcerer can. That is why sorcerers are Metamagic Powerhouses, they can apply the feats at need. The wizard is reliant on knowledge of his coming encounters so that he can prepare the correct mixture of metamagic spells and spells in general. The sorcerer is as they say "ready as he will ever be" when he wakes up. Need that enlarged fireball, sorcerer can cast it (with the appropriate feats) oooops don't need that Maximized Cone of Cold-wizard has pie in his face because that is what he has prepared instead of another Protection from Spells. See preparation is a weakness of the Wizard (as well as his strength-properly prepared a wizard is a force to fear however unproperly prepared he kinda stinks). Numerous bonus feats make him able to HAVE more metamagic, but combined with the prearation model it only adds to the stikification of incorrect preparation because now, not only do you have fewer spells per day but one can not only be wasted by preparing the wrong spell BUT a higher level one can be wasted by preparing even the right spell with the wrong metamagic feat(s)
baerdith 08-04-04, 11:04 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl More Spells Known-->big freakin deal, if you cant cast them because you did not prepare them what good do they do? More Skills-->This is only useful outside of combat, which is over half of what a normal D&D game session is. Geez your games sound fun. "BBEG! Kill Him. " "Another BBEG! Kill Him!!" "Yet Another BBEG!....":rolleyes: More Magic Items--> --SNIP-- See preparation is a weakness of the Wizard (as well as his strength-properly prepared a wizard is a force to fear however unproperly prepared he kinda stinks). Numerous bonus feats make him able to HAVE more metamagic, but combined with the prearation model it only adds to the stikification of incorrect preparation because now, not only do you have fewer spells per day but one can not only be wasted by preparing the wrong spell BUT a higher level one can be wasted by preparing even the right spell with the wrong metamagic feat(s) Ok. You win. YOUR D&D is SOOO much better than the D&D of the other 90% of us. Enjoy your 'games', wow, its just like Balder's Gate!:rolleyes:
Kolo 08-04-04, 12:55 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu I don't. They can be fine with the features they have, if only those features work properly for them. I'm specifically refering to metamagic: spontaneous metamagic could be a huge benefit (especially if one abolishes those stupid metamagic rods), but as it is it veritably reeks. Indeed! The most interesting and potentially powerful mechanic that the sorcerer has is neutered so horribly that the very best sorcerer builds out there (from an optimizing standpoint) don't use it at all except for counterspelling. And if the optimizers can't find a better use for it, well, how can we mere role playing gamers? But I still think they need more features to keep you leveling in the class itself, and I think I've demonstrated that I feel strongly that the way the sorcerer is devoid of both skills and feats makes no sense, and why I feel this to be so. Also, I want to interject something into the general discussion; remember that the CR system of d20 is inherently based on two things; level and equipment. It's quite impossible to exclude equipment from any game balance discussion because the whole system assumes a certain amount of money and stuff at certain levels. As many people point out, the sorcerer gets shafted this way even without the wizard's crafting capacity, with there being literally a drove of items suited for empowering wizards and, somehow, working a lot worse for the sorcerer in the process. I've yet to see an actual "sorcerer only" item in any WotC book too. Just some food for thought.
Koga:The ninja trick 08-04-04, 01:01 PM	I think it's all in the mind-set, we've been imbeded with this idea of sorcerers versus wizards in a mage contest and this is not so. Wizards are the mages, speciliast wizards are what most people like to see. (Necromancers, blackmages, conjurers, etc.) With thier extra feats and knowledge of the arcana they can make it happen. Sorcerers need to stop trying to be that and perhaps center on how Monte Cook views them, the bluemage of the D&D universe. Yes sorcerers do magic, but it's not like wizard magic, it's monster magic. Monsters are deadly, powerful, and cool. And if you want to be the enemy inorder to destroy the enemy you should pick a sorcerer. If you want to learn about and wield cosmic forces you should be an old fashioned wizard. UA's bloodlines deffinitly make the sorcerer look a little bit more blue. Not that that's a bad thing.. :D
Tony Vargas 08-04-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek The thing that some of you need to get out of your heads is, that not all Wizards take on the role of item creation. Please get it out of your heads that thats all the Wizard does. I think it starts to seem that way in these threads, since it's a way to abuse the class that gets you some easily enumerated advantage ('double' items!). And, well, /all/ wizards are item-creators, since they all have scribe scroll. A wizard could instead choose to deal better with adversity by taking Spell Mastery, or to add even greater diversity to his choice of spells with Metamagic. Or, he could hedge his bets a little in both areas, while still creating more than just scrolls. Yes a Wizard is the best at item creation, but he can also be the meta-magic powerhouse of the group. Stop saying that Wizards should only get Item Creation feats. Metamagic isn't that great for a wiz. The net effect of metamagic is to expand your spells known. In addition to knowing 'fireball' you now know 'quickened fireball' and 'empowered fireball' and 'quickend empowered fireball.' That's good for any caster, but for a prepped caster it's also a bit of an added dilema - "I was going to take Delayed Blast Fireball and Meteor Swarm, but maybe I should take 'quickened fireball' and 'quickend empowered fireball,' instead... hmm... choices..."
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-04-04, 01:55 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Actually the Wizard is the meta-magic powerhouse. They can have way more than the Sorcerer. ... having more (4 more, to be precise) doesn't mean that they're better at useing those metamagic feats. Using those metamagic feats is rather subpar in many cases in comparison to just preparing a different spell. (for instance, why maximize or empower when you can just buy/scribe/prepare an attack spell of that level instead? Sorcerers don't have that capability and they can use those metamagic feats whenever they need them. Also, when you get up to epic levels, there is no more preparing ahead. There are feats like Automatic Quicken that dominate. Sorcerers can use that feat (and therefore quicken) as well. It even says in Tome and Blood that Sorcerers need to stick with basic feats. This is coming from a book written by the designers who know a bit more about the game than you do. If that is what they suggested, then they certainly don't seem to know more than I do. Tome and Blood isn't exactly the place to go to know how to run sorcerers. While there are some useful suggestions, not all of them are good ones. Typically, the best feats for a pure sorcerer is metamagic feats and perhaps arcane preparation and eschew materials. Originally posted by baerdith Ok. You win. YOUR D&D is SOOO much better than the D&D of the other 90% of us. Enjoy your 'games', wow, its just like Balder's Gate!:rolleyes: Funny thing is, in baulder's gate, playing a sorcerer absolutely rules. I was in a party with Edwin and my player character, who was an evil sorcerer. Every day, I could always find a use for any spell slot that I had. Edwin, however, always had at least a few I didn't need around. Save the times I prepared stuff for him to do something specific. The sorcerer was never useless unless I needed the "knock" spell. (which I didn't take). But that's why I had a few rogues in the group. Originally posted by Koga:The ninja trick Sorcerers need to stop trying to be that and perhaps center on how Monte Cook views them, the bluemage of the D&D universe. Yes sorcerers do magic, but it's not like wizard magic, it's monster magic. Monsters are deadly, powerful, and cool. And if you want to be the enemy inorder to destroy the enemy you should pick a sorcerer. If you want to learn about and wield cosmic forces you should be an old fashioned wizard. Monster magic? I agree that sorcerers shouldn't be blamed for not doing things that the wizard is capable of in the manner in which wizards do them. Trying to blame sorcerers for not doing things like wizards is just... stupid. They're not wizards, they don't do things like wizards, they don't have the same strengths and nor do they have the same weaknesses. As far as sorcerers "trying to be like monsters" I'd say that that's best left to Amarak's Blue Mage class somewhere around these forums. UA's bloodlines deffinitly make the sorcerer look a little bit more blue. Not that that's a bad thing.. :D Meh. I don't personally believe that bloodlines should be the answer (anymore)... but... to each his own, I suppose.
EvilDuck 08-04-04, 03:14 PM	Here's a quick idea for a sorceror fix. 1- Give them Eschew Materials at first level. This is really more of a flavor thing. I mean, if a sorceror's magical power is supposed to come from his innate arcane powers instead of books, scrolls, and other knicknacks, would he really need bat guano and sulfur for a fireball? 2- Give sorcerors bonus feats at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, a la a wizard. The feat has to be metamagic, item creation, or a new spell. 3- In place of one of the feats gained at every third level or one of their sorceror bonus feats, a sorceror can learn a new spell. I don't think any of this would be too overpowering.
baerdith 08-04-04, 03:48 PM	Originally posted by EvilDuck 1- Give them Eschew Materials at first level. 2- Give sorcerors bonus feats at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, 3- In place of one of the feats gained at every third level or one of their sorceror bonus feats, a sorceror can learn a new spell. I don't think any of this would be too overpowering. I would add better Skill set and maybe tie spells known to INT (thus a bonus for high INT) and Free Spell Thematics at 1st level. Still not overpowering.
EvilDuck 08-04-04, 04:15 PM	Better skill set: Add Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive? Int thing: So basically give Sorcerors bonus spells known for a high Int? Interesting. Spell Thematics: Hmm, that's that MoF feat with the flaming skulls and the -2 to Spellcraft DCs made to identify your spells, right? Meh, sure.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-04-04, 07:13 PM	Originally posted by EvilDuck Here's a quick idea for a sorceror fix. 1- Give them Eschew Materials at first level. This is really more of a flavor thing. I mean, if a sorceror's magical power is supposed to come from his innate arcane powers instead of books, scrolls, and other knicknacks, would he really need bat guano and sulfur for a fireball? 2- Give sorcerors bonus feats at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, a la a wizard. The feat has to be metamagic, item creation, or a new spell. 3- In place of one of the feats gained at every third level or one of their sorceror bonus feats, a sorceror can learn a new spell. I don't think any of this would be too overpowering. You are trying to make the Sorcerer too much like the Wizard. The concept of the Sorcerer and the way it is fits the class, it's just that the Wizard has more advantages. If you change the Sorcerer then you just copy the Wizard class and take away the meaning of the whole Sorcerer.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-04-04, 11:29 PM	Originally posted by EvilDuck Here's a quick idea for a sorceror fix. 1- Give them Eschew Materials at first level. This is really more of a flavor thing. I mean, if a sorceror's magical power is supposed to come from his innate arcane powers instead of books, scrolls, and other knicknacks, would he really need bat guano and sulfur for a fireball? Not really. What is "innate" about the ease in which they can cast spells. Not the the spells themselves. Otherwise, they'd be casting spell-like abilities that are "discovered" instead of "Spells Known" that sorcerers have to learn. As such, they also need everything that any other arcane caster needs in order to cast their spells because those are the components needed, just like the verbal, somatic, experience, focus, AND the material components to their spells. 2- Give sorcerors bonus feats at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, a la a wizard. The feat has to be metamagic, item creation, or a new spell. People already think the sorcerer is too much like a wizard already, why make it like a wizard even moreso? besides, I like my alt. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248817) better anyhow. 3- In place of one of the feats gained at every third level or one of their sorceror bonus feats, a sorceror can learn a new spell. I don't think any of this would be too overpowering. probably not, but the question is, "is this the best way to go?" The wizard's special features don't make them any less prone to the near-necessity of prestiging out into a prestige class as soon as the qualifications are met. Originally posted by baerdith I would add better Skill set and maybe tie spells known to INT (thus a bonus for high INT) and Free Spell Thematics at 1st level. Still not overpowering. Why make the sorcerer need to use an ability score that's pretty much in line to be a dump stat? It'd be like giving the fighter special powers related to charisma when it would otherwise recieve the lowest ability score during item creation. Furthermore, given the permanence in how the sorcerer learns and aquires spells, this creates too many problems when items, ability drain, level drain, etc. all come into effect. Originally posted by EvilDuck Better skill set: Add Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive? Int thing: So basically give Sorcerors bonus spells known for a high Int? Interesting. Spell Thematics: Hmm, that's that MoF feat with the flaming skulls and the -2 to Spellcraft DCs made to identify your spells, right? Meh, sure. I think skill thematics is useless (in any iteration of the feat). Even moreso than toughness. It wouldn't otherwise be worth keeping track of and it isn't like most mages have their spells look like whatever they want anyway (within line of reason). Putting it into mechanics just makes it a needless pain to keep track of. However, the sorcerer should definately recieve a few more charisma-related skills (for those who bother to put a decent ability score into intelligence). Though, and I did this to my (unfinished) alt. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248817), add diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, and use magic device in addition to all of the skills the sorcerer already has. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek You are trying to make the Sorcerer too much like the Wizard. The concept of the Sorcerer and the way it is fits the class, it's just that the Wizard has more advantages. You know, for someone who complains and gripes about the way the sorcerer presently is as much as you do, every time someone suggests chaning the real flaws of the class design, you shoot them down as either being "unnecessary" or "too much like a wizard." And no, the wizard doesn't have any significant advantages over the sorcerer except a better design. If you change the Sorcerer then you just copy the Wizard class and take away the meaning of the whole Sorcerer. Of all the sorcerer alts there ever was that I have ever seen, this has never been the case. Even if WotC went the route and "fixed" the sorcerer's bad design, the most likely thing they'd probably do is give the sorcerer bonus feats at the exact same levels where the psion received its bonus feats. (level one, five, ten, fifteen, and twenty) since it'd the simplest. (though not necessarily the best.) But that wouldn't do anything in the nature of "making the sorcerer more like the wizard." Even with those bonus feats, additional skills, and whatnot, they're still two different classes that require different methodologies to play effectively with different weaknesses and different strengths. And because I haven't done this enough times in this one post, I'll just interject my shameless plug of my own alt. Sorcerer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248817) again. Just because I'm thourough. (or however you spell that. Seriously. If someone could give me the correct spelling and save me about 10 minutes of looking through a dictionary, that'd be great.)
Koga:The ninja trick 08-05-04, 12:19 AM	This is The Koga's personal preferance and not nesscarelly the opinion of others.. But personally I feel charisma based skills, bonus feats, (Especially metamagic/item creation/eschew matireals.) and even a d6 is tottally unnesscary. Heck, maybe even spells is not the answer. 1: I'd like to see more emphasis on thier "heritage". Have this play a bigger role in the designment of the character. 2: Perhaps instead of learning spells, they manifest powers. (Not like a psion, I feel psions taint magic's place in the D&D world..) And by that I mean spell-like abilities as thier primary objective. Be as the monsters, not as the mages. 3: Less like a wizard, more like a wilder. Infact I'd simply convert the wilder to arcana and slap the sorcerer tag on it but then that would make evocationist wizards practically useless sense "wild sorcerers" could do offenssive magic better and quite frankly if I give them the drawbacks like a wilder (That whole focusing trouble thing..) they wouldn't be doing much else BUT nuking and that's no way to solve the problem either. So as I said, I believe the answer lies somewhere in tieing the sorcerer closer to monsterous bonds, not magic ones..
the Horc 08-05-04, 12:32 AM	TDoA: Stop pimping your bloody Alt Sorcerer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248817) :D I have an idea for a feat for spontaneous spellcasters to help them cast quickened spells, but not over much: Feat: Applied Metamagics Prereq: Int 13+, Metamagic feat. Benefit: Once per ay per point of Intelligence bonus, you can apply metamagic to your spontaneously cast spells without extending the time required. Normal: Without this feat, Metamagics applied to Spontaneous cast spells take a full round action or more, depending on the spell. I feel intelligence should be the requisite stat for balance reasons (because if it were charisma (or wisdom) then it would be insane). If you take the idea that magic is a formula, then the high intellgence represents a sudden moment of insight that lets you apply magic as normal (I personally don't agree with Xun's opinions. I feel that wizards are not better at Metamagic than Sorcerers because the are intuitively more knowledgeable about how magic works, they simply spent the morning prepearing their spells. An analogy would be a wizard is a guy who has a musket, while a Sorcerer is a guy with a more modern weapon. The wizard spent the morning stuffing his musket with the required stuff to make the gun ready to fire. The Sorcerer just picked up his gun and his ammo and ran out the door. When the Wizard needs to fire his metamagicked stuff, he can fire it right off the bat, while the sorc needs to load his special ammo in. However, the sorcerer has an easier time doing it again, while the wizard has to spend another metaphorical minute loading his gun when he doesn't have another one lying around). I feel the sorc needs class abilities, but if extra feats make too many people feel the sorc is a wizard clone then we should avoid it, but that's not saying we should leave it as is because then it literally has no reason to stay a sorcerer beyond their familiar and the ability to swap out crappy spells, which I feel they should be able to do anyways. (My idea for a sorcerer alternative is that a sorcerer should get a second list of spells knowable and that spell list should be expandable to infinity. The problem is that you cannot just decide to pick up spells, you need to legitimately research them like the rules presented in the DMG [don't have the 3.5 version, page 42 in the 3.0 version], or have a second sorcerer teach you it at reduced cost and time {it doesn't have to be the EXACT same way, but something similar}. In addition, you need to spend a full day to be able to switch a spell at a time, and quite possibly incur costs similar to those of scribing scrolls. The idea is not to have an overly restrictive spell list and the ability to switch out when you need to, but still keep the idea that you cannot do this NEARLY as easily as a Wizard)
EvilDuck 08-05-04, 01:35 AM	Hmm, okay, so let's figure out what niche the sorceror can fill and then fix him accordingly. If he's supposed to be a metamagic powerhouse, then give him something to help that out. Any suggestions?
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-05-04, 01:48 AM	Originally posted by EvilDuck Hmm, okay, so let's figure out what niche the sorceror can fill and then fix him accordingly. If he's supposed to be a metamagic powerhouse, then give him something to help that out. Any suggestions? You mean something that won't lead to yet another alt. sorcerer or sorcerer varient? (seriously. Run a search. There are like... fifteen or more.) I'm not sure "metamagic powerhouse" is a niche. besides filling the "arcane spellcaster" niche, the sorcerer fills sort of the "arane machine gun" niche. (yet, the sorcerer already fills THAT role quite well and doesn't really need fixing.) sigh... So many monsters. So few spell slots. :D
Ax'Orl 08-05-04, 01:50 AM	Originally posted by baerdith Geez your games sound fun. "BBEG! Kill Him. " "Another BBEG! Kill Him!!" "Yet Another BBEG!....":rolleyes: Ok. You win. YOUR D&D is SOOO much better than the D&D of the other 90% of us. Enjoy your 'games', wow, its just like Balder's Gate!:rolleyes: Actually I think you have it reversed, aproximately 70% of the PHB etc. (core rules) is devoted to combat, while only 5 or so % is devoted to the non combat (skills) rules. Further, I freely admit to being an old grongard, I started playing in 1E and in most of the games I play in we play the part of the heros on a quest to kill the BBEG and steal his stuff. I've been a shop keeper, I dont need to play one, I ve been a butcher, I dont need to play one, I have been a studious librarian, I dont need to play one. I play DnD to escape my boring life as a supervisor not to immerse myself in the boring life of a translator. Hey, the combat rules are there for a reason, you are supposed to fight things, the sorcerer generally does this better than a wizard and for longer.
EvilDuck 08-05-04, 02:29 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl Actually I think you have it reversed, aproximately 70% of the PHB etc. (core rules) is devoted to combat, while only 5 or so % is devoted to the non combat (skills) rules. Further, I freely admit to being an old grongard, I started playing in 1E and in most of the games I play in we play the part of the heros on a quest to kill the BBEG and steal his stuff. I've been a shop keeper, I dont need to play one, I ve been a butcher, I dont need to play one, I have been a studious librarian, I dont need to play one. I play DnD to escape my boring life as a supervisor not to immerse myself in the boring life of a translator. Hey, the combat rules are there for a reason, you are supposed to fight things, the sorcerer generally does this better than a wizard and for longer. I like this guy. Hack'n'slash! TDOA: So you would say the sorc is fine as is?
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-05-04, 02:38 AM	Originally posted by EvilDuck I like this guy. Hack'n'slash! TDOA: So you would say the sorc is fine as is? Of course. Everyone enjoys a good hack n' slash adventure every now and again. *Ahem* In any case, to answer your question, yes and no. No, because it, in reletive power, it is fine. and Yes, because there are serious flaws in the sorcerer's design. (lack of class features, lack of charisma-based skills) that need to be addressed. That IS why I made my alt. sorcerer. (WHich you can catch in my sig, a number of shameless plugs and various instances of alt. sorc. pimping earlier in this very thread. EDIT: "The second and third Matrix movies sucked." I disagree.
q'afuu 08-05-04, 02:39 AM	Originally posted by EvilDuck If he's supposed to be a metamagic powerhouse, then give him something to help that out. Any suggestions? I dropped the longer casting times for spontaneous metamagic and added them to spells metamagicked through rods. Seems to do the trick very nicely.
EvilDuck 08-05-04, 02:57 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu I dropped the longer casting times for spontaneous metamagic and added them to spells metamagicked through rods. Seems to do the trick very nicely. But how does that fix anything?
q'afuu 08-05-04, 05:31 AM	Originally posted by EvilDuck But how does that fix anything? Are you pulling my leg? Properly working spontaneous metamagic is great, and rods increasing casting time sufficiently nerfs them. That change effectively turns the sorcerer into a metamagic powerhouse if he wants to be, and that's exactly what was asked.
Zelphi 08-05-04, 06:02 AM	Wizards being able to quicken their spells doesn't really add much.. It's a +4 slot req... As TV noted... with preperation it just sucks up more of their spell slots and can lead to more waste if those feats are never needed. The Wizard is most certainly not a metamagic powerhouse. If you're talking about metamagic rods... that's more a statement for Metamagic rods being junked up rubbish than Wizards being powerful. Wizards being able to abuse more things doesn't mean they're better... it just means they have loopholes that need to be closed. Here's an idea that will benefit all casters and help improve Sorcs. Stuff metamagic rods.
Tony Vargas 08-05-04, 12:43 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels and Yes, because there are serious flaws in the sorcerer's design. (lack of class features, lack of charisma-based skills) that need to be addressed. OK, 3.0 with /no/ CHA-based skills was kinda sad. Bluff, at least, is something - and, now that I've had time to think about it, if you're only going to have 1 CHA-based skill, Bluff is probably the most generally-useful. A sorcerer isn't likely to be able to max out a lot more than 2 or 3 skills, one of which should probably be Concentration - having Diplomacy and Intimidate and UMD and Bluff would be giving the sorcerer a nice skill list, that he'd never really be able to take advantage of. Though, honestly, any one of those skills might be terribly apropriate for a given sorcerer - players would just have to be willing to focus on one... :shrug Aside from that, though, the sorcerer's design is one of the better in the game. It's a simple, clean, robustly-balanced class that can be easily adapted to a variety of character concepts. Can't say that of the Wizard (easily imbalanced), Ranger (complicated, arbitrary), or Paladin (1 alignment fits all)...
baerdith 08-05-04, 07:18 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas It's a simple, clean, robustly-balanced class that can be easily adapted to a variety of character concepts. But Tony, as it is its MUCH more easily adapted to ANY prestige class. I mean really, what rationale is there to staying with the sorceror after level 10 when the sorc can take loremaster??? Or even earlier if it qualifies for any other full prog. PrC?
EvilDuck 08-05-04, 07:31 PM	Well, I read the rules for metamagic rods, and I think they should require a full-round action from all casters, not just sorcs. Is it just me, or does WotC hate sorcerors?
the Horc 08-05-04, 07:37 PM	I don't think they hate them, I think they neglect them.
lanilifar 08-05-04, 07:53 PM	I don't think they hate them, I think they neglect them. I used to think that too. But the 3.5 MM rods rule makes me wonder, maybe they do hate sorcerers. :confused:
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-05-04, 08:14 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas OK, 3.0 with /no/ CHA-based skills was kinda sad. Bluff, at least, is something - and, now that I've had time to think about it, if you're only going to have 1 CHA-based skill, Bluff is probably the most generally-useful. Honestly, I think diplomacy is one of the most useful skills. Bluff has more applications and the only one that I think fits the sorcerer better than any other is the fact that you can use bluff to feint in combat. Otherwise, it's just saying that "sorcerers are natural liars." Personally, I think intimidate or diplomacy fit the sorcerer better. Intimidate being the sorcerer's natural tendancy to have a forceful presence. Diplomacy kinda being the "softer" and "gentler" opposite to intimidate. A sorcerer isn't likely to be able to max out a lot more than 2 or 3 skills, one of which should probably be Concentration - having Diplomacy and Intimidate and UMD and Bluff would be giving the sorcerer a nice skill list, that he'd never really be able to take advantage of. With my alt the way it is, that really is kinda the point. I'm kinda sticking with that since a sorcerer isn't a "skilled" class, then most of them still aren't taking those skills. A sorcerer with an intelligence higher than 13 (or a human with a 11+ intelligence) can, however, take advantage of any of the extra available skills and still technically not tromp on the "expert" territory. Aside from that, though, the sorcerer's design is one of the better in the game. It's a simple, clean, robustly-balanced class that can be easily adapted to a variety of character concepts. Can't say that of the Wizard (easily imbalanced), Ranger (complicated, arbitrary), or Paladin (1 alignment fits all)... It's "simple" and "clean" because there's "nothing" there. Like having an empty desk. Sure, it looks nice and isn't real complicated to manage, but there's still nothing there. The other classes have their own individual problems as well. The wizard's class features really aren't much of an improvement over the sorcerer's. The paladin is far too front-loaded. Giving all of its best powers (aside from the upper levels of the pally's craptacular spellcasting) before 10th level. The fighter is actually a decent example of both bad and good design. It is a good design because it is elegant in design, simple to use, and easy to operate. The examples of its bad design is two fold, one, there are several dead levels of fighter. There is no excuse for getting nothing at a level (levels 5 and 7 are good examples). Two, there are few really good core fighter feats. Many of the best ones are noncore. While I disagree that the fighter is, in any way, a weak class in and of itself in contrast to any of the other classes, I do think a few improvements could be made (but not to the extend of the sorcerer -- not nearly.) The best solution, I think, would be to just either make or find more and better fighter feats. The cleric suffers from a similar problem as the sorcerer and wizard. Seriously. The only thing a cleric has is either level-dependant special powers (from domains) and turning. Solution? get domains that don't scale with level. Who cares about turning? useful, it might be, but nothing compared to simply using spells. The cleric has very painful spells to use against undead (searing light, cure spells, heal spells, mass cure spells, etc.) In any case, I do not consider a sorcerer's spell progression to be the special abilities. Special abilities are those things that are over-laped when you take a full-caster prestige class.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-05-04, 08:21 PM	Originally posted by EvilDuck Well, I read the rules for metamagic rods, and I think they should require a full-round action from all casters, not just sorcs. Is it just me, or does WotC hate sorcerors? The more I think about it (metamagic rods), the more I kinda think that they understand that a wizard using metamagic feats is rather subpar. With these rods, wizards actually have a chance to take advantage of them and maybe a reason to take them as feats (to make them). However, I do think they need to be tweaked, because they do seem to screw the sorcerer ever so slightly more than the wizard. (because the time-casting still kicks in for sorcerers but not wizards). As such, I think the better solution would be to kill that distinction by killing the time increase for all classes. (and let sorcerers get their money's worth out of those rods.) The Horc, I don't think they hate them either. Neglect them? I don't know about that. I think that WotC simply doesn't understand the problem. But if they haven't gotten the message by now, I don't think they ever will. After all, HOW long as there been sorcerer debates on the classes forums?
Tony Vargas 08-05-04, 08:25 PM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tony Vargas It's a simple, clean, robustly-balanced class that can be easily adapted to a variety of character concepts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by baerdith But Tony, as it is its MUCH more easily adapted to ANY prestige class. So it's MUCH easier to cross-class Knowedge(the Planes) for 13 levels to become an Elemental Savant, than to just learn a bunch of fire-related spells? I mean really, what rationale is there to staying with the sorceror after level 10 when the sorc can take loremaster??? Where should I start? Loremaster requires /two/ knowledges at 10 ranks, the Sorc only has one in-class, so he'll have multiclass to pick up a second in-class knowledge, or cross class all the way up to 17 levels. Skill focus in a knowledge also may not seem to a 10th level sorcerer to be one of the best uses for the 4 feats he has so far. And, relatively few sorcerers are going to want to take /seven/ divination spells. Or even earlier if it qualifies for any other full prog. PrC? The other core PrC that migh work is Archmage - a pretty good PrC for a sorcerer, they can qualify by 13th, just like a wizard, and have the daily slots to burn on the high arcana. But, the class does demand 3 of the 5 feats you have by 12th for entrance - one as relatively irrellevant Skill Focus, and two in comparatively nerfed Spell Focus feats. So, again, the pre-reqs may keep it from being overly attractive - particularly for a character played up from 1st, as opposed to a 'build' that springs into being already an archmage... After that you're talking non-core, as well as /optional/. Let's not forget that PrCs may be 'core' by virtue of being in the DMG, but they are still optional rules - tools for the DM.
baerdith 08-05-04, 10:24 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas 1 level Bard grants All knowledges with hefty plusses in skill points. For only 1 level in Sorc spell casting. (also grants possibility of healing magic) And can take Lore at 6th level( B1/S6) Think about this: Read Magic (1) Identify(2) True Strike(3) Comprehend Languages(4) Arcane Sight (5) Tongues(6) Contact Other plane(7) All very useful spells and probably joe Average Sorc. wouldn't think twice about having them. Also a Sorc with 1 (just ONE) level of Fighter can take Eldritch Knight at 6th level. He only loses 2 levels of Spell casting then top it off with Archmage. A Sorc really can't take Archmage before 14th level IF you build him STARTING at 14. Otherwise his spell selection would SUCK.
the Horc 08-05-04, 10:36 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels The Horc, I don't think they hate them either. Neglect them? I don't know about that. I think that WotC simply doesn't understand the problem. But if they haven't gotten the message by now, I don't think they ever will. After all, HOW long as there been sorcerer debates on the classes forums? Yeah, that's the ticket.
Zelphi 08-06-04, 05:36 AM	I don't understand what the problem with PrC's and Sorcs is... Wizards get the same benefits from taking skills. Only gnomes have Bard as favoured class and no race has Sorc as favoured class... The 1st bard has potential for healing? It's stupid anyway... I've never seen a coherent reason why being able to take a PrC is a bad thing? PrC's are meant to add features that the base class can't obtain. They do work as an extension of a base class into something slightly different or "moreso" in a particular field... What's wrong with Sorcs being okay with that, I don't see how Wizards are much better in that field. 2 feats... damn life is harsh. Maybe it's to the disadvantage of the Wizard that they lose out more when taking a route to greater power?
the Horc 08-06-04, 10:21 AM	The problem is not whether he can take a PrC. The problem is that he loses absolutely nothing when PrCing. A class should be able to go through all 20 levels without having the players say "Man, if I took this, I wouldn't suck so much".
baerdith 08-06-04, 11:04 AM	Originally posted by Zelphi I don't understand what the problem with PrC's and Sorcs is... Wizards get the same benefits from taking skills. The problem is THERE IS NO PROBLEM. There should ALWAYS be some sacrifice for taking a PrC. Originally posted by Zelphi Only gnomes have Bard as favoured class and no race has Sorc as favoured class... The 1st bard has potential for healing? Humans and 1/2 Elfs can multiclass freely in one other class. Bards get access to Cure spells. Originally posted by Zelphi It's stupid anyway... I've never seen a coherent reason why being able to take a PrC is a bad thing? PrC's are meant to add features that the base class can't obtain. They do work as an extension of a base class into something slightly different or "moreso" in a particular field... Taking a PrC isn't a bad thing, but it should come at a cost. Originally posted by Zelphi Maybe it's to the disadvantage of the Wizard that they lose out more when taking a route to greater power? Exactly.
Tony Vargas 08-06-04, 02:00 PM	Originally posted by baerdith There should ALWAYS be some sacrifice for taking a PrC. ... 1 level Bard grants All knowledges with hefty plusses in skill points. For only 1 level in Sorc spell casting. ... Also a Sorc with 1 (just ONE) level of Fighter can take Eldritch Knight at 6th level. He only loses 2 levels of Spell casting then top it off with Archmage. I think /losing caster levels/ counts as a 'sacrifice.' Think about this: Read Magic (1) Identify(2) True Strike(3) Comprehend Languages(4) Arcane Sight (5) Tongues(6) Contact Other plane(7) All very useful spells and probably joe Average Sorc. wouldn't think twice about having them. Identify is a between-adevntures sort of spell, and a low-level, not particularly expensive one to buy, so kind of a waste. Read Magic is certainly worth it, and a Cantrip, as would be Detect Magic (if cantrips count?). True Strike might well be worthwhile, if the sorcerer has some ray spells. Comprehend Languages? Nah. Let the Rogue decipher script. Likewise, Tongues and Contact Other Planes aren't the kind of thing you'd be wanting to cast often enough to be worth it. Arcane Sight, though. That would be a large proportion of a sorcerer's known spells at mid levels (10th to get Contact Other Plane, IIRC), though. A few of those spell might well be good choices - but /all/ of them, you're definitely missing out on some variety in your offense and defense at that point.
Sensei Gith 08-06-04, 02:32 PM	I don't know about the others, but Identify is the difference between using the loot to kill the BBEG and waiting until after the adventure to do find out what it does. It's a very important spell, even during adventures.
baerdith 08-06-04, 04:55 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Spells from multiple schools seem a lot less restrictive than seven divinations... Seven divinations OF ANY LEVEL vs 5 spells from 5 different schools ABOVE 5th level?? Archmage restrictions are higher I think. The bonus of going Bard1/Sorc6/Loremaster10/ THEN Archmage is the bonus in skills, feats, and spells from the loremaster class will aid the sorc in being able to get the Archmage class. By him self the average Sorc will be hard pressed to realistically qualify before level 16 maybe more.
Tony Vargas 08-06-04, 06:05 PM	Originally posted by baerdith Seven divinations OF ANY LEVEL vs 5 spells from 5 different schools ABOVE 5th level?? Ouch. Missed that. Guess archmage isn't such a great idea, either... Though, still, that just means waiting until you have 5 spells of that level... In both cases, what trivially easy for the Wiz represents some real effort for the sorcerer. So, while, theoretically the sorc 'loses' little once he's gotten into the full-CL PrC, it's not exactly easy and without sacrifice to get there in the first place...
the Horc 08-06-04, 07:38 PM	For Archmage comments and qualifying: Heighten Spell.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-06-04, 11:49 PM	[i] The Horc, I don't think they hate them either. Neglect them? I don't know about that. I think that WotC simply doesn't understand the problem. But if they haven't gotten the message by now, I don't think they ever will. After all, HOW long as there been sorcerer debates on the classes forums? [/B] Well you need to look at it this way. A lot of people think the Sorcerer needs work, and that it needs this and that. But maybe everyone here has the wrong idea. Maybe the designers want the Sorcerer exactly the way it is. Maybe, how a lot of people think of the Sorcerer is completely wrong. If the designers truly felt that there was a problem, they would have changed the class. So understand the problem, or is everyone else the problem, and doesn't see the true picture of how the Sorcerer was written, and why it is the way it is?
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-06-04, 11:58 PM	And another reason why the Wizard has an advantage with Meta-magic, is because the Sorcerer has to choose the right spells to match up with the few meta-magic feats he gets. Extend Spell won't be good with a lot of Instant spells. The Wizard doesn't have to worry about this, going back to the fact of Preparing spells instead of being limited with Spells Known. Also, Wizards can rack up on Meta-magic, and still have feats left over to customize themselves. Try hitting something with a Maximized, Twinned, Widened, Empowered, Quickened, Heightened, Enlarged Fireball. Lets see thats 7 feats. A Sorcerer would have to use all his feat slots with no room to customize. The Wizard still has about 4 left, 5 if he is human. Oh and if the Sorcerer is human he could have 2 since Sorcerers can't Quicken. And this spell would be a standard action that took up one 7th level slot. Nice damage. Just an example.
the Horc 08-07-04, 12:46 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek And another reason why the Wizard has an advantage with Meta-magic, is because the Sorcerer has to choose the right spells to match up with the few meta-magic feats he gets. Extend Spell won't be good with a lot of Instant spells. The Wizard doesn't have to worry about this, going back to the fact of Preparing spells instead of being limited with Spells Known. Also, Wizards can rack up on Meta-magic, and still have feats left over to customize themselves. Try hitting something with a Maximized, Twinned, Widened, Empowered, Quickened, Heightened, Enlarged Fireball. Lets see thats 7 feats. A Sorcerer would have to use all his feat slots with no room to customize. The Wizard still has about 4 left, 5 if he is human. Oh and if the Sorcerer is human he could have 2 since Sorcerers can't Quicken. And this spell would be a standard action that took up one 7th level slot. Nice damage. Just an example. Comment: You're saying that the Wizard gets an advantage in metamagic because he gets bonus feats, while also saying that the sorcerer is just fine the way it is despite the gap in class features, and then you're saying that a spell that takes a spell slot of level 20, without heightening it, is level 7, even though it would be impossible even with Improved Metamagic taken numerous times... God. And by the way, even some of the designers agree with what the people who want to see the Sorcerer improved have to say. Sean Reynolds agrees with a lot of our arguements that the Sorcerer gets a bit shortchanged in terms of skills, feats and swapping. He even advocates that izards should get bonus Item Creation Feats while Sorcs get bonus metamagic feats, and that there should be no time increase for spells. Check out what he has to say. (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/opinions/opinions3p5chap123.html)
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-07-04, 03:18 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Well you need to look at it this way. A lot of people think the Sorcerer needs work, and that it needs this and that. But maybe everyone here has the wrong idea. Maybe the designers want the Sorcerer exactly the way it is. Maybe, how a lot of people think of the Sorcerer is completely wrong. If the designers truly felt that there was a problem, they would have changed the class. So understand the problem, or is everyone else the problem, and doesn't see the true picture of how the Sorcerer was written, and why it is the way it is? In case you haven't noticed from ALL of the statements and all of the arguements and all of the sorcerer "discussions" is that no one agrees on anything concerning the sorcerer except that it somehow gets the "short end of the stick." No one can widely agree on how it can be fixed, or even what the precise problem is or even that it has any problem. Right now, I don't think anyone on the classes forum knows much of anything concerning to how this design came to be at its present state or how its design, as it presently is, came to be. The most I've ever seen about a developer's opinion's on it are Sean K. Reynolds (who didn't design the sorcerer) and a smidget of a response from Skip Williams (that didn't even cover the important information regarding the sorcerer's present design and several parts of the design and core rules that people feel screw the sorcerer.) Because of this, I don't think anyone can draw any real conclusions about this beyond what people here have said about it and none of us have any real idea why the sorcerer was made as it presently is. But what is presently here is what is presently here. The sorcerer is exactly as it is described to be. It is only the interpretations of what the texts say that skew their meaning. And different interpretations of the same abilities/powers/text described in the PHB can differ and disagree. The people that designed the sorcerer are not perfect and, like all of the designers before them, like many people that design classes on these very boards, like anyone else, make mistakes. Maybe the sorcerer presented is essentially the sorcerer that the designers agreed that was "balanced" and "good" as a playable PC class. However, a number of discernable flaws were apparently found and need to be amended. For instance, Sean, in his opinions column at his website (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/opinions/opinions3p5chap123.html) (thanks the Horc), stated a number of flaws that he feels that the sorcerer possesses. In any case, my point is that just because it appears in the PHB doesn't mean that it's perfect the way it is. Otherwise, we'd still be playing 1E. In any case, just because this sorcerer may or may not have been what the "designers had in mind/pictured/whatever" doesn't mean that it is good the way it is. It just means that it is what the designers "had in mind" when they made it and nothing else. That doesn't mean that the PHB model of the sorcerer isn't flawed, nor does it mean that the sorcerer is somehow immune to possible corrections in its design in the immediate (complete arcana) or distant (4e) future. On a seporate note, there are some things that people do have misinterpretations about concerning the sorcerer and its flavor text. This is likely a disagreement with an interpretation I have with a more commonly shared interpretation other people have, but I'm entitled to say whatever I feel like (within certain reasonable guidelines.) Anyhow, I don't think people are interpreting what the sorcerer is correctly. They see the flavor text of the sorcerer, a need to "fix" the sorcerer and come up with bloodlines or a free eschew material components for "flavor" reasons based on the sorcerer being a "natural" or "innate" spellcaster who doesn't need books or study. But they didn't catch some very important words... or word, rather. That the sorcerer has "innate talent." Not "innate powers" or "innate spells" or anything else. That difference spawns a whole new meaning to the other texts. The sorcerer has "innate Talent." That means that they're not sorcerers in the same way that monsters have spell-like abilities. Even with the whole "dragon-blood" (hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more) shebang. They're "innately talented" in the same way that musicians are "talented" in the field of music. "Dragonblood" theories for sorcerers are like musicans who claim to be related to a famous musician or have heritage with a family of talented musicans. Because of this view, I don't see them gaining any special advantage with spells (I get irked every time I see a build with free eschew or other no-material components fix) because that implies that they're gaining spell-like abilities. And they're not. They're casting spells and that requires material components. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek And another reason why the Wizard has an advantage with Meta-magic, is because the Sorcerer has to choose the right spells to match up with the few meta-magic feats he gets. Extend Spell won't be good with a lot of Instant spells. The -only- advantage a wizard has with metamagic is that they can cast them as standard actions and not full-round actions. Other than that, I don't see many useful metamagic feats beyond quicken spell and perhaps extend spell that couldn't simply be replaced by a (much cheaper) spell of the adjusted level. A sorcerer, on the other hand, doesn't have the luxury of gobs of spells, but rather can take advantage of metamagic feats on the fly, jumping their value sky-high for the sorcerer. So feats like empower, shape spell, extend spell, twin spell, chain spell, silent spell, still spell, etc. all gain significantly greater use with a sorcerer. The only drawback being that they cast as full-round actions and therefore can't take advantage of quicken spell. (a problem wiped out of existance with arcane preparation.) Lastly, a sorcerer can take full advantage of extend spell. Not all spells a sorcerer takes (or should take, rather) are instantaneous. Take my level four build from page 2. That sorcerer had mage armor and grease and extend spell. I could use that feat on several of the cantrips, if necessary, or I could use it on grease, if I wanted the effects to last longer, or mage armor, to make it last longer. At those levels with those spells, that's a great thing to have. With the additional spell slots a sorcerer gets, the sorc can take advantage of it several times in one day. (Making the party monk, rogue, bard, and other light armor friends very happy.) The Wizard doesn't have to worry about this, going back to the fact of Preparing spells instead of being limited with Spells Known. Also, Wizards can rack up on Meta-magic, and still have feats left over to customize themselves. That's not a mechanical advantage of -using- those feats. A wizard getting more metamagic feats doesn't equate to being able to use them with greater effectiveness. With the wizard's reletively limited number of spell slots, I can't name any metamagic'd up spells (aside from the occasional extended, persistant, or quickened -- and even those can be argued) that are worth it to have them in their prepared spell slot in place of a higher level spell, which only costs gold and time to scribe. Try hitting something with a Maximized, Twinned, Widened, Empowered, Quickened, Heightened, Enlarged Fireball. Lets see thats 7 feats. A Sorcerer would have to use all his feat slots with no room to customize. The Wizard still has about 4 left, 5 if he is human. Oh and if the Sorcerer is human he could have 2 since Sorcerers can't Quicken. And this spell would be a standard action that took up one 7th level slot. Nice damage. Just an example. and just how many of those metamagic feats are really useful for a wizard? He can have more metamagic feats by virtue of his bonus feats, but that doesn't mean that the sorcerer isn't better at using them. Besides, widen spell, heighten spell, and enlarge spell are all nearly useless and a sorcerer only needs either empower OR maximize (and they don't really need both). And, I'll say this one more time for good measure; having more metamagic feats doesn't mean that they're better at useing them. They just have more barely useful metamagic feats at their disposal. Even with the fewer feats available, the sorcerer can easily make use of all of them at the instant they're needed. Wizards must prepare them, with the reletively fewer spell slots they have at their disposal, at the beginning of the day. Which, with a wizard's better arsonal of spells, is a rather subpar use of their spell slots when they can simply just prepare a better spell using that spell slot that the wizard would have otherwise prepared a metamagic'd spell.
q'afuu 08-07-04, 04:19 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels In case you haven't noticed from ALL of the statements and all of the arguements and all of the sorcerer "discussions" is that no one agrees on anything concerning the sorcerer except that it somehow gets the "short end of the stick." It seems to me Tony Vargas doesn't think the sorcerer gets the "short end of the stick" in terms of class design. Neither do I. I have a problem with metamagic, and fixing that will certainly have an effect on the sorcerer, but the class itself works just fine for me.
BlaineTog 08-07-04, 04:29 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels But they didn't catch some very important words... or word, rather. That the sorcerer has "innate talent." Not "innate powers" or "innate spells" or anything else.Unless the flavor text has changed from 3.0 to 3.5, the exact wording of the "Characteristics" paragraph in the Sorcerer's fluff is "Sorcerers cast spells through innate power rather than through carefully trained skill." (3.0 PHB, page 49). That means that they're not sorcerers in the same way that monsters have spell-like abilities.Or the decision was made that giving them spell-like abilities would be overpowered. IIRC, they are better than spells in a number of ways. Additionally, giving them spell-like abilities makes it really hard to justify making it a Class as opposed to a template. They're casting spells and that requires material components.Thats your interpretation. I respectfully disagree with it.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-07-04, 05:03 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu It seems to me Tony Vargas doesn't think the sorcerer gets the "short end of the stick" in terms of class design. Neither do I. I have a problem with metamagic, and fixing that will certainly have an effect on the sorcerer, but the class itself works just fine for me. Oh, people and their political correctness. I also believe that the sorcerer is balanced. Just flawed in design. Nothing some class features can't fix. ... in any case, you missed my last line, which apparently includes you and Tony. "No one can widely agree on how it can be fixed, or even what the precise problem is or even that it has any problem." So there. I am mostly politically correct. (Not that that's something to be boastful about.) Originally posted by BlaineTog Unless the flavor text has changed from 3.0 to 3.5, the exact wording of the "Characteristics" paragraph in the Sorcerer's fluff is "Sorcerers cast spells through innate power rather than through carefully trained skill." (3.0 PHB, page 49). and on the line after that (the text hasn't changed between 3e and 3.5e) "Their magic is intuitive rather than logical." That doesn't signify anything remotely innate about the spells they cast. Merely the methodology which they use to develop and cast them. "innate power" is not the same as "innate spells." "power" being rather vague a descriptor as easily applying to the "power" that sorcerers have at their disposal to more easily summon the magical energy that they can weave into spells that they've learned to cast. Or the decision was made that giving them spell-like abilities would be overpowered. IIRC, they are better than spells in a number of ways. Additionally, giving them spell-like abilities makes it really hard to justify making it a Class as opposed to a template. Yes, but if that was their intent, there is more that they could have done to mark that difference in the class's basic design. There are several builds around these forums that reflect that sort of design, but that doesn't mean that the designers had something of that nature in mind. Instead, they cast spells like wizards. Only spontaneously. (with fewer known spells and more spell slots.) Thats your interpretation. I respectfully disagree with it. That's your perogative, certainly.
q'afuu 08-07-04, 05:43 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Oh, people and their political correctness. Political correctness? I was merely mentioning that your statement was incorrect. Whether or not that's unpolitical has nothing to do with it. Also, both Tony (I think) and myself see nothing wrong with the sorcerer's design - hence, your 'I also believe' statement is a little out of place. No offense, you're entitled to your opinion and it can certainly be argued for, but my post specifically intends to note that according to some people, there's nothing wrong with the sorcerer class as is. Things outside the class that may have an effect on it, certainly, but not the class itself. Therefor, if someone posts something to the extent of 'everyone agrees that' or 'it's universally accepted that' or something similar to argue that the sorcerer class is badly designed, I'll point out that that's simply not true.
Zelphi 08-07-04, 07:25 AM	The problems being no loss when moving to a PrC? So now Sorcs have an advantage over Wizards and people that complain about Sorcs being weaker to Wizards are complaining because? Make sense people. Why should there be a loss when you move into a PrC? What PrC's are you talking about anyway? There's absolutely no reason why a Wizard would care about 2 bonus feats when they could have the additional advantages of the Archmage. Hell there's no reason why a Wizard would care about 3 bonus feats if they shift into a 10 class PrC is there? Oh wait... it may also be a 1 point BAB progression difference and a slightly less potent familiar. Compared to a vast hoarde of class features, automatically better saves and power way beyond what they had before in a particular field. What the hell are you actually talking about? Then Wizards having Metamagic feat advantage? They can take more? So what... they can prepare less... and everyone thats screwed up detracts from your overall potential. Dedicated action prevents you from changing your mind or taking a different action when the time comes to take those actions. Not only that, but a Well thought out Sorc can pick and match levels of spell to metamagic use. They could take more offensive spells on third for use with the empower metamagic feat, and leave most of the 5th stuff to utility things. Oh and identify? Using it to identify the loot to use it against the boss? Generally you get the best or most loot after you beat the boss.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-07-04, 08:38 AM	There should always be some kind of disadvantage to moving out of a core class into a prestige class. A prestige class, after all, is meant to refine your character, not simply give it a pure boost in power with nothing to mitigate that. Take the Shadowdancer, for example. A pure rogue is not as good at hiding as a Shadowdancer is, but a shadowdancer looses out on sneak attack damage and the special rogue class features. This is a good trade-off. The problem with the sorcerer is that the only loss for going into a prestige class sorcerers ever incur is familliar progression. Now, on the surface, familiars look like a serious liability to most players, so losing that seems pretty insignificant. Which leads to the following very unpleasant conclusions: You can be a better sorcerer by stopping being a sorcerer as soon as possible. The complete lack of sorcerer class features and the proliferation of 1/1 caster level progression prestige classes means that the sooner you get out of being a sorcerer, the more you gain, since you're picking up all the sorcerer's class features, plus whatever features of whatever prestige class you're going into. This paradigm is so true that the "ultimate" sorcerer would be one that somehow manages to qualify for a prestige class at level one, and spends the other 19 levels of his progression being something other than a sorcerer. This is indicative, in the minds of many, myself included, of a serious flaw. Note: you might have noticed that I said "on the surface" when talking about loosing familiar progression. That's because I found, humorously enough, that familliars become really interesting at Epic levels. For one thing, since they gain Familliar Spell at 21st and then every 10th level after that, they actually start being spellcasters of their own. I have a 33rd level sorcerer whose cat familiar can cast Tenser's Transformation and Iron Body. Loads of fun to watch kitty go on a rampage.
q'afuu 08-07-04, 09:19 AM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji A prestige class, after all, is meant to refine your character, not simply give it a pure boost in power with nothing to mitigate that. Says who anyway? A PrC is a class you have to qualify for. That's it. The cost (that what mitigates the boost in power, if you will) is what you spend on qualifying - skill points, feats, acquiring specific spells or abilities, etc. Furthermore, by the rules (hence, in theory but not necessarily practice), PrCs shouldn't give more power than base classes. They might give you more power in a specific area, but then they reduce your capabilities in others. That's a direct consequence of the entire balance mechanic - a 14th level char should be equal to any other 14th level char, regardless of PrCs.
BlaineTog 08-07-04, 11:46 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels "innate power" is not the same as "innate spells."Splitting hairs. "power" being rather vague a descriptor as easily applying to the "power" that sorcerers have at their disposal to more easily summon the magical energy that they can weave into spells that they've learned to cast.You specifically mentioned "innate power" as something the sorcerer does not have, so why the reciprocation now? Yes, but if that was their intent, there is more that they could have done to mark that difference in the class's basic design.Yes, they could have. But you and I both know that the sorcerer was poorley designed.
Cross Hatch 08-07-04, 11:58 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu Says who anyway? A PrC is a class you have to qualify for. That's it. The cost (that what mitigates the boost in power, if you will) is what you spend on qualifying - skill points, feats, acquiring specific spells or abilities, etc. Furthermore, by the rules (hence, in theory but not necessarily practice), PrCs shouldn't give more power than base classes. They might give you more power in a specific area, but then they reduce your capabilities in others. That's a direct consequence of the entire balance mechanic - a 14th level char should be equal to any other 14th level char, regardless of PrCs. There are quite a number of statements on record by the game designers back when 3.0 was being designed to the effect that PrCs were designed to give GMs (notice not Players) the ability to -customize- their -campaign-. The reality is that, ever after the next dollar, the powers that be realized that they could make more money from making PrCs which lent themselves to munchkinizing. At the present time, however PrCs are used in your game is up to your GM. If he allows you to mix and max to maximize your power, so be it. However, that is only one of many valid ways to play.
Tony Vargas 08-07-04, 03:26 PM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji There should always be some kind of disadvantage to moving out of a core class into a prestige class. A prestige class, after all, is meant to refine your character, not simply give it a pure boost in power with nothing to mitigate that. There always /is/ a disadvantage to persuing a PrC, even before you 'move into' it - your feat, skill, and other choices about the development and abilities of your character are partially dictated by the requirements of the PrC. And, really, PrCs aren't character-customization tools, thier setting-customization tools. The /do/ generally offer a boost in power - and, from the time I used custom-designed PrCs that /were/ balanced with PC classes, I can see why: players won't take a restrictive PrC when there's no power-boost as a 'payoff.' The problem with the sorcerer is that the only loss for going into a prestige class sorcerers ever incur is familliar progression. Now, on the surface, familiars look like a serious liability to most players, so losing that seems pretty insignificant. But, it's something... and, really, a non-progressing familiar /does/ become a liabiilty, since it's more likely to get killed than a full-progression one. The complete lack of sorcerer class features and the proliferation of 1/1 caster level progression prestige classes means that the sooner you get out of being a sorcerer, the more you gain In a sense, that's true. But, the requirements of most of those PrCs make them noticeably less attractive to sorcerers... which, reduces that 'just losing the familiar' incentive to jump into them... This is indicative, in the minds of many, myself included, of a serious flaw. PrCs are seriously flawed in some senses, yes. Particularly thier susceptibility to blatant twinking. That's one of the reasons they should remain purely optional.
Tony Vargas 08-07-04, 03:33 PM	Originally posted by BlaineTog But you and I both know that the sorcerer was poorley designed. Pshaw. If the sorcerer were all that poorly designed it would be much more amenable to abusive min/maxing, and people would be complaining (or at least noting) that it's 'over-powered,' like the wiz or cleric. ;)
the Horc 08-07-04, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels (thanks the Horc), Besides, widen spell, heighten spell, and enlarge spell are all nearly First: ya welcome. Second: Heighten is actually pretty useful if you plan on increasing the DC on the fly, fighting that are otherwise immune to lower level spells, Ioun stones of spell absorption, or as I said, qualifying for Archmage. If as a Sorcerer you plan on reserving your ninth level spells for the ultra utility spells, Heighten isn't that bad for these cases.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-07-04, 05:15 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels The -only- advantage a wizard has with metamagic is that they can cast them as standard actions and not full-round actions. Other than that, I don't see many useful metamagic feats beyond quicken spell and perhaps extend spell that couldn't simply be replaced by a (much cheaper) spell of the adjusted level. A sorcerer, on the other hand, doesn't have the luxury of gobs of spells, but rather can take advantage of metamagic feats on the fly, jumping their value sky-high for the sorcerer. So feats like empower, shape spell, extend spell, twin spell, chain spell, silent spell, still spell, etc. all gain significantly greater use with a sorcerer. The only drawback being that they cast as full-round actions and therefore can't take advantage of quicken spell. (a problem wiped out of existance with arcane preparation.) Lastly, a sorcerer can take full advantage of extend spell. Not all spells a sorcerer takes (or should take, rather) are instantaneous. Take my level four build from page 2. That sorcerer had mage armor and grease and extend spell. I could use that feat on several of the cantrips, if necessary, or I could use it on grease, if I wanted the effects to last longer, or mage armor, to make it last longer. At those levels with those spells, that's a great thing to have. With the additional spell slots a sorcerer gets, the sorc can take advantage of it several times in one day. (Making the party monk, rogue, bard, and other light armor friends very happy.) DOA apparently you just can't play wizard, or you are not playing a D&D Wizard. If your Wizards are not picking the right spells, they are running out (Can't see that happen if he picks the wrong ones), and now meta-magic is not useful to a Wizard. *LMFAO*. I can't believe that you would say that. All meta-magic except for Arcane Prep, and Extra Spell is useful to a Wizard. A Wizard character could have every spell available in the Player's Handbook. They can pick and choose spells accordingly to fit with their feats. Where you came up with this meta-magic not useful to Wizards is beyond me. Just because they don't work for your Wizard, that doesn't mean they don't work for all.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-07-04, 05:16 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Pshaw. If the sorcerer were all that poorly designed it would be much more amenable to abusive min/maxing, and people would be complaining (or at least noting) that it's 'over-powered,' like the wiz or cleric. ;) Being blatantly underpowered is just as bad design as being blatantly overpowered. Lack of familiar progression isn't too much of a disadvantage since you can simply choose not to call up a familiar in the first place. You don't loose much, and you actually gain some in many cases, not having the wee little disposable chunk of your own xp being munched by monsters on a routine basis. Of course, when you reach level 21 and your little furry friend can now cast Magic Jar, Dominate Person or something equally amusing ("What do you mean, your toad posseses the mayor?!?"), then things are different. Until then, though many people often refuse to get a familiar. The true flaw isn't prestige classes (though I agree with you that those are flawed too), the flaw is that lack of either support or understanding of the Sorcerer has led it to be some kind of a bastard 3/4 caster class, instead of the solid alternative to the Wizard class it should have been. It is too weak to be a full caster like a Wizard or Cleric, but not broad enough to be a half-caster like a bard, a ranger or a paladin.
the Horc 08-07-04, 06:26 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek and now meta-magic is not useful to a Wizard. *LMFAO*. I can't believe that you would say that. All meta-magic except for Arcane Prep, and Extra Spell is useful to a Wizard. A Wizard character could have every spell available in the Player's Handbook. He's not saying that Wizards don't benefit from metamagic, it's just that they are far less versatile with it, being constrained and all with his choices having to be made in advance. Also, as you state, the Wizard can get practically every spell in the game, why bother with an empowered fireball when Cone of Cold does as much damage and has a higher DC
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-07-04, 07:10 PM	Originally posted by the Horc He's not saying that Wizards don't benefit from metamagic, it's just that they are far less versatile with it, being constrained and all with his choices having to be made in advance. Also, as you state, the Wizard can get practically every spell in the game, why bother with an empowered fireball when Cone of Cold does as much damage and has a higher DC Wizards have more of an advantage, and an easier time with meta-magic because they are not limited with spells known like the Sorcerer. I don't get why a lot of you think that preparing spells is such a disadvantage. They have come out with the feat Arcane Preparation, if it were such a disadvantage then they wouldn't come out with it as a feat. Wizards also don't have to worry about a longer casting time, and they have Quicken Spell. And I will use your own example in this. Take that example and then make it into a Sorcerer. What if that Sorcerer has Fireball, and not Cone of Cold? Ok, this time around the Wizard prepares an Empowered Fireball, well in about 9 hours or less he can prepare an Empowered Cone of Cold. Or make that Fireball Empowered as well as Maximized, and since you are already using a higher slot, add in a Heighten Spell to increase the DC. See, Wizards can add these combos to spells, and still have plenty of feat slots available for other feats. Sorcerer have to be careful what spells they choose, and what meta-magic they choose. Just because some of you find it difficult to prepare meta-magic ahead of time, that doesn't mean that thats the official rule in the matter.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-07-04, 11:08 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Political correctness? I was merely mentioning that your statement was incorrect. Whether or not that's unpolitical has nothing to do with it. you're bascially stating that I should have said "most of" or the "majority of." excuse me if I assumed that people had the smarts to assume that "all" isn't really "every single person who uttered anything about the sorcerer down to q'afuu and tony vargas." Also, both Tony (I think) and myself see nothing wrong with the sorcerer's design - hence, your 'I also believe' statement is a little out of place. No offense, you're entitled to your opinion and it can certainly be argued for, but my post specifically intends to note that according to some people, there's nothing wrong with the sorcerer class as is. Things outside the class that may have an effect on it, certainly, but not the class itself. Therefor, if someone posts something to the extent of 'everyone agrees that' or 'it's universally accepted that' or something similar to argue that the sorcerer class is badly designed, I'll point out that that's simply not true. Do whatever you want. Originally posted by q'afuu Says who anyway? A PrC is a class you have to qualify for. That's it. The cost (that what mitigates the boost in power, if you will) is what you spend on qualifying - skill points, feats, acquiring specific spells or abilities, etc. And what feat/skill requirements for a full-spellcasting progression prestige class has requirements that are more of a liability than actual help? Furthermore, by the rules (hence, in theory but not necessarily practice), PrCs shouldn't give more power than base classes. They might give you more power in a specific area, but then they reduce your capabilities in others. That's a direct consequence of the entire balance mechanic - a 14th level char should be equal to any other 14th level char, regardless of PrCs. The only way for a PrC to really take away any real power from a sorcerer is to take away caster level progressions. But there's a name for prestige classes (and the classes that take those PrCs), it's "useless." Fortunately, there are prestige classes around that *don't* do that. Not for sorcerers or wizards anyway. Most prestige classes that those classes can qualify for give more than they take. Originally posted by BlaineTog You specifically mentioned "innate power" as something the sorcerer does not have, so why the reciprocation now? Perhaps I was incorrect in using the term "innate power" instead of something else that conveyed that hinted at how sorcerers don't cast spells innately, but rather derieve the magic they use to power those spells with "innate talent," but I got my point across to roughly that effect, anyway. Yes, they could have. But you and I both know that the sorcerer was poorley designed. Yes, but they included *nothing* in the core handbooks marking the sorcerer as being anything other than especially talented. Perhaps supernaturally so (because of possibly being related to a dragon), but not in the way that creatures inherit spell-like abilities. Even the very basic design that exists is more conclusive of simply being more talented in using and casting magic than being a "caster by bloodline." After all, doesn't it say somewhere in the core books that a casual observer might not even tell the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard simply by seeing them cast their spells? (or something to that effect...) Originally posted by Cross Hatch There are quite a number of statements on record by the game designers back when 3.0 was being designed to the effect that PrCs were designed to give GMs (notice not Players) the ability to -customize- their -campaign-. Perhaps they were. They aren't now. They still can be, but players have access to many of the prestige classes that are in existance now. The reality is that, ever after the next dollar, the powers that be realized that they could make more money from making PrCs which lent themselves to munchkinizing. that seems more conspiracy theory than anything else, but WotC is a company that is out there to make some sort of profit from their business ventures. D&D isn't chocolate and flowers to the gaming community, y'know. I also dislike the automatic affiliation with PrC'ing and "munchkinizing." I find prestige classing to be a great way to define a character. At the present time, however PrCs are used in your game is up to your GM. technically speaking, -everything- is just a suggestion to the GM. However, that doesn't make the "sorcerer looses nothing to prestiging" any less a problem or a design flaw of the class. If he allows you to mix and max to maximize your power, so be it. One funny observation I've made about people who call themselves "roleplayers." After a discussion with StriderII and someone else on another thread, I've noticed that people who do call themselves "roleplayers" often put more importance on the mechanics portion of their character than the actual roleplay aspect. For instance, if I made a character with all 8's and 13 ability scores and I was playing a wizard character (13 in INT), then I'm a roleplayer. Regardless of any but the worst of actual roleplay value. If I had a character that actually had real power behind them or is otherwise exceptionally well-built, then I would be a munchkin, regardless of whether the "roleplay" aspect of that character was good or horrible. With that in mind, I find that prestige classes aren't just "Min/max" tools. (they most certainly can be, but that doesn't mean that it's theri primary purpose.) They're far better at making a well-defined character as well. However, that is only one of many valid ways to play. Quite. Originally posted by the Horc First: ya welcome. Second: Heighten is actually pretty useful if you plan on increasing the DC on the fly, fighting that are otherwise immune to lower level spells, Ioun stones of spell absorption, or as I said, qualifying for Archmage. If as a Sorcerer you plan on reserving your ninth level spells for the ultra utility spells, Heighten isn't that bad for these cases. yes, I'm not saying that heighten isn't useful, overall. I'm just saying that it's rather subpar. (because there are several other options that won't waste higher level spell slots, such as spell focus, greater spell focus, and raising your requisite ability score rather than using one of the sorcerer's feats on it. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek DOA apparently you just can't play wizard, or you are not playing a D&D Wizard. Actually, right now, in the 3 D&D games I'm playing, I'm using a 1/2 Elf fighter1/transmuter6 (going spellsword, then Eldritch Knight), A human cleric6 of the red knight, and a deep imiskari wizard6. I've *played* wizards. I'm a very effective one as well. As such, I understand their limitations and strengths very well. If your Wizards are not picking the right spells, they are running out (Can't see that happen if he picks the wrong ones), and now meta-magic is not useful to a Wizard. *LMFAO*. I never said that metamagic feats weren't useless, I said that metamagic is *sub-par* in comparison, in most cases, to spells of the adjusted level. Exceptions being spells that use the extend feat, which I find useful, the quicken spell, which is always useful in many cases, and persistant spell. Despite Persistant spell's high cost, having some of those spells last as long as they do is very benificial. Second, most of my wizards do make good use of their daily prepared spells as much as they can, but that doesn't mean that all of them are always good all the time. I can't believe that you would say that. Niether can I. That's why I didn't. All meta-magic except for Arcane Prep, and Extra Spell is useful to a Wizard. Niether of those feats are metamagic feats. A Wizard character could have every spell available in the Player's Handbook. at a very substantial cost in both time and gold. Even if Boccob's Blessed Book is involved. They can pick and choose spells accordingly to fit with their feats. Where you came up with this meta-magic not useful to Wizards is beyond me. Just because they don't work for your Wizard, that doesn't mean they don't work for all. DId you even read my post? Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Wizards have more of an advantage, and an easier time with meta-magic because they are not limited with spells known like the Sorcerer. .... um... they *are* limited with their spells known like the sorcerer. Wizards just get more spells known and have the ability to gain more by buying scrolls, finding (or borrowing) spell books, and scribing additional spells into their spell books. I don't get why a lot of you think that preparing spells is such a disadvantage. in and of itself, it isn't. in comparison to being able to pick and choose what spell you want to cast at moment's notice is far superior of a casting method. They have come out with the feat Arcane Preparation, if it were such a disadvantage then they wouldn't come out with it as a feat. Only to eliminate the additional time spent adding the metamagic feat on a spell on the fly, so sorcerers can indeed use quicken spell and aquire other advantages of being able to cast Metamagic feats as a standard action rather than a full-round action. However, that comes at the disadvantage of not being able to use that spell slot for anything else. Wizards also don't have to worry about a longer casting time, and they have Quicken Spell. And I will use your own example in this. Take that example and then make it into a Sorcerer. What if that Sorcerer has Fireball, and not Cone of Cold? Ok, this time around the Wizard prepares an Empowered Fireball, well in about 9 hours or less he can prepare an Empowered Cone of Cold. Or make that Fireball Empowered as well as Maximized, and since you are already using a higher slot, add in a Heighten Spell to increase the DC. See, Wizards can add these combos to spells, and still have plenty of feat slots available for other feats. Sorcerer have to be careful what spells they choose, and what meta-magic they choose. Just because some of you find it difficult to prepare meta-magic ahead of time, that doesn't mean that thats the official rule in the matter. Eh? Like I said, More =/= better. Big whoop. The wizard can *empower* fireball or *maximize* fireball or *heighen* fireball. What does that matter if the wizard has disintegrate or chain lightning or cone of cold or delayed blast fireball? Second, the wizard has to prepare those MM'd spells ahead of time. The sorcerer can add them as the sorcerer needs them. Sorcerer only have disintegrate as a 6th level spell against a high fort opponent? The sorcerer can maximize fireball to until his spell slots run out. Then the 5th level spell slots can be empowered fireballs, then the 4th level spell slots can be heightened fireballs, third level spell slots can be normal fireballs, 2nd and 1st level spell slots can be magic missiles until that enemy is dead. The wizard doesn't have the luxury of being able to do that with his or her spell slots. Lastly, don't pin metamagic being subpar for wizards as being something that "some of us" have difficulty with. That isn't the case at all. There's just better ways of useing those spell slots than using them on metamagic'd up spells in most cases. Just because the wizard has four extra feats doesn't mean that they can use metamagic better. Two wholly different things.
the Horc 08-08-04, 02:02 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Wizards have more of an advantage, and an easier time with meta-magic because they are not limited with spells known like the Sorcerer. I agree with this part. However, one problem I find is that you seem to blame the Sorcerer for its shortcomings, rather than the designers and the system it is a prisoner of. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek I don't get why a lot of you think that preparing spells is such a disadvantage. They have come out with the feat Arcane Preparation, if it were such a disadvantage then they wouldn't come out with it as a feat. The problem with Arcane Preparation is not so much that it complicates the spontaneous caster needlessly, it's that it simultaneously spits in the face of the flavor of the spontaneous caster as WELL as violate FSBNNN. If the feat allowed you to apply metamagic on the fly (for a limitied number of times, say your intelligance modifier), then it would simply violate on of those precepts. Instead, it waves this feat in front of the face of the feat lacking Sorcerer like a scrap of meat before a starving man and then forcing him to pay his own money for it. It's also like going on a vacation to get away from it all, only to find out you have to share your flight, hotel, and tours with your boss. When we play a sorcerer, we want to play a sorcerer and not a wizard wannabe. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Wizards also don't have to worry about a longer casting time, and they have Quicken Spell. Yes, but that's the fault of the designers, not the Sorcerer. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek And I will use your own example in this. Take that example and then make it into a Sorcerer. What if that Sorcerer has Fireball, and not Cone of Cold? Ok, this time around the Wizard prepares an Empowered Fireball, well in about 9 hours or less he can prepare an Empowered Cone of Cold. Or make that Fireball Empowered as well as Maximized, and since you are already using a higher slot, add in a Heighten Spell to increase the DC. See, Wizards can add these combos to spells, and still have plenty of feat slots available for other feats. Sorcerer have to be careful what spells they choose, and what meta-magic they choose. Just because some of you find it difficult to prepare meta-magic ahead of time, that doesn't mean that thats the official rule in the matter. And what if we are not dealing with 13th level casters? Do not assume a 20th level base all the time. And by the way, quicken aside, it's not that big a deal to extend the casting time. Oh look, you sacrifice a move action. You're likely never going to need that move action. The full round casting time was an attempt to deny quicken to spontaneous casters, and it would have been nice to have something in the core rules (that wasn't an insult) to accomodate them. Also, the people who like the sorcerer have trouble with the fact that sorcerers have no class features to speak of (aside from spellcasting), are relatively feat starved, are subject to what many consider arbitrary nerfs, and you are essentially saying "Ha ha, the Sorcerer can't do ****", while defending the designers lack of doing anything about it. The wizard can do these combos, and the Sorcerer can't (without taking punishment), but at the same time, the Sorcerer does not have any abilities to compensate for this (spontaneous casting is worth the limited spell slots and the staggered progression at most). I mean, compare the Barbarian and the Fighter. The Fighter gets feats, and the Barbarian gets class abilities. Imagine if the Barbarian didn't get class abilities, simply the increased HD, weapon and armor proficiencies, and rages (not better rages, simply the ones you get at level 1). People would be pretty ****** that they made this joke of a class. Fortunately the Sorcerer is a full caster, so he isn't nearly as gimped as my would be barbarian is. But still, we have a class that seems to only have as much longevity as the earliest qualifying prestige class. That is why we are annoyed. That is why the class is poorly designed. That is why there are a hundred Sorcerer variants. And for those who comment about how a wizard earns his bonus feats through study, I will point out that it probably takes something to bend raw, turbulent arcane energies to your likings with only your force of will (I disagree with Sean Reynolds comment that the Wizard should not be able to gain bonus metamagic feats. He should, it's just I think the Sorcerer variant he proposes should instead also include feats from the Spell Focus and Spell Penetration lines, while the wizard keeps his item creation and metamagic. The Wizard gets the subtleties of magic, while the Sorcerer gets the raw brute strength in the variant). Personally, if they ever redo the Sorcerer, I want to see something based off (but not actually be) the Wheel of Time RPG channeling system.
Koga:The ninja trick 08-08-04, 05:14 AM	Bassically it's a half-full/half-empty glass argument. Either the druid, cleric, and wizard need to be changed. Or the sorcerer needs to evolve. :P
q'afuu 08-08-04, 10:03 AM	Originally posted by Koga:The ninja trick Either the druid, cleric, and wizard need to be changed. Or the sorcerer needs to evolve. :P Nope. At least, not IMO. A change to metamagic so it works better for spontaneous casters combined with a nerf of metamagic rods is all it takes IMO, without making a single change to the classes.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-08-04, 10:18 AM	Correcting the sorcerer is easy. Give them the same learning rate as everyone else, bonus feats like a wizard, and have them be able to choose a metamagic feat that no longer takes a full round to use every 5 levels. Just that would be pretty balanced.
Ax'Orl 08-08-04, 11:04 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek DOA apparently you just can't play wizard, or you are not playing a D&D Wizard. If your Wizards are not picking the right spells, they are running out (Can't see that happen if he picks the wrong ones), and now meta-magic is not useful to a Wizard. *LMFAO*. I can't believe that you would say that. All meta-magic except for Arcane Prep, and Extra Spell is useful to a Wizard. A Wizard character could have every spell available in the Player's Handbook. They can pick and choose spells accordingly to fit with their feats. Where you came up with this meta-magic not useful to Wizards is beyond me. Just because they don't work for your Wizard, that doesn't mean they don't work for all. Xun, apparently you just can't play a sorcerer, or have trouble grasping the spontaneous spell casting ability of one. The reason that the sorcerer is better (note: I am not saying that the wizard CANNOT use metamagic, just that the Sorcerer is better, of course anything that benefits a sorcerer and disparages a Wizard is bad in the eyes of many of the "Wizards are the Best/Sorcerer stinks" crowd) is that he does not have to decide 1 hour (or 2 hours or 15 minutes or even 1 minute) in advance which metamagic feat to apply to which spell. He can choose both at the time of casting. Yes pretty much all metamagic IS useful for both classes, but the spontaneous nature of the Sorcerer's casting style makes metamagic that MUCH better for him. Yes a wizard knows more spells than a sorcerer BUT he is limited in his spells known/day (preparation) and once those are chosen (and the metamagic for them chosen) the wizard is locked in that choice for the next 24 hours. Yes a sorcerer is locked in his choice of spells for his career (barring the swap introduced in 3.5) BUT the spells themselves are locked, not when he can cast them or how often or with which metamagic feats. The wizard can pick his spells to match his feats, but w/o divine (or DM) intervention if he prepares them incorrectly (feats and all) then he has wasted that slot for the day. The prime examples are Silent and Stilled...how often is your wizard going to PREPARE a silent/stilled Prestidigitation spell (2nd Level Slot)? Now if your wizard is captured/bound by the hands and gagged how is he going to get free? A sorcerer in the same situation with the same feats/spell could cast it at will and simply walk out AND he has more of those 2nd level slots to do so with. Your claim that DOA either cannot play a wizard is laughable, it is you that cannot play one at least in a semi realistic campaign. I would assume that DOA (or any player) would choose spells to prepare that he thought would be appropriate for the day, but as luck/chance/DM would have it, he had faulty knowledge of the foe he faced/was surprised or had some other event happen that made his spell choice for that day inappropriate. Not everyone can ALWAYS choose just the right combination of spells/meta-magic so that their wizard is not reduced to ducking and going melee with his staff because his spells are inappropriate for the encounter. Not everyone has such a play nice DM as to not have the occaisional surprise encounter/random encounter thrown at them to burn the wizards spells per day up before the one he actually prepared for. Are you still claiming that you have never wished that you had prepared a different spell than those you prepared? I would love to someday hear how you always know exactly what you will be facing that day so that you can prepare the perfect blend of spells/metamagic (or heck just spells) for the day w/o a wasted slot. One random encounter should blow your battle plan to smithereens because you will either burn a spell you had hoped to save for the BBEG OR the spells you prepared will be inneffective at one point because you were expecting something entirely different than what you are facing. A case in point is a WotC Dragon found in the Draconomicon who likes to polymorph himself into a metallic dragon. If your wizard used divinations to find out what kind of dragon was terrorizing the locals you were hired to defend and found that he was a "Gold" you would prepare thusly, but would be sorry when you found that he was instead a "White" or "Black" oops, those Protection from Fire spells are now useless as are those Cold or Acid based attack spells. It would not even have to be a chormatic dragon poly-ing into a Metallic. What if a Red were to Poly into a White???? You prepare for the White and then face a White dragon that laughs when you are surprised by his use of Flame Breath when he ends the Polymorph!!! If there are special spells that are ALWAYS useful then the sorcerer would do well to have those as known spells no? Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Wizards have more of an advantage, and an easier time with meta-magic because they are not limited with spells known like the Sorcerer. I don't get why a lot of you think that preparing spells is such a disadvantage. They have come out with the feat Arcane Preparation, if it were such a disadvantage then they wouldn't come out with it as a feat. Wizards also don't have to worry about a longer casting time, and they have Quicken Spell. And I will use your own example in this. Take that example and then make it into a Sorcerer. What if that Sorcerer has Fireball, and not Cone of Cold? Ok, this time around the Wizard prepares an Empowered Fireball, well in about 9 hours or less he can prepare an Empowered Cone of Cold. Or make that Fireball Empowered as well as Maximized, and since you are already using a higher slot, add in a Heighten Spell to increase the DC. See, Wizards can add these combos to spells, and still have plenty of feat slots available for other feats. Sorcerer have to be careful what spells they choose, and what meta-magic they choose. Just because some of you find it difficult to prepare meta-magic ahead of time, that doesn't mean that thats the official rule in the matter. Again, wizards ARE limited in spells known (both over their careers (cost time/money to scribe those spells thus limited) and per day. A wizard does NOT have access to all his spells all the time (barring the 15 min. preptime for open slots but that in itself bars having access ALL the time). Prepareing is not a disadvatage per se' however, spontaneous casting IS an advantage. I dont get where people thing that anything that is an advantage for the sorcerer is a disadvantage for the wizard, I am not saying that at least. Preparation IS powerful, I have often said that a PROPERLY prepared wizard is a thing to fear. But, Chance/Evil DM etc. can conspire to lay low the best prepared wizard. No battle plan ever lasts past the first contact with the enemy. That is what a wizards prepared spells are-a battle plan. One bad roll, the DM throwing something unexpected into the mix, any of several other situations can cause the wizard's well laid plan to fall apart. The sorcerer in such situations can adapt by casting a different spell, adding metamagic to a spell etc. The wizard relies on knowledge of the enemy-faulty knowledge or a sudden change in tactics by the enemy can ruin his day. As far as your example-what if that wizard needed that empowered/maximized fireball NOW, not tomorrow (it is not 9 hours, faq etc. have stated that no spell caster can prepare more spells in one DAY than he has spells per day so unless your world has 9 hour days.....in which case all casters are screwed because just about the time you get up and prepare your spells, you have to cast them all in one hour!!! doing it the way you describe would mean that the sorcerer could be a MAJOR spell slinger, every 8 hours he can blast and blast and blast- Dang, looking at it that way that PlaneShift item XP gravy train idea would be cool for a sorcerer wanting to blast away at some BBEG...use all your spells but one to blast/plane shift to a plane with the correct time shift rest 8 hours/pop back blast again/rinse repeat till BBEG is dead). A sorcerer does not need to be as careful as you imply in choosing his metamagic feats simply because he can apply any he knows at a whim as needed so any metamagic is good for him to have because metamagic for a sorcerer equates to a virtual bonus to his "Spells Known". For each metamagic feat the sorcerer knows, his spells known "virtually" increases for each spell that the feat can be applied to. To use "Splat Book" material the feats Energy Substitution/Sculpt Spell really add to the Sorcerer's spells known. E-sub (X element) an Acid Orb and bang, you have and extra "known" 0-level spell. Sculpt Burning hands and bang you have a 1st level fireball or combine them (E-sub (fire) and Sculpt + Ray of Frost and you have a 0-level Fireball thus you have added 3 "known" spells to the sorcerer's arsenal w/o even adding levels to the spells cast (IIRC these feats do not add to the level of the spell but I dont have my books here). Too add to a wizards spells "known" is moot as they CAN have every spell known (with the proper time/money spent) but in preparing the spells thusly the wizard is limited in that he cannot change them even if he needs to he cannot suddenly change that 0-level mini fire ball back into a ray or a cold effect spell w/o waiting 1 full day.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-08-04, 11:10 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl Xun, apparently you just can't play a sorcerer, or have trouble grasping the spontaneous spell casting ability of one. The reason that the sorcerer is better (note: I am not saying that the wizard CANNOT use metamagic, just that the Sorcerer is better, of course anything that benefits a sorcerer and disparages a Wizard is bad in the eyes of many of the "Wizards are the Best/Sorcerer stinks" crowd) is that he does not have to decide 1 hour (or 2 hours or 15 minutes or even 1 minute) in advance which metamagic feat to apply to which spell. He can choose both at the time of casting. Yes pretty much all metamagic IS useful for both classes, but the spontaneous nature of the Sorcerer's casting style makes metamagic that MUCH better for him. Yes a wizard knows more spells than a sorcerer BUT he is limited in his spells known/day (preparation) and once those are chosen (and the metamagic for them chosen) the wizard is locked in that choice for the next 24 hours. Yes a sorcerer is locked in his choice of spells for his career (barring the swap introduced in 3.5) BUT the spells themselves are locked, not when he can cast them or how often or with which metamagic feats. The wizard can pick his spells to match his feats, but w/o divine (or DM) intervention if he prepares them incorrectly (feats and all) then he has wasted that slot for the day. The prime examples are Silent and Stilled...how often is your wizard going to PREPARE a silent/stilled Prestidigitation spell (2nd Level Slot)? Now if your wizard is captured/bound by the hands and gagged how is he going to get free? A sorcerer in the same situation with the same feats/spell could cast it at will and simply walk out AND he has more of those 2nd level slots to do so with. Your claim that DOA either cannot play a wizard is laughable, it is you that cannot play one at least in a semi realistic campaign. I would assume that DOA (or any player) would choose spells to prepare that he thought would be appropriate for the day, but as luck/chance/DM would have it, he had faulty knowledge of the foe he faced/was surprised or had some other event happen that made his spell choice for that day inappropriate. Not everyone can ALWAYS choose just the right combination of spells/meta-magic so that their wizard is not reduced to ducking and going melee with his staff because his spells are inappropriate for the encounter. Not everyone has such a play nice DM as to not have the occaisional surprise encounter/random encounter thrown at them to burn the wizards spells per day up before the one he actually prepared for. Are you still claiming that you have never wished that you had prepared a different spell than those you prepared? I would love to someday hear how you always know exactly what you will be facing that day so that you can prepare the perfect blend of spells/metamagic (or heck just spells) for the day w/o a wasted slot. One random encounter should blow your battle plan to smithereens because you will either burn a spell you had hoped to save for the BBEG OR the spells you prepared will be inneffective at one point because you were expecting something entirely different than what you are facing. A case in point is a WotC Dragon found in the Draconomicon who likes to polymorph himself into a metallic dragon. If your wizard used divinations to find out what kind of dragon was terrorizing the locals you were hired to defend and found that he was a "Gold" you would prepare thusly, but would be sorry when you found that he was instead a "White" or "Black" oops, those Protection from Fire spells are now useless as are those Cold or Acid based attack spells. It would not even have to be a chormatic dragon poly-ing into a Metallic. What if a Red were to Poly into a White???? You prepare for the White and then face a White dragon that laughs when you are surprised by his use of Flame Breath when he ends the Polymorph!!! If there are special spells that are ALWAYS useful then the sorcerer would do well to have those as known spells no? Again, wizards ARE limited in spells known (both over their careers (cost time/money to scribe those spells thus limited) and per day. A wizard does NOT have access to all his spells all the time (barring the 15 min. preptime for open slots but that in itself bars having access ALL the time). Prepareing is not a disadvatage per se' however, spontaneous casting IS an advantage. I dont get where people thing that anything that is an advantage for the sorcerer is a disadvantage for the wizard, I am not saying that at least. Preparation IS powerful, I have often said that a PROPERLY prepared wizard is a thing to fear. But, Chance/Evil DM etc. can conspire to lay low the best prepared wizard. No battle plan ever lasts past the first contact with the enemy. That is what a wizards prepared spells are-a battle plan. One bad roll, the DM throwing something unexpected into the mix, any of several other situations can cause the wizard's well laid plan to fall apart. The sorcerer in such situations can adapt by casting a different spell, adding metamagic to a spell etc. The wizard relies on knowledge of the enemy-faulty knowledge or a sudden change in tactics by the enemy can ruin his day. As far as your example-what if that wizard needed that empowered/maximized fireball NOW, not tomorrow (it is not 9 hours, faq etc. have stated that no spell caster can prepare more spells in one DAY than he has spells per day so unless your world has 9 hour days.....in which case all casters are screwed because just about the time you get up and prepare your spells, you have to cast them all in one hour!!! doing it the way you describe would mean that the sorcerer could be a MAJOR spell slinger, every 8 hours he can blast and blast and blast- Dang, looking at it that way that PlaneShift item XP gravy train idea would be cool for a sorcerer wanting to blast away at some BBEG...use all your spells but one to blast/plane shift to a plane with the correct time shift rest 8 hours/pop back blast again/rinse repeat till BBEG is dead). A sorcerer does not need to be as careful as you imply in choosing his metamagic feats simply because he can apply any he knows at a whim as needed so any metamagic is good for him to have because metamagic for a sorcerer equates to a virtual bonus to his "Spells Known". For each metamagic feat the sorcerer knows, his spells known "virtually" increases for each spell that the feat can be applied to. To use "Splat Book" material the feats Energy Substitution/Sculpt Spell really add to the Sorcerer's spells known. E-sub (X element) an Acid Orb and bang, you have and extra "known" 0-level spell. Sculpt Burning hands and bang you have a 1st level fireball or combine them (E-sub (fire) and Sculpt + Ray of Frost and you have a 0-level Fireball thus you have added 3 "known" spells to the sorcerer's arsenal w/o even adding levels to the spells cast (IIRC these feats do not add to the level of the spell but I dont have my books here). Too add to a wizards spells "known" is moot as they CAN have every spell known (with the proper time/money spent) but in preparing the spells thusly the wizard is limited in that he cannot change them even if he needs to he cannot suddenly change that 0-level mini fire ball back into a ray or a cold effect spell w/o waiting 1 full day. Yes Ax'Orl you just have all the answers don't you? :rolleyes: Anyway, just because some of you don't know how to play a Wizard doesn't mean that thats the way all Wizards are. A Wizard has a bigger advantage over the Sorcerer with meta-magic because they 1 get more feats, 2 don't have to take a full round action to cast 3 Gets Quicken and Automatic Quicken at epic levels 4 doesn't have to picks permanant spells, or meta-magic feats to fit with their spell selection, why because their selection can change very easily 5 SInce they have more meta-magic they can stack more meta-magic and make one spell do the job of about 4 or 5 of the same one. And Ax'orl where do you get that it takes a full day for a Wizard to regain a spell? It takes about 9 hours if you cast everyone of your spells, and a minimum of 15 minutes if you leave some blank and fill later, or rest 8 hours and spend a minimum of 15 minutes if you haven't cast all your spells relearning them. Apparently you still don't know the full rules on a wizard preparing spells. Don't argue about something if you don't now all the facts. Also, while your Sorcerer is a spell level behind, the Wizard can use several meta-magic feats before the Sorcerer has a chance. And with preparing the meta-magic. Say your Sorcerer takes a full round to cast a meta-magic spell, well if that spell is countered, you have just waisted a move action to take you away from the action. The movement action could just be what you needed to get away. The Wizard, he can cast it, and take his movement, or do something else. Wizards have the great advantage of pure availablity, and number of meta-magic feats that he can take. Even in Tome and Blood, which was written by some designers, stating that the best feats for a Sorcerer are the standard feats like Spell Focus. They made the game "They know best". But Ax in your own homemade world, you can say whatever you want, but in the rules it's different. Just because "you" can't do something, that doesn't mean it can't be done. I have played, and seen played Wizards that just kick absolute ass with Meta-magic.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-09-04, 01:41 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Anyway, just because some of you don't know how to play a Wizard doesn't mean that thats the way all Wizards are. Just because I play wizards to their strengths doesn't mean we play them incorrectly. I KNOW how to play a wizard. A Wizard has a bigger advantage over the Sorcerer with meta-magic because they 1 get more feats, That's an advantage of their additional feats, not the nature in which wizards cast thier spells when metamagic is involved. 2 don't have to take a full round action to cast phht. hardly any kind of hinderance. Being able to cast metamagic on the fly is greatly superior (with that cost) to being able to cast them as a standard action when they have to be prepared in advance. 3 Gets Quicken and Automatic Quicken at epic levels 1. it's the -only- advantage a wizard gets. 2. Sorcerers can make use of automatic quicken spell in epic. 4 doesn't have to picks permanant spells, or meta-magic feats to fit with their spell selection, The sorcerer's spell selection has little to do with the sorcerer's ability to wield metamagic. You're using a red herring. Furthermore, all spellcasters *should* be picking metamagic feats that synchronize well with their spellcasting methodology, spells known, and/or tactics with those spells known. It's *never* a good idea to pick up a metamagic feat just because you can. why because their selection can change very easily eh? another red herring. 5 SInce they have more meta-magic they can stack more meta-magic and make one spell do the job of about 4 or 5 of the same one. anyone who can make use of metamagic feats can do that. Just becaucse they get more metamagic feats doesn't mean that they're better at using them. In fact, wizards are very inefficient at using many of them. And Ax'orl where do you get that it takes a full day for a Wizard to regain a spell? Page 52 of the 3e PHB states, above the wizard's ability chart; "Spells per Day" Page 53 of the 3e PHB states, in the "spells" description; "[The Wizard] is limited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to her class level. Page 154 of the 3e PHB, in the Arcane Spells column under preparing wizard spells; "It takes [the wizard] a little over half an hour to prepare these spells because they represent a little over half of her daily capacity." and "each preparation counts as one spell toward [the wizard's] daily limit." It takes about 9 hours if you cast everyone of your spells, and a minimum of 15 minutes if you leave some blank and fill later, or rest 8 hours and spend a minimum of 15 minutes if you haven't cast all your spells relearning them. That's right. A wizard requires 8 hours of rest and 15 minutes to 1 hour to prepare the wizard's daily spells. Apparently you still don't know the full rules on a wizard preparing spells. Don't argue about something if you don't now all the facts. :rolleyes: Also, while your Sorcerer is a spell level behind, the Wizard can use several meta-magic feats before the Sorcerer has a chance. You really, really don't know what a well designed sorcerer is capable of, do you? Have you been reading any of the posts that you're responding to? And with preparing the meta-magic. Say your Sorcerer takes a full round to cast a meta-magic spell, well if that spell is countered, you have just waisted a move action to take you away from the action. and this is a problem that sorcerer specifically have because of thier slower casting rate when adding metamagic? How often do spellcasters actually counterspell? whoop dee do... I loose a move action. If I'm actually standing in front of someone, take a 5ft step back, casting on the defensive. The movement action could just be what you needed to get away. could be. more likely not, but certainly could be. But that's why there's fly, dimension door, expedicious retreat, mirror image, invisibility, teleport, ghostform, polymorph, alter self, etc. etc. etc. and all sorts of spells than can be cast to get away to much greater effect. Then there's always the 5ft. step, casting on the defensive. The Wizard, he can cast it, and take his movement, or do something else. wow. for someone not normally involved in direct melee combat, that's rather puny an "advantage." If the sorcerer is so concerned that he'd need a move action, then not casting a metamagic'd up spell would be more prudent than not. Wizards have the great advantage of pure availablity, and number of meta-magic feats that he can take. Even in Tome and Blood, which was written by some designers, stating that the best feats for a Sorcerer are the standard feats like Spell Focus. I don't *care* what they've said about metamagic being bad for the sorcerer. I've played a sorcerer. I've played several sorcerers. I've played numberous wizards. The *best* feats for sorcerers are metamagic feats, regardless of what tome and blood said. They made the game "They know best". :rofl: No, they don't. They know the rules they made better, but they're not all knowing and they're human. Just because they say something, doesn't make them always right. And no, they don't "know best." But Ax in your own homemade world, you can say whatever you want, but in the rules it's different. Just because "you" can't do something, that doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't believe Ax 'Orl stated anything concerning any houserules or anything concerning a "homebrew" campaign. I have played, and seen played Wizards that just kick absolute ass with Meta-magic. So have I. I've just seen sorcerers do better. It's in the very nature of the way they cast spells. Oh, yes, and before I hit the "submit reply" button, I should point something important out, since you're so hung up on what the designers had to say. Quote from a letter by Skip Williams in response to a letter that Jaimas sent him I'm amazed that you think the feats in Tone and Blood are no good for sorcerers. Energy Substitution is a killer for the sorcerer, and *any* metamagic feat is sweet for a sorcerer (except for Quicken Spell). Many folks balk at the full-round casting time, but it sure doesn't bother me, when I play a sorcerer metamagic is that character's best friend. If you haven't been making vigorous use of metamagic with your sorcerer characters, you haven't seen what sorcerers can do. The quote was from Discussing things with Skip Williams (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199655&highlight=Discussing+things+with+Skip+Wi lliams). Skip Williams is the creator of the sorcerer, or at least he was the one that proposed and laid out the basic layout of the sorcerer (although Jonathan Tweet actually wrote up the class.) So that's the end of that.
Ax'Orl 08-09-04, 01:43 AM	To take you to task point by point Xun..... 1 get more feats, As you and others are so fond of saying when a sorcerers MORE spells per day is brought up, more does NOT equal better. More meta magic just means more chances to misprepare spells. It does not matter one whit if you have all the spells and all the feats if your wizard does not prepare them then he cannot use them. That is the power of a spontaneous caster such as the sorcerer, he can apply everything he knows at the proper time. 2 don't have to take a full round action to cast It is not a full round action, you just lose your MEA, big whoop, I am limited to a 5 foot step, if I am so close as to risk being hit if I don't move more than 5 feet, I, as a SPELL CASTER am too freaking close in the first place. 3 Gets Quicken and Automatic Quicken at epic levels Hmmm a feat that requires one to expend a spell slot 4 levels higher than normal for that spell, hmmmmmmm nahhh dont think so, especially if you prepare a quickened spell and then a-dont need it quickened (oops a waste of a +4 level spell slot) or b-(related btw) Need another X +4 level spell which you now cannot cast because you prepared a quickened X level spell. 4 doesn't have to picks permanant spells, or meta-magic feats to fit with their spell selection, why because their selection can change very easily So a sorcerer takes more planning over the long view, should not be difficult for someone of above average intelligence as most RPG'rs are. 5 SInce they have more meta-magic they can stack more meta-magic and make one spell do the job of about 4 or 5 of the same one. Ummmmm see, the wizard has those spell levels, ok level, and only at odd numbererd levels. Where as the sorcerer has the spell slots to burn. Why risk using a higher level spell slot that you might need for a spell of that level, just to have the metamagic'd lower level spell that you MIGHT NOT NEED at all! And Ax'orl where do you get that it takes a full day for a Wizard to regain a spell? Ummmm from the text of the PHB....it is SPELLS PER DAY, It takes about 9 hours if you cast everyone of your spells[quote] only if you have a 9 hour DAY, in which case the wizard is screwed, because he will have to spend all day just resting and prepareing and only have a few seconds to cast all his spells LOL.[quote] and a minimum of 15 minutes if you leave some blank and fill later, LOL and lower your already fewer combat spells per day because that 15 minutes can really be a lifetime if you are relying on it for a combat spellor rest 8 hours and spend a minimum of 15 minutes if you haven't cast all your spells relearning them. at least that part you got right, but if you did not need them yesterDAY, what makes you think you will need them toDAY, Apparently you still don't know the full rules on a wizard preparing spells. [Don't argue about something if you don't now all the facts. Actually it is you who do not know all the facts, either that or the english language is not native for you, you A dont know the meaning of SPONTANEOUS and B Now show that you do not know the meaning of the word DAY, Also, while your Sorcerer is a spell level behind, the Wizard can use several meta-magic feats before the Sorcerer has a chance. How do you translate ONE level into multiple metamagics there are only a few that do not add at least a level to the spell so you can at best add ONE feat to the spell in question. And with preparing the meta-magic. Say your Sorcerer takes a full round to cast a meta-magic spell, well if that spell is countered, you have just waisted a move action to take you away from the action. The movement action could just be what you needed to get away. The Wizard, he can cast it, and take his movement, or do something else. Um....no, the wizard can only MOVE as a move action, or perform a MEA such as DRAWING a wand or weapon, this will not help you anymore than a 5 foot step, and what is a spell caster doing closer than 5 feet from his opponent? Wizards have the great advantage of pure availablity, and number of meta-magic feats that he can take. yes, they have the numbers, but the sorcerer has the advantage of being able to apply what he knows AT NEED Even in Tome and Blood, which was written by some designers, stating that the best feats for a Sorcerer are the standard feats like Spell Focus. They made the game "They know best". No, they know how THEY would play a sorcerer, but their play style and mine might differ, they do not know best, they know how they play. That is like saying, "Because Mc Donalds designed the Big Mac and they say it should have special sauce, They know best and all hamburgers should have special sauce" when in actuality, the special sauce makes you wanna gag. But Ax in your own homemade world, you can say whatever you want, but in the rules it's different. Hmmmm lets see, the phb says spells per DAY,, and the real world has 24 hour DAY,s as do most campaign worlds (or atleast longer than 9 hours) just how is this a "home made" world? I would think that your 9 hour day world is the "home made" one and a pretty sorry one for spell casters at that. Just because "you" can't do something, that doesn't mean it can't be done. I have played, and seen played Wizards that just kick absolute ass with Meta-magic. As have I, when the luck of the rolls on random encounter tables was with them, and they were properly prepared. I have also seen Sorcerer's wax the floor with wizards because they found out what the wizard had prepared and countered it with spells that the wizard was unprepared to defend against.
the Horc 08-09-04, 01:50 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl To take you to task point by point Xun..... It is not a full round action, you just lose your MEA, big whoop, I am limited to a 5 foot step, if I am so close as to risk being hit if I don't move more than 5 feet, I, as a SPELL CASTER am too freaking close in the first place. A Full Round Action is one where you can only take a 5-foot step. Don't confuse it with the term "1 Round Action". Those are for Summoning Spells, and take place on the next round.:D
Ax'Orl 08-09-04, 01:53 AM	Originally posted by the Horc A Full Round Action is one where you can only take a 5-foot step. Don't confuse it with the term "1 Round Action". Those are for Summoning Spells, and take place on the next round.:D I stand nit picked....:blush: thanx Horc
Kaya Kenobi 08-09-04, 01:59 AM	And the Sorcerer was made to make you silly people ask questions on why it was made. :rolleyes:
mercurywyrm 08-09-04, 03:09 AM	The origional arguments are pretty much dead now. This is begging to sound repetitive and it feels like many people are not reading the responses to their own posts. I ask anyone who does not read their responses to their own posts or ignores valididty in such responses to not post here. The last thread got as long as it did by having the same arguments touted again and again by two opposing sides who both paid no attention to the validity of the other's arguments. Ex. Poster A: The wizard has easier item creation, which is cheaper, they get bonus feats to get the feats and it costs negligable EXP after the gravy train. With all these spells from items the wizard makes up for the sorcerer's only advantages, spontaneous casting and more spells per day. Poster B: But the money and XP the wizard is spending to make himself more like the sorcerer is money the sorcerer is using to purchase non charge based magic items and is a level ahead for the sorcerer, plus the sorcerer doesn't have to worry as much about his stuff getting stolen. Poster A: The wizard's stuff will never get stolen, there is no way to rob his leomund's secret chest! Poster B: The sorcerer can defeat the wizard by sneaking up and surprising the wizard while they memorize spells! Also they don't need a spellbook or to spend money and XP just to take advantage of "class features". Poster C: The sorcerer is needlessly nerfed by metamagic rods and quicken and shouldn't have less bonus feats or learn higher level spells slower. Poster A: No, the sorcerer can't defeat the wizard because he can't get into his Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion where the wizard is memorizing his spells. Poster B: This is a cooperation game, not a battle between the sorcerer and wizard! Plus the sorcerer is easier to play and is better for role playing. Poster C: Actually the wizard is better for role playing because they have more skill points thanks to INT casting stat and INT being their priority, sorcerers should have more skill points and class features that fill up their class all the way to LVL 20. Fighter also needs more class features and skills. Poster A: We don't need the sorcerer, they made him as an afterthought, just play a wizard, they are stronger anyway. Poster B: Vancian casting sucks, I wish WIZARDS of the coast didn't favor WIZARDS so much. Poster C: The real problem is that the sorcerer is actually balanced but the wizard and cleric and druid are so powerfull and old school in their abilities that you can't weaken them so the sorcerer needs more flavor and to be powered up to be equal. But then that ruins the melee classes! Poster A: Fighters rawk, rouges rawk more, wizards rawk more than that, clerics rawk more than all those, and druids are actually gods but don't tell your DM that. Poster B: I like to roleplay, rules suck, they just make the game unbalanced. Poster C: I have no life I spend all my time making house rules! Poster A: The wizard has easier item creation, which is cheaper, they get bonus feats to get the feats and it costs negligable EXP after the gravy train. With all these spells from items the wizard makes up for the sorcerer's only advantages, spontaneous casting and more spells per day. Poster B: But the money and XP the wizard is spending to make himself more like the sorcerer is money the sorcerer is using to purchase non charge based magic items and is a level ahead for the sorcerer, plus the sorcerer doesn't have to worry as much about his stuff getting stolen. Poster A: The wizard's stuff will never get stolen, there is no way to rob his leomund's secret chest! Poster B: The sorcerer can defeat the wizard by sneaking up and surprising the wizard while they memorize spells! Also they don't need a spellbook or to spend money and XP just to take advantage of "class features". Poster C: The sorcerer is needlessly nerfed by metamagic rods and quicken and shouldn't have less bonus feats or learn higher level spells slower. Poster A: No, the sorcerer can't defeat the wizard because he can't get into his Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion where the wizard is memorizing his spells. Poster B: This is a cooperation game, not a battle between the sorcerer and wizard! Plus the sorcerer is easier to play and is better for role playing. Poster C: Actually the wizard is better for role playing because they have more skill points thanks to INT casting stat and INT being their priority, sorcerers should have more skill points and class features that fill up their class all the way to LVL 20. Fighter also needs more class features and skills. Poster A: We don't need the sorcerer, they made him as an afterthought, just play a wizard, they are stronger anyway. Poster B: Vancian casting sucks, I wish WIZARDS of the coast didn't favor WIZARDS so much. Poster C: The real problem is that the sorcerer is actually balanced but the wizard and cleric and druid are so powerfull and old school in their abilities that you can't weaken them so the sorcerer needs more flavor and to be powered up to be equal. But then that ruins the melee classes! Poster A: Fighters rawk, rouges rawk more, wizards rawk more than that, clerics rawk more than all those, and druids are actually gods but don't tell your DM that. Poster B: I like to roleplay, rules suck, they just make the game unbalanced. Poster C: I have no life I spend all my time making house rules! ... and so on!
Kaya Kenobi 08-09-04, 03:18 AM	Originally posted by mercurywyrm The origional arguments are pretty much dead now. This is begging to sound repetitive and it feels like many people are not reading the responses to their own posts. I ask anyone who does not read their responses to their own posts or ignores valididty in such responses to not post here. The last thread got as long as it did by having the same arguments touted again and again by two opposing sides who both paid no attention to the validity of the other's arguments. Welcome to the internet, where millions of people surf it, and someone different always posts the same old thing.. It's old to us, but new to them. Let them have their fun, we'll have ours.
baerdith 08-09-04, 06:29 PM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Correcting the sorcerer is easy. Give them the same learning rate as everyone else, bonus feats like a wizard, and have them be able to choose a metamagic feat that no longer takes a full round to use every 5 levels. Just that would be pretty balanced. I would say also add bonus spells know for high INT.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-10-04, 06:39 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl [ [/b] [/b] Hmmmm lets see, the phb says spells per DAY,, and the real world has 24 hour DAY,s as do most campaign worlds (or atleast longer than 9 hours) just how is this a "home made" world? I would think that your 9 hour day world is the "home made" one and a pretty sorry one for spell casters at that. [/b] As have I, when the luck of the rolls on random encounter tables was with them, and they were properly prepared. I have also seen Sorcerer's wax the floor with wizards because they found out what the wizard had prepared and countered it with spells that the wizard was unprepared to defend against. [/B] Apparently you haven't read the players handbook. It doesn't say a day. It takes a Wizards a total of 9 hours to rest and rememorize all of his spells if he casts them all. If you are an elven mage, you are in reverie for 4 hours, meditate for 4 hours and then take 1 hour to memorize your spells. Please read the rules. I will comment on your others later. That comment above was just screaming.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-10-04, 10:51 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Apparently you haven't read the players handbook. It doesn't say a day. It takes a Wizards a total of 9 hours to rest and rememorize all of his spells if he casts them all. If you are an elven mage, you are in reverie for 4 hours, meditate for 4 hours and then take 1 hour to memorize your spells. Please read the rules. I will comment on your others later. That comment above was just screaming. I've already posted exactly where in the (3e) PHB (since I know that's the one you use). just because you seem to have missed it before, I'll repost my previous post, which iterates exactly where the PHB says that the wizard must prepare spells on a daily basis; Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Anyway, just because some of you don't know how to play a Wizard doesn't mean that thats the way all Wizards are. Just because I play wizards to their strengths doesn't mean we play them incorrectly. I KNOW how to play a wizard. A Wizard has a bigger advantage over the Sorcerer with meta-magic because they 1 get more feats, That's an advantage of their additional feats, not the nature in which wizards cast thier spells when metamagic is involved. 2 don't have to take a full round action to cast phht. hardly any kind of hinderance. Being able to cast metamagic on the fly is greatly superior (with that cost) to being able to cast them as a standard action when they have to be prepared in advance. 3 Gets Quicken and Automatic Quicken at epic levels 1. it's the -only- advantage a wizard gets. 2. Sorcerers can make use of automatic quicken spell in epic. 4 doesn't have to picks permanant spells, or meta-magic feats to fit with their spell selection, The sorcerer's spell selection has little to do with the sorcerer's ability to wield metamagic. You're using a red herring. Furthermore, all spellcasters *should* be picking metamagic feats that synchronize well with their spellcasting methodology, spells known, and/or tactics with those spells known. It's *never* a good idea to pick up a metamagic feat just because you can. why because their selection can change very easily eh? another red herring. 5 SInce they have more meta-magic they can stack more meta-magic and make one spell do the job of about 4 or 5 of the same one. anyone who can make use of metamagic feats can do that. Just becaucse they get more metamagic feats doesn't mean that they're better at using them. In fact, wizards are very inefficient at using many of them. And Ax'orl where do you get that it takes a full day for a Wizard to regain a spell? Page 52 of the 3e PHB states, above the wizard's ability chart; "Spells per Day" Page 53 of the 3e PHB states, in the "spells" description; "[The Wizard] is limited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to her class level. Page 154 of the 3e PHB, in the Arcane Spells column under preparing wizard spells; "It takes [the wizard] a little over half an hour to prepare these spells because they represent a little over half of her daily capacity." and "each preparation counts as one spell toward [the wizard's] daily limit." It takes about 9 hours if you cast everyone of your spells, and a minimum of 15 minutes if you leave some blank and fill later, or rest 8 hours and spend a minimum of 15 minutes if you haven't cast all your spells relearning them. That's right. A wizard requires 8 hours of rest and 15 minutes to 1 hour to prepare the wizard's daily spells. Apparently you still don't know the full rules on a wizard preparing spells. Don't argue about something if you don't now all the facts. :rolleyes: Also, while your Sorcerer is a spell level behind, the Wizard can use several meta-magic feats before the Sorcerer has a chance. You really, really don't know what a well designed sorcerer is capable of, do you? Have you been reading any of the posts that you're responding to? And with preparing the meta-magic. Say your Sorcerer takes a full round to cast a meta-magic spell, well if that spell is countered, you have just waisted a move action to take you away from the action. and this is a problem that sorcerer specifically have because of thier slower casting rate when adding metamagic? How often do spellcasters actually counterspell? whoop dee do... I loose a move action. If I'm actually standing in front of someone, take a 5ft step back, casting on the defensive. The movement action could just be what you needed to get away. could be. more likely not, but certainly could be. But that's why there's fly, dimension door, expedicious retreat, mirror image, invisibility, teleport, ghostform, polymorph, alter self, etc. etc. etc. and all sorts of spells than can be cast to get away to much greater effect. Then there's always the 5ft. step, casting on the defensive. The Wizard, he can cast it, and take his movement, or do something else. wow. for someone not normally involved in direct melee combat, that's rather puny an "advantage." If the sorcerer is so concerned that he'd need a move action, then not casting a metamagic'd up spell would be more prudent than not. Wizards have the great advantage of pure availablity, and number of meta-magic feats that he can take. Even in Tome and Blood, which was written by some designers, stating that the best feats for a Sorcerer are the standard feats like Spell Focus. I don't *care* what they've said about metamagic being bad for the sorcerer. I've played a sorcerer. I've played several sorcerers. I've played numberous wizards. The *best* feats for sorcerers are metamagic feats, regardless of what tome and blood said. They made the game "They know best". :rofl: No, they don't. They know the rules they made better, but they're not all knowing and they're human. Just because they say something, doesn't make them always right. And no, they don't "know best." But Ax in your own homemade world, you can say whatever you want, but in the rules it's different. Just because "you" can't do something, that doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't believe Ax 'Orl stated anything concerning any houserules or anything concerning a "homebrew" campaign. I have played, and seen played Wizards that just kick absolute ass with Meta-magic. So have I. I've just seen sorcerers do better. It's in the very nature of the way they cast spells. Oh, yes, and before I hit the "submit reply" button, I should point something important out, since you're so hung up on what the designers had to say. Quote from a letter by Skip Williams in response to a letter that Jaimas sent him I'm amazed that you think the feats in Tone and Blood are no good for sorcerers. Energy Substitution is a killer for the sorcerer, and *any* metamagic feat is sweet for a sorcerer (except for Quicken Spell). Many folks balk at the full-round casting time, but it sure doesn't bother me, when I play a sorcerer metamagic is that character's best friend. If you haven't been making vigorous use of metamagic with your sorcerer characters, you haven't seen what sorcerers can do. The quote was from Discussing things with Skip Williams (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199655&highlight=Discussing+things+with+Skip+Wi lliams). Skip Williams is the creator of the sorcerer, or at least he was the one that proposed and laid out the basic layout of the sorcerer (although Jonathan Tweet actually wrote up the class.) So that's the end of that.
Ax'Orl 08-10-04, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Apparently you haven't read the players handbook. It doesn't say a day. It takes a Wizards a total of 9 hours to rest and rememorize all of his spells if he casts them all. If you are an elven mage, you are in reverie for 4 hours, meditate for 4 hours and then take 1 hour to memorize your spells. Please read the rules. I will comment on your others later. That comment above was just screaming. LOL....that being the case I might like to play in one of your games...an elven Sorcerer...why? Simple....I can theoretically cast....ummmm 188 spells (including cantrips) per day!!! YAY!!! talk about your walking death! FYI that is Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hour Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours!!!! EDIT to add: Oh and to add for HIGH CHA (22 as it is a 20th level) RE eidit to add for you wizard fans.... A wizard palyer using the same book as Xun (his must be a misprint not to include the lines quoted by DOA) would have: 132 including cantrips.
the Horc 08-11-04, 01:38 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl LOL....that being the case I might like to play in one of your games...an elven Sorcerer...why? Simple....I can theoretically cast....ummmm 188 spells (including cantrips) per day!!! YAY!!! talk about your walking death! FYI that is Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hour Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours!!!! EDIT to add: Oh and to add for HIGH CHA (22 as it is a 20th level) RE eidit to add for you wizard fans.... A wizard palyer using the same book as Xun (his must be a misprint not to include the lines quoted by DOA) would have: 132 including cantrips. Dude, do not begin blathering... it only hurts your case. And it does state day. All the tables in the Classes section state "Spells per Day" and in the Magic Overview of the SRD section, the statement says "Daily Limit" From the SRD, Magic Overview Section Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit. Spell Preparation Time: After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state. When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells. Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level. You have a daily limit of spells. You however need an 8 hour rest before being able to prepare your spells at all for the new day. Essentially, listen to TDoA. He's got it right.
Ax'Orl 08-11-04, 10:35 AM	I apologize to tDoA AND to Horc. ;) You are both correct, and I was in the wrong to rub Xun's face in his error.:smirk: It is a DAILY limit as put forth in the PHB and it is SPELLS per DAY, not 8 or 9 and certainly not 4 hours.
malisteen 08-13-04, 02:21 AM	This has probably been mentioned already, but in my mind the favored soul as compared to the cleric seems to indicate that the whole spontaneous casting vs. more spells known + faster progression balances itself out, without needing to take away extra features. This to me implies that the sorcerer should get something relatively equivalent to the five bonus feats awarded to the wizard. Nothing huge, but some minor ability or chain of minor abilities that advance with level. I love the idea of the sorcerer, I really do, but he just seems a little bland. Those who support the sorcerer now, would you be complaining that he was overpowered if he had a d6 hit die, a few extra class skills (diplomacy, intimidate, and maybe perform), and could cast a metamagic spell without extra casting time, allowing quicken, once per day per point of Int bonus (min 0), plus an additional once per day for every full five sorcerer levels? That's the varient I'm currently working on. Nice and simple, though I have been tempted to come up with some adaptation of either the wilder's wild surge or the rage mage's spell rage to make a fluffier if more complex special ability chain.
q'afuu 08-13-04, 05:21 AM	I have no problem with allowing the sorcerer to use metamagics without increased casting time (which would automatically include being able to Quicken), but that's not a change to the sorcerer class - it's a change to spontaneous metamagic. It equally affects bards, and any other class/PrC which casts spontaneously.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-13-04, 09:10 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu I have no problem with allowing the sorcerer to use metamagics without increased casting time (which would automatically include being able to Quicken), but that's not a change to the sorcerer class - it's a change to spontaneous metamagic. It equally affects bards, and any other class/PrC which casts spontaneously. Unless you make the ability a sorcerer class feature.
malisteen 08-13-04, 10:57 AM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Unless you make the ability a sorcerer class feature. Which I was trying to do. I have no problem with restricting spontaneous metamagic to sorcerers, and saying the rest need to get the preperation feat if they want to use quicken or not take more time, as the bard, hexblade, favored soul, etc, all already have a nice progression of abilities apart from their spells. I'm just trying to come up with something that would be unique to a sorcerer. The problem that I have with this ability is that it really only helps sorcerers who want to use metamagic feats, while those who don't still are left with an empty special progression, which is why I'm considering a spell rage kind of thing. But that is more complicated and more difficult to balance.
Tony Vargas 08-13-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by malisteen I love the idea of the sorcerer, I really do, but he just seems a little bland. Sorcerers don't come pre-seasoned, but they're amenable to a wider variety of arcanist concepts than the always-bookish wizard. I think it's desireable to have both evocative, but narrow, classes - like paladins, wizards, & monks, for instance - and more generic, customizeable ones - like fighters, sorcerers, and rogues. Those who support the sorcerer now, would you be complaining that he was overpowered if he had a d6 hit die I'm not a big complainer, and, honestly, I don't see how 1hp per level is that big a deal anymore, now that you get your CON bonus through all 20 levels, and any class can get a 4+ CON bonus. But, it would be... well... inconsistent, for the sorcerer and bard to have the same hd. , a few extra class skills (diplomacy, intimidate, and maybe perform), Even I would have no problem with that. Well, not perform - that's stepping on the Bard's toes, again. and could cast a metamagic spell without extra casting time, That does actually have some potential to be overpowered in the hands of a spontaneous caster. It's not extreme, though. allowing quicken, once per day per point of Int bonus (min 0), plus an additional once per day for every full five sorcerer levels? OK, that would be hard to characterize as overpowered, but it is a bit clumsy. I've rather liked the old idea of making spontaneous metamagic add a move action, rather than going to a full round. (Thus, quicken, for instance takes a move+free action, enabling the two-spell-round thing, while still being slightly restricted...)
the Horc 08-13-04, 01:08 PM	I say, let the Sorc apply metamagic without penalty once per day per point of intelligence bonus, but not more (without feats). Reward the guy that doesn't make Int his dump stat.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-14-04, 10:34 AM	Originally posted by malisteen I'm just trying to come up with something that would be unique to a sorcerer. The problem that I have with this ability is that it really only helps sorcerers who want to use metamagic feats, while those who don't still are left with an empty special progression, which is why I'm considering a spell rage kind of thing. But that is more complicated and more difficult to balance. So far, this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=270422) is the best "flavorful" sorcerer write-up I've seen on these boards. Nice, simple and balanced.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-14-04, 11:01 AM	When you leave spell slots open you can add them any time during the day, but it also says this. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast the spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells. It doesn't say anything about having to wait 24 hours before preparing again. Sounds like if you don't cast all of your spells you don't have to wait a day.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-14-04, 11:42 AM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl FYI that is Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hour Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours!!!! Umm I don't think you make sense there.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-14-04, 12:44 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl LOL....that being the case I might like to play in one of your games...an elven Sorcerer...why? Simple....I can theoretically cast....ummmm 188 spells (including cantrips) per day!!! YAY!!! talk about your walking death! FYI that is Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hour Reverie 4 hours Cast 4 hours!!!! EDIT to add: Oh and to add for HIGH CHA (22 as it is a 20th level) RE eidit to add for you wizard fans.... A wizard palyer using the same book as Xun (his must be a misprint not to include the lines quoted by DOA) would have: 132 including cantrips. 188 and 132? How did you come up with those numbers anyway? If a Wizard takes 9 hours to fully prepare, and spends say 5 hours on the field and then rests and prepares for another 9 hours thats only resting and preparing twice in a day. How do you come up with 132 and 188? They don't even add up. You would have to rest and rememorize maybe about 4 times a day with minimum 8 hours and 15 minutes with the Sorcerer. Thats more than 24 hours.
Ax'Orl 08-14-04, 02:04 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 188 and 132? How did you come up with those numbers anyway? If a Wizard takes 9 hours to fully prepare, and spends say 5 hours on the field and then rests and prepares for another 9 hours thats only resting and preparing twice in a day. How do you come up with 132 and 188? They don't even add up. You would have to rest and rememorize maybe about 4 times a day with minimum 8 hours and 15 minutes with the Sorcerer. Thats more than 24 hours. Using the rules as you read them ( or a book like yours which does not mention spells per DAY as a limit ) an elven sorcerer could go into reverie for 4 hours (rest) then cast spells for 4 hours (that is 62 spells) then enter reverie for 4 hours (rest again) then cast spells for 4 hours (another 62=total 124) then go back into reverie for 4 hours (rest AGAIN) then cast spells for another 4 hours (62more total=186 spells in a 24 hour period.). Not that this could EVER happen because there is a spells per day limiit on ALL casters. The only way to exceed that is via a feat from T&B. Now, if you wanted to only cast for 1/2 hour after each "rest" (roughly 300 combat rounds) you would get....310 spells per day (24 hour day that is) Oh, and BTW these numbers do not include cantrips....wanna add them you can add another 18 (4 hours of casting after each "rest" cycle=total 204) or 30 (1/2 hour casting after each rest cycle=total 340) [/sarcasm] Note: I have read the Sorcerer entry and cannot find anywhere that says he must use a 15 minute preparation time. All it says is[he] is limited to a certain number of spells eadch level per day, but he need not prepare his spells in advance. From this I must assume that once the sorcerer wakens he is ready to cast spells, in other words. if a sorcerer wakens at 6:00 am, he can cast a spell at 6:00:01 if need be. Now, seriously, a wizard CAN leave slots open and prepare the spells later in the day (minimum 15 minutes per) but this has the effect of diminishing his (or her) already lower spells per day in that, if you need that spell during combat you generally do not have the 15 minutes to prepare it. Further, doing so does NOT add to his or her spells per day, just makes them slightly more flexible in terms of utility spells. As I think you are trying to say, a wizard does not have to wait til the following morning to prepare her spells, she justs "rests" again thus starting a new "day" of spells but to do that would mean that by the same token a Paladin could "rest" after using his Lay on Hands ability and 8 (or 4 ) hours later be able to do so again, thus making him able to heal 3 or 4 times per day. A "day" does not end when you rest, yes you generally rest at the end of the day, but just because you have rested does not mean the day has ended. A day is a set period of time. It is 12:44 pm, Saturday the 14th here, I cannot go to sleep now, setting my alarm clock to wake me in 8 hours, and it suddenly be Sunday the 15th. If a wizard wakes at day break on Saturday, prepares his spells, then goes about casting, he has to wait until Sunday to prepare his spells again (barrring open slots) regardless of when his spells run out or when he rests. A wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid etc. has a spell per day limit, now, how long your day lasts that is up to the DM but you can only cast that number of spells during that period, no matter how often you rest during that period. The approach you are taking is the spellcaster equivalent of the "Bag o' Rats"=cast til you run out/rest/cast again/rest/cast again .... rinse/repeat. To quote the 3.0 PHB. (P 53, under spells {right under the picture of Nebin}) A wizard casts arcane spells. She is limiited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to her class level. A wizard must prepare spells ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. note the words PER DAY and NIGHT's SLEEP. As a personal note: I worked night shift for 3 years, I can tell you, from personal experience, generally a person does not rest as well during the day as they do at night. Yes, some have a diferrent circadian rhythm (so called Night Owls) but, THEY must follow their sleep pattern. You cannot switch back and forth as the feeling/need suits you. Doing so will cause your "rest" to not be so restful.
Ax'Orl 08-14-04, 02:24 PM	After walking away for a bit for a smoke I realized somthing....Xun is partly correct (by a literal interpretation of the rules) a wizard (or any spell caster for that matter) could rest at 4 hours (elven) prior to the change of days, then wake and prepare and be ready to cast again. This is similar to working a 12 hour shift (standard 7am to 7 pm at my job), geting off work and going home for 5 hours and coming back at midnight. Yes you are on a new day, but you will have worked a total of 19 hours in a 24 hour period. Basically, a day RL is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate 1 complete turn on its axis. In a game world, this might be the case or a day might be the amount of time it takes the God of The Sun to travel across the world in his firey chariot. If I am not mistaken there was one ancient peoples who had 2 "days" in a 24 hour period...one was lit by the sun, the other by the moon..one day was for work, the other for resting. However it is explained in the campaign world though, a "day" is a set period of time, resting (i.e. the party) does not determine when the DAY starts, the gods, cosmology, physics what have you determine that via the DM. but remember, as often as the wizard rests so does the sorcerer and each time a wizard is allowed to prepare new spells, the sorcerer gains yet another set of slots as well. Also, having each "spell day" be set by when you rest only creates extra needles book keeping. "Ok, the wizard just rested and prepared-his day starts now, sorcerer, you kept watch during that time so you are still on yesterdays spells per day limt, Cleric...Oh you want to rest now OK, your spells per day will start in 8 hours....druid, oh you are sleeping still, you will start yours when you get up....Paladin...since you just used your last HP worth of Lay on Hands, why dont you rest too so that you can add some more healing to the fighter in 8 hours, he needs it. What a confusing mess.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-14-04, 02:30 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl Using the rules as you read them ( or a book like yours which does not mention spells per DAY as a limit ) an elven sorcerer could go into reverie for 4 hours (rest) then cast spells for 4 hours (that is 62 spells) then enter reverie for 4 hours (rest again) then cast spells for 4 hours (another 62=total 124) then go back into reverie for 4 hours (rest AGAIN) then cast spells for another 4 hours (62more total=186 spells in a 24 hour period.). Not that this could EVER happen because there is a spells per day limiit on ALL casters. The only way to exceed that is via a feat from T&B. Now, if you wanted to only cast for 1/2 hour after each "rest" (roughly 300 combat rounds) you would get....310 spells per day (24 hour day that is) Oh, and BTW these numbers do not include cantrips....wanna add them you can add another 18 (4 hours of casting after each "rest" cycle=total 204) or 30 (1/2 hour casting after each rest cycle=total 340) [/sarcasm] Note: I have read the Sorcerer entry and cannot find anywhere that says he must use a 15 minute preparation time. All it says is From this I must assume that once the sorcerer wakens he is ready to cast spells, in other words. if a sorcerer wakens at 6:00 am, he can cast a spell at 6:00:01 if need be. Now, seriously, a wizard CAN leave slots open and prepare the spells later in the day (minimum 15 minutes per) but this has the effect of diminishing his (or her) already lower spells per day in that, if you need that spell during combat you generally do not have the 15 minutes to prepare it. Further, doing so does NOT add to his or her spells per day, just makes them slightly more flexible in terms of utility spells. As I think you are trying to say, a wizard does not have to wait til the following morning to prepare her spells, she justs "rests" again thus starting a new "day" of spells but to do that would mean that by the same token a Paladin could "rest" after using his Lay on Hands ability and 8 (or 4 ) hours later be able to do so again, thus making him able to heal 3 or 4 times per day. A "day" does not end when you rest, yes you generally rest at the end of the day, but just because you have rested does not mean the day has ended. A day is a set period of time. It is 12:44 pm, Saturday the 14th here, I cannot go to sleep now, setting my alarm clock to wake me in 8 hours, and it suddenly be Sunday the 15th. If a wizard wakes at day break on Saturday, prepares his spells, then goes about casting, he has to wait until Sunday to prepare his spells again (barrring open slots) regardless of when his spells run out or when he rests. A wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid etc. has a spell per day limit, now, how long your day lasts that is up to the DM but you can only cast that number of spells during that period, no matter how often you rest during that period. The approach you are taking is the spellcaster equivalent of the "Bag o' Rats"=cast til you run out/rest/cast again/rest/cast again .... rinse/repeat. To quote the 3.0 PHB. (P 53, under spells {right under the picture of Nebin}) note the words PER DAY and NIGHT's SLEEP. As a personal note: I worked night shift for 3 years, I can tell you, from personal experience, generally a person does not rest as well during the day as they do at night. Yes, some have a diferrent circadian rhythm (so called Night Owls) but, THEY must follow their sleep pattern. You cannot switch back and forth as the feeling/need suits you. Doing so will cause your "rest" to not be so restful. No No No...It states in the players handbook that an elven wizard could reverie for 4 hours, meditate for 4 hours and then spend one hour memorizing spells. One think I have wondered though. Since Liches don't sleep, what would their memorizing, or meditating process be? I could understand the clearing of the mind prep, but not the resting.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-14-04, 02:33 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl [B] Note: I have read the Sorcerer entry and cannot find anywhere that says he must use a 15 minute preparation time. All it says is From this I must assume that once the sorcerer wakens he is ready to cast spells, in other words. if a sorcerer wakens at 6:00 am, he can cast a spell at 6:00:01 if need be. Now, seriously, a wizard CAN leave slots open and prepare the spells later in the day (minimum 15 minutes per) but this has the effect of diminishing his (or her) already lower spells per day in that, if you need that spell during combat you generally do not have the 15 minutes to prepare it. Further, doing so does NOT add to his or her spells per day, just makes them slightly more flexible in terms of utility spells. It's on page 156 of the 3.0 PHB. Top of the page left hand corner. Under Daily Readying of Spells.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-14-04, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 188 and 132? How did you come up with those numbers anyway? If a Wizard takes 9 hours to fully prepare, and spends say 5 hours on the field and then rests and prepares for another 9 hours thats only resting and preparing twice in a day. How do you come up with 132 and 188? They don't even add up. You would have to rest and rememorize maybe about 4 times a day with minimum 8 hours and 15 minutes with the Sorcerer. Thats more than 24 hours. THis is the third time I've mentioned this, but... Page 52 of the 3e PHB states, above the wizard's ability chart; "Spells per Day" Page 53 of the 3e PHB states, in the "spells" description; "[The Wizard] is limited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to her class level. Page 154 of the 3e PHB, in the Arcane Spells column under preparing wizard spells; "It takes [the wizard] a little over half an hour to prepare these spells because they represent a little over half of her daily capacity." and "each preparation counts as one spell toward [the wizard's] daily limit." You cannot prepare and cast (not saying you can't prepare OR cast) your spells more than once in a day. All spellcasters have --daily-- spells.
the Horc 08-14-04, 09:17 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek No No No...It states in the players handbook that an elven wizard could reverie for 4 hours, meditate for 4 hours and then spend one hour memorizing spells. One think I have wondered though. Since Liches don't sleep, what would their memorizing, or meditating process be? I could understand the clearing of the mind prep, but not the resting. It's likely they do light activity, like read old tomes, or this week's issue of Better Keeps and Crypts. They pretty much just don't do anything major, that is the nature of the rest period. They don't craft, fight, participate in negotiations, or essentially do anything that is considered strenuous. They could meditate. they could kick back in a recliner, they could listen to music (if they were so inclined), anything along those lines.
Ax'Orl 08-14-04, 10:20 PM	I stand corrected Xun, I rarely play elves therefore did not know the intricacies of the reverie, especially as it pertains to spell preparation/daily spell limits. However, the fact remains (as tDoA has aptly stated and restated) there is a DAILY limit to the number of spells you may cast, taking an 8 hour nap in the middle of the day does not allow one to exceed that. I would point out (the admittedly fluff portion of the "Preparing Wizard Spells" section also says that after a NIGHT of rest, Mialee prepares her spells "come morning". Further down that same section it states: A wizar's level limits the number of spells she can prepare and cast (see Table 3-20: The Wizard, page 52) ...[edit for brevity]...but each preparation counts as one spell toward her daily limit... *emphasis mine. As for leaving the open slots. I would note that under "Preparation Environment" it says: To prepare any spell, the wizard must have enough peace, quiet and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard's surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from over distractions such as combat raging nearby or other loud noises. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might suffer while studying. further, under the "Spell Selection and Preparation" section it states: When preparing spells for the day, the wizard can leave some spell slots open. Later during the day, the wizard can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting.... I hear several posters saying that the open slot can be filled in 15 minutes. However, the text states that the wizard must have time AND circumstances permiting. Now my question is this, as for time, we know 15 minutes MINIMUM but, in the first section it says that a wizard must have 1 hour of REST immediatly prior to preparation so, is it just 15 minutes or 1 hour and 15 minutes? Also, as to circumstances-must the environment fit the "Preparation Environment"? If so, I guess we could forget a wizard who left a slot open using it to cast something for shelter in the middle of a rain storm. On the spell book issue (again) {I apologize as once I started reading the section I could not stop} Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook Time: The process requires 1 day plus 1 additional day per spell level. Zero level spells require 1 day. Hmmmm...twould see that to have all the spells extant as many posters say a wizard has, would requre a major outlay of time neh? By my calculations over 4 1/2 years spent scribing to have all the spells in the 3.0 PHB! (I know, down time is always available when needed, everyone else in the party just sits on its hands) Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up 2 pages of spellbook per level (so a 2nd-level spell takes 4 pages, a 5th-level spell takes up 10 pages, and so forth) A 0-level spell (cantrip) takes but a single page. A spellbook has 100 pages. This flies in the face of those who claim that a spellbook need not be a book. Here it is described as being 100 pages and each spell level recorded in the book requires 2 pages. Thus to have every spell you would need 2804 pages or 28 books! The weight alone of that is 84 lbs, in the time period that most DnD gaming takes place a book of 100 pages is a MAJOR sized tome, paper at that time is thick therefore it is not only heavy but bulky as well. Also, but of little import, this costs (just for the books) 420 gp. Of course a Blessed book alleviates this to some degree, but, at a cost. Also, the BBB can only hold 45 spells per book, to have a complete collection of spells you would need a bit over 7 books (7.2) but, the .2 could be a regular spellbook with the lower level spells in it. [quote]Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell (special quills, inks, and other supplies) cost 100 gp per page.[quote] Hmmm that is a major outlay of cash to write a spell (280,000 gp), note, this outlay also must be paid for using a blessed book! I do wonder if that would be 100 gp per NORMAL page (i.e. 2 pages per spell level) in which case a 9th level spell takes materails = 1800 gp or is it per blessed book page (1 page per spell {I assume from the BBB discription} in which case it would cost 4500 gp to completely scribe a BBB. I do note that the freebie spells a wizard gets each level are excluded from the gp and time costs they are indeed FREE. Thus my time (4 + years) and costs (100 gp per page =280,000 gp) are off but I really dont want to go back an refigure,cause you get the picture.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-14-04, 11:42 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels THis is the third time I've mentioned this, but... Page 52 of the 3e PHB states, above the wizard's ability chart; "Spells per Day" Page 53 of the 3e PHB states, in the "spells" description; "[The Wizard] is limited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to her class level. Page 154 of the 3e PHB, in the Arcane Spells column under preparing wizard spells; "It takes [the wizard] a little over half an hour to prepare these spells because they represent a little over half of her daily capacity." and "each preparation counts as one spell toward [the wizard's] daily limit." You cannot prepare and cast (not saying you can't prepare OR cast) your spells more than once in a day. All spellcasters have --daily-- spells. You are not posting the full listings. You are leaving things out. In the PHB it also talks about this: When you leave spell slots open you can add them any time during the day, but it also says this. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast the spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells. It doesn't say anything about having to wait 24 hours before preparing again. Sounds like if you don't cast all of your spells you don't have to wait a day.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-15-04, 12:00 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek You are not posting the full listings. You are leaving things out. In the PHB it also talks about this: When you leave spell slots open you can add them any time during the day, but it also says this. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast the spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells. It doesn't say anything about having to wait 24 hours before preparing again. Sounds like if you don't cast all of your spells you don't have to wait a day. That's not what my answers were answering. You stated that it is possible to prepare and cast spells more than once in a day, which isn't true. I -posted- what those statements were referring to, and they weren't referring to the wizard's ability to leave spell slots open. Furthermore, I stated where in the PHB it states that those quotes are and they state that those spells are prepared and cast on a daily basis, which -means- a period of 24 hours.
Ax'Orl 08-15-04, 12:14 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek You are not posting the full listings. You are leaving things out. In the PHB it also talks about this: When you leave spell slots open you can add them any time during the day, but it also says this. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast the spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells. It doesn't say anything about having to wait 24 hours before preparing again. Sounds like if you don't cast all of your spells you don't have to wait a day. No, no, no (just had to quote you on that phrase) you are not getting the full meaning of what is stated. Yes, a wizard can prepare spells during the day.....Provided that she has left slots openand time and circumstances permit. However, this does not increas the wizards daily slots. A wizard can only cast (at 20th level) 4 spells of each level (plus bonus spells for high intelligence) PER DAY. Leaving slots open merely means that she has not prepared a spell for that slot....she has 4 slots per level (plus bonus slots for high int) per level per day....assuming 22 int for a 20th wizard that is 4 cantrips, 6X1st level, 6X2nd level, 5X3rd, 5X4th, 5X5th, 5X6th, 4X7th, 4X8th, and 4X9th. Leaving one (or more) of these "open" for later preparation only adds to the wizard's versatility in regards to utility spells, it does not increase her daily allotment. Your earlier post made it seem as if you thought that just by resting for 8 hours, no matter when she rested, the wizard could have that same number of slots available again in the same DAY (24 hours being the normal day) she does not. If she prepares (and/or casts) all her spells with in 5 hours of filling all her slots (i.e. has no more slots available for that day) just resting for 8 hours will not renew her slots, she must wait til the following day to get them back. I think that is where we are failing to communicate. You are confusing the preparation of open slots with the daily preparation. A wizard basically decides what to prepare once per day at which time she may decide to leave some slots open to fill later with needed spells. But she only has X number of slots PER day regarless of whether she fills them all upon waking or fills them later in the day after the required preparation time.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-17-04, 09:11 PM	But it does sound like if the Wizard or Sorcerer doesn't cast all of their spells, then all they need to do is rest normally, and prepare normally, again in the same day.
wolf_mage 08-17-04, 11:27 PM	Edit: Misread. Never mind.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-18-04, 12:15 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek But it does sound like if the Wizard or Sorcerer doesn't cast all of their spells, then all they need to do is rest normally, and prepare normally, again in the same day. Yes, but if you notice in all of the text describing the process of readying/preparing/regaining their spell slots, the book describes the readying of their -daily- spells or the preparation of their spells for that day. They can't prepare and cast their spells more than once in a day. Had this been a while ago, I might have thought the same thing, but I was corrected in another thread.
Ax'Orl 08-18-04, 03:13 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek But it does sound like if the Wizard or Sorcerer doesn't cast all of their spells, then all they need to do is rest normally, and prepare normally, again in the same day. Mayhap to you, however, if that were the case then a sorcerer could cast his maximum number of spells in a combat, less ONE and rest for 8 hours 15 minutes then repeat. If by chance he went to the same plane that wizards who create items go to (where in time flows swifter than on the prime) he could theoretically do so several times per day. It is simply not so, a sorcerer/wizard/any spell caster gets "X" number of spells per day dependent upon their level, no matter how often they rest during that day. No double dipping for any spellcasters when it comes to spells per day.
mercurywyrm 08-18-04, 11:18 AM	Okay, this one argument about how spells per day vs. rest and refresh is getting to be very lengthy and I belive is somewhat off topic, as it applies mostly to spellcasters in general. I personally, would say that after 8 hours of rest/sleep (as per the rules, elven trance isn't an exception for spellcasting, just for fatige and exaustion from lack of sleep) is what the game designers intended to reset the "day" with. In the case of class abilities with uses per day other than spellcasting I belive these are per 24 hour period, but that rest is still reqired to reset it for the next 24 hour period and must be after the last use of the ability to recharge fully. Hopfully this part of the thread will end now?! More on topic, I would say that the reason the sorcerer class SEEMS so unbalanced or usless is because of how precariously the wizard class is balanced and how little of the flavor text made it into the rules. I would say that the sorcerer really needs some "magical" class abilities to make them look better, however, I would say that they are as effective a class as the other casters were intended to be currently, just that the game creators were not paying enough attention to balance of the other caster classes when making the item creation systems and certain spells. As well as adding abilities on top of those such as bonus feats, wildshape, and the crazy way spellbooks are used. Sorcerers need the little flavor bits of their magical nature and heritage to be just as meaty rules wise as the way the wizard's spellbook stuff works.
Tony Vargas 08-18-04, 01:07 PM	I'm not certain of the technicalities, but the impression I've gotten is that Divine casters re-set thier 'day' at a specific time - like 'dawn' or 'midnight' or whatever, and prep thier spells as soon thereafter as possible. No need to rest. Acanists, OTOH, need to rest, but don't need to do so at a specific time of day. So, sure, an arcanist might be able to squeeze two days worth of casting into one 24-hour period, but to do so, he's spending 18 hrs resting and getting spells, and only 6 adventuring and casting them. That doesn't strike me as a very practical schedule. For that matter, depending on what his scheduled prayer time is, a divine caster could also get two sets of spells in one 24-hr period, as long as it's not the /same/ 24-hr period. If you count a 24-hr period from dawn-to-dawn, for instance, a prays-at-dawn caster gets one set of spells in that period, put a prays-at dusk caster can get two in a given dawn-to-dawn 'day' (albiet, at the price of having none the next such 'day').... and, he doesn't need to rest an extra 8hrs to do it. Neither potential 'breaking' of the general 'spells/day' formula strikes me as a major problem.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-18-04, 08:59 PM	Originally posted by mercurywyrm Okay, this one argument about how spells per day vs. rest and refresh is getting to be very lengthy and I belive is somewhat off topic, as it applies mostly to spellcasters in general. I personally, would say that after 8 hours of rest/sleep (as per the rules, elven trance isn't an exception for spellcasting, just for fatige and exaustion from lack of sleep) is what the game designers intended to reset the "day" with. In the case of class abilities with uses per day other than spellcasting I belive these are per 24 hour period, but that rest is still reqired to reset it for the next 24 hour period and must be after the last use of the ability to recharge fully. Hopfully this part of the thread will end now?! Well, regardless of race, 8 hours of rest is still very much required before the preparation process. Even undead, who don't need to sleep at all still need to have an 8 hour rest period. Whether the mage is a level one apprentice, or an epic level archmage. In any case, the PHB mentions several times in reference to a "daily" process when the wizard's preparation/casting is concenerned. Particularly on the pages I mentioned in earlier posts... so... yeah... 24-hour period, but not necessarily at a specific time of day or daily event, as the cleric often does. (Which varies from god to god -- Lanthander, the Morninglord, being at the beginning of each day during dawn, for instance.) So..... yeah. agreed. More on topic, I would say that the reason the sorcerer class SEEMS so unbalanced or usless is because of how precariously the wizard class is balanced and how little of the flavor text made it into the rules. I would say that the sorcerer really needs some "magical" class abilities to make them look better, however, I would say that they are as effective a class as the other casters were intended to be currently, just that the game creators were not paying enough attention to balance of the other caster classes when making the item creation systems and certain spells. As well as adding abilities on top of those such as bonus feats, wildshape, and the crazy way spellbooks are used. Sorcerers need the little flavor bits of their magical nature and heritage to be just as meaty rules wise as the way the wizard's spellbook stuff works. I think people would find the sorcerer less lacking if the sorcerer had class features. It seems that a lot fewer people are complaining about the (3.5e) bard, for instance, now, because the class's special features chart isn't nearly blank. (Among other things.) I think if the same was done for the sorcerer, all these "fix it" threads would virtually dissapear, with only a few militant whiners who don't like the sorcerer for preferencial reasons (or other reasons.) Originally posted by Tony Vargas I'm not certain of the technicalities, but the impression I've gotten is that Divine casters re-set thier 'day' at a specific time - like 'dawn' or 'midnight' or whatever, and prep thier spells as soon thereafter as possible. No need to rest. Acanists, OTOH, need to rest, but don't need to do so at a specific time of day. yeah, that's true for most clerics, who actually depend on regaining their spells at a specific time or even a daily event. (I'm not exactly sure it's even possible for a Cleric of Lathander to regain their spells if there isn't a dawn. Bah. Don't have my faiths and pantheons book at hand atm.) So, sure, an arcanist might be able to squeeze two days worth of casting into one 24-hour period, but to do so, he's spending 18 hrs resting and getting spells, and only 6 adventuring and casting them. That doesn't strike me as a very practical schedule. You can't prepare and cast the same spell slot or spell slots more than once in one day. "each preparation counts as one spell toward [the wizard's] daily limit." I posted that as on Pg 154 on the 3e PHB. For that matter, depending on what his scheduled prayer time is, a divine caster could also get two sets of spells in one 24-hr period, as long as it's not the /same/ 24-hr period. If you count a 24-hr period from dawn-to-dawn, for instance, a prays-at-dawn caster gets one set of spells in that period, put a prays-at dusk caster can get two in a given dawn-to-dawn 'day' (albiet, at the price of having none the next such 'day').... and, he doesn't need to rest an extra 8hrs to do it. Right. Neither potential 'breaking' of the general 'spells/day' formula strikes me as a major problem. Even if the wizard *could* prepare and cast their spells twice in one day (16 total hours of rest + 1/2 an hour - 2 hours of total preparation time) it doesn't leave much, if any, time to do anything else.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-21-04, 11:18 AM	The thing a lot of people are doing is mistaking the Sorcerer as a race in itself. It's not, a Human Sorcerer is still human, and is as human as the next in a general since. Example: My grandfather was from Dublin Ireland, and moved to america when he was a teenager. Now, that is only 1 generation away from me. I am an Irish American, but I was born here in the US so I am still just as American as the next. Get the picture? Now a Demon, or dragon or some other monster that takes on the class would be a monster, but Sorcerer is a class not a race. The way the Sorcerer casts his spells, and the way he knows them is what makes them seperate. That is the basis for the Sorcerer having the blood of a creature or whatever. Giving the Sorcerer other spell-like abilities doesn't make the Sorcerer, it really doesn't make sense. What the Sorcerer needs are little tid-bit things. Like maybe gaining Spell Focus every two levels, or certain skills etc... They don't need spell-like abilities because that is actually what their normal spells are. The Sorcerer is a different spellcaster, not a supernatural thing. That depends on race or a template, or a PRC.
RadicalTaoist 08-21-04, 01:41 PM	No one's disagreeing with you, the Sorc is not a race. I'd have to say that they are balanced. Wizard has more versatility in the long run, Sorcs more versatility at the moment. Both classes can craft items. Both classes should make extensive use of divination spells to be prepared for their day. Metamagic is not a hindrance to the sorc if you are careful - Extend Spell, Persistent Spell for buffs, Delay Spells and you want that extra round anyway. Specializing in a school for those extra slots costs a wizard part of their advantage of "know all spells" flexibility, and they still have less spells and no spontaneous casting. The two classes are balanced, although I must admit that I wouldn't take either of them straight for 20 levels. PrCs are too useful, and what's your benefit? A stronger familiar? Whoop de doo.
Tony Vargas 08-21-04, 03:13 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels You can't prepare and cast the same spell slot or spell slots more than once in one day. "each preparation counts as one spell toward [the wizard's] daily limit." I posted that as on Pg 154 on the 3e PHB. That's an odd thing to quote. THe complete senence is: "She can prepare the same spell more than once, but each preparation counts as one spell toward her daily limit." The feminine pronouns, of course, refering to Mialee, the wizard in the example. That has nothing to do with getting to use the same slot twice in an arbitrary 24-hr period. A much more cogent quote for that is on page 155: "She cannot however abadon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest." Now, if it really were exact 24-hr days, the itallic portion would be something more like "That sort of preparation cannot take place for 23 hrs after spells have been prepared..." Note, for instance, that if you're counting a 'day' from dawn to dawn, while another caster's day is going from dusk to dusk, you can apear, from eachothers point of view, to cast a full set of spells twice in the other's 'day.' 'Day' just isn't that solid - especially for archanists who do not re-set thier days at the same time every, well, day... :rolleyes: (As an aside, it'd be a lot easier if the DM just had an arbitrary 'day' that counted for everyone and everything - dawn or midnight or whatever) ... I think the upshot isn't really that a wiz can cast twice a 'day' but that an archanist's day starts after 8hrs of rest, while a divine caster's day starts at a given time or event that occurs once in 24 hrs. The archanist can't re-use a slot in the same day, but he can start a new day after 8 hrs of rest... so his days can be kinda short - and, compared to not needing to rest to start a new day (but always starting the day at the same time of day), that is sometimes an advantage, and sometimes a disadvantage... Though they are different, there's no real balance issue raised by that difference.
Ax'Orl 08-21-04, 05:50 PM	Actually I prefer to think of a DAY as listed in the phrase "Spells per Day" to mean a DAY. Now, if the DM decrees that a DAY in his world is 23 hours not 24 that is OK but it is still a day. The DM is the arbiter of how long a DAY is and a spellcaster of any sort gets a set number of spells during that period of time. Regardless of how often that spell caster rests. Note, it is not "Spells Per 8 Hours of Rest" it is SPELLS PER DAY. Can these people not understand plain written english? DAY is a unit of time measure. It is fixed and therefore a limit based on that measurement is fixed. One must assume that when the writers/editors wrote Spells Per Day they meant that you only got that many spells within one days time period. Lets analyze what you are all saying: 00:00:01(one second after midnight)-Ms. Sorcererss (level 20) goes to bed 08:00:01-Ms. Sorceress wakes and readies herself to cast spells 08:15:01-Ms. Sorceress is ready to cast spells 08:15:02-Ms. Sorceress enters battle casting every available spell as soon as she can work thru them. 68 rounds of battle. 08:22:00-Ms. Sorceress is out of spells, but also out of opponents 08:22:01-Ms. Sorceress goes to sleep 16:22:01-Ms. Sorceress wakes and readies herself to cast spells. 16:37:01-Ms. Sorceress is ready to cast spells 16:37:02-Ms. Sorceress enters battle again, casting every avalable spell as fast as she can work through them. (same 68 rounds of battle) 16:44:00-Again out of spells and opponents. 16:44:01-Sleepytime again 00:44:01-Repeat cycle. Yes an extreme example but that is what you are saying. I wonder if I can convince my boss that after I sleep for 8 hours it is the next day....hmmm I am off on sunday, maybe I should take a 8 hour nap now so that sunday will get here sooner. After all doesnt a new day start after sleeping 8 hours? :rolleyes: OOOps bad grammar/spelling
Tony Vargas 08-21-04, 08:20 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl Actually I prefer to think of a DAY as listed in the phrase "Spells per Day" to mean a DAY. Sure, no problem. So, a day starting when? For the divine casters, it's easy, since they get new spells at a specific time of day, every day. For the arcanist, though, it's based on getting that 8 hrs of rest. Until then, they can't start thier new day. Sure, in theory that could mean they could go through two 'day's in 18hrs. It could also mean that one 'day' could drag out to 36hrs, if there's no chance to rest for 8hrs during that period...
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-21-04, 09:17 PM	Usually D&D is specific when it comes to descriptions. I think Tony is right, if their DAY ment 24 hours they would have put 24 hours. What about places where time doesn't exist? I also believe that an arcanists day consists of his 8 hour rest. The term day doesn't always mean 24 hours. That is a full day. Sometimes day is 9 to 5, that is condidered a day. Don't people spend the "DAY" at work and go home after 8 or 9 hours. I believe WoTc needs to specify a little better.
Ax'Orl 08-21-04, 09:45 PM	Well, it is obvious to me that WotC decided to use the word DAY as in Spells per DAY as a limt but did not wish to limit the creativeness of DM's. Why force a DM to use a 24 hour day in his world. Day is the limit, however long your DM decides the DAY is is how long you have to wait to get new spell slots open. Resting is the requirement for FILLING those slots, not for gaining them. You gain them automatically at the start of a new day. If the DM decrees that the new day starts at Midnight, then any spells cast after midnight are counted against the spells for that day, even if they were prepared the previous day, however, after 8 hours rest any UNUSED slots for that day (starting at midnight) are available for preparation/casting. If he decides that the "day" starts at dawn then that is when the new day starts. WotC is vague about the amount of time that a "day" entails, simply because they did not want to lock the DM into a standard "RL" type setting. But regardless of how long the day is or when it starts, a spellcaster gets a specified number of spells from that start time to the next start time. No amount of resting will change that. The word DAY is the time limit. It is up to the DM to determine how long that day is, not the spellcaster. Xun, youi commented on "work" day but fail to realize that WotC did NOT say "spell" day, they said spells PER day. A wizard gets a max of 4 (plus applicable bonus spells for high intelligence) spells per level per DAY. No amount of resting will add to that number.
Student Of The Mind 08-21-04, 11:04 PM	The example that follows is taking two characters, both are tenth level. At tenth level, we all know that the wizard should know more spells than the sorcerer, but the sorcerer can fling more spells per day. That's pretty balanced, depending on your style of play. I personally prefer to have my character be able to lug around five spell books full of incantations and be able to sort through the volumes of spells for each day. I do enjoy playing a sorcerer, but I prefer to do a "2 lvl dip" of this class which gives you a good number of low level spells which can help fighters or other classes become a bit more powerful. A wizard prepares his metamagic during his waking ritual, allowing him to cast spells that are "amped" with metamagic and these spells are cast at their normal casting time. A sorcerer must prepare his metamagic during the casting, and this forces the casting to take more time. I'm sure there are feats that can help a sorcerer, but they dont get many during their level advancement...Oh wait, they dont get any! I do like playing sorcerers, but my biggest gripe is the time it takes to add metamagic feats. As I mentioned before, the feats are very unequal. At tenth level a human wizard has 7 feats + the free Scribe Scroll. At tenth level the sorcerer has 5 with no free feat. Yes 2+1 feats might not seem like a lot, but when you can pick up a feat that allows you to maximize, extend, enlarge, empower, or any of the others it is a big big deal to a character. Now as I look at these differences it seems to me like the game designers, no names mentioned, looked at the two classes and said "W1=4 S1=6, W2=4 S2=6, W3=3 S3=6, W4=3 S4=5, W5=2 S5=3....Since this new class can cast a few more spells per day, lets bend them over and have some fun with a Staff Of The Magi" Once you look over the two classes, you can see that the wizard is far more powerful and versitile than the sorcerer. I grant them the fact that having two classes being the same is rather lame, and shouldnt happen...But screwing over one class because they have a slight advantage over another is just something that shouldnt have happened. Maybe give the sorcerer a better feat to level ratio, or maybe they should've given them a feat to level ratio period. I like both classes, though I favor the wizard because of my style of game play, but I think they could've been a little bit more giving to the sorcerer. As is the two dont compare to each other, I'm sure there will be people who disagree, but this is my opinion and my take on this situation. Many thanks and great gaming.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-22-04, 06:47 PM	Originally posted by Student Of The Mind I like both classes, though I favor the wizard because of my style of game play, but I think they could've been a little bit more giving to the sorcerer. As is the two dont compare to each other, I'm sure there will be people who disagree, but this is my opinion and my take on this situation. Many thanks and great gaming. See thats the thing. The two are not supposed to compare. They are supposed to be two completely different classes. Too many people are trying to make the two just alike.
Student Of The Mind 08-22-04, 07:44 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl Of HouseKilsek See thats the thing. The two are not supposed to compare. They are supposed to be two completely different classes. Too many people are trying to make the two just alike. I am glad they are not identical...But they should be comparable in power, if you are going to have two classes compete then they should atleast have fair playing grounds. Like two boxers in the ring, one a heavyweight the other a middleweight...Not gonna be much of a match. It's good the two classes arent the same, because that would be boring, but their levels of power are unbalance...And that was my point to my last post.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-22-04, 09:41 PM	Originally posted by Student Of The Mind I like both classes, though I favor the wizard because of my style of game play, but I think they could've been a little bit more giving to the sorcerer. As is the two dont compare to each other, I'm sure there will be people who disagree, but this is my opinion and my take on this situation. Many thanks and great gaming. See thats the thing. The two are not supposed to compare. They are supposed to be two completely different classes. Too many people are trying to make the two just alike.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-22-04, 10:41 PM	Originally posted by Student Of The Mind I am glad they are not identical...But they should be comparable in power, if you are going to have two classes compete then they should atleast have fair playing grounds. Like two boxers in the ring, one a heavyweight the other a middleweight...Not gonna be much of a match. It's good the two classes arent the same, because that would be boring, but their levels of power are unbalance...And that was my point to my last post. This is basically the breakdown of the two classes. Sorcerer: Good for power now, but not in the long run because it's a limited class. Wizard: Not much power now, but has endless power in the long run. The Sorcerer was not ment as a long run power character. It is for power in the here and now. The Wizard has no limits in it's power, but it can't cast as many spells per day as the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is a "limited" character, I have said it again incase some of you don't understand. Too many people are looking at the Wizard vs. Sorcerer deal, not Wizard vs monsters, dungeons etc, or Sorcerer vs. same thing. Sure the Sorcerer could use a few minor things. But giving them more spells, more feats, and spell-like abilities is not the thing to do. You give them more feats, and more spells that makes them too much like the Wizard. Why give them spell-like abilities when their spells are their spell-like abilities. The Sorcerer actually has more spell-like abilities than most creatures out there. They don't need extra feats like the Wizard because the Sorcerer is not bookish. That is where the bonus feats for the Wizard come from. From research and knowledge. Sorcerer's can't do this, there power is part of them, not something you can write in a book, or put up on a lab table. They don't need more spells known cause they can already cast them more times per day.
the Horc 08-22-04, 10:57 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek This is basically the breakdown of the two classes. Sorcerer: Good for power now, but not in the long run because it's a limited class. Wizard: Not much power now, but has endless power in the long run. The Sorcerer was not ment as a long run power character. It is for power in the here and now. Based on what you are saying, the class is essentially something that was designed for level dipping, and not an actual 20 level class. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Sure the Sorcerer could use a few minor things. But giving them more spells, more feats, and spell-like abilities is not the thing to do. You give them more feats, and more spells that makes them too much like the Wizard. Why give them spell-like abilities when their spells are their spell-like abilities. The Sorcerer actually has more spell-like abilities than most creatures out there. They don't need extra feats like the Wizard because the Sorcerer is not bookish. That is where the bonus feats for the Wizard come from. From research and knowledge. Sorcerer's can't do this, there power is part of them, not something you can write in a book, or put up on a lab table. They don't need more spells known cause they can already cast them more times per day. Well, they need something, and feats are easy enough to implement. And personally, I would think the Wizard vs the Sorcerer is like more like the magical bookworm vs the magical weightlifter. He doesn't study to get his powers, he works out. Think of it like that, and maybe we can justify metamagic feats, spell penetration, and spell focus (basically focus on power rather than creation). And as for what metamagic feats are, think of it like the guy who builds a pully system to lift his weights, vs the strong man who just lifts the weight. They accomplish the same goal, just one does it differently than the other.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-22-04, 11:06 PM	Ugh. This BS again... Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek The Sorcerer is a "limited" character, I have said it again incase some of you don't understand. I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Though you are entitled to your opinion, but that goes without saying. But giving them more spells, more feats, and spell-like abilities is not the thing to do. You give them more feats, and more spells that makes them too much like the Wizard. No, it doesn't "make them more like a wizard." Why give them spell-like abilities when their spells are their spell-like abilities. Umm... a sorcerer is a -spell- caster. Not a spell-like albilities caster. Two wholly different things. The sorcerer does most definately not cast spell-like abilities. The Sorcerer actually has more spell-like abilities than most creatures out there. I'll say this again, just to be absolutely clear: Any creature that can cast any spell like abilities can cast more spell like abilities than the sorcerer, becuase hte sorcerer does not employ spell-like abilities unless the race that took the sorcerer class does. A sorcerer casts -spells.- They don't need extra feats like the Wizard because the Sorcerer is not bookish. what do bonus feats have to do with books? You keep saying that wizards have bonus feats because they're "bookish" but that's your own assumption/opinion, not the game's.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-22-04, 11:09 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek See thats the thing. The two are not supposed to compare. They are supposed to be two completely different classes. Too many people are trying to make the two just alike. Funny, given that they both fill the same general role in the party, comparisons come naturally, given what their position is in a party. Like comparing a barbarian and a fighter and a paladin. I agree that too many people, including yourself, are griping merely because the sorcerer has neither the same weaknesses or the same strengths as the wizard, but using the wizard as a comparison is completely valid.
Ax'Orl 08-23-04, 02:01 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek This is basically the breakdown of the two classes. Sorcerer: Good for power now, but not in the long run because it's a limited class. Your opinion, actually the sorcerer is just harder to play in the long run due to the planning it takes to insure that your spells chosen will be viable throughout your career. The 3.5 spell swap ability goes along way in alleviating that problem. As do metamagic feats. Wizard: Not much power now, but has endless power in the long run. An inorrect assumption. Yes, the wizard is easier to play due to the variety of spells at his disposal however quatitiy does not equal quality nor does quantitiy in this case equal "endless power" the wizard is still limited by fewer spells per day which is actually a good quantification of "power" The sorcerer has more "power" at his disposal in any given day than a wizard of equal level due to his: a> ability to cast more spells per day than a wizard. b> ability to apply his best spell for the occasion at any given time c> lack of dependance on an item for his "power" The Sorcerer was not ment as a long run power character. It is for power in the here and now. The Wizard has no limits in it's power, but it can't cast as many spells per day as the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is a "limited" character, I have said it again incase some of you don't understand. Actually the wizard does have limits on his power, there is NO way in HADES that a wizard can have the right spell ALWAYS available when it is needed w/o DM intervention or some similar circumstance. If there is a "perfect" spell for all occasions, then the sorcerer will definitely have it as one of his known spells. Using divinations to discover the "right" spell set for a day is not a perfect solution, divinations are not perfect, they can be fooled. Random encounters will either sap a wizards prepared spells OR he will not be able to act as a spell caster during them because he has prepared the wrong spell. Before I get the "but a sorcerer cannot have the right spell for the job either because he knows less than a wizard" argument, let me posit this....roughly 70% of all games center around combat or atleast have major combat sections in them...now, in combat the goal is to defeat your enemy, that being your goal ANY damage done to the enemy is good damage therefore a sorcerer with magic missle is capable of ALWAYS being useful in said situations, the wizard is not and the sorcerer can be useful in those situations more often even if the wizard prepares nothing BUT magic missle because a sorcerer has more slots per day AND can decide spontaneously whether Magic Missile or what have you is a better spell to use. Too many people are looking at the Wizard vs. Sorcerer deal, not Wizard vs monsters, dungeons etc, or Sorcerer vs. same thing. In that type of situation the sorcerer will come out ahead more often than the wizard due to his spontaneous spell casting ability (no wasted spells per day) and his greater fire-power (more spells per day) Sure the Sorcerer could use a few minor things.... They don't need extra feats like the Wizard because the Sorcerer is not bookish. That is where the bonus feats for the Wizard come from. From research and knowledge. Sorcerer's can't do this, there power is part of them, not something you can write in a book, or put up on a lab table. Actually this is YOUR take on the situation, the ONLY reason Wizards get more feats is because they are given them in the game mechanics. One could just as easily say that since he does not have to resort to formulae a sorcerer can alter his spells to fit the situation better than a wizard (applying the needed metamagic as needed) and that by merely alterring how he invisions the spell he should beable to cast slightly different versions. For an example look at the movie "Amedeus" though Scaleri(sp?) was a "technical" master of the piano, Mozart (our sorcerer in this example) was able to take his piece and alter it with out thinking on it and made it better. That is why several of us think a sorcerer should get metamagic feats as bonus feats, if ou are a child prodigy will you not "experiment" just to see what you can do? I know if I could suddenly cast a fireball, I would work to see if I could alter it, make it bigger, make it go further, make it cold instead of hot-I would play around with it and see what I could do. They don't need more spells known cause they can already cast them more times per day. Probably true, besides, there is a feat that allows a sorcerer to know more spells and in my game I allow it to be taken as one of the sorcerer's bonus feats. Yes, in the game I am currently running I use an alternate sorcerer...bonus feats at the same levels as the wizard. Wizards get item creation bonus feats and sorcerers get metamagic ones. Wizards get spell mastery as a viable bonus feat while sorcerers get Additional Spell known (T&B). Wizards are not banned from getting metamagic feats, they just have to use their regular feats (every 3 levels) to get them, just as sorcerers are not banned from getting item creation they just have to use their regular feats to do so.
baerdith 08-23-04, 12:52 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Sure the Sorcerer could use a few minor things. But giving them more spells, more feats, and spell-like abilities is not the thing to do. You give them more feats, and more spells that makes them too much like the Wizard. Why give them spell-like abilities when their spells are their spell-like abilities. By that reasoning the Paladin should have NO class abilities. Hey Just let him cast a few cleric spells and make him unable to multiclass or change alignments. Yeah that's balanced with the fighter. See this is the thing. People Like the Sorc. due to Flavor. The same as half-elves. There are not many benefits to either, but it is a flavor thing. Take away the paladin's class features and it is nothing more that a limited flavored fighter. This is the same with the Sorc. It is a limited, flavored, Wizard. More Class features will NOT make it more like a Wizard, with the right features it will make it a better class, less prone to level dipping, and LESS like the wizard.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-23-04, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by Ax'Orl Probably true, besides, there is a feat that allows a sorcerer to know more spells and in my game I allow it to be taken as one of the sorcerer's bonus feats. Yes, in the game I am currently running I use an alternate sorcerer...bonus feats at the same levels as the wizard. Wizards get item creation bonus feats and sorcerers get metamagic ones. Wizards get spell mastery as a viable bonus feat while sorcerers get Additional Spell known (T&B). Wizards are not banned from getting metamagic feats, they just have to use their regular feats (every 3 levels) to get them, just as sorcerers are not banned from getting item creation they just have to use their regular feats to do so. [/B] Of course it is your own world so you can do whatever you want. But let me point out that all Wizards are not item creators. Lots of Wizards specialize in meta-magic. It seems that you are limiting the Wizard in your game with mainly just item creation. But Wizards are meta-magic, and item creation friendly. That is the beauty of the Wizard. I know it's your game. Oh and another thing. On the basis about the Sorcerer being limited. Ok, lets use the gods, well a goddess for example: Mystra from Forgotten Realms. Ok, out of Sorcerer or Wizard, which is she? A Wizard, why? Because as the deity of magic she knows each and every spell ever created and will ever be created. Now, can this be acheived with the Sorcerer, no. The Sorcerer is more of a contained class. Thats why, Dragons also are Sorcerers, if a dragon was a Wizard then his spell list would be outrageous and you would prabably have to increase the DC. But, since Dragons are not PC's, giving them Sorcerer levels keeps them contained.
SuperThread 08-23-04, 08:18 PM	And the Sorcerer was made because?? Because WotC thought they would make more money if they created a spellcasting class that doesn't require hours of micromanagement in preparation for every adventure.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-23-04, 08:43 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek But let me point out that all Wizards are not item creators. *Ahem* at level one, the standard PHB wizard gets a *free* item creation feat. Metamagic for a wizard is simply an alternative if they *don't* want to create items. Though most don't even bother with more than the 5th level feat and go prestige if they aren't interested in item creation, anyway, so that changes nothing. Lots of Wizards specialize in meta-magic. By becoming an incantator. Seriously, the only reason to stick to the wizard's four bonus feats is for item creation. On the basis about the Sorcerer being limited. Ok, lets use the gods, well a goddess for example: Mystra from Forgotten Realms. Ok, out of Sorcerer or Wizard, which is she? A Wizard, why? Because as the deity of magic she knows each and every spell ever created and will ever be created. Now, can this be acheived with the Sorcerer, no. The Sorcerer is more of a contained class. Thats why, Dragons also are Sorcerers, if a dragon was a Wizard then his spell list would be outrageous and you would prabably have to increase the DC. But, since Dragons are not PC's, giving them Sorcerer levels keeps them contained. ... sigh... 1. Yeah, so what if Mystra is a wizard? What does that proove? She also has the salient divine abilities of: Arcane Mastery and Spontaneous Wizard Spells -- which essentialy, at the cost of 2 salient divine abilities, give mystra all of the best advantages of both spellcasting classes. (Although any spontaneously cast spell with an applied metamagic feat must still pay the additional time, if I'm not mistaken.) So Mystra really isn't adhereing to the weaknesses that a wizard naturally has. A sorcerer-equivelent salient divine ability would be something like: Divine Arcane Knowledge -- Cast any spell on the sorcerer/wizard list of the appropriate spell level, even if the spell isn't on the sorcerer's spells known list. and Ultimate Metamagic Mastery -- Any spell cast with a metamagic effect applied does not increase the casting time and the level increase of the spell slot is only +1, although metamagic feats without a level increase remain the same. ... anyway, my point is that referencing to the gods prooves nothing. 2. Dragons are not sorcerers and they indeed can become PCs. 3. This is whole shebang of yours is completely opinionated. The sorcerer is not a "limited class." Total and utter BS.
the Horc 08-23-04, 09:03 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Oh and another thing. On the basis about the Sorcerer being limited. Ok, lets use the gods, well a goddess for example: Mystra from Forgotten Realms. Ok, out of Sorcerer or Wizard, which is she? A Wizard, why? Because as the deity of magic she knows each and every spell ever created and will ever be created. Now, can this be acheived with the Sorcerer, no. The Sorcerer is more of a contained class. The fact that they screwed sorcerers out of any decent divine salient abilities is not something we should be concerning ourselves with. Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Thats why, Dragons also are Sorcerers, if a dragon was a Wizard then his spell list would be outrageous and you would prabably have to increase the DC. But, since Dragons are not PC's, giving them Sorcerer levels keeps them contained. Dragons are sorcerers because they are a much easier class to create spell lists for. Of course, with these arguments, you are saying that the sorcerer IS NOT balanced. You are saying it is such an inferior class that they can justify slapping it on creatures, because it increases the CR by a bit, but not too insanely (even though flavor would definitely seem a bit more of a justification).
mercurywyrm 08-23-04, 09:40 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek They don't need extra feats like the Wizard because the Sorcerer is not bookish. That is where the bonus feats for the Wizard come from. From research and knowledge. Yes, I liked this point, here is an example that supports it, in 3.5 the Psion class is now INT based, meditates, experiments, and studies to get their powers and learn to controll them, they now get all knowledge skills as class skills, and they get bonus feats at the same levels wizards do and with similar choices availible. Then the weilder, who uses cha as a manifesting stat, and uses their powers through intense emotions, gets allot less powers known, (same power points) lots of special abilities, 4 base for skill points, d6 hit die, and better proficiencies. The thing the sorcerer needs is to become more like this, they are a traveler with incredible natural arcane powers, which they evoke through force of personality, and so they should be the arcane equivalent of the weilder, in some ways... Sorcerer's and weilders also share another big difference, sorcerery is far more repetitive and spells are inhernently less versitile than powers, so the sorcerer needs more spells than th 11 total powers the weilder can learn (Psion gets 36) and doesn't really need more spells per day than the wizard if they can make up for lack of being quite as powerfull casters by being competent in other ways.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-24-04, 07:11 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels *Ahem* at level one, the standard PHB wizard gets a *free* item creation feat. Metamagic for a wizard is simply an alternative if they *don't* want to create items. Though most don't even bother with more than the 5th level feat and go prestige if they aren't interested in item creation, anyway, so that changes nothing. That is your opinion. If your Wizard wants to take Item Creation then that is fine, but everyone else doesn't have to. Last time I checked there was nothing written about meta-magic being an alternative to Item Creation. By becoming an incantator. Seriously, the only reason to stick to the wizard's four bonus feats is for item creation. Again that is your opinion ... sigh... 1. Yeah, so what if Mystra is a wizard? What does that proove? She also has the salient divine abilities of: Arcane Mastery and Spontaneous Wizard Spells -- which essentialy, at the cost of 2 salient divine abilities, give mystra all of the best advantages of both spellcasting classes. (Although any spontaneously cast spell with an applied metamagic feat must still pay the additional time, if I'm not mistaken.) So Mystra really isn't adhereing to the weaknesses that a wizard naturally has. A sorcerer-equivelent salient divine ability would be something like: Divine Arcane Knowledge -- Cast any spell on the sorcerer/wizard list of the appropriate spell level, even if the spell isn't on the sorcerer's spells known list. and Ultimate Metamagic Mastery -- Any spell cast with a metamagic effect applied does not increase the casting time and the level increase of the spell slot is only +1, although metamagic feats without a level increase remain the same. ... anyway, my point is that referencing to the gods prooves nothing. 2. Dragons are not sorcerers and they indeed can become PCs. 3. This is whole shebang of yours is completely opinionated. The sorcerer is not a "limited class." Total and utter BS. The point I am trying to make is, the gods who have access to every spell in all the books are not Sorcerers because they are a limited spellcaster. Also, dragons are technically Sorcerers. In normal core rules dragons are not PC's. Please explain in detail to then how you think Sorcerers are not limited. Hmm lets see they can only have a certain numberof spells, eventually, but let me hear what you have to say
MattD121 08-24-04, 11:01 AM	And wizards cast less per day. Does that not make them "limited"? Your idea of "limited" is "Not quite as good as the other classes' *blank*" the *blank* in this case is their spell choice. And the whole god reference is bull. Theres enough salient abilities to make either class have the best of both worlds.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-30-04, 09:20 PM	What happened to the other posts?
Ax'Orl 08-30-04, 09:29 PM	Is it just me or did half the dang thread disappear? If so maybe tis a sign from the gods of "board-dom"??? LOL :angel:
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-30-04, 09:38 PM	I guess I will repost. A few examples at to why a Sorcerer is not as good with meta-magic as some may think. Well, first it takes a full round action to cast a meta-magic spell for a Sorcerer, what that mean incase soem of you don't know is that the spell will not go off until the beginning of the next round. That poses a problem. Firstm while the Sorcerer is waiting for his spell to go off, the other players may have their turns and defeat the monster before the spell goes off. Second, if the spell the Sorcerer is casting is the one that needs to kill the monster, say a maximized offense spell, well if he casts it, and has to wait until the beginning of the next round for it to go off, then if the monster gets to have his turn while the Sorcerer waits, then the party could die while they wait for the spell to kick in. This has happened to us a few times. Now for Horc's previous post. The answer to yours is you are incorrect. Please read the PHB on combining meta-magic for one spell.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-30-04, 09:40 PM	Is it just me or did half the dang thread disappear? If so maybe tis a sign from the gods of "board-dom"??? LOL :angel: Thats ok..We will just get those missing threads caught up... :D
Ax'Orl 08-30-04, 09:47 PM	Thats ok..We will just get those missing threads caught up... :D That might or might not be a good thing...LOL
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-30-04, 09:52 PM	That might or might not be a good thing...LOL True...But we will just have to wait and see....
BlaineTog 08-30-04, 09:58 PM	Is it just me or did half the dang thread disappear? If so maybe tis a sign from the gods of "board-dom"??? LOL :angel: They upgraded the boards and everything from the last week was lost. But you probably knew that. Please, I beg of you: http://cois.vcbf.berkeley.edu/photos/CampusPhotos/GIFS/StopSign58.gif
the Horc 08-30-04, 10:06 PM	I guess I will repost. A few examples at to why a Sorcerer is not as good with meta-magic as some may think. Well, first it takes a full round action to cast a meta-magic spell for a Sorcerer, what that mean incase soem of you don't know is that the spell will not go off until the beginning of the next round. YOU ARE WRONG!!! Casting a Metamagic Spell: Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell. EMPHASIS MINE DOUBLE EMPHASIS MINE Just remember, a Full Attack is a Full Round Action. The Fighter does not, however, finish his attack until next round. A full round action is simply one where you are relegated to a single 5-foot step for movement.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-30-04, 10:14 PM	I guess I will repost. I don't think that's necessary. A few examples at to why a Sorcerer is not as good with meta-magic as some may think. As good as what? The wizard still cannot use metamagic feats as proficiently as the sorcerer can unless the wizard can cast spells spontaneously. Well, first it takes a full round action to cast a meta-magic spell for a Sorcerer, what that mean incase soem of you don't know is that the spell will not go off until the beginning of the next round. This is just sad. The difference between one standard action and one full round is a move action. A spell that requires a standard action to cast means the castesr can cast the spell and take a move action. The full round casting is exactly the same as any other full round action (like a fighter taking a full round action to attack), which only means you don't get a move action, but your spell otherwise comes off as per normal. You're confusing a full-round action and a 1 round action. HUGE DIFFERENCE. What you just described is a 1 round action, whereas a sorcerer casting a spell with an added metamagic feat requires a full-round action. So this whole point is moot because this doesn't happen. That poses a problem. Only if it existed, which it clearly does not. Firstm while the Sorcerer is waiting for his spell to go off, the other players may have their turns and defeat the monster before the spell goes off. Second, if the spell the Sorcerer is casting is the one that needs to kill the monster, say a maximized offense spell, well if he casts it, and has to wait until the beginning of the next round for it to go off, then if the monster gets to have his turn while the Sorcerer waits, then the party could die while they wait for the spell to kick in. This has happened to us a few times. If this has happened to you a few times, then you need to reread the rules. Spontaneously casting a spell with a metamagic feat requires one full round. Not a one round action, which means that you've been unintentionally screwing yourself. Now for Horc's previous post. The answer to yours is you are incorrect. Please read the PHB on combining meta-magic for one spell. How ironic. :rolleyes: EDIT: DOUBLE EMPHASIS MINE D'oh, you got there before me. And with a nifty quote, I might add. I neglected to post one. I need to get used to his new format.
RayOMan 08-30-04, 10:47 PM	Wizards get spells from three sources: -Two or more spells every level. -Captured spellbooks. -Scrolls. Agreed. The first is guaranteed. Again, agreed. The second is common. Wizard opponents are hardly rare, and wizard BBEG's are very popular. Every captured spellbook adds more spells unless the DM carbon-copies you. But while it will pay off greatly in a realistic setting, it can't be 100% counted on. This is campaign dependent. I happen to use Sorcerers as BBEG's more than wizards. Why? I don't have to prepare a spellbook. It is that simple.
the Horc 08-31-04, 01:33 AM	Now for Horc's previous post. The answer to yours is you are incorrect. Please read the PHB on combining meta-magic for one spell. *Resists urge to douse Xun with Gasoline* Wow, I gave a quote (CombatI to be specific), and you claim I'm wrong. The problem is the fact that you are using a 3.0 PHB, and they are not clear on the subject. I have a 3.0 PHB (stupid me, I bought it like a month before the 3.5 came out. Ah well, I never bothered upgrading, and instead abuse the SRD relentlessly :D ), and I can see where you are coming from. It says that spells that take full-round actions occur the next round just before your next turn, and it says that Sorcerers take a full-round action. The thing is, the designers intended for it to be that the Spontaneous Caster takes a normal full-round action (like an full attack action, not a spellcasting full round action, which occurs the next turn), and didn't realize they left it open to the imagination. As such, they didn't clarify it. That is where the confusion comes from. In 3.5, they proceeded to explain how a Spontaneous Metamagic works, but they can't go back and change all the stuff that was sold. They MEANT it to take a normal full round action. They DIDN'T realize that by the way they phrased things, people would believe it would take a Summon Monster style time to cast metamagic'd spells. By the time 3.5 rolled around, they clarified things. I AM right, but you are not at fault for believing otherwise.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-31-04, 02:52 AM	Wow. I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but here's a better explaination right from Skip William's "Spell Descriptions" articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040817a). 1 round: Spells with casting times this long aren't completed in the same round they're cast. You must use a full-round action to cast the spell, but the spell does not take affect until just before your turn on the following round. Remember that this is not the same as casting a spell as a full-round action (as bards and sorcerers must do when casting spells altered with metamagic). Casting a full-round action spell works the same way as any full-round action -- you cast the spell and it takes effect during your turn in the current turn. A 1-round spell takes longer, as explained above, [emphasis mine] :cool: Thank you, good day, you've all been a wonderful audience.
baerdith 08-31-04, 03:32 PM	Is it just me or did half the dang thread disappear? If so maybe tis a sign from the gods of "board-dom"??? LOL :angel: Not really they screwed witht eh board design and everything that was posted while they were screwing wasn't saved.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 08:47 PM	Wow. I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but here's a better explaination right from Skip William's "Spell Descriptions" articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040817a). [emphasis mine] :cool: Thank you, good day, you've all been a wonderful audience. Well I go by what the PHB says.....
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 08:49 PM	Wow. I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but here's a better explaination right from Skip William's "Spell Descriptions" articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040817a). [emphasis mine] :cool: Thank you, good day, you've all been a wonderful audience. You really need to go by what the PHB says...Look under the meta-magic casting for Bards and Sorcerers and then look at the description for full-round action spells.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 08:50 PM	*Resists urge to douse Xun with Gasoline* Wow, I gave a quote (CombatI to be specific), and you claim I'm wrong. The problem is the fact that you are using a 3.0 PHB, and they are not clear on the subject. I have a 3.0 PHB (stupid me, I bought it like a month before the 3.5 came out. Ah well, I never bothered upgrading, and instead abuse the SRD relentlessly :D ), and I can see where you are coming from. It says that spells that take full-round actions occur the next round just before your next turn, and it says that Sorcerers take a full-round action. The thing is, the designers intended for it to be that the Spontaneous Caster takes a normal full-round action (like an full attack action, not a spellcasting full round action, which occurs the next turn), and didn't realize they left it open to the imagination. As such, they didn't clarify it. That is where the confusion comes from. In 3.5, they proceeded to explain how a Spontaneous Metamagic works, but they can't go back and change all the stuff that was sold. They MEANT it to take a normal full round action. They DIDN'T realize that by the way they phrased things, people would believe it would take a Summon Monster style time to cast metamagic'd spells. By the time 3.5 rolled around, they clarified things. I AM right, but you are not at fault for believing otherwise. If even says it in the description for casting full round action spells.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 08:56 PM	Horc...I will post the description about stacking meta-magic for you. Page 78 of the Players Handbook under Multiple Meta-magic...A spellcaster can use multiple meta-magic feats on a single spell. Changes to it's level are cumulative (that doesn't mean they stack). A silent, still version of Charm Person, for example would be prepared and cast as a third level spell.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 09:01 PM	YOU ARE WRONG!!! EMPHASIS MINE DOUBLE EMPHASIS MINE Just remember, a Full Attack is a Full Round Action. The Fighter does not, however, finish his attack until next round. A full round action is simply one where you are relegated to a single 5-foot step for movement. Here is what the PHB says on page 125. A spell that takes 1 full round action to cast is a full round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell.
the Horc 08-31-04, 09:26 PM	Well I go by what the PHB says..... Good for you. And you are right, if you are willing to ignore comments made by Skip Williams, just about everyone on these boards, and clarifications specifically listed in the SRD and the 3.5 PHB. You really need to go by what the PHB says...Look under the meta-magic casting for Bards and Sorcerers and then look at the description for full-round action spells. No, I fully agree that that's what it says regarding full-round spells. It's just that applications of Metamagic were never meant to be as big a nerfing as was seemingly written. This is why they were so clear on listing the clarifications in 3.5. You're free to ignore the 3.5 clarifications, but then you utterly destroy any argument you make with the 3.5 crowd, since it is based on a faulty interpretation of an unclear rule. Heck, why don't you write to the people at the Wizards.com webservice, ask them about it in 3.0 terms (saying specifically that you are using 3.0). Horc...I will post the description about stacking meta-magic for you. Page 78 of the Players Handbook under Multiple Meta-magic...A spellcaster can use multiple meta-magic feats on a single spell. Changes to it's level are cumulative (that doesn't mean they stack). A silent, still version of Charm Person, for example would be prepared and cast as a third level spell. And that has any relevance to anything I have said in any way, shape, or form? And cumulative means that they do stack. You're looking for the term Overlap.
the Horc 08-31-04, 09:28 PM	Here is what the PHB says on page 125. A spell that takes 1 full round action to cast is a full round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. Except they clarified it so that there is an exception with metamagic and Spont. casters.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 09:59 PM	Except they clarified it so that there is an exception with metamagic and Spont. casters. What does it say in the 3.5 PHB?
the Horc 08-31-04, 10:25 PM	What does it say in the 3.5 PHB? Scroll up. I quoted the line from the SRD, section COMBATI (As I said, I am too cheap to upgrade, but here is the line): SRD says: (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/CombatI.rtf) Casting a Metamagic Spell: Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell. Also, tDoA gave us a link to the clarifications listed by Skip Williams, who helped to WRITE the PHB. Skip William says: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040817a )1 round: Spells with casting times this long aren't completed in the same round they're cast. You must use a full-round action to cast the spell, but the spell does not take affect until just before your turn on the following round. REMEMBER that this is not the same as casting a spell as a full-round action (as bards and sorcerers must do when casting spells altered with metamagic). Casting a full-round action spell works the same way as any full-round action -- you cast the spell and it takes effect during your turn in the current turn. A 1-round spell takes longer, as explained above Could someone give us the exact page number please in the 3.5 PHB?
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 10:29 PM	Scroll up. I quoted the line from the SRD, section COMBATI (As I said, I am too cheap to upgrade, but here is the line): Also, tDoA gave us a link to the clarifications listed by Skip Williams, who helped to WRITE the PHB. Could someone give us the exact page number please in the 3.5 PHB? The thing is...There isn't even mention of a 1 round action. The is 1 full-round action. But there is no section describing a 1 round action. If the 3.5 PHB says the exact same thing as the 3.0 PHB then I go along with the books.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 10:41 PM	I kinda feel that it is BS...Sounds to me like the intention was as it is written. They found that the saying could be confusing to some, and with enough people complaining that the Sorcerer needs more, it was a perfect oppurtunity to give the Sorcerer something else. I believe the way it is written in 3.0 was the way it was supposed to be.
Ax'Orl 08-31-04, 10:49 PM	Lawdy lawdy...last thread t'was the definition of spontaneous this one tis the definition of cumulative....lets see *breaks out The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition)" cu*mu*la*tive[b] [pronunciation}adj. [b]1. Increasing or enlarging by successive addition. 2. Acuqired by or resulting from accumulation. 3. Of or pertaining to interest or a dividend that is added to the next payment if not paid when due. 4. Law. Designating additional or supporting evidence. 5. Statistics. a. Of or pertaining to the sum of the frequencies of experimentally determined values of a random variable that are less than or equal to a specified value. b. Of or pertaining to experimental error that increase in magnitude with each successive measurement. hmmmm how many times did the definition mention adding? [emphasis mine] Played your way of course wizards are gonna be major into the metamagic....they get more feats to burn for MM and suffer no setbacks for adding them other than a slight increas in spell level! I too agree with the other posters, using a flawed 3.0 description of how metamagic affects spontaneous spellcasters is not a way to win friends and influence people.
the Horc 08-31-04, 10:55 PM	The thing is...There isn't even mention of a 1 round action. The is 1 full-round action. But there is no section describing a 1 round action. If the 3.5 PHB says the exact same thing as the 3.0 PHB then I go along with the books. Magic Overview says (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicOverview.rtf) CASTING TIME ...A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed. I kinda feel that it is BS...Sounds to me like the intention was as it is written. They found that the saying could be confusing to some, and with enough people complaining that the Sorcerer needs more, it was a perfect oppurtunity to give the Sorcerer something else. I believe the way it is written in 3.0 was the way it was supposed to be. You're allowed to believe that. But then again, I think that you have a faulty argument. I believe that it was a badly worded statement in the 3.0 PHB, that the Skip Williams spell descriptions can be applied across the board in 3.0 an 3.5, and that your claim that the Sorcerer has to wait until next turn to get off their metamagic is probably a faulty notion based on your desire to showcase how inferior the Sorcerer is, and most definitely is an outdated notion.
the Horc 08-31-04, 10:57 PM	I too agree with the other posters, using a flawed 3.0 description of how metamagic affects spontaneous spellcasters is not a way to win friends and influence people. Yeah, it's all I can do to avoid calling for a mass ban of Xun and all his statements.
the Horc 08-31-04, 11:01 PM	The thing is...There isn't even mention of a 1 round action. The is 1 full-round action. But there is no section describing a 1 round action. If the 3.5 PHB says the exact same thing as the 3.0 PHB then I go along with the books. They are referencing the castings times which state: Casting Time: 1 round
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 11:02 PM	Nobody has answered my question. What does it say in the 3.5 PHB?
the Horc 08-31-04, 11:03 PM	The same thing in the 3.5 SRD.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 08-31-04, 11:09 PM	The same thing in the 3.5 SRD. Oh it does does it. Please tell me what page of the 3.5 PHB, not a description online, but the book.
Ax'Orl 09-01-04, 12:37 AM	Oh it does does it. Please tell me what page of the 3.5 PHB, not a description online, but the book. Does it not even matter that the SRD is the same as the PHB with the exception of the lack of proprietary information...Experience tables, some creatures unique to WotC and Items the same for examples? At least with the SRD you CAN look it up for yourself....The SRD was written by the writers of the PHB, DMG, *AND* nearly every other book! Why do you not accept that as a valid source. I add my plea to that of the HORC...could someone provide the man with a page number....my 3.5 books are not available.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-01-04, 12:59 AM	Well I go by what the PHB says..... ... did you even read what Skip Wrote? Have you been keeping track of what those articles are about? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT ARTICLE IS?!?! What do you think all of those articles that Skip is writing are for? Well, since you didn't consider any of the above, I suppose I'll spell it out. They're articles, that Skip, the Sage, THE expert on all things D&D and one of the writers of both the 3.5e and 3e PHB wrote those articles to CLARIFY the rules regarding what those articles revolve around. As far as that quote I posted, that one in particular described casting times as part of the article, which is exactly what we're discussing. You really need to go by what the PHB says...Look under the meta-magic casting for Bards and Sorcerers and then look at the description for full-round action spells. Page 121 of the 3e PHB reads: A full round action consumes all of your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions as your DM allows. Some full-round actions do not allow you a 5-foot step. Note that you can only take a 5-foot step during or after a full-round action is if you still aren't casting a spell. Since using a spontaneously casting a spell with a metamagic feat applied to it requires a full-round of casting, the 3e rules seem to imply that we are correct, as you can take a 5-foot step after a full round action, which a one round casting time does not allow (though they aren't exactly clear, hense, this is where the 3.5 PHB, Skip William's "Spell Descriptions" articles, and the 3.5 system reference document all come in.) Furthermore, you have to read a subtle difference. The page 125 description of a "full round action" refers to a "1 full round action" casting time, as if it were actually already a part of the "casting time" duration of the spell. The description for "one full round" on page 121 implies that one full round casting time means it ends at the end of the casting of that spell on that turn in which it was cast. (Like a full-round attack action from a fighter.) And here's the kicker: It says that when you apply a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell, it requires a full round action to cast, the spell does not aquire a full round action casting time. This is a very subtle difference -in wording-. But it's there and it does point to my emphasis. Though this is why it was clarified. Here is what the PHB says on page 125. A spell that takes 1 full round action to cast is a full round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. Like I said above.... What does it say in the 3.5 PHB? Exactly what we've been saying. You really need to go by what the PHB says...Look under the meta-magic casting for Bards and Sorcerers and then look at the description for full-round action spells. Why should *I* look at it. It's you the one who isn't reading the descriptions or looking any of this up. The thing is...There isn't even mention of a 1 round action. The is 1 full-round action. But there is no section describing a 1 round action. If the 3.5 PHB says the exact same thing as the 3.0 PHB then I go along with the books. No, the 3.5 PHB (and Skip's articles, the 3.5 SRD, and even the 3e PHB) all do not say that. I kinda feel that it is BS...Sounds to me like the intention was as it is written. The "intention" has already been stated by me, quoted from Skip Williams, quoted from the 3.5 SRD, and stated by a number of other posters earlier in this thread and even in the "tell me again why the sorcerer..." thread. They found that the saying could be confusing to some, and with enough people complaining that the Sorcerer needs more, it was a perfect oppurtunity to give the Sorcerer something else. I believe the way it is written in 3.0 was the way it was supposed to be. HAH! Only because it agrees with you and because it hurts the sorcerer, eh? Oh it does does it. Please tell me what page of the 3.5 PHB, not a description online, but the book. The description online is correct. It is exactly what is written in the 3.5 PHB UNDER THE SAME SECTION mentioned in the 3.5 SRD that was quoted (Combat, under the "Full Round Action" description.) You keep telling me that I need to read the PHB. I don't. I add my plea to that of the HORC...could someone provide the man with a page number....my 3.5 books are not available. I have a page number. I just want Xun to actually find it on his own.
MattD121 09-01-04, 10:28 AM	Wow give it up dude the sorcerer supporters won. This is the longest I've seen a wizard supporter fight to prove a point that has already been thoroughly stomped into the ground.
Ax'Orl 09-01-04, 10:48 AM	Wow give it up dude the sorcerer supporters won. This is the longest I've seen a wizard supporter fight to prove a point that has already been thoroughly stomped into the ground. Methinks you missed the "Thread that Shall not Be Named" wherein we went several pages on the topic of and definition of Spontaneous casting and whether or not the Sorcerer was a spontaneous spellcaster. :mymy:
Kem 09-01-04, 05:14 PM	Here is what the PHB says on page 125. A spell that takes 1 full round <removed action> to cast is a full round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. Exactly why you are wrong. Everyone else is reading this sentance correctly YOU are not. I also removed a word that you added. What this sentance says is that for spells that have a 1 Round casting time IN THEIR DESCRIPTION, that they take a full round action. There is no spell in the 3.0 PHB that is a Full Round Action. (Did a search on the 3.0 SRD no matches, so its not that scientific). What this sentence ACTUALLY says is that when you see a spell with a casting time of 1 Round, that you treat it as a Full Round Action and it finishes at the begining of your next turn INSTEAD of normal. References: 3.5 PHB Page 88 (with identical text Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/feats.html) ) Dealing with Spont Casting and Metamagic Feats Page 145 under Full-Round Actions subheading Casting a metamagic spell (Identical Text Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html)) Page 174 Under Casting Time (Identical Text Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicOverview.html) ) Saying that a 1 Round casting time is something else in play. It never says that Full round actions ARE anything. It then says that the spell takes effect at the start of your next turn. Specific Reference to Full ROund actions dealing with spells is IN THE GLOSSARY page 309 (SRD has no glossary). It defines a full round action then defines what a full action is when the casting time is 1 round. SRD 3.0 (My 3.0 books where given away but I would bet cold hard cash that the same things are in the PHB that I can find in the SRD) From the feats part (same as 3.5 PHB/SRD) If its normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell. From the Magic Overview (Difference between 3.0 srd/phb is that it uses 1 full round instead of 1 round casting) A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of the character's... Its the same in 3.0 and 3.5. Many people just misread that and thought that the spell chapter redefined how a full round action works.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-01-04, 08:22 PM	Exactly why you are wrong. Everyone else is reading this sentance correctly YOU are not. I also removed a word that you added. What this sentance says is that for spells that have a 1 Round casting time IN THEIR DESCRIPTION, that they take a full round action. There is no spell in the 3.0 PHB that is a Full Round Action. (Did a search on the 3.0 SRD no matches, so its not that scientific). What this sentence ACTUALLY says is that when you see a spell with a casting time of 1 Round, that you treat it as a Full Round Action and it finishes at the begining of your next turn INSTEAD of normal. References: 3.5 PHB Page 88 (with identical text Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/feats.html) ) Dealing with Spont Casting and Metamagic Feats Page 145 under Full-Round Actions subheading Casting a metamagic spell (Identical Text Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html)) Page 174 Under Casting Time (Identical Text Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicOverview.html) ) Saying that a 1 Round casting time is something else in play. It never says that Full round actions ARE anything. It then says that the spell takes effect at the start of your next turn. Specific Reference to Full ROund actions dealing with spells is IN THE GLOSSARY page 309 (SRD has no glossary). It defines a full round action then defines what a full action is when the casting time is 1 round. SRD 3.0 (My 3.0 books where given away but I would bet cold hard cash that the same things are in the PHB that I can find in the SRD) From the feats part (same as 3.5 PHB/SRD) From the Magic Overview (Difference between 3.0 srd/phb is that it uses 1 full round instead of 1 round casting) Its the same in 3.0 and 3.5. Many people just misread that and thought that the spell chapter redefined how a full round action works. What word did you supposedly remove. Those are the exact words from the 3.0 PHB?
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-01-04, 08:30 PM	... did you even read what Skip Wrote? Have you been keeping track of what those articles are about? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT ARTICLE IS?!?! What do you think all of those articles that Skip is writing are for? Well, since you didn't consider any of the above, I suppose I'll spell it out. They're articles, that Skip, the Sage, THE expert on all things D&D and one of the writers of both the 3.5e and 3e PHB wrote those articles to CLARIFY the rules regarding what those articles revolve around. As far as that quote I posted, that one in particular described casting times as part of the article, which is exactly what we're discussing. Page 121 of the 3e PHB reads: A full round action consumes all of your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions as your DM allows. Some full-round actions do not allow you a 5-foot step. Note that you can only take a 5-foot step during or after a full-round action is if you still aren't casting a spell. Since using a spontaneously casting a spell with a metamagic feat applied to it requires a full-round of casting, the 3e rules seem to imply that we are correct, as you can take a 5-foot step after a full round action, which a one round casting time does not allow (though they aren't exactly clear, hense, this is where the 3.5 PHB, Skip William's "Spell Descriptions" articles, and the 3.5 system reference document all come in.) Furthermore, you have to read a subtle difference. The page 125 description of a "full round action" refers to a "1 full round action" casting time, as if it were actually already a part of the "casting time" duration of the spell. The description for "one full round" on page 121 implies that one full round casting time means it ends at the end of the casting of that spell on that turn in which it was cast. (Like a full-round attack action from a fighter.) And here's the kicker: It says that when you apply a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell, it requires a full round action to cast, the spell does not aquire a full round action casting time. This is a very subtle difference -in wording-. But it's there and it does point to my emphasis. Though this is why it was clarified. Like I said above.... Exactly what we've been saying. Why should *I* look at it. It's you the one who isn't reading the descriptions or looking any of this up. No, the 3.5 PHB (and Skip's articles, the 3.5 SRD, and even the 3e PHB) all do not say that. The "intention" has already been stated by me, quoted from Skip Williams, quoted from the 3.5 SRD, and stated by a number of other posters earlier in this thread and even in the "tell me again why the sorcerer..." thread. HAH! Only because it agrees with you and because it hurts the sorcerer, eh? The description online is correct. It is exactly what is written in the 3.5 PHB UNDER THE SAME SECTION mentioned in the 3.5 SRD that was quoted (Combat, under the "Full Round Action" description.) You keep telling me that I need to read the PHB. I don't. I have a page number. I just want Xun to actually find it on his own. Ok tell me this then...Someone told me that casting a spell is not like swinging a sword as in time frame. Now, if a meta-magic spell takes a full round action to cast, and goes off the same round, and comparing this to a fighter using all of his attacks in a round, what is to stop a spellcaster from not moving at all, and casting two normal spells in a round. he would have plenty of time.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-01-04, 08:36 PM	Apparently what they didn't do in 3.0 was break down the full round action. They didn't make it a difference between 1 full round action, and full round action. They made the one sound like you were just saying that it was just one numerical full round action. If there wasn't such a problem with the wording then they wouldn't post the corrections. But for somone who didn't have the internet, and didn't know about how the wording was supposed to be, then how it is written in the 3.0 PHB is how it would have been.
Ax'Orl 09-01-04, 08:44 PM	Apparently what they didn't do in 3.0 was break down the full round action. They didn't make it a difference between 1 full round action, and full round action. They made the one sound like you were just saying that it was just one numerical full round action. If there wasn't such a problem with the wording then they wouldn't post the corrections. But for somone who didn't have the internet, and didn't know about how the wording was supposed to be, then how it is written in the 3.0 PHB is how it would have been. Ahhh but we are nolonger in the 3.0 world...we have moved on to the 3.5 world... THAT is the standard CORE rules set now NOT 3.0.
RayOMan 09-01-04, 09:22 PM	OFF TOPIC MATERIAL ALERT!!! Quote: "The second and third Matrix movies sucked." I disagree. Actually, whoever said this would be correct. I was fine with the second movie until the end. I never, ever, have walked out of a movie that I paid for before in my life. I left the theater during the third one. My only regret would be that I sat through most of the movie. What a waste of my time. I would rather watch Krull, Sword and the Sorcerer and Bridges of Madison County before seeing the second and third Matrix movies END OFF TOPIC MATERIAL I do want to add that my players have yet to play a 3E/3.5E Wizard. They don't like the slim selection of spells known for the Sorcerer, but they love not having to lock themselves in to certain memorized spells then they guess wrong.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-01-04, 09:30 PM	OFF TOPIC MATERIAL ALERT!!! Quote: "The second and third Matrix movies sucked." Actually, whoever said this would be correct. I was fine with the second movie until the end. I never, ever, have walked out of a movie that I paid for before in my life. I left the theater during the third one. My only regret would be that I sat through most of the movie. What a waste of my time. I would rather watch Krull, Sword and the Sorcerer and Bridges of Madison County before seeing the second and third Matrix movies END OFF TOPIC MATERIAL Hey..There is nothing wrong with Krull...That Ice Pirates and Time Bandits rocked...Guess i'm just old school. I do want to add that my players have yet to play a 3E/3.5E Wizard. They don't like the slim selection of spells known for the Sorcerer, but they love not having to lock themselves in to certain memorized spells then they guess wrong.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-01-04, 09:42 PM	Now that the casting time is cleared up, there is still the limitations of spell casting with the Sorcerer, and the lack of feats that they get. Nobody ever answered my comment about naming a god or goddess of magic that has their main levels in Sorcerer.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-01-04, 10:08 PM	Wow give it up dude the sorcerer supporters won. This is the longest I've seen a wizard supporter fight to prove a point that has already been thoroughly stomped into the ground. Actually, if you look through the archives (I know I've looked through there to get a few links to some dead threads.) You'll find it there. It's called "Tell me again why the sorcerer was ever made?" or something to that effect. Not referring to it by name will only cloud it in obscurity. We want people to remember it as to not repeat it. (Yes, I'm aware that it's too late.) I'd post a link, but I can't find the archives that had all the deleated threads from the former boards anymore. Someone told me that casting a spell is not like swinging a sword as in time frame. That person is wrong. Making one attack or casting one spell is a standard action. Making one full attack or casting a metamagic'd spell is one full round action. Same amount of time, as far as the game goes. Now, if a meta-magic spell takes a full round action to cast, and goes off the same round, and comparing this to a fighter using all of his attacks in a round, what is to stop a spellcaster from not moving at all, and casting two normal spells in a round. he would have plenty of time. Spells require one standard action to cast. Rounds are made up of: a standard action, a move action, and a free action. Spells (and swinging a sword or firing an arrow) take one standard action. Since most spells don't have a "move action" casting time, you can only cast one spell per round because you only have one standard action per round. A "full round" action taking up both a move and a standard action, allowing only a 5-foot step and a free action. Therefore, no two "normally cast" spells per round, unless the casting time or other "normal" manifestation of the spell is a free action, no action (such as a contingency spell going off) or, y'know, something like that. Now that the casting time is cleared up, there is still the limitations of spell casting with the Sorcerer, and the lack of feats that they get. Nobody ever answered my comment about naming a god or goddess of magic that has their main levels in Sorcerer. No god of magic in the original Dieties and Demigods book has levels in sorcerer because they are sorcerers and wizards. ALl of those gods of magic have levels in wizard, but they also have those salient divine abilities that I mentioned (Arcane Mastery and Spontaneous Wizard Spells) that give them all of the advantages of being a sorcerer. Because of that, they aren't even really wizards anymore. They're just sorcerers with all known spells and two fewer spells/day/level.
RayOMan 09-01-04, 10:14 PM	I am old school too. I actually liked Krull, SaS. The younger crowd is spoiled with the success of movies like LoTR. LoTR is a very, very good movie and has good writing and excellent effects. Krull and such are not, but that is what we were stuck with when we were younger.
Ax'Orl 09-01-04, 10:20 PM	No god of magic in the original Dieties and Demigods book has levels in sorcerer because they are sorcerers and wizards. ALl of those gods of magic have levels in wizard, but they also have those salient divine abilities that I mentioned (Arcane Mastery and Spontaneous Wizard Spells) that give them all of the advantages of being a sorcerer. Because of that, they aren't even really wizards anymore. They're just sorcerers with all known spells and two fewer spells/day/level. So, basically, the gods of magic are what certain people want sorcerer's to be, all the benefits of a wizard AND a sorcerer, with few of the disadvantages of the wizard, and none of the sorcerer's disadvantages...i.e. a wizard who can spontaneously cast all the spells he knows (basically ALL the spells in the books and some that are not written in the books) w/o preparation. The only disadvantage being the the lower spells per day of the wizard class.
Rogue1stclass 09-01-04, 10:26 PM	Sheesh... I had a very long and detailed reply to all of these, but the board ate it. Fact of the matter is, Sorcerers cast metamagic spells exactly the same way in 3.5 that they did in 3.0. The wording of the two editions is almost identical on this subject. 1 Full Round has always meant from your turn this round to just before your turn in the next one. A full-round action has always meant all of your actions this turn. While an action that takes 1 Full Round may in fact require a full-round action, a full-round action does not take a full round. Stunning Fist, for example, stuns for a full round. A person stunned is not just stunned for his action (being forced to essentially take the FRA Stunned), but from the stunners action until just before his next. This is an important distinction because any one attacking the stunned character gets bonuses to hit. 3.5 dropped the "full" from the description of a spell that takes a full round to cast, but otherwise, the mechanic is the same. See pages 125 and 142 of the 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs respectively.
Kem 09-01-04, 11:00 PM	They didn't make it a difference between 1 full round action, and full round action. In the 3.0 PHB there is no 1 full round action, the word I removed was "action" just read the quote from you I pointed out which word is removed. 3.0 The PHB says that a 1 full round casting time is a full round action. This spell takes effect at the begining of your next turn. NOT that a full round action that is used to cast a spell takes effect at the start of your next turn but that a 1 full round casting time spell, which means any spell you can find with a casting time of 1 round (summon monster comes to mind) is a full action to cast AND takes effect at the start of your next turn.
Kem 09-01-04, 11:05 PM	Now that the casting time is cleared up, there is still the limitations of spell casting with the Sorcerer, and the lack of feats that they get. Nobody ever answered my comment about naming a god or goddess of magic that has their main levels in Sorcerer. Most of the time the Gods of magic also deal with researching magic and developing magic as an "Art" instead of Magic Itself. Research tends to get people to see them as a Wizard instead of a Sorcerer. Also its a holdover from 2e.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-02-04, 09:40 PM	Actually, if you look through the archives (I know I've looked through there to get a few links to some dead threads.) You'll find it there. It's called "Tell me again why the sorcerer was ever made?" or something to that effect. Not referring to it by name will only cloud it in obscurity. We want people to remember it as to not repeat it. (Yes, I'm aware that it's too late.) I'd post a link, but I can't find the archives that had all the deleated threads from the former boards anymore. That person is wrong. Making one attack or casting one spell is a standard action. Making one full attack or casting a metamagic'd spell is one full round action. Same amount of time, as far as the game goes. Spells require one standard action to cast. Rounds are made up of: a standard action, a move action, and a free action. Spells (and swinging a sword or firing an arrow) take one standard action. Since most spells don't have a "move action" casting time, you can only cast one spell per round because you only have one standard action per round. A "full round" action taking up both a move and a standard action, allowing only a 5-foot step and a free action. Therefore, no two "normally cast" spells per round, unless the casting time or other "normal" manifestation of the spell is a free action, no action (such as a contingency spell going off) or, y'know, something like that. No god of magic in the original Dieties and Demigods book has levels in sorcerer because they are sorcerers and wizards. ALl of those gods of magic have levels in wizard, but they also have those salient divine abilities that I mentioned (Arcane Mastery and Spontaneous Wizard Spells) that give them all of the advantages of being a sorcerer. Because of that, they aren't even really wizards anymore. They're just sorcerers with all known spells and two fewer spells/day/level. After going over the time frames...I see no reason why a hasted spellcaster, who doesn't move at all can't cast two normal spells in one round. Well TDOA, why can't they be Wizards who cast spells like a Sorcerer. Remember, the gods still get those bonus feats from the Wizard class.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-02-04, 09:48 PM	After going over the time frames...I see no reason why a hasted spellcaster, who doesn't move at all can't cast two normal spells in one round. Because they can't. A hasted character (any character) doesn't gain any additional standard actions in one round. Well TDOA, why can't they be Wizards who cast spells like a Sorcerer. Remember, the gods still get those bonus feats from the Wizard class. ?? What??
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-02-04, 11:47 PM	Because they can't. A hasted character (any character) doesn't gain any additional standard actions in one round. ?? What?? When you are hasted you are granted a partial action, which is the same as a standard action, except for minus the move. Where is the problem? You had commented that the Gods are Sorcerers with Wizard abilities, I was just saying that why can't they be Wizards, with Sorcerer abilties. The are classified as Wizards, they gain the extra feats, and the casting in the fly is a feat.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-03-04, 12:10 AM	When you are hasted you are granted a partial action, which is the same as a standard action, except for minus the move. There are no partial actions. They no longer exist. In 3e, all classes could make use of that extra partial action, when it did exist, which means that sorcerers and wizards could both cast two (regular) spells in one round. But 3e material is no longer produced and haste was corrected. Where is the problem? What the hell are yout talking about? You had commented that the Gods are Sorcerers with Wizard abilities, I was just saying that why can't they be Wizards, with Sorcerer abilties. .... I don't recall saying anything of that measure. The are classified as Wizards, they gain the extra feats, and the casting in the fly is a feat. casting on the fly is a Salient Divine Ability, NOT a feat. Gods, using two salient divine abilites (If I'm not misaken, I believe gods recieve 2 + Divine Rank) aquire the best benifits of both classes. Levels in wizard are merely a formality because the god has the best benifits of both classes. The god may as well be a sorcerer with a pair of salient divine abilities that grant them all the benifits of being a wizard. (a feat to be able to prepare spells & a salient divine ability to prepare from all of the sorc/wiz spells known.) I don't even know what your arguement is anymore. This is just a red herring and I think it's because you've run out of feasible arguements. I don't even know why you brought the gods up anyway.
Armoured Priest 09-03-04, 02:05 AM	TDoA, I seem to recall from the previous thread (I could be mistaken) that Xun still actively uses 3.0 not 3.5. This would explain the direction of some of his arguements...specifically haste . Still, any benifits gained by the wizard were also gained by the sorc (or any spellcaster with boots of speed for that matter). The main difference between versions is, of course, the major change to how Haste works.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-03-04, 11:06 PM	Thats right Priest, we use 3.0 only. There is enough material that has come out, that we can continue with 3.0 for many many years to come. TDOA, I was referring to your earlier comment about the gods with the wizard class. You made it sound as if, even though they have the wizard class, they were actually sorcerers with wizard abilities, but it is more the other way around.
Ax'Orl 09-04-04, 12:17 AM	Thats right Priest, we use 3.0 only. There is enough material that has come out, that we can continue with 3.0 for many many years to come. TDOA, I was referring to your earlier comment about the gods with the wizard class. You made it sound as if, even though they have the wizard class, they were actually sorcerers with wizard abilities, but it is more the other way around. Either way it amounts to much the same thing, they are wizards with all the benfits of being a sorcerer and none of the disadvantages. They can cast any spell they know (which is all of them-because they are gods and they are wizards) with out preparation (ah la sorcerer). The only limitation they have on their ability to do so is that they are limited to the wizards number of spells per day. So, lets see...wizards w/o one of the primary disadvantages of wizardry over sorcery...i.e. the inability to alter ones spell selection once that selection is prepared. In fact, they go one better they can prepare a spell w/whatever metamagic they desire and then forego its use to spontaneously cast another spell entirely ah la cleric w/ healing spells....viola-wizard with less drawbacks than the standard and the abiltiy to cast as a sorcerer does with only one drawback that a sorcerer does not have-spells per day.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-04-04, 02:16 AM	Thats right Priest, we use 3.0 only. There is enough material that has come out, that we can continue with 3.0 for many many years to come. TDOA, I was referring to your earlier comment about the gods with the wizard class. You made it sound as if, even though they have the wizard class, they were actually sorcerers with wizard abilities, but it is more the other way around. *shrugs* whatever. same bloody thing, like what Ax'Orl said.
Zelphi 09-04-04, 06:26 AM	Why don't you wizard lovers just quit whinning about how much you don't like the Sorc and let those that do actually like them for their individual strengths play with them. 1. You don't actually have to use them if you don't like them. 2. You don't have to find a way to fix things for people who like them the way they are. Therefore there is no need for a fix, no need for any changes to the Sorc or anything... no point going on about how rubbish they are or whatever. You don't have to play with them - leave them alone. You don't have to play with them - quit whinning and go back to your Wiz/Cle/Dru. Most importantly Shut up - quit whinning and move on.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-05-04, 11:43 AM	Why don't you wizard lovers just quit whinning about how much you don't like the Sorc and let those that do actually like them for their individual strengths play with them. 1. You don't actually have to use them if you don't like them. 2. You don't have to find a way to fix things for people who like them the way they are. Therefore there is no need for a fix, no need for any changes to the Sorc or anything... no point going on about how rubbish they are or whatever. You don't have to play with them - leave them alone. You don't have to play with them - quit whinning and go back to your Wiz/Cle/Dru. Most importantly Shut up - quit whinning and move on. Well then stop whining about how when someone proves a point about the Wizard having more advantages over the Sorcerer.
Ax'Orl 09-05-04, 12:09 PM	Well then stop whining about how when someone proves a point about the Wizard having more advantages over the Sorcerer. But, todate, no one has. Yes a wizard has advantages, but so does a sorcerer, and neither has more -game play- advantages than the other. Flavor advanatages or fluff advantages perhaps but in a game mechanics point of view the classes are balanced. I base this assertion on the ability of EITHER class to be created in such a way that they can face each other on an equal basis (a duel), where in it would all fall to the roll of the dice which one would be the victor. A properly prepared wizard is a force to be feared-by anyone other than another properly prepared wizard and/or a properly prepared (i.e. set up) sorcerer. The wizard has a greater selection at the beginning of the day, but the sorcerer has a greater selection round by round. A wizard has more spells known ( a boon in preparing for a known type encounter ) a sorcerer has more spells per day to expend on casting power.
Sensei Gith 09-05-04, 12:58 PM	Ooh! I like the way they implemented ignore lists!
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-05-04, 09:17 PM	Here are some advantages of the Wizards. 1. Unlimited Spell Selection. 2. More Skills. 3. More skill points cause INT is prime stat. 4. No slow spell level progression. 5. More feats. 6. Scribe Scroll. 7. Doesn't have to wait to gain a level in order to gain spells. 8. Able to learn spells from other Wizards. 9. Able to gain new spells, and be able to make money off of the copies. 10. Quicken Spell feat. 11. No full round action meta-magic. 12. With more skills, and wider selection of spells, Wizards can play more roles than Sorcerers. 13. Better at item Creation. 14. Better able to change spell selection to fit situations...These are some, but I will think of more soon.
Ax'Orl 09-05-04, 11:31 PM	Here are some advantages of the Wizards. 1. Unlimited Spell Selection. It *is* limited as has be repeatedly shown....by time ( takes time to scribe all those spells in a book ) and money (must buy the scrolls to scribe them in the book in the first place) He is also limited to a set number of spells he has available over the period of a day, many times less than that of a sorcerer unless he wants to spread himself so thin in terms of the abiltiy to cast multiple versions of spells ( i.e. more than one of each spell ). 2. More Skills. actually yes he has more skills but those skills are not actually useful in a majority of the combat situations that much of a gaming session is about ( IMHO ) therefore I would say this is not a mechanical (game play) advantage interms of ability as a spell caster-more skills does not make him a better spell caster nor mor able one...a better fount of knowledge yes, IF you actually use the rolls but according to what I have read of your gaming style, I could actually "Role Play" that "advantage" with my sorcerer as easily as you "Role Play" away the sorcerer's high cha. advantage 3. More skill points cause INT is prime stat.[/i] Just as a sorcerer is a better "face" for the party (spokesman if you will) because of his higher CHA due to it being his prime stat, and most CHA skills are usable untrained. [b] 4. No slow spell level progression. Just a lower spell casting ability-i.e. fewer spells per day to apply to a situation. 5. More feats. Actually, this is perhaps their only true mechanical benefit and the one must not understood by me. I know your "fluff" reason, but there is not mechanical reason why. 6. Scribe Scroll. Perhaps an advantage, to gain such a feat for free, but you have said yourself that wizards do not HAVE to be item creators, if you do not use this ability, is it truly an advantage? Further, the use of this ability costs time, XP, and money. 7. Doesn't have to wait to gain a level in order to gain spells. They must either wait a level OR pay (time and money) 8. Able to learn spells from other Wizards. Sorcerer's are able to do this as well, when ever they may gain a new spell known they can "learn" it from several sources-a wizard being one of them...and in the sorcerer's case it costs him nothing to have it always available once learned. 9. Able to gain new spells, and be able to make money off of the copies. for the cost of one feat the sorcerer can make money off his known spells as well...and sorcerers "gain" new spells as well. 10. Quicken Spell feat. a questionable advantage, all it does is allow you to go through your fewer spells per day faster thus making you useless as a spell caster sooner thus a lag on the party because they have to stop what they are doing (not always possible or advisable) to let you rest to re prepare the following day....AND you have to use up spell a higher level spell slot for each quicken you prepare, and what if you don't need those spells quickened? Wasted a high level spell slot that could have been used for a useful higher level spell. 11. No full round action meta-magic. I really dont miss that MEA...my arcanist try to stay out of melee so a 5 foot step does them nicely. 12. With more skills, and wider selection of spells, Wizards can play more roles than Sorcerers. With a Higher CHA the sorcerer can fulfill roles that the wizard will have to use a spell to duplicate, further depleating his already lower spells per day. And, again, many of the CHA skills are useable w/o training therefore if both are untrained, the sorcerer WILL be better at them due to his higher cha. Plus, with proper spell selection on the part of the sorcerer player he can be just as useful in many situations and more in some because he does not have to wait a day to prepare for the encounter[/i] 13. Better at item Creation. Arguably not a real advantage, it takes time/money/XP to create items...all of which are DM and campaign specific 14. Better able to change spell selection to fit situations Given TIME which you are not always allowed, if you need improved invisibilty and do not have it prepared and have already cast your only invisibility spell you kinda gotta wait til tomorrow to be able to change, at least the sorcerer can cast another invisibility, and another, and another if the situation calls for it
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-08-04, 07:11 AM	[/b] It *is* limited as has be repeatedly shown....by time ( takes time to scribe all those spells in a book ) and money (must buy the scrolls to scribe them in the book in the first place) He is also limited to a set number of spells he has available over the period of a day, many times less than that of a sorcerer unless he wants to spread himself so thin in terms of the abiltiy to cast multiple versions of spells ( i.e. more than one of each spell ). [/b] actually yes he has more skills but those skills are not actually useful in a majority of the combat situations that much of a gaming session is about ( IMHO ) therefore I would say this is not a mechanical (game play) advantage interms of ability as a spell caster-more skills does not make him a better spell caster nor mor able one...a better fount of knowledge yes, IF you actually use the rolls but according to what I have read of your gaming style, I could actually "Role Play" that "advantage" with my sorcerer as easily as you "Role Play" away the sorcerer's high cha. advantage [/i] Just as a sorcerer is a better "face" for the party (spokesman if you will) because of his higher CHA due to it being his prime stat, and most CHA skills are usable untrained. Just a lower spell casting ability-i.e. fewer spells per day to apply to a situation. Actually, this is perhaps their only true mechanical benefit and the one must not understood by me. I know your "fluff" reason, but there is not mechanical reason why. Perhaps an advantage, to gain such a feat for free, but you have said yourself that wizards do not HAVE to be item creators, if you do not use this ability, is it truly an advantage? Further, the use of this ability costs time, XP, and money. They must either wait a level OR pay (time and money) Sorcerer's are able to do this as well, when ever they may gain a new spell known they can "learn" it from several sources-a wizard being one of them...and in the sorcerer's case it costs him nothing to have it always available once learned. for the cost of one feat the sorcerer can make money off his known spells as well...and sorcerers "gain" new spells as well. a questionable advantage, all it does is allow you to go through your fewer spells per day faster thus making you useless as a spell caster sooner thus a lag on the party because they have to stop what they are doing (not always possible or advisable) to let you rest to re prepare the following day....AND you have to use up spell a higher level spell slot for each quicken you prepare, and what if you don't need those spells quickened? Wasted a high level spell slot that could have been used for a useful higher level spell.[/b] I really dont miss that MEA...my arcanist try to stay out of melee so a 5 foot step does them nicely. [/b] With a Higher CHA the sorcerer can fulfill roles that the wizard will have to use a spell to duplicate, further depleating his already lower spells per day. And, again, many of the CHA skills are useable w/o training therefore if both are untrained, the sorcerer WILL be better at them due to his higher cha. Plus, with proper spell selection on the part of the sorcerer player he can be just as useful in many situations and more in some because he does not have to wait a day to prepare for the encounter[/i][/b] Arguably not a real advantage, it takes time/money/XP to create items...all of which are DM and campaign specific [/b] Given TIME which you are not always allowed, if you need improved invisibilty and do not have it prepared and have already cast your only invisibility spell you kinda gotta wait til tomorrow to be able to change, at least the sorcerer can cast another invisibility, and another, and another if the situation calls for it 1. Well you do have items such as the Kiira,which stories spells, without having to copy them like in a standard spellbook. Also, in other words, the Wizard could possibly have every arcane spell that exists. 2. Actually, all those Knowledge skills could help with combat..Knowledge of the surrounding lands could help set up an army for battle, finding the best tactical advantage. Knowledge the Planes could help in combat against outsiders, it can tell people what they are fighting. Knowledge Religion can help, because during battle, the party could be facing clerics of an unknown faith, and with this skill the person could determine what faith, and whats best to defeat followers of that particular faith. Those were just a few. 3. Yeah, but CHA will only take you so far unless you have the knowledge to back it up. Darn have to go to work.....I will continue later...
Previn 09-08-04, 09:45 AM	Has anyone ever compaired the Favored Soul of the Complete Divine to the Sorcerer? The favored soul has spontanous casting, more spells known, more hp, a better bab, all good saves more armor and weapon prof and class abilities. Their class abilities also fit with the "flavor" of the class, which is quite good on it's own.
Ax'Orl 09-08-04, 09:47 AM	1. Well you do have items such as the Kiira,which stories spells, without having to copy them like in a standard spellbook. Also, in other words, the Wizard could possibly have every arcane spell that exists. What core book does the Kiira appear in again? PHB? DMG?? MM??? If we are going to be using non-core material we might as well compare such a wizard to one of the Alt. Sorcerer's. 2. Actually, all those Knowledge skills could help with combat..Knowledge of the surrounding lands could help set up an army for battle, finding the best tactical advantage. Knowledge the Planes could help in combat against outsiders, it can tell people what they are fighting. Knowledge Religion can help, because during battle, the party could be facing clerics of an unknown faith, and with this skill the person could determine what faith, and whats best to defeat followers of that particular faith. Those were just a few. No, they help PRE combat, they offer no advantage DURING combat. As the saying goes, no {battle} plan survives the first contact with the enemy. Therefore, all that knowledge only allows a better GUESS at what the enemy will do. Yes it helps but a good spell (better MANY good spells) will help more once the battle is joined. 3. Yeah, but CHA will only take you so far unless you have the knowledge to back it up. Actually, per the rules, you dont have to really know crap about anything if you make the roll. Simple DC check and you "know" what ever it is you need to, at least as far as the tar...chum..su.....other person is concerned, he or she will believe whatever line you spin.
Silverglass 09-08-04, 09:52 AM	Here is a question, what happended to the Leomund's Secret Chest spell, how the :censored: does the enemy steal the wizard's spellbook if the wizard keeps it in THAT? It IS a core spell you know. I'm sure someone answered this but: They steal the replica (which is in fact easier in a way because it is small so sleight of hand works). You need the replica to retreive the chest.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-09-04, 12:09 AM	Ax, I am being brief...I will finish what I was answering later, but I have something else to post. Oh quickly..About the Kiira, I could use core rules, I could use Craft Wonderous Items and craft one. Core rules do not limit you to creating only the items in the DMG, so it could be core :D . Anyway, I was thinking, I believe the best way to upgrade the Sorcerer would be to have Sorcerer only spells and/or a seperate Sorcerer spell list. Bonus feats, more HD, more weapon prof, supernatural abilities, these don't fit the concept of the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is built mainly around his spells. I think having some Sorcerer only spells and/or a seperate spell list would be great.
baerdith 09-09-04, 12:40 PM	Bonus feats, more HD, more weapon prof, supernatural abilities, these don't fit the concept of the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is built mainly around his spells. I think having some Sorcerer only spells and/or a seperate spell list would be great. Sure they do. A Sorceror isn't just spells, neither is the wizard, but you seem to think it is ok for the Wiz to have feats and other abilities. If ANYTHING the Wizard should be more restricted in feats and abilities than the Sorc.
mercurywyrm 09-09-04, 02:00 PM	Arrg, how do you people get your threads to last so long!? I rarely see more than one or two people post replies to threads I make! Anyway, I think this topic is begining to look like it will survive editions as a very contentious issue (as in, even after we get 4th edition there will still be people complaining about this sort of thing, and relating 4th to 3rd spontaneous casters... UHG... as if we didn't get enough throwbacks about the wizard!). I don't particularly think that anyone here is wrong per se. And I don't belive the core rules are perfect, however, even flawed as they are there is one thing I realize, and that is that despite their flaws they are very much still playable, all the classes and races and core rules ARE playable (at least more than a lot of stuff from Mongoose Publishing) and I also see the range of power bettween the classes as a very close thing, the sorcerer and fighter may be the "worst" PC classes, but I would say they are far more powerfull than any NPC class! Here is how I see it. On a scale of 1 to 100 there is at 1 an imaginary class with no class skills, no good saves, d4 hit points, no abilities, no proficiencies, and only 2+int skills. And then at 100 there is a spellcaster class with 9 levels of spells, spells per day of the sorcerer but with complex progression and all spells known, spells being either arcane or divine at caster's option and being able know psionic powers and manifest them with equivalent spell energy, no special alignment restrictions, d12 hit die, all skills class skills, 8+int skills, and a bonus feat chosen from all feats in all official books with no prerequisites required, as well as all good saves. With this scale all the base classes, in my opinion, would fit bettween points 45 and 55. There may be some discrepencies, but they all are within certain guidelines. When you look at the greatest possible extreams the differences bettween the classes doesn't look so bad. So not that I want this thred shut down or anything, I think it is not so neccesary a topic that we need to spend this many posts discussing it. I would rather people review more posts than spend time reviewing gigantic threads like these and giving people looking for imput with short threads (like some of mine, cough, cough) their insight and aid. I also ask that anyone who agrees with me that this thread does not deserve this much contention and attention please read my Nyaa' Hissah race in my sig and give me some comments, it is really lacking in comments vs. material that I posted to get people intrested. I think I may have more flavor text than contained in a players handbook race which is rare on that board, as most have no flavor text at all, and my thread isn't even half the length of most new races there which seem to only have negative comments!? I need criticism! Others need critisism. GO TO ANOTHER THREAD! And just so my post isn't deleted for being off topic, thanks for that bit about the secret chest, I forgot about needing the replica, and also, sorcerer can do cool stuff and seems cool to NPCs, but wizard seems like a geek, even if they are a geek that has discovered how to bend the very fabric of the universe to their will. As far as fun goes, it is special powers vs. geeky occultist. :D
the Horc 09-09-04, 03:06 PM	Oh quickly..About the Kiira, I could use core rules, I could use Craft Wonderous Items and craft one. Core rules do not limit you to creating only the items in the DMG, so it could be core :D . Um, if it isn't in the core rulebooks, then technically, it isn't core. It's the item, not the ability that is the problem. I could custom craft me a ring of Sacred Defense using core rules. This ring that grants me a +5 Sacred Bonus to my Saves may not exist in the core rules (or anywhere else for that matter, though I'm not sure), but using the rules, I could make it. Anyway, I was thinking, I believe the best way to upgrade the Sorcerer would be to have Sorcerer only spells and/or a seperate Sorcerer spell list. Wow, a piece of constructive criticism towards the Sorcerer from you. This, I believe, is a first. Joking aside, that is a good start, but also, there should exist flavor and class features that make the sorcerer more desirable beyond the point it takes to get to the nearest prestige class.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-09-04, 11:03 PM	Sure they do. A Sorceror isn't just spells, neither is the wizard, but you seem to think it is ok for the Wiz to have feats and other abilities. If ANYTHING the Wizard should be more restricted in feats and abilities than the Sorc. Not really, more skills, and more feats actually make sense for the Wizard. It all has to do with the Wizard being bookish. The Sorcerer is slower at working magic, and learning magic. Now, disagree with that.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-09-04, 11:05 PM	What core book does the Kiira appear in again? PHB? DMG?? MM??? If we are going to be using non-core material we might as well compare such a wizard to one of the Alt. Sorcerer's. No, they help PRE combat, they offer no advantage DURING combat. As the saying goes, no {battle} plan survives the first contact with the enemy. Therefore, all that knowledge only allows a better GUESS at what the enemy will do. Yes it helps but a good spell (better MANY good spells) will help more once the battle is joined. Actually, per the rules, you dont have to really know crap about anything if you make the roll. Simple DC check and you "know" what ever it is you need to, at least as far as the tar...chum..su.....other person is concerned, he or she will believe whatever line you spin. I never said the Kiira was in the core rule book. But, the rules on making are in the core book. When using the rules for making items, you do not have to limit yourself to making only items in the DMG. I could come up with the same idea, but call it something different.
Darrett 09-09-04, 11:12 PM	Not really, more skills, and more feats actually make sense for the Wizard. It all has to do with the Wizard being bookish. The Sorcerer is slower at working magic, and learning magic. Now, disagree with that. Actually, the Sorcerer just attains the ability to use new spells. There's not really much learning about it. It's why a Sorcerer starts with more weapon proficiencies than a Wizard... he's had more time to learn these things since he hasn't had his nose in a Spellbook. It'd be logical for Sorcerers to gain bonus feats that give Martial Weapon Proficiencies, Rapid Reload and the like, I'd say.
Ax'Orl 09-09-04, 11:39 PM	I never said the Kiira was in the core rule book. But, the rules on making are in the core book. When using the rules for making items, you do not have to limit yourself to making only items in the DMG. I could come up with the same idea, but call it something different. But Xun, you mist the point, if you start "creating" magic items that are not in the Core books then they are not core...regardless of whether you follow the rules for their creation or not. According to the CORE rules a wizard must use a BOOK (leather bound, with 100 pages etc. etc.) to store his spells...or a Boccob's Blessed Book. If you do not wish to follow the CORE rules (i.e. no "one off" items) then it would be simple to have a sorcerer be way more powerful than a wizard....one spell is all it would take....Sorcerer ONLY as you mentioned in your post. Researched and created by a Sorcerer, useable only by a spontaneous spellcaster, and NEVER written down....bang, your wizard can NEVER learn this spell of ultimate doom to prepared spellcasters. Sure, the spell does not exist, but the rules for creating it are there. {EDIT TO ADD} This my friends is an advantage that a sorcerer has over a wizard....a sorcerer can create UNIQUE spells that are HIS and his alone...he has no need to write them down therefore no one can copy them. A wizard MUST write his down and thus all of his spells are copiable....Oh, a wizard may "duplicate" a sorcerer's spell, but he can never use it, especially if it is spontaneous spellcasters only....if the wizard makes a "prepared spellcasters" only spell, there is a CORE feat that would allow a sorcerer to know that spell (or rather USE it) Arcane Preparation. There is no (TMK) Core feat that allows a wizard to cast spontaneously. That in and of itself ought to show the power of spontaneous spellcasting. The editors saw that Arcane Preparation is useful, but not overpowering, but allowing a "prepared" spell caster to "spontaneously" cast any of his spells IS over powering.{/edit} This example you have given is like the situation on the "thread that shall not be named" wherein everyone created their characters based on a 25 point buy, whilst you created yours based on your (unobserved) die rolls....if not mistaken you had at least 2 scores in excess of 17 and the lowest was a 12? Yes it is by the rules but in a discussion about the strengths and weakness of any class, and especially when comparing two classes, one MUST maintain a common ground, and in this case the common ground is "if it is not mentioned in the core books, it is not available"
baerdith 09-11-04, 01:30 AM	Not really, more skills, and more feats actually make sense for the Wizard. It all has to do with the Wizard being bookish. The Sorcerer is slower at working magic, and learning magic. Now, disagree with that. Fine. Here is the argument: The Wizards are the Real Life 98 lb. Geek in High school. They study as much as they possibly can. They are pale and pasty and couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but, given enough time, they can solve that Calculus problem (magic spell). The Sorcerors are like the 'secret brains' who are the popular kids who never study, but it all comes naturally to them. Since they aren't studying as much as the Wizards, they have more time to develop 'non-brain' skills and feats, as well as skills and feats that increase their power. Think 'Captain of the Football team' He doesn't study, he just 'knows it', he has more time to work out, get the girls (know what to do with the girls), pick up other skills and maybe even figure out a way to 'fine tune' the geeks solution to the Calculus problem. Bards are much the same (but usually are either the 'head band guy' or the class clown) they usually don't have to study as much either, they just seem to get lucky. Argue THAT.
BlaineTog 09-11-04, 01:53 AM	The Sorcerors are like the 'secret brains' who are the popular kids who never study, but it all comes naturally to them. Since they aren't studying as much as the Wizards, they have more time to develop 'non-brain' skills and feats, as well as skills and feats that increase their power. Think 'Captain of the Football team' He doesn't study, he just 'knows it', he has more time to work out, get the girls (know what to do with the girls), pick up other skills and maybe even figure out a way to 'fine tune' the geeks solution to the Calculus problem.Not at all. If they didn't have to put the work in, then "Sorcerer" would be a template based on hit dice. No, its more like this: Wizards are the students who sit in the classroom, learning all the formulas from the teacher and/or textbook. They spend their time committing these methods to memory. Sorcerers are like the kids who cut class and then go home, sit down, and work on the homework. A combination of natural talent and a lot of practice with the nuances of numbers, they end up with the same results. They spend virtually the same amount of time on math. However, there is a difference in how they do this. Wizards work with pre-determined formulae. They know quite a few, but in an encyclopedic sense. If they want to do something different with them, they have to derrive a whole new formula. Sorcerers, on the other hand, absolutelly know a smaller number of formulae, but they can do whatever they want with them whenever they want to do it. They spend their time learning all about the new things they can do with just these few formulae, but they do spend that time. Instead of reading it out of a book, however, they sit around with a lot of scratch paper.
Zelphi 09-11-04, 05:25 AM	Waa waa waa... this shoe doesn't fit... please mr shoe maker fix it so I can wear them properly... I don't want to wear those stupid looking Wizard ones. You knows it's true, you want to be the Sorc but you can't do it right so you have to complain about them... Why where sorcs made? Because some people think Wizards are abosolute crap. Recently it was pointed out to me that my group had been incorrectly assuming that the daily casting limit was just between 8 hour resting periods.. but no - it's an actual daily casting limit. Imeadiate thought to everyone - Wizzies really are the suck. You can cast every spell in existance - pity you didn't prepare the right ones and now have very very little to fall back on. Unlike the Sorc - who picked some generic spells that can handle or provide solutions to more common problems. When's the last time you actually needed to cast any spell in existance? Or did some other spell do? Can you really give a time when you really needed to cast a specific spell, and why a Sorc couldn't either pick it or cast it off a scroll? Then bring up the frequency of such events and ask why the DM brought this up? Then go into details of how a party without a Wizard (or Sorc) can overcome such an obsticle? Because such a threat is what you're effectively complaining is a weakness of the Sorc. If there is no answer, then ask yourself, why is the DM throwing impossible tasks at a party, and what validity does such an example have? You had a point? It seems to be blunt. Just because Sorcs don't suit your needs, don't mean they don't suit others and vice versa applied to Wizards. You could never, ever, in all eternity and beyond - convince me that properly played by the rules and realisitically applied aren't a bit naff. Then you could look at every advantage they supposedly have and put it down to either A) 3.5 being crud B) Mechanics that aren't being applied properly or that are being exploited. If it's the later - then that's not much - Wizards have more potential to break the game than Sorcs - that's just an advocation that Wizards should be nerfed or put down.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-11-04, 02:43 PM	But Xun, you mist the point, if you start "creating" magic items that are not in the Core books then they are not core...regardless of whether you follow the rules for their creation or not. According to the CORE rules a wizard must use a BOOK (leather bound, with 100 pages etc. etc.) to store his spells...or a Boccob's Blessed Book. If you do not wish to follow the CORE rules (i.e. no "one off" items) then it would be simple to have a sorcerer be way more powerful than a wizard....one spell is all it would take....Sorcerer ONLY as you mentioned in your post. Researched and created by a Sorcerer, useable only by a spontaneous spellcaster, and NEVER written down....bang, your wizard can NEVER learn this spell of ultimate doom to prepared spellcasters. Sure, the spell does not exist, but the rules for creating it are there. {EDIT TO ADD} This my friends is an advantage that a sorcerer has over a wizard....a sorcerer can create UNIQUE spells that are HIS and his alone...he has no need to write them down therefore no one can copy them. A wizard MUST write his down and thus all of his spells are copiable....Oh, a wizard may "duplicate" a sorcerer's spell, but he can never use it, especially if it is spontaneous spellcasters only....if the wizard makes a "prepared spellcasters" only spell, there is a CORE feat that would allow a sorcerer to know that spell (or rather USE it) Arcane Preparation. There is no (TMK) Core feat that allows a wizard to cast spontaneously. That in and of itself ought to show the power of spontaneous spellcasting. The editors saw that Arcane Preparation is useful, but not overpowering, but allowing a "prepared" spell caster to "spontaneously" cast any of his spells IS over powering.{/edit} This example you have given is like the situation on the "thread that shall not be named" wherein everyone created their characters based on a 25 point buy, whilst you created yours based on your (unobserved) die rolls....if not mistaken you had at least 2 scores in excess of 17 and the lowest was a 12? Yes it is by the rules but in a discussion about the strengths and weakness of any class, and especially when comparing two classes, one MUST maintain a common ground, and in this case the common ground is "if it is not mentioned in the core books, it is not available" Actually Ax you are wrong..There are no Sorcerer only spells. Let me use your Simbul that you were using before. All of the spells that she created someone else knows. You see, since the SOrcerer has to go through the same casting process that the Wizard goes through. The wizard can use a good old knowledge arcana or spellcraft check, and basically figure out the spell, and then right it down. Now, there are a few Wizard only spells that are actually listed. Sorry buddy, you need to try again.
Ax'Orl 09-11-04, 04:48 PM	Actually Ax you are wrong..There are no Sorcerer only spells. Let me use your Simbul that you were using before. All of the spells that she created someone else knows. You see, since the SOrcerer has to go through the same casting process that the Wizard goes through. The wizard can use a good old knowledge arcana or spellcraft check, and basically figure out the spell, and then right it down. Now, there are a few Wizard only spells that are actually listed. Sorry buddy, you need to try again. Sorry, YOU need to try again, you CAN have Sorcerer only spells....let me put it to you in a way you can understand>>> 1. NEVER write it down, yes a wizard can use a spellcasting and or knowledge arcana check to GUESS what the spell is/does and how it is cast but there is that random bit of the dice roll that could fail and then the wizard is left with nada...what information is the wizard basing his spellcraft or knowledge check on? Does he know the sorcerer in question? Does the spell duplicate or is it similar to any spell he knows? 2. Make it a spontaneous casting only spell---OOPs wizards cannot cast spontaneously. To IDENTIFY a unknown spell as it is being cast (kinda too late if it is a sorcerer only whoop wizard butt spell) requires a 15 plus spell level....hmmmmm make it a 9th level spell and you have a 24 just to ID it. No where in spell craft does it mention being able to write a spell down JUST from seeing it be cast...You can Identify it but not record it...why? There might be subtle nuances in the casting that you missed that are viatl to the spellcasting process AND per the PHB and DMG, when a wizard prepares a spell in the morning he is actually casting the larger portion of the spell, only needing the finishing touches to complete the casting. That is one of the reasons (given by WotC anyway) that Sorcerer's take longer to use Meta Magic...that portion of the spellcasting is completed by a wizard during the spell preparation whilst a sorcerer has to do it on the fly. Thus, a sorcerer (who does not use preparation to "start" the spell casting process) might have a spell that a wizard cannot cast because it relies on the abilty to channel magic w/o the aid of preparation. So, yes, a sorcerer CAN have a spell the wizard CANNOT know.... Doing so is no more impossible or unreasonable than claiming that an item NOT listed in the DMG or PHB is core. If you insist that you can know how to cast the spell by a spellcraft check...please explain how? It only allows you to identify a spell (and a unique spell would have a few DC +'s to even do that) ... Verbal component: Sorcerer says "Bye Bye" Somantic Component: Sorcerer Waves. Ok, what is the spell and how do you cast it...that is ALL you can know by watching the spell being cast.... Wizard rushes back to the lab and writes: "To cast this spell of wizard distruction one must raise one's right hand and while gesturing in a side to side motion utter the mystical phrase "bye bye"." Wizard then tries to prepare the spell and then to cast it....the sorcerer then waves back and wizard dies. LOL LOL LOL
MattD121 09-11-04, 05:21 PM	Lol ax. I thought id make one more attempt to make you all give it up. These threads are getting repetitive and stupid. Its all been said, every perspective had been tried and tried again and the two cant be compared. If you want to keep arguing go ahead I wont say any more but your wasting your time.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-11-04, 08:34 PM	I thought id make one more attempt to make you all give it up. These threads are getting repetitive and stupid. Its all been said, every perspective had been tried and tried again and the two cant be compared. If you want to keep arguing go ahead I wont say any more but your wasting your time. These "Sorcerer discussion" threads were repetitive & stupid about thirty+ (recorded in my notepad) threads ago.
guru7892 09-12-04, 02:52 AM	personally i think they just wanted to have some pictures made of really hot sorceresses inthe phb, but they scraped the pics so you know, it was all kinda downhill from there. (starts thinking) yeah, that would have been cool. but they should have droped spell componants for them aswell or they could have just completly redone the wizard class to be more 3.0 psionic esque and had the sorc be one of the sub-classes if you will... but they still would've been hot dang now we are stuck with all those wizard chicks with the librarian hotness to them... yeah if the wizard was re-done to be more psion esque ( but with only wis,cha, and int) we could have a better world where gas was cheaper, and coffee was under a dollar for a large cup. oh and no more global warming. where have the chicks gone... oh and people... yes, this was kinda a joke and no, im not that kinda guy... wait a minute- what kinda wada? whoa i just lost my train-o-thought...
Ax'Orl 09-12-04, 03:00 PM	Xun, I was posting the idea of sorcerer only spells in response to your idea of the Kirra being a "core" item, because its creation follows the rules. True, there are NO sorcerer only spells NOW. However, by following the rules a sorcerer could create one just as easily as a wizard could create a Kirra. Now, neither of these is CORE but thier creation follows the core rules. See why one should always use ONLY core material when discussing the various strengths and weakness' of the two classes? If we allow non core material in such a discussion, we must allow ALL non-core material. You have your item, I have my spell, no difference, as neither appears in either the DMG, PHB or MM but both follow the rules for their manufacture. Is one more or less core? no, both are equally NON-Core therefore neither has a place in the discussion at hand. I will relent on this off-shoot if you will acknowledge that the Kirra is a NON-core item and therefore has no place in the discussion.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-12-04, 03:08 PM	Sorry, YOU need to try again, you CAN have Sorcerer only spells....let me put it to you in a way you can understand>>> 1. NEVER write it down, yes a wizard can use a spellcasting and or knowledge arcana check to GUESS what the spell is/does and how it is cast but there is that random bit of the dice roll that could fail and then the wizard is left with nada...what information is the wizard basing his spellcraft or knowledge check on? Does he know the sorcerer in question? Does the spell duplicate or is it similar to any spell he knows? 2. Make it a spontaneous casting only spell---OOPs wizards cannot cast spontaneously. To IDENTIFY a unknown spell as it is being cast (kinda too late if it is a sorcerer only whoop wizard butt spell) requires a 15 plus spell level....hmmmmm make it a 9th level spell and you have a 24 just to ID it. No where in spell craft does it mention being able to write a spell down JUST from seeing it be cast...You can Identify it but not record it...why? There might be subtle nuances in the casting that you missed that are viatl to the spellcasting process AND per the PHB and DMG, when a wizard prepares a spell in the morning he is actually casting the larger portion of the spell, only needing the finishing touches to complete the casting. That is one of the reasons (given by WotC anyway) that Sorcerer's take longer to use Meta Magic...that portion of the spellcasting is completed by a wizard during the spell preparation whilst a sorcerer has to do it on the fly. Thus, a sorcerer (who does not use preparation to "start" the spell casting process) might have a spell that a wizard cannot cast because it relies on the abilty to channel magic w/o the aid of preparation. So, yes, a sorcerer CAN have a spell the wizard CANNOT know.... Doing so is no more impossible or unreasonable than claiming that an item NOT listed in the DMG or PHB is core. If you insist that you can know how to cast the spell by a spellcraft check...please explain how? It only allows you to identify a spell (and a unique spell would have a few DC +'s to even do that) ... Verbal component: Sorcerer says "Bye Bye" Somantic Component: Sorcerer Waves. Ok, what is the spell and how do you cast it...that is ALL you can know by watching the spell being cast.... Wizard rushes back to the lab and writes: "To cast this spell of wizard distruction one must raise one's right hand and while gesturing in a side to side motion utter the mystical phrase "bye bye"." Wizard then tries to prepare the spell and then to cast it....the sorcerer then waves back and wizard dies. LOL LOL LOL Ok...Using the rules....Please tell me how a Sorcerer can have a sorcerer only spell? There is no way that a sorcerer does anything different that will not enable a wizard to not be able to cast that spell. Now using core rules, there are spells that only a Wizard can use because he prepares his spells. You see Ax I will explain it to you simply. The Wizard sees it cast, the wizard creates his own version, which rules wise, it may have a different name, but it does the exact same thing. It could actually have the same name. There are no rules to cover your explanation.
baerdith 09-12-04, 04:02 PM	Now using core rules, there are spells that only a Wizard can use because he prepares his spells. Name one.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-12-04, 04:17 PM	Name one. All corrupt spells from the book of vile darkness, all sanctified spells from the book of exhaulted deeds, Mordenkainen's Lucubration, & Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer. The latter two are the only core ones. However... with arcane preparation, the sorcerer (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=) can prepare any of the sanctified & corrupt spells. (not at the same time, of course, but I shouldn't have to say that.) Exhaulted arcanist sorcerers (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=) can cast sanctified spells (all of them) as if they were known to the sorcerer (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=). Mordenkainen's Lucubration & Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer both suck. I don't see why any mage would ever bother with them, honestly. Though they're the only core spells that are "wizard only." Otherwise, no, there are no spells that wizards have over sorcerers (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=).
baerdith 09-12-04, 05:20 PM	All corrupt spells from the book of vile darkness, all sanctified spells from the book of exhaulted deeds, Mordenkainen's Lucubration, & Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer. The latter two are the only core ones. However... with arcane preparation, the sorcerer (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=) can prepare any of the sanctified & corrupt spells. (not at the same time, of course, but I shouldn't have to say that.) Exhaulted arcanist sorcerers (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=) can cast sanctified spells (all of them) as if they were known to the sorcerer (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=). Mordenkainen's Lucubration & Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer both suck. I don't see why any mage would ever bother with them, honestly. Though they're the only core spells that are "wizard only." Otherwise, no, there are no spells that wizards have over sorcerers (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=300670&origin=). OOPS. Ok I guess there really are two whole spells that are just Wiz. 'Course THEY SUCK.
Ax'Orl 09-12-04, 06:32 PM	Ok...Using the rules....Please tell me how a Sorcerer can have a sorcerer only spell? There is no way that a sorcerer does anything different that will not enable a wizard to not be able to cast that spell. Now using core rules, there are spells that only a Wizard can use because he prepares his spells. You see Ax I will explain it to you simply. The Wizard sees it cast, the wizard creates his own version, which rules wise, it may have a different name, but it does the exact same thing. It could actually have the same name. There are no rules to cover your explanation. That is so funny, he can see it cast and mysteriously can create his own version? Just like that, no research involved? Wow maybe wizards are "da bomb". I would think that he would have to make a spellcasting check at least with serious modifiers because the spell is cast differently than any he has ever seen....then there is that "spontaneous caster only" feature, the caster must beable to summon the magic from with in with out resorting to preparation that would kinda make it hard for him to duplicate, no verbal nor somantic components, heck while we're at it, no material components or at best a focus. Now, lets see Mr. wizard have the spell, he has nothing to formulate his formulae from He has to research and creat a spell that duplicates the effect, but it is NOT the same spell because it must be prepared, the sorcerer's does not. Yes the mnemonic enhnancers etc. are all wizard only spells because they rely on preparation, however, if a spell relies on spontaneous spellcasting, would it not have the same effect for wizards that ones requireing preparation have for sorcerers? Would that not limit the wizard MORE than a sorcerer because he CANNOT spontaneously cast any spells whereas the sorcerer CAN prepare spells with the spell preparation feat?
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-12-04, 08:22 PM	That is so funny, he can see it cast and mysteriously can create his own version? Just like that, no research involved? Wow maybe wizards are "da bomb". I would think that he would have to make a spellcasting check at least with serious modifiers because the spell is cast differently than any he has ever seen....then there is that "spontaneous caster only" feature, the caster must beable to summon the magic from with in with out resorting to preparation that would kinda make it hard for him to duplicate, no verbal nor somantic components, heck while we're at it, no material components or at best a focus. Now, lets see Mr. wizard have the spell, he has nothing to formulate his formulae from He has to research and creat a spell that duplicates the effect, but it is NOT the same spell because it must be prepared, the sorcerer's does not. Yes the mnemonic enhnancers etc. are all wizard only spells because they rely on preparation, however, if a spell relies on spontaneous spellcasting, would it not have the same effect for wizards that ones requireing preparation have for sorcerers? Would that not limit the wizard MORE than a sorcerer because he CANNOT spontaneously cast any spells whereas the sorcerer CAN prepare spells with the spell preparation feat? There is no rule that makes it where only spells can only be cast by "bringing it from within" or however you put it. Man stop making up your own rules. There are no rules that govern Sorcerer only spells. Sorcerers do not cast spells in a way that will prohibit a wizard from casting the same spell, or one just like it.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-12-04, 08:24 PM	There is no rule that makes it where only spells can only be cast by "bringing it from within" or however you put it. Man stop making up your own rules. There are no rules that govern Sorcerer only spells. Sorcerers do not cast spells in a way that will prohibit a wizard from casting the same spell, or one just like it. actually, it's pretty easy. If a sorcerer personally makes a spell or spells, the sorcerer can designate that the spell be sorcerer-only.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-12-04, 08:28 PM	actually, it's pretty easy. If a sorcerer personally makes a spell or spells, the sorcerer can designate that the spell be sorcerer-only. And as I have said...The Wizard can can create his own exact version. There are no Sorcerer only spells. There is no game-mechanic that you can put on a spell that will make it sorcerer only. That would be a DM rule only.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-12-04, 09:01 PM	And as I have said...The Wizard can can create his own exact version. There are no Sorcerer only spells. There is no game-mechanic that you can put on a spell that will make it sorcerer only. That would be a DM rule only. There *is* a game mechanic. It's called "Spell Creation" and "spontaneous spellcasting." The dealy is that you create a spell that's sorcerer-only. Or you could, in the same way that a spell can only be prepared beforehand, make a spell that can only be cast without preparation. Then, no wizards can "copy" it at all. It can only be "known" in the way that a sorcerer "knows" spells.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-12-04, 09:35 PM	There *is* a game mechanic. It's called "Spell Creation" and "spontaneous spellcasting." The dealy is that you create a spell that's sorcerer-only. Or you could, in the same way that a spell can only be prepared beforehand, make a spell that can only be cast without preparation. Then, no wizards can "copy" it at all. It can only be "known" in the way that a sorcerer "knows" spells. "laughs" Ok, listen carefully. Your sponaneous casting only exists for Clerics and Druids. Don't make up your own rules to argue by. Bards, clerics and druids can have their own spells because each has it's own spell list. Now, you can't base an only spell by where it comes from. A wizard and a sorcerer still cast their spells in the exact same way. The bard can also have bard only because they are song/spells. That is a legit reason for having a bard only. Or divine only, but sorcerer can't. Face it, you are wrong, and you have been proven wrong.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-12-04, 09:53 PM	"laughs" Ok, listen carefully. Your sponaneous casting only exists for Clerics and Druids. Don't make up your own rules to argue by. "Spontaneous casting" goes to anyone who can cast spells without preparation beforehand. Sorcerers & bards are spontaneous spellcasters. Druids & clerics can cast a small group of spells spontaneously. I.E. spontaenously cast Druid & Cleric spells. They're specifically grouped that way because the druid & cleric can only cast a small number of spells spontaenously, the rest being prepared & prepared only. Sorcerers & bards have no such distinction because they can ONLY cast their spells without preparation. Casting w/o preparation = casting spontaneously = how sorcerers & bards cast theirs spells Bards, clerics and druids can have their own spells because each has it's own spell list. Now, you can't base an only spell by where it comes from. A wizard and a sorcerer still cast their spells in the exact same way. The bard can also have bard only because they are song/spells. That is a legit reason for having a bard only. Or divine only, but sorcerer can't. Face it, you are wrong, and you have been proven wrong. If my character makes a spell that says "sorc" instead of "sorc/wiz" then it's a sorcerer-only spell. Proove me wrong. If I spend one week/spell level & 1k gp/spell level to make a spell, I can make it any way I want (as long, of course, if the spell is balanced as per DM inspection.)
Armoured Priest 09-12-04, 11:02 PM	I am curious, if Sorcs don't spontaneously cast spells, based on D&D's magic system the only other options left are Spell-Like Abilities and Prepared Spell Casting. No other options to the best of my knowledge are available for PCs. Now, according to the PHB glossery spell preparation PHB pg.313 is defined as thus: "Part of the spell casting process for wizards, clerics, paladins, rangers, and druids. Preparing a spell requires careful reading from a spellbook (for wizards) or devout prayers or meditation (for divine spellcasters). The character actually casts the first and lengthiest part of the spell during the preparation phase, leaving only the very end for completion at another time. To use a prepared spell, the charecter finishes the casting with the appropriate spell components-a few special words, some complex gestures, a specific item, or a combination of the three. A prepared spell is used up once cast and cannot be cast again until the spellcaster prepares it again. Sorcerers and Bards need not prepare their spells." This definition of spell preparation makes it very clear that sorcs (and Bards) do not use spell preparation for their spells (outside of the specific feat Arcane Preparation). That only leaves spells as spell like abilities. However, PHB pg 180 immediately tharts SLAs as the mode of casting for Sorcs and Bards. Second Paragraph under the listing for Spell-Like Abilities: ,"A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost." This is obviously not the case as various discriptions of sorcerous spell casting can attest. Ergo, the only remaining option is spontanious casting. Please keep in mind that the glossery definition of spontaneous casting does not say that sorcs and bards don't use spontaneous casting. In many cases the PHB (and many other d20 books for that matter) will give an example of the definition in context, but will not give every example. For instance, the feat Empower Spell, specifically states that it can't be used to empower a spell result that has an opposed check or saving throws. It then goes on to use Dispel Magic as an example of a spell that can't be empowered. That isn't to say it isn't the only one. Contact Other Plane's, and Prismatic Spray's % checks, and the Saves being forced from various divination spells are some other example of spells that have random results, yet can not be empowered. I will concede (barely, for reasons given) that there may be another mode that Bards and Sorcs operate under for their spellcasting (I personally would't mind spells as a supernatural ability, which is the only other possibility, but I'm reaching at this point). However, I find that unlikely for the following: A) In the last 4 years, many erratas, and a revision later, WotC has been content to let most people believe that sorcs and bards are spontaneous casters in spite of having many oppertunities to change this perception. There is probably a good reason for this. B)While it is in an optional book, BoED's Exalted Arcanist PrC has as a requirement "Must be able to spontaneously cast 3rd level arcane spells". If it is the case Sorcs and Bards don't spontaneously cast, WoTC made a PrC that is impossible to gain access to by any PC...core or otherwise. I find this also unlikely. C)Finally, there aren't any other possibilities that have been defined by the PHB and PHB that can't be instantly discounted...except for spontaneous casting. As for Spells only sorcs can know, read the sections in the DMG: "spells, creating new pg 35" and "spells, researching original 198". These sections give provisions for sorcs to learn and create spells (with DM's intheir respective campaigns help) that wizards might not be able to learn. While it is optional, being in the DMG it is also definately core material. All of my arguements pg. examples are from the 3.5 versions of the core books. Again to the best of my ability to verify, while page numbers might be different most of the wording of the definitions given stand between versions. Edit: minor grammatical fix in paragraph 3
Ax'Orl 09-12-04, 11:14 PM	"laughs" Ok, listen carefully. Your sponaneous casting only exists for Clerics and Druids. Don't make up your own rules to argue by. Bards, clerics and druids can have their own spells because each has it's own spell list. Now, you can't base an only spell by where it comes from. A wizard and a sorcerer still cast their spells in the exact same way. The bard can also have bard only because they are song/spells. That is a legit reason for having a bard only. Or divine only, but sorcerer can't. Face it, you are wrong, and you have been proven wrong. ****WARNING!!!!!*****WARNING!!!!!****WAR NING!!!!!**** Xun is going off on his "sorcerers are not spontaneous spellcasters kick again despite all common knowledge as to what spontaneous spellcasting is! [/sarcasm] Now, more to the point, I only mentioned the sorcerer only spell because in a discussion of the various weakness' and strengths of the two classes we should keep our discussion to CORE material, the Kirra is not CORE, there are no CORE sorcerer only spells, but the mechanic for creating both is there. In the case of the spell, it is simiple, Sorcerer creates a spell, no verbal, no somantic, no material components. WHAT pray tell is the wizard going to copy? He can duplicate the effect true but he CANNOT cast THAT spell. And yes, my comments about bringing the power from within ARE in the rules, a wizard needs to PREPARE the spell if it is a spell that is NOT prepared he cannot cast it. This spell has NO preparation to it. It can ONLY be cast spontaneously therefore the wizard cannot cast it, he CAN duplicate the effect but cannot cast that spell. Infact, no other spellcaster save another sorcerer (if shown) can cast the spell, bards cannot cast spells w/o verbal components, and as it is an ARCANE spell, druids, clerics and their ilk cannot cast it either. Sorcerer knows said spell, his arch-nemisis (Mr. Wizard) walks into the room. Suddenly with no apparent cause, the wizard has lost 1/2 of his prepared spells. What caused it? At best the wizard (if he had time) could determine that he had been affected by magic, he might even beable to determine what kind of magic (Arcane or Divine) maybe the school of magic (Necromancy, Abjuration etc) but not WHERE it came from, is it an Item, is it the room or is it the Sorcerer sitting non-chalantly in his easy chair?
Ax'Orl 09-12-04, 11:50 PM	First let me thank the Armoured Priest for his comments because in them I saw something that Xun, and myself for that matter, have missed. Wizard and Sorcerers do NOT cast spells the same way. If I may quote your quote: The character actually casts the first and lengthiest part of the spell during the preparation phase, leaving only the very end for completion at another time. This statement (found verbatim in the 3.0 phb pg 281, second column under spell preparation) seems to imply, at the very least, that a sorcerer (who does not prepare his spells in advance) CAN create a spell that a wizard cannot cast, simply put, he makes a spell that has no pre-casting ritual involved but merely requires that the caster be able to channel magical energies with out the benefit of preparation.{edit to add} It also states that Wizards and Sorcerer's do cast their spells differently despite what Xun thinks, a sorcerer does not have to cast the bulk (i.e. "first and lengthiest part") of his spell prior to casting. This would also imply that a sorcerer is better at using magic than a wizard as he does not have to (for want of a better term) pre-cast all of his spells at the beginning of the day. {/edit} Now, for you enjoyment a spell designed tonight by a friend of mine (who ironically plays mostly wizards) which would only benfit a sorcerer and indeed can only be cast by a sorcerer because you have to beable to decide on the spot to cast it. Exador’s Spell Exchanger Transmutation Level: Sor 4 Components: V, S, M, F Casting Time: 1 Round Range: Personal Target: You Duration: Instantaneous Casting this spell allows you to use a combination of lower level slots to cast an additional higher level spell per day. To use this spell, the caster must be able to cast spells spontaneously. A sorcerer casting this spell may exchange 2 or more lower level spell slots in order to cast an extra higher level spell. I.E. A sorcerer who casts this spell, may use 2 2nd level spells to cast a single 4th level spell. The spell levels swapped must be equal but may be of any level the caster wishes. Thus a single 4th level spell may be cast by using 2-2nd level spells OR 1-1st level and 1-3rd level, or 4-1st level spells. Spells cast in this way are similar to metamagicked spells in that the sorcerer may only take a 5-foot step when doing so. Material Component: Varies, caster must use the correct components for the spell he wishes to cast in place of his swapped spells. . Focus: A spent wand note that there is nothing but the wording of the spell description the REQUIRES spontaneous casting, but, it is of no benefit to a caster who has fewer spells per day to choose from, why give up x+1 spells to cast 1 spell when you have so few per day to cast. {edit to add} Oh, in reading over the wizard and spell preparation, I noticed one thing that should end the argument about "daily" spells and spells per day, in the wizard description (Pg 53 of the 3.0 PHB) it states: A wizard must prepare ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook That would seem to fly in the face of the argument that all that is needed is 8 hours of rest prior to preparation, the CORE book says you must get a good NIGHTS sleep.{/edit}
baerdith 09-13-04, 03:44 PM	There was an argument a while ago that Simbul was really a wizard not a sorceror. One of the things that I just read through again I wanted to point out. Why would a Sorceror create a spell like Simbul's Spell Sequencer? And even COULD a Sorceror use this spell? Most of the Simbul Spells are essentially Quicken Spells, and Sorcs can't use Quicken. How could she have created these spells if she was a Sorceror?? As long as we are bringing up the Per Day argument :rolleyes:
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-13-04, 08:35 PM	First let me thank the Armoured Priest for his comments because in them I saw something that Xun, and myself for that matter, have missed. Wizard and Sorcerers do NOT cast spells the same way. If I may quote your quote: This statement (found verbatim in the 3.0 phb pg 281, second column under spell preparation) seems to imply, at the very least, that a sorcerer (who does not prepare his spells in advance) CAN create a spell that a wizard cannot cast, simply put, he makes a spell that has no pre-casting ritual involved but merely requires that the caster be able to channel magical energies with out the benefit of preparation.{edit to add} It also states that Wizards and Sorcerer's do cast their spells differently despite what Xun thinks, a sorcerer does not have to cast the bulk (i.e. "first and lengthiest part") of his spell prior to casting. This would also imply that a sorcerer is better at using magic than a wizard as he does not have to (for want of a better term) pre-cast all of his spells at the beginning of the day. {/edit} Now, for you enjoyment a spell designed tonight by a friend of mine (who ironically plays mostly wizards) which would only benfit a sorcerer and indeed can only be cast by a sorcerer because you have to beable to decide on the spot to cast it. note that there is nothing but the wording of the spell description the REQUIRES spontaneous casting, but, it is of no benefit to a caster who has fewer spells per day to choose from, why give up x+1 spells to cast 1 spell when you have so few per day to cast. {edit to add} Oh, in reading over the wizard and spell preparation, I noticed one thing that should end the argument about "daily" spells and spells per day, in the wizard description (Pg 53 of the 3.0 PHB) it states: That would seem to fly in the face of the argument that all that is needed is 8 hours of rest prior to preparation, the CORE book says you must get a good NIGHTS sleep.{/edit} Ok you have just gotten your own argument wrong. You ask Why would a Wizard take this? Well thing you didn't put was. A Wizard cannot take this spell in any shape or form. Well he can and I will explain why. Sure he may not want to take it, but he can. Ok, spontaneous casting, I don't give a damn whether you think that a sorcerer spontaneously casts or not, you can't give that class a term that has already been officially given to two other class and base that off of your argument. Ok, the example spell above, no, that spell would only be allowed with a DM approval. If you were to go to an official convention and try and play that spell they would not let you, because it doesn't go by the official rules. Incase most of you don't know, Sorcerers cannot create new spells out of thin air. The must do "exactly" like the wizard does. They must do research, experiment and make the same appropriate rolls. Whether the document is destroyed, that is another story. But, "officially" there is no different way a sorcerer casts spells that would not allow a wizard to cast the same spell. Whether he benefits from it is another story, but there is no sorcerer only spell that a wizard cannot cast. The wizard does have wizard only spells because out of the two classes, only wizard can prepare spells. If a cleric could cast arcane spells, then he could cast any wizard, or sorcerer spell.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-13-04, 10:02 PM	You ask Why would a Wizard take this? Well thing you didn't put was. A Wizard cannot take this spell in any shape or form. Well he can and I will explain why. Sure he may not want to take it, but he can. He certainly can if the spell was made, by the sorcerer, to be sorcerer-only in the creation process. Ok, spontaneous casting, I don't give a damn whether you think that a sorcerer spontaneously casts or not, you can't give that class a term that has already been officially given to two other class and base that off of your argument. Officially, sorcerers cast their spells "without preparation." What could possibly be a one-word synonym for "casting without preparation. (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous) Actually, sorcerers & bards *have* been called spontaneous casters (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b), albeit indirectly, but still officially. Exalted Arcanist Tales say that sorcerers gain their innate magical ability from draconic blood, and many sorcerers (especially kobold sorcerers) loudly champion this legend. Aasimar sorcerers, meanwhile, smile to themselves, knowing that dragons are not the only source of spontaneous arcane power. Among both sorcerers and bards, some trace the source of their power back to celestial influence, either bloodline or simply favor. These are the exalted arcanists, spontaneous spellcasters who gain access to spells that channel celestial energy. Only characters who spontaneously cast arcane spells can become exalted arcanists, which means that in most campaigns the class is limited to sorcerers and bards. Exalted arcanists are very often adventurers, using the power they consider a gift to the purpose for which it was intended: to help combat evil. They gravitate to places where their ability to cover a battlefield with holy smite spells is useful, so they are rarely found in cities or placid villages. They frequently join forces with other exalted adventurers, much less frequently with other exalted arcanists. Hit Die: d4. Requirements To qualify to become an exalted arcanist, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any good. Base Save Bonuses: Will +5. Skills: Knowledge (arcana) 9 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 4 ranks. Feats: Consecrate Spell, Purify Spell. Spells: Able to spontaneously cast 3rd-level arcane spells. Ok, the example spell above, no, that spell would only be allowed with a DM approval.[/url] regardless, it can still be made with official core rules. [QUOTE=XunValDorl of HouseKilsek]If you were to go to an official convention and try and play that spell they would not let you, because it doesn't go by the official rules. Spell creation is in the official rules. Incase most of you don't know, Sorcerers cannot create new spells out of thin air. That isn't under debate. The must do "exactly" like the wizard does. They must do research, experiment and make the same appropriate rolls. Whether the document is destroyed, that is another story. Document? From what I recall, there are no rules stating that sorcerers require "documents" of any sort to create any spells. THey must research, spend the money, time, & roll the necessary dice rolls, but no "documents" are necessarily involved, unless you count the fact that wizards must still record their discovered/researched spell in their spell books once the research is complete. Though none of the other spellcasters are obligated to do that. The actual process of research doesn't extend beyond the costs & time needed. Anything beyond that is the perview of the DM & common sense. But, "officially" there is no different way a sorcerer casts spells that would not allow a wizard to cast the same spell. "Officially," no spells to my knowledge presently exist that are sorcerer-only. "Officially," a sorcerer can create spells. "Officially," a sorcerer can create sorcerer-only spells. Whether he benefits from it is another story, but there is no sorcerer only spell that a wizard cannot cast. In any of the books, presently, that is true. To say nothing of spell creation. The wizard does have wizard only spells because out of the two classes, only wizard can prepare spells. If a cleric could cast arcane spells, then he could cast any wizard, or sorcerer spell. Actually, a sorcerer with arcane preparation can cast any spell a wizard can, except Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer & Mordenkainen's Lucubration. (Though they can certainly be modified so that a sorcerer can use them through the creation process and they'd work exactly the same way -- a sorcerer could prepare multiple instances of lower level spells or recall them. The sorcerer could even make a higher level version for prepared quickened spells the sorcerer could prepare.)
Ax'Orl 09-13-04, 11:29 PM	Ok, spontaneous casting, I don't give a damn whether you think that a sorcerer spontaneously casts or not, you can't give that class a term that has already been officially given to two other class and base that off of your argument. Please define spontaneous casting, if it is not casting with out preparation? Yes, Clerics and Druids cast SOME of their spells spontaneously, but a Sorcerer and a Bard cast ALL of theirs spontaneously. Therefore Sorcerers and Bards are the ONLY true Spontaneous Spellcasters, Clerics and Druids are LIMITED spontaneous spellcasters. Ok, the example spell above, no, that spell would only be allowed with a DM approval. If you were to go to an official convention and try and play that spell they would not let you, because it doesn't go by the official rules. 1. True to a point, ALL spells/abilities/yes even classes are at DM approval. Even your Kirra which is what I was trying to get you to realize was not a core item and therefore had no place in a discussion about CORE class strenghts and weakness'. 2. It does follow core rules, it was created using the rules in the PHB and DMG, by a DM of well over 20 years experience who has been playing 3.0 since its introduction. 3. It would stand the same chance of being allowed as your Kirra would that is for dang sure. 4. I dont think you need to bring tournament play into this because I seriously doubt that your characters could survive such. Incase most of you don't know, Sorcerers cannot create new spells out of thin air. The must do "exactly" like the wizard does. They must do research, experiment and make the same appropriate rolls. I never said that they did (make them out of thin air) What I did say was that they did not have to write anything down, which they dont, they do all of their work in their head. Whether the document is destroyed, that is another story. What document? But, "officially" there is no different way a sorcerer casts spells that would not allow a wizard to cast the same spell. Yes there is, a sorcerer does not have to prepare his spells (i.e. cast the lengthy/more difficult portion) before being able to cast them. To cast his spells, all he needs is the material components, a free hand for any somantic components and a voice to utter the verbal components. Note, except for the material components, there is no "official" interpretation of what the other are excpet that they have to be recognizable as spellcasting components therefore, when casting a fireball, except for the ball of bat feces and sulfur, a sorcerer and a wizard would, could, and probably do use differnt components. Where as the wizard might gesture wildly and dance a jig (i.e. Elminster at the Mage Fair) the Sorcerer could simply hold his hand in a certain way and utter one word "KaBoomie", or vice versa. Those are left up to the PLAYER to describe if he wants. Whether he benefits from it is another story, but there is no sorcerer only spell that a wizard cannot cast. You really should rephrase that, there are no CORE sorcerer only spells. However, a sorcerer only spell CAN be made by the CORE rules. Simple adendum to the spell description "This spell can not be prepared but must be cast spontaneously" will do the trick nicely. The wizard does have wizard only spells because out of the two classes, only wizard can prepare spells. Correct, and if a sorcerer created a spell that had to be cast by a spontaneous Arcanist, only he and the bard could cast that spell because they are the only Spontaneous Arcanist' If a cleric could cast arcane spells, then he could cast any wizard, or sorcerer spell. And where did THAT come from?
the Horc 09-14-04, 12:15 AM	And where did THAT come from? Anyspell. F***ing initiates of Mystra. :D
Ax'Orl 09-14-04, 09:34 AM	Anyspell. F***ing initiates of Mystra. :D Ahh, thanks.... **Reminds self to study his FR more, especially the clerical sections**
baerdith 09-14-04, 02:25 PM	Actually, sorcerers & bards *have* been called spontaneous casters (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b), albeit indirectly, but still officially. Just quoting again: Only characters who spontaneously cast arcane spells can become exalted arcanists, which means that in most campaigns the class is limited to sorcerers and bards. That should shut up even Xun.
baerdith 09-14-04, 02:50 PM	Originally Posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsekA: If a cleric could cast arcane spells, then he could cast any wizard, or sorcerer spell. With the FR spell Anyspell yes a cleric can prepare AN arcane spell, HOWEVER no they can not spont. cast any arcane spell. The LIMITS to Clerical Spont casting is that they can take a PREPARED SPELL and change it into a CURE spell. The said cure spell has to be of a level they can cast. They can not just drop any prepared spell and cast anything on their list. Sorcs and Bards don't prepare and can cast anything they know at any time. TRUE Spont Casting belongs to the Sorc and Bard. Give it up. You have lost. If you continue you will only make yourself look more foollish. :mad: {EDIT}: Hey What happened to my sig??{/EDIT}
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-14-04, 06:48 PM	That should shut up even Xun. Heh... yeah, you'd think that. But... He'll probably try to pull some kinda hat trick and disregard it because it isn't "core material." Whether or not it is core is irrelevant, but he'll try anyway. Or he'll just ignore it, like a number of other things.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-14-04, 07:21 PM	With the FR spell Anyspell yes a cleric can prepare AN arcane spell, HOWEVER no they can not spont. cast any arcane spell. The LIMITS to Clerical Spont casting is that they can take a PREPARED SPELL and change it into a CURE spell. The said cure spell has to be of a level they can cast. They can not just drop any prepared spell and cast anything on their list. Sorcs and Bards don't prepare and can cast anything they know at any time. TRUE Spont Casting belongs to the Sorc and Bard. Give it up. You have lost. If you continue you will only make yourself look more foollish. :mad: {EDIT}: Hey What happened to my sig??{/EDIT} Please quote me where I said that a cleric can cast any arcane spell spontaneously? Do not put words into my mouth.
baerdith 09-14-04, 07:36 PM	Please quote me where I said that a cleric can cast any arcane spell spontaneously? Do not put words into my mouth. I don't have to, you do a great job as is. :rolleyes:
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-15-04, 01:21 AM	He certainly can if the spell was made, by the sorcerer, to be sorcerer-only in the creation process. Officially, sorcerers cast their spells "without preparation." What could possibly be a one-word synonym for "casting without preparation. (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous) Actually, sorcerers & bards *have* been called spontaneous casters (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b), albeit indirectly, but still officially. Spell creation is in the official rules. That isn't under debate. Document? From what I recall, there are no rules stating that sorcerers require "documents" of any sort to create any spells. THey must research, spend the money, time, & roll the necessary dice rolls, but no "documents" are necessarily involved, unless you count the fact that wizards must still record their discovered/researched spell in their spell books once the research is complete. Though none of the other spellcasters are obligated to do that. The actual process of research doesn't extend beyond the costs & time needed. Anything beyond that is the perview of the DM & common sense. "Officially," no spells to my knowledge presently exist that are sorcerer-only. "Officially," a sorcerer can create spells. "Officially," a sorcerer can create sorcerer-only spells. In any of the books, presently, that is true. To say nothing of spell creation. Actually, a sorcerer with arcane preparation can cast any spell a wizard can, except Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer & Mordenkainen's Lucubration. (Though they can certainly be modified so that a sorcerer can use them through the creation process and they'd work exactly the same way -- a sorcerer could prepare multiple instances of lower level spells or recall them. The sorcerer could even make a higher level version for prepared quickened spells the sorcerer could prepare.) I am talking about core rules only... As of spell creation, try looking in the 3.0 DMG on page 42. I will discuss later.
Ax'Orl 09-15-04, 03:45 AM	I am talking about core rules only... As of spell creation, try looking in the 3.0 DMG on page 42. I will discuss later. I must assume that you are referring to the "This research requires access to a well-stocked library" in terms of a document required correct? If that is what you are tyring to say, I must say that no where does it state that a sorcerer must write anything down. All that is required is 1,000 gp per week, 1 week per spell level (this money covers fees, consultants, material component experimentation and miscellaneous expenditures-note none of these is a "written document to record spell research" At the end of that time all that is needed is a spellcraft check (DC 10+spell level). If the roll is successful, the spell is learned. Now, in our examples, the wizard would need at least 2 spellcraft checks (one to determine the spell-with modifiers due to it being unique and not being cast in a manner with which he is familiar i.e. spontaneously and the other just to create the spell on his own-after spending the same monies and time that the sorcerer did.) Secondly, the spell must be viable to the DM. if the DM decrees that a "spontaneous Arcane caster only" spell is viable for sorcerers then it CANNOT be viable to wizards becase they are NOT spontaneous spellcasters, nor can it be viable for a cleric because the can only cast cure spells spontaneously. Cure spells are not arcane spells. On a side note I must bring to your attention the following statement just 2 pages over under the topic of Characters and the World Around Them Sub heading Class Roles in Society. Under the Sorcerer it has this to say: Conversely, some sorcerers find that military life suits them even better than wizards. Sorcerers focused on battle spells are MORE deadly than wizards, and they are better with weapons Twould seem that the writers of the DMG (A CORE book lest you forget) believe that, at least in this respect-battle spells, sorcerers are better than wizards. Hmmm wonder if they have ever thought that the sorcerer had no purpose in being created?
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-15-04, 04:40 AM	I am talking about core rules only... As of spell creation, try looking in the 3.0 DMG on page 42. I will discuss later. Core rules don't disagree with any of my statements either.
Zelphi 09-15-04, 05:15 AM	Why has this been side tracked into "Sorcs can't spontaneously cast spells". Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below). So no need for preperation then... Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast. And again.... strange this... Most spellcasters prepare their spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through devout prayers and meditation— [b]while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation./[b] Seems like those who cast their spells without preperation cast spontaneously... didn't we just establish twice that Sorcs (at least) don't prepare spells... SORCERERS AND BARDS Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells. A sorcerer’s or bard’s class level limits the number of spells he can cast (see these class descriptions). His high Charisma score might allow him to cast a few extra spells. A member of either class must have a Charisma score of at least 10 + a spell’s level to cast the spell. Daily Readying of Spells: Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which he spends 15 minutes concentrating. (A bard must sing, recite, or play an instrument of some kind while concentrating.) During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies his mind to cast his daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before. Recent Casting Limit: As with wizards, any spells cast within the last 8 hours count against the sorcerer’s or bard’s daily limit. Adding Spells to a Sorcerer’s or Bard’s Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: Bard Spells Known or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list he now knows. With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of. So the fact they have a completely different section on how they cast spells wasn't enough? How can you aknowledge that the way Wizards cast their spells lets them have spells a Sorc can't use, but it can't be the other way round? AX,ORL's example was flawed... you cast a level 4 spells, to lose a 2 level 2 spells to cast a level 4 spell? Arcane Explosion Evocation Level: Sor 4 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 action Range: 100ft a level (ignore this bit) Target: Special (see description) Duration: Instantaneous Saving throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes This spell must be cast on another caster. When cast you can spontaneously destroy a prepared spell of their repetoir. Not only does the targeted caster loose that spell from their memory (and is unable to cast it) but they take xd4 damage, where x is the level of the spell lost. The damage is magical and is completely unresistable. Note that the level of the spell lost cannot be higher than the level of the spell used. In this case without the use of Heighten spell they cannot lose a spell of level greater than 4. If they have no spells prepared (so this spell is useless against most other Sorcs and Bards) then this spell has no effect. Spell like abilities do not count towards this effect. Why can't your Wizard cast it? Because it requires spontaneous power? Why does it require spont power? Because the description says so. I don't actually need more reason than that.
Kolo 09-15-04, 07:36 AM	Urgh, zelphi beat me to quoting that. Ah, well, might as well point out another flaw in Xun's argument... Xun, you argue that clerics and druids are the only ones that can cast spontaneously because they can always convert any spell into a cure/nature's ally spell. This is not spontaneous spellcasting, that's spontaneous spell conversion. difference in terms. In fact, if it helps you understand the D&D definition of spontaneous spellcasters, let me explain how the sorcerer and bard are in fact spontaneous casters while clerics and druids are not. A cleric can spontaneously convert any prepared spell into a cure spell of equal level, provided one exists. In a way, the sorcerer does the exact same thing, excepting only two small differences; 1) they have "empty" spell slots per day, which for our purpose can be described as spell potential. 2) they convert this spell potential, or "empty" slot, into any spell of the appropriate level that they know. They are converting an empty, non-defined spell potential into a slot that actually is a spell. and the best part? they have no need to prepare the slot with a spell beforehand, making it not a conversion of one spell to another but a conversion of nothing (a potential) to something (a spell). In effect, the cleric is using a piece of paper that he has hastily cleared with an eraser, while the sorcerer gets a blank piece of paper to work with. Clerics and Druids spontaneously convert prepared spells. sorcerers and bards spontaneously cast, no preperation needed. And remember, the system doesn't care about our definitions, only for it's own. And as zelphi quoted, the system clearly defines the sorcerer's spellcasting as being spontaneous. Oh, and it's all core. ;)
Zelphi 09-15-04, 07:51 AM	I think at this point I'll go back to prior points. Sorcs were made because some people think Wizards are rubbish and they don't fit in with their campaigns. Sorcs are a perfectly suitable alternative to Wizards in a campaign. If you don't like Sorcs, why are you complaining, others do therefore it is simply you and what you're doing. You don't need to use Sorcs, quit whining. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't need to modify its size, just get a different shoe. What are you actually complaining about in the first place? Anything that relates to you not liking the class or thinking its rubbish is completely irrelevent. Because others think it works out better than the Wizard. But if you really want to continue this nonsense - then there's only one answer you really need because the real answers have been shoved in your face repeatedly throughout this topic. -Why were sorcs invented? Just to **** you off.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-18-04, 05:27 PM	Urgh, zelphi beat me to quoting that. Ah, well, might as well point out another flaw in Xun's argument... Xun, you argue that clerics and druids are the only ones that can cast spontaneously because they can always convert any spell into a cure/nature's ally spell. This is not spontaneous spellcasting, that's spontaneous spell conversion. difference in terms. In fact, if it helps you understand the D&D definition of spontaneous spellcasters, let me explain how the sorcerer and bard are in fact spontaneous casters while clerics and druids are not. A cleric can spontaneously convert any prepared spell into a cure spell of equal level, provided one exists. In a way, the sorcerer does the exact same thing, excepting only two small differences; 1) they have "empty" spell slots per day, which for our purpose can be described as spell potential. 2) they convert this spell potential, or "empty" slot, into any spell of the appropriate level that they know. They are converting an empty, non-defined spell potential into a slot that actually is a spell. and the best part? they have no need to prepare the slot with a spell beforehand, making it not a conversion of one spell to another but a conversion of nothing (a potential) to something (a spell). In effect, the cleric is using a piece of paper that he has hastily cleared with an eraser, while the sorcerer gets a blank piece of paper to work with. Clerics and Druids spontaneously convert prepared spells. sorcerers and bards spontaneously cast, no preperation needed. And remember, the system doesn't care about our definitions, only for it's own. And as zelphi quoted, the system clearly defines the sorcerer's spellcasting as being spontaneous. Oh, and it's all core. ;) Oh and guess what? Clerics and Druids have spontaneous casting. Look in the core books under Spontaneous Casting. Please don't argue when you don't have your facts straight.
Ax'Orl 09-18-04, 05:32 PM	Oh and guess what? Clerics and Druids have spontaneous casting. Look in the core books under Spontaneous Casting. Please don't argue when you don't have your facts straight. No, you should get it correct, Clerics and Druids have spontaneous casting of CURE and SUMMON NATURES ALLY spells (respectively). Sorcerer's and Bards have spontaneous casting of ALL their known spells.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-18-04, 05:38 PM	First thing..."All" of you need to look in your 3.0 or 3.5 DMG, and PHB which are "Core" books. No other books over ride what core books say. Other books are "optional". Ok..in "core" books Spontaneous Casting is Druids and Clerics only. You can argue all you want, but it is in black and white. If you say it's wrong then you say the designers are wrong. Well, I have some news for you, I am sure they know more about the game than you do. Second, Sorcerers do not officially by core rules have the spontaneous casting ability...Period. Next, please read the rules on new spell creation. Page 42 of the DMG 3.0... Spellcasters must do research and experimentation and still have to make a roll, in order to create new spells. This applies to the Sorcerer and Wizard. Next, there are no sorcerer only spells, nor can you have sorcerer only unless it is a DM only rule. I will tell you why. Let's just say the Fireball spell doesn't exist and my wizard wants to create one. My Wizard can't just say well this spell is for Preparation Casters only. Doesn't work that way cause there is no reason why the sorcerer can't cast that spell. Same with the Sorcerer, he can't have a limit that just says, for spellcasters who don't have to prepare their spells. The sorcerer doesn't cast spells in a way where it would prohibit the wizard from learning the same spell. Now, the wizard on the other hand does, because if their is a spell that has an affect that deal with preparing spells, then the sorcerer can't learn it. Kolo, listen up buddy, what you stated is not core. According to core, "Spontaneous Casting", do you need the page number because you apparently don't know it, is for druids and clerics. They can Spontaneously cast either Cure spells, or Summon Natures ally. There is no mention of Bard or Sorcerer. After two edition, if they didn't state it that they had spontaneous casting, then I guess they ment to keep it that way. I know how Bards and Sorcerers cast, but it is not the same as the Cleric and Druid, and they have been given the official title of being able to cast Cure and Summon Nature's ally with Spontaneous Casting. If you are going to argue, and think you are right and the book is wrong, then don't bother even arguing cause it is pointless. Oh, and it's all core
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-18-04, 05:40 PM	oh, and one more thing. Last time I checked. Book of Exalted Deeds wasn't core.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-18-04, 05:57 PM	oh, and one more thing. Last time I checked. Book of Exalted Deeds wasn't core. Doesn't matter. The sorcerer & bard still cast their spontanteous spells, which is a prequisite to take the PrC. It wasn't a rule change in the book of exhaulted deeds, it's just there because that's what's necessary to take the prestige class. The sorcerer and bard do not change in the book of exhaulted deeds and the book is WotC-produced (and checked) material. The "it's not core" arguement only holds up if we're talking about newly introduced rules/feats/PrC/stuff in a core-rules discussion. Since we're just making a quick vocab lesson and aren't discussing rules or anything, it holds water in this matter. As far as spell creation: Let's just say the Fireball spell doesn't exist and my wizard wants to create one. My Wizard can't just say well this spell is for Preparation Casters only. Doesn't work that way cause there is no reason why the sorcerer can't cast that spell. Same with the Sorcerer, he can't have a limit that just says, for spellcasters who don't have to prepare their spells. No one ever said that there perhaps shouldn't be a reason why a sorcerer-only spell should be made with a reason why it must be cast spontaneously, but the fact of the matter is that it can be made in such a way. The sorcerer doesn't cast spells in a way where it would prohibit the wizard from learning the same spell. I'm sorry, but "they can't do that" isn't a valid excuse when the rules quite clearly say I can make any DM-approved or otherwise balanced spell I wish. Now, the wizard on the other hand does, because if their is a spell that has an affect that deal with preparing spells, then the sorcerer can't learn it. If one can apply, then the opposite can, as well. Sorcerers and wizards use two different mediums to "know" thier spells. It's theoretically possible for a sorcerer to learn a spell from a scroll (to fill in a spell known slot that's empty -- not to gain a free known spell or anything. that IS in the core rules.) A sorcerer with the "read magic" spell can even read a spellbook with wizard-unique spells it it, even though sorcerer could do nothing else with it other than look at it. (and sell it.) However, the same does not hold true for the other way around. A sorcerer can know a spell, but there is no other medium that allows a sorcerer to actually have the spell recorded anywhere other than the sorcerer's memory. Unfortunately, a wizard cannot "read magic" a sorcerer's brain and learn the spell. They either have to "mindrape" (as per the spell, from the book of vile darkness) the victim or personally create a similar one, which actually allows for more sorcerer-only spells, concieveably. In any case, just as easily as a wizard can have a "preparation-only" spell, a sorcerer can have the opposite, a sorcerer-only arcane spell "spontaneous-arcane-only spell."
Ax'Orl 09-18-04, 07:09 PM	oh, and one more thing. Last time I checked. Book of Exalted Deeds wasn't core. And the last time I checked the Kirra was not core either. As far as looking at the books for spontaneous casting there is no need, everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that spontaneous means without preparation, what caster casts spells without preparation? ONLY 2 cast ALL their spells without preparation...the Bard and the Sorcerer. The ONLY reason that the booke even mentions the Cleric and Druid ability to cast their respective spells spontaneously is because those are the ONLY spells THEY can cast in such a manner. There is no need to say that Sorcerers and Bards are spontaneous casters because common sense, logic and even a vague understanding of the english language would lead even the most backward person to the conclusion that Sorcerers and Bards are spontaneous casters.
Armoured Priest 09-18-04, 10:11 PM	Hmm...seems my previous post was all but ignored (thanks Ax'Orl for acknowledgeing my post :D ). A number of things. First thing..."All" of you need to look in your 3.0 or 3.5 DMG, and PHB which are "Core" books. No other books over ride what core books say. Other books are "optional". Ok..in "core" books Spontaneous Casting is Druids and Clerics only. You can argue all you want, but it is in black and white. If you say it's wrong then you say the designers are wrong. First of all, other then the Exalted Arcanist example in my previous post, my arguements were pretty much all core (PHB and DMG) complete with 3.5 page numbers (as I no longer have my 3.0 core books). My arguements still hold up fairly well without that example. Second, the Spontanious casting of Clerics and Druids is specified as their "special ability" to drop prepared spells for a "cure"/"inflict" or "summon nature's ally" respectively, of the same level or lower. As my previous post points out, this does not exclude the sorcerer and bard being spontaneous casters as D&D has a habit of giving examples of what it is talking about but no all of the examples. Finally, in most cases the non-core stuff being mentioned is still official WotC material. I believe it is safe to say WotC, in general, tries (not always successfully, but tries) to make their "optional" (which in a great number of home games, might as well be core) products directly compatible without rules rewrites (unless they meant to errata a given rule anyways in which case it also shows up in the offical errata along with the given material) That having been said, what would one say to a sorc taking Mage of the Arcane Order without Arcane Preparation? They would say "NO!", and they would be correct in doing so as the prereqs for MotAO requires the ability to prepare and cast spells of the given level (2nd). This combined with my previous example with the Exalted Arcanist illustrates several important things. The same designers that worked on the core books saw fit to use both "prepared casting" and "spontaneous casting" in optional material, and with no rule rewrite anywhere about how magic is working or the casting modes of the various arcane casters. At no time on this issue have any of the supporters of sorcerous spontaneous casting said that the designers were wrong, on the contrary it was obviously their intent. (I'm sure that the last half of this one paragraph will be disputed by the non-core arguement, with the rest ignored, but that's OK, I'm used to selective reasoning :D) Well, I have some news for you, I am sure they know more about the game than you do. Second, Sorcerers do not officially by core rules have the spontaneous casting ability...Period. First, the recent errata on "Righteous Might" is testament to the impossibility of the designers to fore-see every spell combo and rules quirk. They certainly know much on the rules, as they were the ones who came up with them, but to the Min-Maxers and Muchkins among us...give credit where credit is due. Secondly, I'll grant you, that at no time does it say in literal terms that sorcerers have spontaneous casting. Still, it doesn't specifically say anywhere that a cleric going into a PrC retains the ability to spontaneously drop spells for cure/inflicts. Yes, we all know that he does, but it doesn't say that he does...anywhere (much like the afore mentioned sorc). Please keep in mind that there are a number of PrCs that, while optional, are also most definately core as well. Again, refer to my coments in the first section regarding the general apparent design philosophy of WotC concerning both core and optional material. Next, please read the rules on new spell creation. Page 42 of the DMG 3.0... Spellcasters must do research and experimentation and still have to make a roll, in order to create new spells. This applies to the Sorcerer and Wizard. Next, there are no sorcerer only spells, nor can you have sorcerer only unless it is a DM only rule. I will tell you why. Let's just say the Fireball spell doesn't exist and my wizard wants to create one. My Wizard can't just say well this spell is for Preparation Casters only. Doesn't work that way cause there is no reason why the sorcerer can't cast that spell. Same with the Sorcerer, he can't have a limit that just says, for spellcasters who don't have to prepare their spells. The sorcerer doesn't cast spells in a way where it would prohibit the wizard from learning the same spell. Now, the wizard on the other hand does, because if their is a spell that has an affect that deal with preparing spells, then the sorcerer can't learn it. Kolo, listen up buddy, what you stated is not core. I don't know if anyone caught this, but the statement "Spellcasters must do research and experimentation and still have to make a roll, in order to create new spells. This applies to the Sorcerer and Wizard." Actually, this supports what many of us have been saying. It is possible for Sorcerers to make their own spells. Nobody, is disputing the fact that there are currently no "official" spells specific to sorcs, that would be foolish. The point being made is that it can be done, and that there is no reason that there can't be a spell specific to sorcerers. The majority of homemade spells, will be used in home games. (that goes without saying.) The quote above says that one can't decide when one makes a spell to make it specific to a mode of casting. It gives the 3.0 page number for spell creation pg 42. (My previous post gives two specific page numbers {DMG 35 and 198}.) It gives these as guidelines for making spells for a campaign. Yes it is a DM rule, it makes sense as the majority of players are not playing tornaments, but rather playing at home. There is nothing in these guidelines that says one can't make a spell specific to sorcs that takes into account the function of spontaneous casting and certainly, to use the old saying, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." As TDoA mentioned, there is no reason it can't work both ways. (and it certainly can...watch this :D ) Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer (enhanced) Transmutation Level: Wiz/Sor 4 Components: V, S, M, F Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: personal Target:You Duration: instantaneous Casting this spell allows you to prepare/ gain additional spells/spell slots or retain spells/spell slots if you are a wizard or sorcerer respectively. Pick one of the two versions when the spell is cast. prepare/gain: If a wizard, you prepare up to three additional levels of spells (such as three 1st level spells, a 2nd and a 1st level spell, or a 3rd level spell). A cantrip counts as 1/2 for this purpose. You prepare and cast these spells normally. If a sorc you gain an additional three levels of spell slot to distribute. (such as three 1st level slots, a 2nd and a 1st level slot, or a 3rd level slot) A cantrip counts as 1/2 a spell slot. You cast these spells normally. Retain: You retain any spell (if wizard) or spell slot used (if sorc) of any spell/spell slot 3rd level or lower that you had cast/used up to one round before you started casting the mnemonic enhancer. This restores the previously cast spell/spell slot to your mind. Material component: same as PHB Focus: same as PHB Wasn't that easy? :D I could do the same for Mordenkainen's Lucubration. Granted, it isn't the best sorcerer spell, but it certainly works. So the conclusions here are: Yes, there aren't any "official" sorc only spells. No, there isn't any official reason I can't make one. Yes, I can make a spell that only sorcs can use (with DM approval). Yes, I can make more spells that only Wizards can use (again with DM approval). Yes, I can take spells that only one can use and alterthem so that the other can use them (again with DM approval) According to core, "Spontaneous Casting", do you need the page number because you apparently don't know it, is for druids and clerics. They can Spontaneously cast either Cure spells, or Summon Natures ally. There is no mention of Bard or Sorcerer. Not really, I seem to remember quoting those page numbers for 3.5, although if anybody wants to give us the 3.0 versions page numbers that would be fine (I'll wager they say pretty much that same thing.) As, I stated in my previous post, just because it doesn't say sorc and bard in that entry doesn't exclude sorcs and bards from being spontaneous casters. I've already given reasons why (twice). After two edition, if they didn't state it that they had spontaneous casting, then I guess they ment to keep it that way. I know how Bards and Sorcerers cast, but it is not the same as the Cleric and Druid, and they have been given the official title of being able to cast Cure and Summon Nature's ally with Spontaneous Casting. If you are going to argue, and think you are right and the book is wrong, then don't bother even arguing cause it is pointless. Oh, and it's all core One would think that if they (the designers) went to all of the trouble to actually define the different modes of casting, they would have taken the oppertunity to do so for sorcerers and bards, but they don't...anywhere. This likely because a majority believe sorcs and bards cast spontaneously. To the best of my knowledge only a handful of people believe otherwise (and I'm being generous in that assessment.) As such there is no need to further define the sorcerer and bard's casting mode. I put forward the question to those that claim to know (or actually know... WoTC, please?): In my previous post I outlined all of the possible spellcating modes and why none of the work, except for spontaneous casting. If they (sorcs and bards) don't cast spontaneously I (and many others I'm sure) would be very interested in knowing how is it they cast exactly. Finally, at no time (to the best of my recollection) have any of those argueing for either the spell creation rules, or the spontaneous casting of sorcs and bards ever purposefully said that the books were wrong. On the contrary, the core books do an excellent job of implying that sorcs can make their own spells (along with any other caster, and DM approval which certainly represents the majority of D&D playing), and that sorcs and bards apparently cast in some way that is virtually identical to spontaneous casting. (Sorry for the Long post, and I was serious in the penultimate paragraph to my query to WotC... if they (sorcs and bards) aren't spontaneous casters, what are they?)
mercurywyrm 09-19-04, 03:39 AM	p. 53 PHB 3.5 Second scentence of Background: "Their first spells are incomplete, sponaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous." At some point in their carrers a sorcerer's spells ARE refered to as spontaneous, in the core ruleboooks to a certainly, even if it is pre-first level. Wizards never do this.
RatFlail OF DOOM!!!! 09-19-04, 03:45 PM	Im only 12 and i play D&D with my friends, personally im a big fan of the egotist(psion) but i had a sorcerror before. The wizard is have alot more variety of spells espeacially with pcking schools but sorcerrors have a limited selection making them have to pick destructive powers. Since they can cast alot more they can deal out more damage so im backing up sorcerror *okay so my spelling isnt great...*
MattD121 09-19-04, 04:44 PM	Lucubration is another form of (Greater) shadow evocation. Or limited/non-limited wish. Its nothing special.
the Horc 09-19-04, 07:07 PM	Comment: Xun is technically right in the fact that the PHB doesn't specifically state that Bards and Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. However, in all the stuff that has followed since the printings, WOTC does seem pretty intent on defining them as such in all the later literature. I'm guessing that they originally called them "non-preparation based arcane spellcasters", then realized that their DnD definition of spontaneous would fit anyways, and started calling them "spontaneous arcane spellcasters".
Kolo 09-19-04, 07:15 PM	Oh and guess what? Clerics and Druids have spontaneous casting. Look in the core books under Spontaneous Casting. Please don't argue when you don't have your facts straight. Ah, you have challenged a student of rule-fu! I shall meet it with enthusiasm and alacrity. :D First, I shall quote the relevant section of the SRD; Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells: A good cleric (or a cleric of a good deity) can spontaneously cast a cure spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher, but not in place of a domain spell. An evil cleric (or a cleric of an evil deity) can spontaneously cast an inflict spell in place of a prepared spell (one that is not a domain spell) of the same level or higher. Each neutral cleric of a neutral deity either spontaneously casts cure spells like a good cleric or inflict spells like an evil one, depending on which option the player chooses when creating the character. The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along. Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature’s Ally Spells: A druid can spontaneously cast a summon nature’s ally spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher. The divine energy of the spell that the summon nature’s ally spell substitutes for is converted into the summon spell as if that spell had been prepared all along. As you've no doubt noticed, I've emphasized the relevant points to the matter at hand. Notice that you are spontaneously casting the spell by converting a prepared spell into the relevant spell, be it cure/inflict or Summon Nature's Ally. You emphasize that since it mentions that clerics and druids cast the spell spontaneously, that therefore they count as spontaneous spellcasters and ONLY they have that label. However, it can't be spontaneous because you have to actually prepare a spell first. To clarify that statement, I bid you to look at the very first words of that selfsame chapter- under the heading "magic overview". Most spellcasters prepare their spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through devout prayers and meditation— while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation. Hello, what's this then? do those words mean what I think? "Spontaneously without preparation"? Clerics and druids do not cast without preperation; they have to have a prepared spell of the required level in order to be able to convert it into a cure/inflict/nature's ally spell, which is then treated "as if the spell had been prepared all along." They do not qualify for the above sentence; they do not cast without preperation. Therefore, they do not count as a spontaneous spellcasting class. So which classes qualify for the above sentence? Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells. So to summarize; a class casts spontaneously if it does not need to prepare a spell in order to cast it. Clerics and Druids must use prepared spells first, and so do not qualify. Sorcerers and Bards do not prepare, and so qualify for the D&D definition of a class that casts spontaneously. It doesn't do to focus on a word if you don't understand how the system defines it, now does it?
Kolo 09-19-04, 07:57 PM	Im only 12 and i play D&D with my friends, personally im a big fan of the egotist(psion) but i had a sorcerror before. The wizard is have alot more variety of spells espeacially with pcking schools but sorcerrors have a limited selection making them have to pick destructive powers. Since they can cast alot more they can deal out more damage so im backing up sorcerror *okay so my spelling isnt great...* Sure it is! to quote from Mark Twain's "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling"; "For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spikingwerld." :D
baerdith 09-20-04, 03:01 AM	:D Thanks Kolo! Both posts had me laughing for several minutes!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :rofl: :invasion:
Lord Mortanius 09-20-04, 04:07 AM	Sure it is! to quote from Mark Twain's "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling"; "For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spikingwerld." :D :rofl: :heehee
Zelphi 09-20-04, 05:01 AM	Can I just ask, what does the issue of "Sorcs don't Spont cast Clerics do!" have to do with anything? Or are you just trying to sidetrack things with a lack of actual points? I can't even identify why you started this topic (or continued it)? The question stems from base ignorance and a lack of thought on the matter. The answer is obvious - it suits certain people to have the sorc. What more do you actually need than that? If you then complain about them being weak - a completely seperate "issue". Then this topic has even less validity because you are asking the wrong question. Not only that but such an ideology towards the Sorc is completely irrelevent because they do suit others, they are not horrendously underpowered, they simply lack some of the potential abuse that others can have if things go their way (it doesn't have to occur - it simply can). There is no fundamental need for you to use them, they should not be changed because they don't suit your whims, but feel free to use material to help your campaign if it doesn't suit the Sorcs method of play. Anything else?
Zelphi 09-20-04, 05:07 AM	Double Post...
Kolo 09-20-04, 07:31 AM	Can I just ask, what does the issue of "Sorcs don't Spont cast Clerics do!" have to do with anything? Or are you just trying to sidetrack things with a lack of actual points? I can't even identify why you started this topic (or continued it)? The question stems from base ignorance and a lack of thought on the matter. Wasn't me who started it. I just want to end it as soon as possible. So I posted the RAW. see? :) Oh, and as for my second post; hey, we needed a little humour around here. :D
Zelphi 09-20-04, 07:37 AM	I wasn't talking to you, I was refering to that Xun guy that seems to think he has a point.
Zelphi 09-20-04, 07:42 AM	I wasn't talking to you, I was refering to that Xun guy that seems to think he has a point. Too many people on these boards cannot access the true cause of problems they are having. As many can't even bring up valid reasons why there are so called "problems".
Kolo 09-20-04, 07:53 AM	Or understand that often they don't have problem to begin with, ne?
Zelphi 09-20-04, 08:07 AM	Aye, well perhaps less so, but aye. Its strange that some people can rant about the Wizards variable power but can never think of it when given mundance abilities like those of the Monk or Fighter. Obviously those classes don't have the same - destroy the world - potential as Wizards can, but that's not the point. Strangely the Sorc is a more mechanically stronger choice than the Wizard because there are a garunteed set of things he can do each day, whilst the Wizard is a variable power overload - sadly though a variable power that can never come into play at the same time as its current employed ability.
Kolo 09-20-04, 08:30 AM	Perhaps mechanically more stable is the word we should be using in that case, since the variables are smaller. It's relative strength is only decided by how badly the stability of the class can be undermined to abuse it's power, which is a LOT. Well, while I'm posting, I might as well clarify the "researching" issue as well, don't you think? :) Question; Can sorcerer research spells? Secundus; Can they research "sorcerer only" spells within the boundaries of the core rules as written? Now then, to refer to my first weapon of choice; SRD! to begin, under the class description of the Sorcerer; These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however. He can in fact study spells, though not to gain spells faster, and they can be unusual- i.e. not the "common" spells as listed in the PHB. They follow the same rules as the wizard for this, since the rules for the sorcerer/bard research are; With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of. Which is stated about one or two paragraphs below the wizard's rules for research. So, yes, sorcerers CAN research and they DO follow the same rules thereof, which I believe is stated in the DM's guide. Which leads to the question of; can they make spells that only they could cast? To answer this, I refer to the obvious fact that Wizards can. They have spells that only affect spellcasters that prepare their spells ahead of time. If the researching rules are the same for wizards and sorcerers, then sorceres CAN research a spell that affects only casters that cast without preperation, because the factor that limits which classes can cast/research which spells are the same, with no difference between them. i.e, the sorcerer, following the wizard's rules for research, CAN research a sorc-only spell because the reverse is true for the wizard. To conclude; Sorcerers can research. They follow the same rules for this as wizards do. There exist spells that target a specific type of spellcaster (only wizards) that can be researched by wizards. Therefore, the opposite must hold true, precisely because sorcerers use the same rules. If it didn't hold true, then it would specifically be mentioned as an exception, but it isn't. If you feel this to be overly liberal, since it isn't specifically mentioned, may I remind you that the very system itself warns that it cannot and does not cover all available possibilities and permutations. Given that it cannot do that, we can only work upwards from what we have, i.e. the RAW. And since sorcerer research and wizard research is the same, they can make the same types of spells for either class. *Bows, takes his seat again*
Zelphi 09-20-04, 08:37 AM	Yeah I saw that ages ago, I thought it was a bit obvious, I mean really... highlights my points... Anyway. Can I just say that D&D would be much the suckier without the Sorc.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-24-04, 07:14 AM	It is like I told you, the Sorcerer has to experiment and do research just like the Wizard. Why do you think that the Sorcerer has knowledge Arcana as a class skill, or why they can read and write? Now, and ogre Sorcerer i could understand. In Races of Stone I like how they developed alternative levels based on race. But, in core rules, there is nothing a Sorcerer only can cast that a wizard can't cast. Simple... I'll give you another example. Palin Majere from Dragonlance is a Sorcerer. There is a spell in the book that he created. Well, in the stats it has Sor/Wiz. Which means both parties have access. Also, about Spontaneous Casting, I have gone through lots and lots of new books and not once have I seen another spontaneous casting with Sorcerers. I have seen the able to cast spells without preparation as the prereq. I did see that part in Book of Exalted deeeds, but like I said, that book isn't core. As a DM rule you can restrict certain spells for a certain class, but out of the two, by core rules, only the Wizard has a few spells that are wizard only cause they involve preparing.
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-24-04, 02:22 PM	It is like I told you, the Sorcerer has to experiment and do research just like the Wizard. No one has said otherwise. Why do you think that the Sorcerer has knowledge Arcana as a class skill, or why they can read and write? What does reading and writing have to do with it? Researching just requires a location and 1000 gp per level (of the spell to be created worth of materials. And one week per level of the spell to be created. That's it. Beyond that, the methodology in which each type of caster "creates" a spell is entirely up to the individual class. For instance, a Bard might have spent the money and time doing some travelling, market research, and time spent developing and testing the lyrics of a new song that'll be the basis of a brand-new bard spell. A Cleric might use the money and time in a new sort of prayer or complicated ritual to have their god allow a wholly new sort of spell for the cleric to have access to. Sorcerers probably might spend the money to get a testing arena so the sorcerer can use the "trial and error" methodology to create a new spell safely and the time being spent to perfect the spell itself. Wizards might have to spend the money and time in a method more similar to research and development. Now, and ogre Sorcerer i could understand. In Races of Stone I like how they developed alternative levels based on race. But, in core rules, there is nothing a Sorcerer only can cast that a wizard can't cast. Simple... I'll give you another example. Palin Majere from Dragonlance is a Sorcerer. There is a spell in the book that he created. Well, in the stats it has Sor/Wiz. Which means both parties have access. That has no bearing on a spell that I could create. Also, about Spontaneous Casting, I have gone through lots and lots of new books and not once have I seen another spontaneous casting with Sorcerers. I have seen the able to cast spells without preparation as the prereq. I did see that part in Book of Exalted deeeds, but like I said, that book isn't core. As a DM rule you can restrict certain spells for a certain class, but out of the two, by core rules, only the Wizard has a few spells that are wizard only cause they involve preparing. But that passage in the Book of Exhaulted Deeds is not a spell, rule, or prestige class to restrict. Instead, it's simply a mention that sorcerers and bards cast spontaneously. And then you're still ignoring the posts of Kolo, Armored Priest, Baerdith, mercurywyrm, and Zelphi in this matter, in addtion to the definition of "spontaneous" in the Dictionary. Which is sysnonymous with "without preparation."
Kolo 09-24-04, 02:57 PM	It is like I told you, the Sorcerer has to experiment and do research just like the Wizard. Why do you think that the Sorcerer has knowledge Arcana as a class skill, or why they can read and write? Now, and ogre Sorcerer i could understand. In Races of Stone I like how they developed alternative levels based on race. But, in core rules, there is nothing a Sorcerer only can cast that a wizard can't cast. Simple... I'll give you another example. Palin Majere from Dragonlance is a Sorcerer. There is a spell in the book that he created. Well, in the stats it has Sor/Wiz. Which means both parties have access. Also, about Spontaneous Casting, I have gone through lots and lots of new books and not once have I seen another spontaneous casting with Sorcerers. I have seen the able to cast spells without preparation as the prereq. I did see that part in Book of Exalted deeeds, but like I said, that book isn't core. As a DM rule you can restrict certain spells for a certain class, but out of the two, by core rules, only the Wizard has a few spells that are wizard only cause they involve preparing. your argument is invalid for two reasons; first, out of all the spells in the PHB, only two are class specific. I believe the chance that a single spell known to have been researched by a sorcerer would be sorcerer only would be less than 1%, because there are so many that aren't in relation. Second, I already noted that if the wizard and the sorcerer use the same rules, then they can both research the same type of spells. So, as it follows, the wizard can research a class-specific spell; If they follow the same rules, so can the sorcerer. Otherwise, they wouldn't be following the same rules. Thanks for completely sidestepping my argument, btw. as for the prereqs; I have proven, until you actually deign to answer my argument, that only the sorc and bard of the core classes count as classes that cast spontaneously. (look at the first 2 paragraphs of the "magic overview" in the PHB for more info on that. That's right, READ THE RAW. I dare you. ;)) Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the prerequisites as written- they exclude all but spontaneously casting casters. And as defined in the chapter mentioned above, only two classes fit the description; The bard and the sorcerer.
Tony Vargas 09-24-04, 03:04 PM	To answer this, I refer to the obvious fact that Wizards can. They have spells that only affect spellcasters that prepare their spells ahead of time. If the researching rules are the same for wizards and sorcerers, then sorceres CAN research a spell that affects only casters that cast without preperation.. One thing I'd like to point out is that the wiz-only spells are wiz-only because they only have meaningful effects on a prepped caster. Any sorc-only spell would only really be justified if it had a similar mechanical restriction - that is, if the spell's effect were only meaningful to a spontaneous caster. I'm trying to come up with an example of such a spell... ah, I know: If you had a spell that let you 'pre-metamagick' another spell that you were going to later cast spontaneously, it would be spontaneous-only, since it would be negating a restriction that doesn't aply to prepped casting. That sort of thing.
Kolo 09-24-04, 08:04 PM	One thing I'd like to point out is that the wiz-only spells are wiz-only because they only have meaningful effects on a prepped caster. Any sorc-only spell would only really be justified if it had a similar mechanical restriction - that is, if the spell's effect were only meaningful to a spontaneous caster. I'm trying to come up with an example of such a spell... ah, I know: If you had a spell that let you 'pre-metamagick' another spell that you were going to later cast spontaneously, it would be spontaneous-only, since it would be negating a restriction that doesn't aply to prepped casting. That sort of thing. Sort of like the Symbul's spells matrix from the FR setting (which allows you to pre-equip some spells as quickened spells), but Sorc only, right? That would go a long way. Of course, Draconomicon introduced the concept of spells which sorcerers cast at increased caster levels... :) But yes, you're right. Since the same rules apply to both, they could both make spells with only a meaningful effect on one type of caster or the other. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the same system.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 09-25-04, 12:16 AM	Sort of like the Symbul's spells matrix from the FR setting (which allows you to pre-equip some spells as quickened spells), but Sorc only, right? That would go a long way. Of course, Draconomicon introduced the concept of spells which sorcerers cast at increased caster levels... :) But yes, you're right. Since the same rules apply to both, they could both make spells with only a meaningful effect on one type of caster or the other. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the same system. The Simbul has no Sorcerer only spells. They are for Sor and Wiz....
mercurywyrm 09-25-04, 12:52 AM	Xun, please respond to my post earlier.
Zelphi 09-25-04, 07:02 AM	Xun, answer the important question. What the hell does it matter or have you run out of points to try and convey? If the later, quit crying, read sig, move on. Unleash potential Sorc 6 Casting Time: 1 round Components: V Duration: 1 turn Targets: You Area of effect: 30ft Burst centered on you Saving Throw: Reflex (Half) This spell is terrifying to behold, the Sorcerer swells up their latent magical enerigies and unleashes a devestating blast of magical energy. It deals 1d4 damage per level of the caster to everyone within a 30ft radius though the caster can choose to exclude anyone they wish. The damage only applies to those with spell power, be it through spell like ability, divine magic or arcane power. It essential ruptures the magical energies they hold within their minds and cause it to surge within them causing damage. Only sorcerors can cast this spell as it works on the Raw magical power they hold within them. Be it their draconic potential, outsider influence or arcane experimentation, whatever grants the Sorc their arcane powers is unleashed in this powerful explosive force. Had enough yet?
Kolo 09-25-04, 08:23 PM	The Simbul has no Sorcerer only spells. They are for Sor and Wiz.... Thanks for misquoting me and ignoring my arguments. AGAIN. I said "like the" simbul spells, and added "but sorc only". in response to tony vargas. a HYPOTHETICAL sorc only spell that would make a certain metamagic feat easier in use, in short. which the RAW pretty much says you could easily make. as you'd have tried to argue against if you had read any of my earlier-posted comments. A debate is not a one-sided affair. You cannot simply state an argument and then simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you and what you say. In fact, your unwillingness to actually defend your arguments merely proves your inability to do so. Again, my posts earlier (number 516 and 527 to be precise-look at the upper right corner) counteract your statements. Now, if you really are debating the issue and defending your point of view, try to find any flaw in my logic- any ACTUAL flaw, quotable by the rules. until you do, you merely acknowledge your inability- i.e. proving me right. And I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 10-06-04, 12:17 AM	Thanks for misquoting me and ignoring my arguments. AGAIN. I said "like the" simbul spells, and added "but sorc only". in response to tony vargas. a HYPOTHETICAL sorc only spell that would make a certain metamagic feat easier in use, in short. which the RAW pretty much says you could easily make. as you'd have tried to argue against if you had read any of my earlier-posted comments. A debate is not a one-sided affair. You cannot simply state an argument and then simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you and what you say. In fact, your unwillingness to actually defend your arguments merely proves your inability to do so. Again, my posts earlier (number 516 and 527 to be precise-look at the upper right corner) counteract your statements. Now, if you really are debating the issue and defending your point of view, try to find any flaw in my logic- any ACTUAL flaw, quotable by the rules. until you do, you merely acknowledge your inability- i.e. proving me right. And I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that. Actually I have defended my arguments. You have yet to prove your arguments. Please find it anywhere in all the books where there are sorcerer only spells.
TheDarkestOfAngels 10-06-04, 12:42 AM	Actually I have defended my arguments. You have yet to prove your arguments. Please find it anywhere in all the books where there are sorcerer only spells. No one has claimed that any such spells exist. Only that such spells can be easily made within the core rules.
anglar 10-06-04, 01:10 AM	Actually I have defended my arguments. You have yet to prove your arguments. Please find it anywhere in all the books where there are sorcerer only spells. It is completely within the rules for a sorcerer to develop a spell which would in effect be a "sorcerer only spell" if only for the fact that only the sorcerer who developed the spell who know it. Now, if somehow a wizard ever learned the spell then it would cease to be a sorcerer only spell. You'll never find a spell that only a sorcerer can take in any published book by WoTC because it would contradict the idea of it being a "common" spell that anyone could learn.
Kolo 10-06-04, 07:38 AM	Actually I have defended my arguments. You have yet to prove your arguments. Please find it anywhere in all the books where there are sorcerer only spells. I never said that there were sorcerer only spells, so I don't need to prove the point- obviously, since I never stated it, I don't need to defend it. You have now not only misread me completely yet again, but also stated something which isn't true; you haven't defended your argument at all lately. You haven't even touched the fact that the PHB explicitly defines spontaneous casting as being "spontaneous without preperation", or that converted spells of the cleric and druid classes are treated "as if they had been prepared all along", making sure that they do not fall into the category of a spontaneously spellcasting class. Neither have you opposed the argument that if the same rules apply to sorcerer and wizard research (DMG p.42 if I recall), then the sorcerer can in fact easily research a spell that would benefit only him precisely because the wizard can do it. Just because there isn't a spell that is explicitly for the sorcerer in the PHB doesn't mean that there can't be- in fact, the RAW supports them. (And if that isn't enough for you, may I remind you that in the core rules, Shirts are a valid magic item slots yet no magical shirts exist in the DMG as written.) just because they don't exist doesn't mean they can't or that the rules don't support them. (In case you need help reading, I'll underline and bold it for you; The above paragraph is a rule quote stating that sorcerers can research spells that are sorc only. That is my argument, and all you can focus on is the lack of an example spell that already exists- which is silly because the rules EXPLICITLY state that they can't cover every available instance.) Since I'm not fond of quoting myself, I'm going to assume you can go back and see where I quote the rules, with numerous examples, supporting my point. Read those posts and actually try to deconstruct them, instead of just saying that you have. Or if you have, how about actually posting those defenses? [EDIT]; If you want to go into non-core WotC material (as you did with a magic item from the FR setting), there now exists a set of spells that sorcerers cast at an increased caster level- they literally get more bang for their buck than the wizard. (These spells are in the Draconomicon, to be exact.) Although they are not sorcerer only spells, they provide more benefit to a sorcerer casting them than they do for a wizard (an extra +1 to caster level)- not entirely dissimilar from the Wizard Only spells in the core books, which only provide a meaningful benefit to the wizard class. There also exists a set of race-specific spells in the forms of Dragon Only spells, and all dragons cast as sorcerers. These examples of good sorcerer-benefitting spells are prime examples of how research for sorcerers can benefit their class more than the wizard. And even without the spells represented in the Draconomicon, the core RAW still supports their creation and use, as well as the creation of spells that would only be of use to the sorcerer- sorcerer only.
Tony Vargas 10-06-04, 01:30 PM	I guess I have to point out again that the 'wizard only' spells in the PH are not wizard-only as some sort of privilege, but, are wizard-only because they have no meaning when aplied by a spontaneous caster. A sorcerer-only spell would certainly be possible, but only because you might come up with a spell the effect of which was meaningless to prepped casters, not as some sort of a perk for joining the sorcerer club.
Ax'Orl 10-06-04, 03:12 PM	I guess I have to point out again that the 'wizard only' spells in the PH are not wizard-only as some sort of privilege, but, are wizard-only because they have no meaning when aplied by a spontaneous caster. A sorcerer-only spell would certainly be possible, but only because you might come up with a spell the effect of which was meaningless to prepped casters, not as some sort of a perk for joining the sorcerer club. Perhaps a spell which allows you to use one of your spells per day slots to spontaneously cast a duplicate of a spell you have recently seen cast? Spell Duplicator Transmutation Level: Wiz 4 Components: V, S, M, F Casting Time: 1 Round Range: Personal Target: You Duration: Instantaneous Casting this spell allows you to duplicate a spell recently cast. You duplicate any spell of 3rd level or lower that you have seen cast up to 1 round before you started casting the Duplicator. This spell uses a 4th level Spontaneous Spell but allows the spontaneous caster to duplicate the effects of a spell she may not have in her repetoir. Material Component: <enter something here> and doppleganger blood Focus: A silver mirror of 50 gp value. NOTE: I just threw this together rather swiftly but I will most likely delve into it in depth later.
Kem 10-06-04, 04:07 PM	I guess I have to point out again that the 'wizard only' spells in the PH are not wizard-only as some sort of privilege, but, are wizard-only because they have no meaning when aplied by a spontaneous caster. A sorcerer-only spell would certainly be possible, but only because you might come up with a spell the effect of which was meaningless to prepped casters, not as some sort of a perk for joining the sorcerer club. Actually it annoys me to no end that these spells won't work for a sorc... Lets take the prime 2 examples... Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer: Well the prepare part can easily be changed to also apply for a sorc. Instead of: Prepare up to three additional levels of spells. A cantrip counts as 1/2 level for this purpose. You prepare and cast these spells normally. Instead why doesn't it say: You can gain up to 3 spell slots as long as their total level doesn't total more then 3. You can prepare, cast, or do whatever else you want with these slots. And the retain part of the effect can be changed also. In either case they retain the bonus to wizards but gain a bonus for sorcs. Wizards also STILL gain much more in comparison with Sorcs when they use it. But I don't mind that.
Tony Vargas 10-06-04, 04:46 PM	Y'know, it is Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, it shouldn't work for wizards anymore, either, since they now 'prepare' spells instead of memorize them... ;)
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 10-06-04, 07:23 PM	p. 53 PHB 3.5 Second scentence of Background: "Their first spells are incomplete, sponaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous." At some point in their carrers a sorcerer's spells ARE refered to as spontaneous, in the core ruleboooks to a certainly, even if it is pre-first level. Wizards never do this. Ok look at that phrase. They are stating this before they actually gain levels. They are referring to their powers as happening without their control. Almost like wild magic. Also, it's in the description, sometimes thats not very acurate, nor is it a game mechanics thing.
TheDarkestOfAngels 10-06-04, 08:13 PM	Ok look at that phrase. They are stating this before they actually gain levels. But it doesn't state that their spells change from being spontaneous before or after their "first spells" are controlled and made into fully formed spells, now does it? They are referring to their powers as happening without their control. Almost like wild magic. Also, it's in the description, sometimes thats not very acurate, nor is it a game mechanics thing. No... it says: "Their first spells are incomplete, sponaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous." It doesn't say anything else. It says that Their (referring to the sorcerer's) first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous. It doesn't say that their spells become less spontaneous than after their spells become actual, castable spells. It doesn't say anything about them being wild magic or like wild magic. You said that the PHB said that sorcerers didn't even mention spontaneous casting being associated with anyone other than druids and clerics and it isn't true. Furthermore, you continue to ignore Kolo's excellent and dead-on post. Oh and guess what? Clerics and Druids have spontaneous casting. Look in the core books under Spontaneous Casting. Please don't argue when you don't have your facts straight. Ah, you have challenged a student of rule-fu! I shall meet it with enthusiasm and alacrity. :D First, I shall quote the relevant section of the SRD; Spontaneous Casting of Cure and Inflict Spells: A good cleric (or a cleric of a good deity) can spontaneously cast a cure spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher, but not in place of a domain spell. An evil cleric (or a cleric of an evil deity) can spontaneously cast an inflict spell in place of a prepared spell (one that is not a domain spell) of the same level or higher. Each neutral cleric of a neutral deity either spontaneously casts cure spells like a good cleric or inflict spells like an evil one, depending on which option the player chooses when creating the character. The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along. Spontaneous Casting of Summon Nature’s Ally Spells: A druid can spontaneously cast a summon nature’s ally spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher. The divine energy of the spell that the summon nature’s ally spell substitutes for is converted into the summon spell as if that spell had been prepared all along. As you've no doubt noticed, I've emphasized the relevant points to the matter at hand. Notice that you are spontaneously casting the spell by converting a prepared spell into the relevant spell, be it cure/inflict or Summon Nature's Ally. You emphasize that since it mentions that clerics and druids cast the spell spontaneously, that therefore they count as spontaneous spellcasters and ONLY they have that label. However, it can't be spontaneous because you have to actually prepare a spell first. To clarify that statement, I bid you to look at the very first words of that selfsame chapter- under the heading "magic overview". Most spellcasters prepare their spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through devout prayers and meditation— while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation. Hello, what's this then? do those words mean what I think? "Spontaneously without preparation"? Clerics and druids do not cast without preperation; they have to have a prepared spell of the required level in order to be able to convert it into a cure/inflict/nature's ally spell, which is then treated "as if the spell had been prepared all along." They do not qualify for the above sentence; they do not cast without preperation. Therefore, they do not count as a spontaneous spellcasting class. So which classes qualify for the above sentence? Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells. So to summarize; a class casts spontaneously if it does not need to prepare a spell in order to cast it. Clerics and Druids must use prepared spells first, and so do not qualify. Sorcerers and Bards do not prepare, and so qualify for the D&D definition of a class that casts spontaneously. It doesn't do to focus on a word if you don't understand how the system defines it, now does it?
Ax'Orl 10-07-04, 12:15 AM	.... Also, it's in the description, sometimes thats not very acurate, nor is it a game mechanics thing. My my my, is that not the pot calling the kettle black? This from the man who claims that (based on the description of Wizards being bookish and learned) that they should be better at meta-magic (i.e. get more feats) than the sorcerer who grows up being able to cast spells. That is akin to saying that an architect is better at mixing colors to form a picture than an artist who has been painting since childhood with no training-simply because he (the architect) has read a book on it. Heck, I have "read a book" (several infact) on playing the guitar, but I cannot play nearly as well as Carlos Santana (a man with no formal training). He can do things with a guitar that I only dream of, yet I have more "book" knowledge than he. Who had the better meta-music skills? Now apply that to a sorcerer vs. wizard scenario-who would be better at changing things to suit the situation (applying/using metamagic) the person who LEARNED it from someone else, or the person who grew up with it? Back to the topic(s) at hand: 1-There are NO CORE sorcerer only spells 2-The RAW allows you to create said spells though 3-Sorcerers cast spells w/o preparation therefore (by Webster's and common consensus) they are SPONTANEOUS (as in w/o preparation) spellcasters and as KOLO pointed out, they and bards are the ONLY true (core) spontaneous spellcasters (Clerics have to PREPARE something beforehand, although they can spontaneously SWAP prepared spells for healing spells -and druics do the same albeit with the Summon Natures' Ally Spells) If you have to prepare you cannt be spontaneous-the two are mutually exclusive by definition. Spontaneity /= preparation. That would be like saying, "I travel spontaneously...but only if I have a bag packed and have purchased my tickets 2 weeks in advance" :confused:
Zelphi 10-07-04, 07:35 AM	Xun, answer the question of - what the bloody hell does it matter? Do you have an actual point. Lets assume Sorcs don't spontaneously cast. They just don't prepare and spontaneously cast their spells, it's not a spell like ability - because otherwise it'd be called spell like abilities and they'd follow the same rules. What the hell does it matter? Its still a different casting system with a class that offers the same arcane spells as the Wizard (well all but two) and less feats. Where's the hardship in understanding the point of them?