Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ruhl-Than Sage 12-05-05, 03:54 AM	Does anyone else find it fun that sorcerers have so few skill points and such a limited skill selection, especially one focused on knowledge? Wizards as Intelligence based casters are garunteed to have decent skill points, but sorcerers end up with horrible skill points most of the time in return for being better at charisma based skills which they don't even have as class skill (except bluff). I know the spontaneous casting vs. prepared casting and more spells per day vs. earlier spell levels arguements, but the Wizard's ability to create scrolls helps mostly eliminates the advantage of spontaneous casting and the Sorcerer has no recourse to expand his spell selection except for taking a feat that gives him one extra spell known. So why does the Wizard get scribe scroll and summon familiar at first level and then a bonus feat every 5th level while the Sorcerer only gains summon familiar. I understand that the wizard is the true master of magic and the Sorcerer is merely working from innate ability but, shouldn't the Sorcerer get something to balance these things, like a few more skill points and a larger skill selection or even a d6 hit die or better saving throws. Before anyone points out that a Sorcerer can never lose his spellbook, I'll mention it. Ok, sure he can't, that covers the scribe scroll ability, but it still doesn't account for the 4 other bonus feats wizards end up getting and the inheirant skill point advantage from having intelligence as your primary attribute. So what do you think people? P.S. Please be civil, if you disagree with my standpoint tell me why. Don't call me stupid.
Jerks 12-05-05, 05:38 AM	I won't say that the sorcerer is underpowered, but they do require more fore-thought to build properly than a wizard. The wizard can pick a turkey of a spell, or one that doesn't scale well (like Sleep) to get through the first couple of levels. The sorcerer must be picky and have a build in mind from start to finish, or risk gimping themselves. In my campaigns I don't use them. They never seemed to meet the flavor-text given them. If magic is so inborn and natural why do they use spell components? Why are their spell lists the same as wizards? The creation of the Psion, Warlock and Warmage sealed the Sorcerer's fate. I especially like the design of the Warlock, a being blessed with raw magical talent and a few tricks up their sleeve to keep the bad guys on their toes. Sorry to go off on the tangent, but I really don't like the design. It's fairly well balanced (IMHO), but it just seems too redundant with wizards.
Gemstone 12-05-05, 05:56 AM	Does anyone else find it fun that sorcerers have so few skill points and such a limited skill selection, especially one focused on knowledge? Wizards as Intelligence based casters are garunteed to have decent skill points, but sorcerers end up with horrible skill points most of the time in return for being better at charisma based skills which they don't even have as class skill (except bluff). I know the spontaneous casting vs. prepared casting and more spells per day vs. earlier spell levels arguements, but the Wizard's ability to create scrolls helps mostly eliminates the advantage of spontaneous casting and the Sorcerer has no recourse to expand his spell selection except for taking a feat that gives him one extra spell known. So why does the Wizard get scribe scroll and summon familiar at first level and then a bonus feat every 5th level while the Sorcerer only gains summon familiar. I understand that the wizard is the true master of magic and the Sorcerer is merely working from innate ability but, shouldn't the Sorcerer get something to balance these things, like a few more skill points and a larger skill selection or even a d6 hit die or better saving throws. Before anyone points out that a Sorcerer can never lose his spellbook, I'll mention it. Ok, sure he can't, that covers the scribe scroll ability, but it still doesn't account for the 4 other bonus feats wizards end up getting and the inheirant skill point advantage from having intelligence as your primary attribute. So what do you think people? P.S. Please be civil, if you disagree with my standpoint tell me why. Don't call me stupid. Actually, after reading your post, I though (for the first time mind you) that sorcerors are lacking something compared to wizards. That Scribe scroll feat is actually quite much. But besides that, I still think they're perfecly fine compared to eachother :)
MonkeyGreatSEOH 12-05-05, 06:45 AM	Basically I feel a well built Wizard can do everything a well built Sorceror can do, but better in almost every way.
Yabanjin 12-05-05, 06:52 AM	A little while back I asked a similar question. Hope it helps: There are a million threads on this. The short answer though, is spontanteous casting. With carefully chosen spells, the sorc gets more out of the feats that he does get, especially metamagic. He's also tactically a lot more flexible if you compare him and the wizard without any extra wiz feats or crafted items. With crafting feats, the wiz can compensate for the lack of tactical flexibility that prepared casting causes, and also make up for the cash he spends on his spellbook. With metamagic feats, he gets less out of them than the sorc, because he has to know he needs a metamagicked spell when he does spell prep but they work better when he does prepare them (especially still spell and quicken spell). . The sorc by contrast doesn't need to know he'll run into a silence field in a small room with close quarters combat. He can cast every spell he's got silent if the situation demands it (assuming he took that feat...) Or to put it another way.... A wiz needs scribe scroll to make use of his spellbook. A sorc already has his whole "spellbook" at his fingertips. At level 1 both suffer from limited scope and endurance, both tend to lean heavily on purchased scrolls to perform their role (and in campaigns where scrolls aren't available, rely on their crossbow). Yes, the wiz can craft scrolls with downtime and spell ink, but the sorc just gets more slots and isn't as locked into a bad choice in his slots as a wizard is in the baby levels. By level 10, a wiz has perhaps 2 more feats than a sorc. One is probably a crafting feat, to compensate for spellbook cost and to expand the wizard's range of abilities when his prepared spells are either gone or not what is needed today. That leaves him perhaps one metamagic feat ahead of the sorc. The sorc though, actually gets to use his feats more often. He may have 2 metamagic feats, where the wiz has 3, but if you look at how many spells the sorc actually applies metamagic too on a daily basis, he's usually way ahead of the wizard. Not only that, by level 10 most of the "holes" in a sorc's spells known are gone. A L10 sorc always has at least a "pretty good" spell available for nearly any situation. Likewise, by way of feats and simply more prepared slots, much of the tactical inflexibility of a wizard is mitigated. They're both getting better, but the wiz's weaknesses are more complex than just a lack of flexibility in spells, so they need a bit more help . This continues all the way to level 20. A L20 core sorc is not ever going to be in a situation where he lacks a spell he needs. A wiz might be, due to bad spell prep or a very long day, but should have a host of crafted items to compensate and give him a "Baseline" level that is still very strong under the worst circumstances. I believe that these sorts of thoughts were going through the heads of the designers, likewise the fact that the sorc gets most of his "spells known" in the "odd" levels where he "falls behind" in spell tiering isn't an accident. I never feel bad at an odd level with sorc, because I'm so delighted to expand my range of spells. Having played both a wiz and a sorc, I've not had trouble having either contribute the "Arcane role" for the party. Their methods vary, they vary nearly as much as the difference between a monk and barbarian (in the light infantry space), but they still get the job done. I find them equivalent, with different moments where they "Shine" but with an overall general competence. One thing to note is bad decisions at levelup hurt a sorcerer far more than a wizard. This more than anything else has lead people to give up on sorcerer or think it is underepowered. A sorc with nothing but blasting spells is a very weak character. A wiz who takes nothing but blasting spells will have one very bad day and then choose something else the next day. The sorc usually has to wait a couple levels to repair the damage made by bad choices. This is usually more of a problem with a sorc generated at level 6 or 10 than one played from level 1 upwards, because the latter will have had level after level of pain from his early bad choices that meant he picked later spells more wisely. Despite the excellent answer above, in my campaign, the Sorcerers get 'Eschew Materials' for free as a counter balance to 'Scribe Scroll.'
Rhomphaia 12-05-05, 07:23 AM	The balance here is spells per day and money. At every level, a Sorcerer can cast more spells per day, albeit from a potentially more limited selection. The reason I say potentially more limited selection is that Wizards, beyond their starting spells and the two they gain for free at level up, they must pay a boatload of cash whenever they want to write a spell into their spellbook so it is available for casting. Sorcerers and Wizards are balanced, it is just that most of the Sorcerer's advantages over the Wizard are more subtle and not easily seen at first glance.
GreyGriffin 12-05-05, 07:35 AM	Before anyone points out that a Sorcerer can never lose his spellbook, I'll mention it. Ok, sure he can't, that covers the scribe scroll ability, but it still doesn't account for the 4 other bonus feats wizards end up getting and the inheirant skill point advantage from having intelligence as your primary attribute. While I agree with the Yabanjin on almost every point, including Eschew Materials as a bonus feat, I have to mention this specifically. Relying on a spellbook is way, way more profound a weakness than can be made up for with something like Scribe Scroll. First, scribing scrolls costs Experience Points and time. Both of these are at a premium in many campaigns, especially ones where you're the only spellcaster. And those "chump change" experience costs can really add up over the course of a campaign, leaving you sometimes thousands of experience behind the curve, to say nothing of the GP cost. Second, the spellbook itself is a terrible weakness, worse than any other character class. If a wizard is deprived of his spellbook, he loses every single class ability he has, and his entire career, his entire life is wasted. Scribing a spare spellbook costs 10,000 gold pieces for 100 pages, a significant expense at any level. Worse still, a wizard's character is built up around the spells that he uses. If he loses his spellbook and just "gets another one," the theme, to say nothing of the tactics or even the general usefulness, of a wizard who loses his spellbook is forfeit. And woe betide the Necromancer whose book is burned, and who can only find spellbooks and scrolls packed with spells from his prohibited schools. The mind-boggling Achilles Heel that is the spellbook is so profound, I've considered allowing free Spell Mastery feats in my games (at 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18) to be sure the Wizard doesn't lose his character along with his book.
Gemstone 12-05-05, 07:37 AM	A L10 sorc always has at least a "pretty good" spell available for nearly any situation. Im not sure if i agree with this. The sorceror has a fairly limited selection of spells and even though he can take utility spells, there will be situations were a sorceror won't have the right spells. Else than that, I must say that it was the best answer on this topic I've seen on this board. Me? Well, I'm more a wizard person. I favor the "Hey I've spent 5 years through magic college to be able to cast level 1 spells" than the "I can cast spells because I had a draconic ancestor!" approach. In fact, there's only fluff reasons to why I prefer wizards (if you don't count Intelligence. Since I almost always DM, I like the wizard best as a DMPC; because then I can justify his sometimes superhuman metagame answers :D)
Gemstone 12-05-05, 07:40 AM	The mind-boggling Achilles Heel that is the spellbook is so profound, I've considered allowing free Spell Mastery feats in my games (at 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18) to be sure the Wizard doesn't lose his character along with his book. To not stray away from the original topic, I want only GreyGriffin to read the Spoilerblock :) While doing that could upper it for the wizard prettu much, I suggest that you let them have a single spell that they can prepare without spellbook every 4th level. Having a total of 15 spells that you can prepare at level 20 is a bit much. In fact, most of my wizards would not need a spellbook if they had that ability. Now, I build almost only blaster wizards, but still... erhm... sorry if I made two posts in a row. I kinda Forgot that I postEd iN these Realms before. (find the pun anyone?)
nonsi 12-05-05, 07:53 AM	if you go here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=544932 you'll find an entirely different version of a sorcerer you can use to draw ideas from. I can't say that it's better at this point (haven't play-tested it yet), but it's more focused on the idea of magic that comes from within.
GreyGriffin 12-05-05, 07:57 AM	While doing that could upper it for the wizard prettu much, I suggest that you let them have a single spell that they can prepare without spellbook every 4th level. Having a total of 15 spells that you can prepare at level 20 is a bit much. In fact, most of my wizards would not need a spellbook if they had that ability. Now, I build almost only blaster wizards, but still... Is that so bad, though? Is the spellbook really that intrinsic to the wizard? The Wizard still has to prepare his spells in advance, still has fewer spells per day, and still has fewer freely available spells than the Sorcerer even with those Spell Mastery feats. Preparation versus spontaneous casting alone is enough to differentiate the classes, even if they were identical in virtually every other respect. What the Spell Mastery Bonus Feats do is make the Wizard useful after he gets dumped in acid, and, more importantly, preserve his character archetype. A wizard is defined by the spells he uses. Losing his spellbook and getting another changes his character in a fundamental way that can't affect any other class so profoundly, except perhaps the Fighter (who can rely on specific and sometimes esoteric weapons). It makes the wizard class into a true spellcaster, and not just a spellbook interpreter.
strcpy 12-05-05, 08:10 AM	In the first 3-4 levels perhaps the Wizard has a slight edge of the sorcerer as far as spell selection in concerned. But at about this time sorcerer's should start investing in wands and scrolls as well. Just because sorcerer does not have the scribe scroll feat, does not mean he cannot buy scrolls from the local town wizard? And later he can get staffs for casting those spells he may need to make him a more rounded caster. If you have a decent party, they will probably chip in an help you buy those scrolls and staffs as they are going to benefit the whole party.
amethal 12-05-05, 08:21 AM	Does anyone else find it fun that sorcerers have so few skill points and such a limited skill selection, especially one focused on knowledge?I love skill points and I love sorcerers, and I hate having to choose between one or the other. I think sorcerers should get more skill points, and a bigger list of class skills. However, I think clerics and fighters should also get more skill points, and arguably so should all the other classes. It looks like the decision was taken to be stingy with skill points, for some reason.
Ash the blackcowl 12-05-05, 09:28 AM	A year ago I started the Shackled City campaign with three sorcerers. None have stayed the course. Using the class as a catalyst to prestige only. For myself I see the sorcerers in my campaign before they prestiged as magic missle machines. To a certain extent they still are. The biggest weakness a sorcerer has IMHO is its deferded spell access. This is magnified when they are the sole arcane caster. When a party of a certain EL is challanged by an enocunter of an equal or slightly higher EL, the sorcerer is often lacking the higher level spells necessary to compete.
Nani? 12-05-05, 09:53 AM	My experince. Sorcerers are underpowered, the flavor text sucks and not well thought out. Flavor first--I've seen threads argueing exactly "what" a sorcerer is? Only a draconic decended character, why not fae? What about a wizard's medical experiment or a really twisted interaction between elven and human DNA? How are they "trained" or as spontanous caster do they even need training. Wherever you stand on that, you'll admit we would not have this arguement over "what" a cleric is or a fighter is. I think they went further in the wrong direction in Complete Arcane with the introduction Warlocks, essentially sorcerers with a different mechanic and a "cool" flavor written in for people too uncreative to come up with character backgrounds on thier own. Draconic feats essetially pigeonholed and made the whole "draconic blood" explaination as the only explaination. Mechanics-- First, one thing to keep in mind, the level of imbalance varies from campiagn to campiagn. A wizard "always on the move" with no chance to research more spells and a GM who fears what wierd way magic will mess up his game is at disadvantage to a character who is in a magic friendly GM with a "home base" where he can set up his Alchemy lab and months "between adventures" to invent whatever he wants is more powerful vis a vis the sorcerer. My solution, which I will admit might not work with a player who are excessive munchkins (a problem I don't have, at least with my spellcasters). Use the "generic" spellcaster on page 77 of Unearthed Arcana with the following modifications to make it sorcerer specific. HD d4 Base Saves: As a generic it said choose one. As a "sorcerer" I say Will as the good save. "Bonus feat" at first level is always either escew materials, a "sudden" or "draconic" feat from Complete Arcane. This reflects the broad view of sorcerers. Other future "bonus feats" must be either these, item creation or metamagic. Draconic feats are open to reinterpretation "flavor wise" but not mechanic wise. For example, Draconic flight may be faerie or demonic instead, as can Draconic claw or anything else "in story". The claw still does 1d6 damage regardless. Sorcerers are always Charisma based, arcane casters. Spell per day is per page 78 UA, not players handbook. Your charisma bonus give you a bonus on spells known and spells per day. Skills: 2+ int. Generic says any 4 (chosen at creation), plus all craft, proffesion, and knowledge skills. I limit it to Knowledge:Arcana and one other. This allows a for the "extra" knowledge skill needed for a prestige class but keeps them from being "book wizards" unless they want to use the other 4 skills as knowledges. I do allow the "any four" to stand. Unique experinces make interesting characters and a sorcerer is more likely to have unique experinces that have shaped them from an early age even more so then other adventurers. I think it's a good idea for a class ablitity and allows some interesting PC flavoring. I considered making the skill points 4+int but chose not to thus far. Armor and weapons: As standard Sorcerer. All the best, Nani?
Ruhl-Than Sage 12-05-05, 10:56 AM	Thank you everyone for your thoughful replies. In my campaigns I don't use them. They never seemed to meet the flavor-text given them. If magic is so inborn and natural why do they use spell components? Why are their spell lists the same as wizards? The creation of the Psion, Warlock and Warmage sealed the Sorcerer's fate. I especially like the design of the Warlock, a being blessed with raw magical talent and a few tricks up their sleeve to keep the bad guys on their toes. I'm not ready to give up on Socerers, I just think they just need a few minor adjuments. I have to agree with the spell component thing and will start giving them eschew materials like stated by Yabjin, but with one better allow them to sacarifice XP to replace more expensive material components. Not sure at what rate yet. If anyone knows a good rate I would appreciate their advice. Despite the excellent answer above, in my campaign, the Sorcerers get 'Eschew Materials' for free as a counter balance to 'Scribe Scroll.' Relying on a spellbook is way, way more profound a weakness than can be made up for with something like Scribe Scroll. First, scribing scrolls costs Experience Points and time. Both of these are at a premium in many campaigns, especially ones where you're the only spellcaster. And those "chump change" experience costs can really add up over the course of a campaign, leaving you sometimes thousands of experience behind the curve, to say nothing of the GP cost. Second, the spellbook itself is a terrible weakness, worse than any other character class. If a wizard is deprived of his spellbook, he loses every single class ability he has, and his entire career, his entire life is wasted. Scribing a spare spellbook costs 10,000 gold pieces for 100 pages, a significant expense at any level. Worse still, a wizard's character is built up around the spells that he uses. If he loses his spellbook and just "gets another one," the theme, to say nothing of the tactics or even the general usefulness, of a wizard who loses his spellbook is forfeit. And woe betide the Necromancer whose book is burned, and who can only find spellbooks and scrolls packed with spells from his prohibited schools. The mind-boggling Achilles Heel that is the spellbook is so profound, I've considered allowing free Spell Mastery feats in my games (at 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18) to be sure the Wizard doesn't lose his character along with his book. Hmmmm.... depending on how strickly the DM enforces item saving throws and how cruel he is that could be quite serious. OF course there is nothing to say that your spellbook must be made of paper and I personally allow enchantments to a spellbook to make it resistant to fire and acid and such. if you go here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=544932 you'll find an entirely different version of a sorcerer you can use to draw ideas from. I can't say that it's better at this point (haven't play-tested it yet), but it's more focused on the idea of magic that comes from within. Thanks :) I love skill points and I love sorcerers, and I hate having to choose between one or the other. I think sorcerers should get more skill points, and a bigger list of class skills. However, I think clerics and fighters should also get more skill points, and arguably so should all the other classes. It looks like the decision was taken to be stingy with skill points, for some reason. I'm in the same camp as you. Sorcerer's specifically stood out to me though because their counterparts the wizards did end up having good skill points. Also, I don't understand why characters with an innate ability for magic would necessarily be knowledgeable, but it seems they would have more time for other pursuits, thus a larger list of class skills, especially charisma based ones. My experince. Sorcerers are underpowered, the flavor text sucks and not well thought out. While I would go that far. I agree the flavor text could be greatly improved. Fey, Elemental, Angelic, Demonic, and probably other heritages make sense as well.
Nani? 12-05-05, 11:04 AM	In spite of everything, I love Sorcerers and I love the concept behind them. All the best, Nani?
Vedic Cold 12-05-05, 11:52 AM	I'm not ready to give up on Socerers, I just think they just need a few minor adjuments. I have to agree with the spell component thing and will start giving them eschew materials like stated by Yabjin, but with one better allow them to sacarifice XP to replace more expensive material components. Not sure at what rate yet. If anyone knows a good rate I would appreciate their advice. Well, just as a rough estimate you could do it this way. Since the PHB, in the section on spellcasting services, says that a spellcaster who casts a spell with an XP component charges 5 GP/point of experience burned in the casting, why not just reverse engineer that? To spontaneously cast a spell with an expensive material component without having that component on hand would thus require the sorcerer to expend an amount of XP equal to the GP cost of the component divided by 5.
Gemstone 12-05-05, 12:46 PM	Well, just as a rough estimate you could do it this way. Since the PHB, in the section on spellcasting services, says that a spellcaster who casts a spell with an XP component charges 5 GP/point of experience burned in the casting, why not just reverse engineer that? To spontaneously cast a spell with an expensive material component without having that component on hand would thus require the sorcerer to expend an amount of XP equal to the GP cost of the component divided by 5. Not a bad idea... not a bad idea at all in fact :)
Votan 12-05-05, 01:10 PM	Why are their spell lists the same as wizards? This does not have to be a fatal flaw. The wilder uses the same power lsit as the psion and nobody sees that as an issue as a wilder plays completely differently from a psion in a lot of respects. The issue with sorcerer is changing the magic method was the only major change between the classes.
Ignatius Metamorphic 12-05-05, 01:43 PM	I haven't played a sorcerer, but have played in a couple of campaigns with both wizards and sorcerers. They don't haven't been underpowered at all. Although they have a limited spell selection, any player with some forethought can put together a solid spell list. In actual play, the sorcerer's extra spells per day are a powerful advantage. They wind up being able to cast more spells than wizards for two reasons. First, they have extra spell slots. Second, they never fill their slots with dud spells. In practice, sorcerers just keep casting spells over and over. I remember one game where the party sorcerer blew five 3rd level slots to cast Fly on everyone in the party. He still had more than enough spells to be a major player in the subsequent combat. In addition, because sorcerers don't have to blow their cash on buying and scribing spells, they tend to have lots of gold to spend. As a result, sorcerers tend to have lots of good items. Of course, other peolpe's experience might be different, but in actual play sorcerers are powerful and a lot of fun to play. Particularly if you want to be the cast-a-lot-of-spells guy. Ignatius
arkerpay 12-05-05, 02:56 PM	You're missing out on the big picture. With the high charisma and exotic looks, chicks dig sorcerers way more than homely, bookworm wizards.
Argamoth 12-05-05, 03:15 PM	True, sorcerors should get a bit of a RPing advantage compared to wizards. Unfortunatly that doesn't always happen.
Seerow 12-05-05, 03:32 PM	I've noticed a few suggestions for giving Sorcerers bonus feats, or saying that the Sorcerer can use feats better than the Wizard... You DO realize it takes a full round action for a Sorcerer to cast any sort of metamagic, right? Aside from that detail, Sorcerers should have a better class skill list... some of the Charisma based skills at least.
Ignatius Metamorphic 12-05-05, 03:39 PM	Yes, it take a sorcerer a full round action to metamagic a spell, but this isn't huge a disadvantage. Really, it boils down to the sorcerer not being able to move and cast a metamagic spell in the same round. Usually, the sorcerer is behind the front line and can give up a move action to cast the spell. If not, they just cist a regular spell instead. Some metamagic feats become obscenely useful to a sorcerer. Energy Substitution (I think that's the name of the feat) dramatically increases the sorcere's versatility.
Saric 12-05-05, 03:46 PM	You DO realize it takes a full round action for a Sorcerer to cast any sort of metamagic, right? That is more of an advantage rather than a disadvantage, sure it screws up your mobility of casting a spell and moving afterwards, but if you have to move it means your tank is doing a horrible job. :) 2nd of all, that is the power of the sorcerer who invests in metamagic spells, being able to morph his spells whenever he suits it. Where his Wizard counterpart kicks himself in the butt for preparing a maximized fireball, the sorcerer can choose to alter his spells as he sees fit on the fly. Low on high level offensive spells? Cast a heightened spell (insert lower level spell) That monster is suceptible to fire? maximize that next fireball and show him who's boss. Not having to guess what best spells to prepare for the next adventure is a definite plus. Just for that fact alone, makes me favor sorcerers over wizards.
DocBeard 12-05-05, 03:49 PM	Well, stacked up next to a day's worth of forethought and the hope that the specific metamagic spells you prepped actually turn out to be useful (as a wizard), a full round action to apply any metamagic feat you know to any spell you can cast (within caster level limits, obviously) doesn't really sound so bad. I do agree that they could use some more class skills, though.
epyondrowhunter 12-05-05, 04:00 PM	i agree. the sorceror is my favorite class and is badly nerfed. so what i do is, give them all charisma based skills (bluff, diplomacy etc.) the knowledge general skill. give them eschew materials at first level along with a bonus feat every fifth. and raise there spell casting one level (i.e. they gain access to 2nd level spells at third level etc. and cast spells as one level higher in tearms of spells per day)
Gemstone 12-05-05, 05:00 PM	i agree. the sorceror is my favorite class and is badly nerfed. so what i do is, give them all charisma based skills (bluff, diplomacy etc.) the knowledge general skill. give them eschew materials at first level along with a bonus feat every fifth. and raise there spell casting one level (i.e. they gain access to 2nd level spells at third level etc. and cast spells as one level higher in tearms of spells per day) IMO that would break the sorceror uttermostly to give them both bonus feats, faster spellcasting and cast spells as one level higher in terms of spells per day.
Shike 12-05-05, 06:44 PM	i agree. the sorceror is my favorite class and is badly nerfed. so what i do is, give them all charisma based skills (bluff, diplomacy etc.) the knowledge general skill. give them eschew materials at first level along with a bonus feat every fifth. and raise there spell casting one level (i.e. they gain access to 2nd level spells at third level etc. and cast spells as one level higher in tearms of spells per day) IMO that would break the sorceror uttermostly to give them both bonus feats, faster spellcasting and cast spells as one level higher in terms of spells per day. I have to agree with Gemstone. I personally think the casting progression is fine. What I would do is increase skill points (to 4+int), add in CHA based skills and give Eschew Materials. and "possibly" give one free Martial Weapon (like longsword, longbow, or something to that effect), either that or I'm not ready to give up on Socerers, I just think they just need a few minor adjuments. I have to agree with the spell component thing and will start giving them eschew materials like stated by Yabjin, but with one better allow them to sacarifice XP to replace more expensive material components. Not sure at what rate yet. If anyone knows a good rate I would appreciate their advice. Well, just as a rough estimate you could do it this way. Since the PHB, in the section on spellcasting services, says that a spellcaster who casts a spell with an XP component charges 5 GP/point of experience burned in the casting, why not just reverse engineer that? To spontaneously cast a spell with an expensive material component without having that component on hand would thus require the sorcerer to expend an amount of XP equal to the GP cost of the component divided by 5.
Jaxgaret 12-05-05, 07:20 PM	The mind-boggling Achilles Heel that is the spellbook is so profound, I've considered allowing free Spell Mastery feats in my games (at 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18) to be sure the Wizard doesn't lose his character along with his book. You do know that Wizards get bonus feats don't you? If a player is so worried about "losing" their character... they can take Spell Mastery themselves.
GreyGriffin 12-05-05, 08:19 PM	You do know that Wizards get bonus feats don't you? If a player is so worried about "losing" their character... they can take Spell Mastery themselves. While I'm aware this is off-topic... it's the same thing as telling a Fighter he has to take feats in order to keep his BAB, just in case someone, I dunno, stole his magic rocks. If he didn't have his magic rocks, or taken a feat (or maybe three feats, given the bulk of fighter feats vs. Wizard feats), he'd be as good as a commoner.
epyondrowhunter 12-05-05, 09:33 PM	IMO that would break the sorceror uttermostly to give them both bonus feats, faster spellcasting and cast spells as one level higher in terms of spells per day. im sorry let me clarify my self. This is all done in relation to the wizard. Because as of the RAW the sorceror is week compared to the wizard. This is odd considering that wizards and sorcerors are suppose to be foil characters. and should be equally powerful in tearms of spell casting (witch is the only thing that matters in these classes). so if you disagree with my re balancing then maybe take away the extra bonus feats. And may i pose a question. Why would it break the sorceror to give it those things. compared to the wizard the spellcasting of the sorceror is weak. and not to mention the wizard has the advantages of an infinte number of spells known. combined with scribe scroll the wizard has the potential to cast almost as many spells as the sorceror can.
FriendlyBiscuit 12-05-05, 10:42 PM	I too am of the opinion that the sorceror is a bit weak. I give them Eschew Materials free, a bonus Draconic feat at 10th and 20th levels, and they cast spells using the Spell Points variant on 153 of UA. Spell points make them as flexible as an "innate" caster should be, eschew materials makes sense for reasons already discussed, and Draconic Feats are not as super-powered as metamagic, but my players still appreciate them nonetheless. Of course, this doesn't work for peope who see the sorceror's draconic background as limiting, but my players all seem to have no problems with it. I also include Battle Sorcerors. They don't use Spell Points, and they only get one bonus feat at 1st level which can be eschew materials or a draconic feat. With these two changes, Sorcerors make Psions/Wilders unnecessary, and Battle Sorcerors make Psionic Warriors unnecessary. Wizards, of course, still have their appeal with item creation, better spells sooner, skillpoints, and limitless spells known.
2y1y1z2 12-05-05, 11:02 PM	The beauty of the Sorcerer is that if he enters a Prc with full spellcasting, the only class feature he misses out on is his familiar getting better.
Gemstone 12-06-05, 04:27 AM	im sorry let me clarify my self. This is all done in relation to the wizard. Because as of the RAW the sorceror is week compared to the wizard. This is odd considering that wizards and sorcerors are suppose to be foil characters. and should be equally powerful in tearms of spell casting (witch is the only thing that matters in these classes). so if you disagree with my re balancing then maybe take away the extra bonus feats. And may i pose a question. Why would it break the sorceror to give it those things. compared to the wizard the spellcasting of the sorceror is weak. and not to mention the wizard has the advantages of an infinte number of spells per day. combined with scribe scroll the wizard has the potential to cast almost as many spells as the sorceror can. It would overpower the sorceror because it would take away the only advantage the wizard has over the sorceror (except for quicken spell). A sorceror has the potential of unlimited spells per day, it only takes one feat to pull that off. Giving the sorceror Eschew materials and perhaps a single bonus feat wouldn't be that much, but to give it all that would make the wizard class unfavorable as a player class. I mean, then the sorceror has: Spontaneous casting Bonus feats Eschew materials Familiar +2 spells per level (compared to the wizard) Spells at the same level as the wizard. Compared to that, the wizard has only quicken spell to go with, and two extra spells per spell level is more than enough to counter that fact. If I would remake the sorceror, I would drop a spell from each level per day, grant them eschew materials, a heritage of some kind that would give them abilities once every 4th level (or perhaps 3rd), give them spells one level earlier (maybe, depending on the heritage abilities)
Nani? 12-06-05, 10:46 AM	The beauty of the Sorcerer is that if he enters a Prc with full spellcasting, the only class feature he misses out on is his familiar getting better. But shouldn't you be able to play a Sorcerer to level 20 and have something worthwhile to gain, like a wizard or even more so, a druid? Also, half the arcane prestige classes are designed with knowledges which are cross class skills. All the Best, Nani?
Argamoth 12-06-05, 12:15 PM	As a DM, I like the idea of giving them Eschew Materials. I'd also make sure that any wizard would keep up on his spellbook and prepared spells. I'd make sure he took care of his book too..... As a player, I prefer sorcerors. We barely keep track of components anyway, so getting draconic and metamagic feats can keep me up with the wizard. I also like the idea of giving them a bonus feat or 2.
epyondrowhunter 12-06-05, 03:10 PM	It would overpower the sorceror because it would take away the only advantage the wizard has over the sorceror (except for quicken spell). A sorceror has the potential of unlimited spells per day, it only takes one feat to pull that off. Giving the sorceror Eschew materials and perhaps a single bonus feat wouldn't be that much, but to give it all that would make the wizard class unfavorable as a player class. I mean, then the sorceror has: Spontaneous casting Bonus feats Eschew materials Familiar +2 spells per level (compared to the wizard) Spells at the same level as the wizard. Compared to that, the wizard has only quicken spell to go with, and two extra spells per spell level is more than enough to counter that fact. If I would remake the sorceror, I would drop a spell from each level per day, grant them eschew materials, a heritage of some kind that would give them abilities once every 4th level (or perhaps 3rd), give them spells one level earlier (maybe, depending on the heritage abilities) No it wouldnt the wizard still has an insane versitility and an infinte number of spells known. Along with a bonus on item creation. Not to mention that the wizard is still likely to have a higher number of skill points. Compare my version exactly to the wizard and you'll find that there exactly the same, but with a trade off when it comes to the casting. so compared to your list the wizard has Scribe Scroll Familiar (in technical game tearms) A more usefull primary abilty score An infinite number of spells known Bonus Feats Combined with scribe scroll a posssible as many spells perday as the sorceror. so really with these modifications the only thing the sorceror has on the wizard is simple weapon proficinecy. witch really dosent even matter
Gemstone 12-07-05, 03:22 AM	I have to agree with Gemstone. I personally think the casting progression is fine. What I would do is increase skill points (to 4+int), add in CHA based skills and give Eschew Materials. and "possibly" give one free Martial Weapon (like longsword, longbow, or something to that effect), either that or Hmmm hmm... not a bad idea at all :)
Millennium 12-07-05, 06:43 AM	The balance here is spells per day and money. At every level, a Sorcerer can cast more spells per day, albeit from a potentially more limited selection. The reason I say potentially more limited selection is that Wizards, beyond their starting spells and the two they gain for free at level up, they must pay a boatload of cash whenever they want to write a spell into their spellbook so it is available for casting. Actually, their spell selection is always more limited than a wizard. Aside from a wizard knowing many more spells at first level than a sorcerer, there's also the issue that while a wizard gets two spells at every level, a sorcerer only averages 1.85 spells per level over the full 20-level progression: most of the time they only get one or two. So even if he never scribes a single extra spell into his spellbook, at every point in the wizard's career he will still know more spells than the sorcerer. The so-called "flexibility" of a sorcerer is only available through munchkinry; selecting particular spells at every level solely for their 'power' rather than going along with any sort of character theme. The video-game-magic system encourages this, by relegating spell selection to a per-level deal rather than per-day: it's tied to a game mechanic rather than in-game events. This is not to say that sorcerers cannot be roleplayed well, but their extremely limited spell selection makes doing so a heavy penalty, one that more than outweighs the two extra spells per day. This should not be.
danielinthewolvesden 12-07-05, 08:07 AM	I know the spontaneous casting Before anyone points out that a Sorcerer can never lose his spellbook, I'll mention it. Ok, sure he can't, that covers the scribe scroll ability, but it still doesn't account for the 4 other bonus feats wizards end up getting and the inheirant skill point advantage from having intelligence as your primary attribute. . It isn't that Sorc is underpowered...it's that Wizard is overpowered. According to the Consensus: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436 The Sorc ranks 12th out of 30- in other words a fine, balanced Class. The Wizard ranks #2, which means it needs Nerfing.
Nani? 12-07-05, 08:47 AM	It isn't that Sorc is underpowered...it's that Wizard is overpowered. According to the Consensus: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436 The Sorc ranks 12th out of 30- in other words a fine, balanced Class. The Wizard ranks #2, which means it needs Nerfing. Sorcerer had a D in front of it, meaning highly debated (which is obvious) as opposed to consensus, like wizard has. Also, every fighter type rated fairly below 6, which hints at some scewed results, which make me wonder if too many people think spells = powerful while I think 15 points each round vs 1 6d6 fireball means that the combat class is more powerful. Also, sorcerer came in last among primary casting classes (not counting Warlock). All the best, Nani?
danielinthewolvesden 12-07-05, 10:27 AM	Sorcerer had a D in front of it, meaning highly debated (which is obvious) as opposed to consensus, like wizard has. Also, every fighter type rated fairly below 6, which hints at some scewed results, which make me wonder if too many people think spells = powerful while I think 15 points each round vs 1 6d6 fireball means that the combat class is more powerful. Also, sorcerer came in last among primary casting classes (not counting Warlock). All the best, Nani? Then, please feel free to post there and voice your opinion. The Consensus isn't my opinion, it's the over all consensus opinion of many folks here. But anyway- the Sorc doesn't really need to be "fixed". Sure, give them "eschew materials" for free, maybe. It is just that the Wizard needs Nerfing.
solbergb 12-07-05, 01:25 PM	I have played both wizards and sorcerers under 3.x rules. I find them to both fill the "Arcane caster" role in the party just fine, but they do it differently. To me this means they are reasonably well balanced. A well build sorcerer will have considerably more options at any given moment than a wizard. Before the wiz preps spells, or after he preps them plus 15 minutes of time to fill "empty" slots with the spellbook, the wiz has more options. But once spells are selected, when the initiative starts, the wiz generally has fewer spell combinations possible than the sorcerer, from level 1-20. (level 3 may be an exception, it is the time when the sorc spells known and spell slots are at their nadir compared to a wizard). Furthermore with each spell a wiz casts, his options decrease. A sorc only loses options if his top level slots have all been used. Does a sorc lose move actions if he chooses a metamagic option? Yes. Does he lack top tier spells on odd-levels? Yes, but so does the wiz after a couple encounters, if the spells he chose were useful. Or at any time if the spells he has slotted aren't what are needed. Is the sorc's "best" option at a given time not the "best" tool for the job? Yes. But it is rarely useless, and quite often it's pretty good if you can just cast it a couple extra times. A wiz will have the "best" tool once or twice, if he guessed right that morning. Or he'll have it after 15 minutes of study if he carries his spellbook around and the problem can wait for 15 minutes. Any option truly lacking for either character will be filled with consumables such as scrolls and wands. (eg, a sorc will typically have a way of detecting and revealing invisible creatures on a scroll if she doesn't have a "spells known" way of doing so. A wiz likewise will often carry such scrolls, in case the wiz didn't expect invisible opponents that day) Playing each character to its strengths, the party can overcome challenges expected to be entirely or mostly accomplished by the party arcane caster. Playing each character to its strengths, the character can contribute in nearly every combat. You can make a very weak sorcerer by having massive duplication in spells known (half the spells or more are direct damage, for example). A wizard who preps his spells that way will also usually be considered weak *shrug*. The biggest difference is a sorc needs a lot of thought at "levelup" to build a character that has an effective spell mix and hopefully a flavorful "theme". At the table, a sorc has what he has, and if he's thought about his spell selection and how it might be used, he'll usually get the most out of it at the table. A wizard needs a lot of thought *at spell prep time* to fully pull his weight. Which means the player spends precious gametime debating his spell mix or coordinating it with other casters. Or alternately he comes to the table with a variety of "standard" mixes that cover most situations. In contrast to sorc, the "levelup" decisions are relatively unimportant. Pick a couple spells that you can't seem to find in trade, toss some skill points around and you're done. Frankly, I have come to prefer the "spont caster" problem - having to think about your long term character build - to the "prep caster" problem - having to think about your spell mix each and every game-morning. The effectiveness of the prep caster is subject to much more variation, based on how well you guessed the situation vs the actual situation.
MSW 12-10-05, 07:28 PM	Add my 2 cents for improving the sorcerer. Eschew Materials feat free at 1st level. Add the Class Skills, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Listen and Spot, since sorcerers are supposed to be more charismatic and social then wizards. I'd also bump up the skill points to +4 each level. Everything else I'd leave as is.
Votan 12-11-05, 12:16 AM	Add my 2 cents for improving the sorcerer. Eschew Materials feat free at 1st level. Add the Class Skills, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Listen and Spot, since sorcerers are supposed to be more charismatic and social then wizards. I'd also bump up the skill points to +4 each level. Everything else I'd leave as is. I would be concerned that this would push into the Bard's territory in terms of skill points and the ability to dominate social circumstances. The synergy in charisma skills would be pretty good with spellcasting. Maybe I am overly concerned but if I wanted to do this I'd be more likely to play a bard/Sublime Chord . . .
savant_warlord13 12-11-05, 12:38 AM	Sorcerers get more spells per day AND can cast them spontaneously AND can go to most arcane spellcasting PrCs without taking any hit to their abilities (wizards lose their bonus feats)
Draxo 12-11-05, 07:29 AM	Sorcerers get more spells per day AND can cast them spontaneously AND can go to most arcane spellcasting PrCs without taking any hit to their abilities (wizards lose their bonus feats) Spells per day: Scrolls And the reason they dont take any hit to their abilities is because they dont have any...
Braekor Dragonfang 12-11-05, 07:59 AM	My experince. Sorcerers are underpowered, the flavor text sucks and not well thought out. Flavor first--I've seen threads argueing exactly "what" a sorcerer is? Only a draconic decended character, why not fae? What about a wizard's medical experiment or a really twisted interaction between elven and human DNA? How are they "trained" or as spontanous caster do they even need training. Wherever you stand on that, you'll admit we would not have this arguement over "what" a cleric is or a fighter is. I think they went further in the wrong direction in Complete Arcane with the introduction Warlocks, essentially sorcerers with a different mechanic and a "cool" flavor written in for people too uncreative to come up with character backgrounds on thier own. Draconic feats essetially pigeonholed and made the whole "draconic blood" explaination as the only explaination. And on that note, I notice hardly anyone would actually BOTHER to take the heritage feats because, well, they suck, especially when comparing to much needed meta and craft feats
Jovknee 12-11-05, 08:29 AM	I didn't read the whole thread, so if I am repeating what someone else has already mentioned, my appologies to everyone. I remember reading a couple years ago, a break down of the classes into somewhat of a score. The sorceror scored the lowest on this test (Fighter or monk got the highest I think). Personally I think the sorceror gets screwed. For somone who automatically *knows* his spells, I don't see why they have such low hp's. I don't think a d6 hp is outragous, and even if you roll bad you aren't much better than the mage. Also the eschew materials is a understandable feat for the sorceror. All it means is that any spell that has some mudane item for a material component they don't require the material component (as long as there is no GP value on the component). Now I can see in a certain campain where the DM wants the mage/sorceror to keep track of such items, this can become more powerful. But most games I know of, the mage only needs to spend a gp/month to keep his spell pouch full of the right materials, so this is not a powerful feat in most games to give for free.
Phantom Lord 12-11-05, 09:19 AM	I noticed Gemstone asking for something like this a few posts back, so I'll link you guys to my sorcerer revision (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/kuldraenis/classes.pdf). Perhaps a bit overpowered, perhaps not, but I'll let you know after I am done playtesting it (it's based on a mana system, BTW.) Anyway, changes can be summed up as follows: d6 HD to represent less of a bookwormy lifestyle Eschew Components (Ex): Sorcerers can (and mostly do) cast spells without material components or proper foci. Any material component worth less than 1 gp are entirely ignored, while more costly material components require an amount be paid in XP; this amount is equal to 1/4 the cost in gp. Eschewing foci costs 10 XP per spell level if the focus is entirely missing; using a familiar object with sentimental value (something akin to a toddler’s teddy bear or blanket) completely negates the XP cost. Of course, under no circumstances is the sorcerer required to eschew any components. Heritage: Sorcerers derive their innate spellcasting abilities from a special, rare taint in their blood stemming from one of three sources: Celestials, Fiends, or Dragons. Their heritage not only grants them spontaneous arcane abilities, but has a direct influence on the progression of their talents as well. One with Black, Green or Copper Dragon blood will have Acid as his favored energy, whereas one descended from Blue or Bronze Dragons will favor Lightning. Red, Brass, or Gold Dragon blood will result in favor of Fire energy, and White and Silver Draconic heritage results in the sorcerer favoring Cold Energy. A sorcerer with Celestial or Fiendish blood coursing through his veins may choose their favored energy from the four mentioned above, or may choose Holy or Unholy energy, respectively. If a sorcerer chooses Holy or Unholy energy, they can only gain the effects of the favored energy type as long as they retain an alignment in-keeping with their heritage: good for celestial or evil for fiendish. It should be noted that often a sorcerer’s heritage is quite unknown to him until much later on in his career, if at all. Just because the player must choose the heritage at level one, the character need not ever know. Energy Substitution (Su): Beginning at 4th level a sorcerer may substitute his favored energy for any other energy type in a spell. This grants the ability, for instance, to turn a fireball into an acidball or a cone of cold into an unholy cone. Energy substitution does not require any extra time or expenditure on the part of the sorcerer. Energy Resistance (Ex): Starting at 8th level the sorcerer gains the ability to resist the first 5 points of damage from his favored energy. This does not apply as-such to those that favor Holy or Unholy energy, but in the opposite manner; one with Celestial blood will gain energy resist 5 against Unholy energy, while one with a Fiendish bloodline will resist Holy energy. This increases to energy resist 10 at 16th level. Energy Admixture (Su): At 12th level the sorcerer improves upon his ability to substitute energy, and, instead of converting all energy damage to his favored energy, can inflict damage of his favored energy type in addition to the damage normally done by the spell, effectively doubling the amount of damage inflicted. This can lead to such interesting combinations as a holy fireball or acid cone of cold. This does not require any extra time on the part of the sorcerer, but any spell cast as such expends 12 more mana points than normal. Metamagic Proficiency (Su): When he reaches level 20, the sorcerer can use metamagic as any other caster, including the ability to use Quicken Spell.
Gemstone 12-11-05, 02:16 PM	I noticed Gemstone asking for something like this a few posts back, so I'll link you guys to my sorcerer revision (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/kuldraenis/classes.pdf). Perhaps a bit overpowered, perhaps not, but I'll let you know after I am done playtesting it (it's based on a mana system, BTW.) hmm... not bad, but not exactly what I'm after. Perhaps I'll steal some ideas from you and remake some other things :) I was planning on the heritage's to be as follows: Celestial, Fiendish, Mystiscm, Draconic, Natural Where Mystisicm is learnt from a master and natural is learnt from nature itself
Blaque 12-11-05, 02:30 PM	I would be concerned that this would push into the Bard's territory in terms of skill points and the ability to dominate social circumstances. The synergy in charisma skills would be pretty good with spellcasting. Maybe I am overly concerned but if I wanted to do this I'd be more likely to play a bard/Sublime Chord . . . Charisma synergizing with actual skills is not a problem I think. In fact, the fact that sorcerers only use their primary stat for spells and one skill, while the other casters use their primary stat for a lot of other things (Druids & rangers for survival, spot and listen, Clerics for the same things, Wizards for all the knowledge skills, spellcraft, and search, Bards for the social skills), that it makes the Cha-based casting feel forced. Actually giving them more to do with a stat they have high make sense. Also, in the four-party setup, it mentions in the sorcerer fluff that htey often make good faces, but due to only having Bluff as a class skill as is, sorcerers make very poor ones actually. Additionally, Bards still get quite abit: - Better HD - Actual class abilities besides spells. - More skills I think, and skills per level. - While they cast less spells, they get a lot of neat ones to htemselves. I wouldn't probably add Spot and Listen to the sorcerer list, but actually letting them have more things to do with Cha (I'd actually add UMD, since there are sitll going to be holes the sorcerer list and helps with the jurry-rigged magic theme I think) would be nice, as well as the skills to do stuff with them And stuff.
Sorcery_owns_n00bs 12-11-05, 02:49 PM	So far a lot of very knowledgeable gamers have put forth a lot of valid points. Unfortunately all of these points have been based around how a sorcerer or wizard fares in combat. As all of you are aware this is only a small part of the game. there is far more to D&D than fighting. A sorcereris, in my opinion a far for characterful choice. I find it more fun to play the young hot-head of the party than the brooding sage. Sorcerers are just more fun.
Ruhl-Than Sage 12-11-05, 03:00 PM	That's true, but I would think you could particularly appreciate the lack of skill points and class skills that sorcerer's end up with. I think it's fine for wizard's to be the supreme users of magic and fonts of knowledge. I just want Sorcerer's to be better at other things, because they are supposed to have innate magic meaning they would have more time for other pursuits.
MysteryGilgamesh 12-11-05, 03:10 PM	Simply put, sorcerers suck. This is going to take the form of a rant, because hey, it's a subject I love to rant on. Anyway, they're one of the most underpowered D&D classes, ever. They can't enter most PrC's, and the whole "Wizard's lose bonus feats" is a lie. If you're gaining abilities better than bonus feats, you're not losing anything. And most PrC's offer abilities vastly better than any feats, as they should. Hell, WotC even made a sorc only PrC that not even sorc's can enter! That should show you just how much WotC "loves" sorcerers. Not to mention sorc's have no class abilities beyond "I cast spells!", and to anyone who says "Familiar is a class ability", it might as well not even exist. It's a fixture, it's a piece of flavor text. A familiar's usefulness is nil, zip, nada, it's just there to be an Exp sink when something inevitably kills it. They have **** for class skills, and **** for skill points. A wizard is a walking library of information about everything due to his genius+ intellect and ability to have every last knowledge skill in the game with utterly tremendous bonuses. They've got **** for BAB, saves, HD, and weapon prof's, and for someone who just has to wiggle his pec's for magic to happen, you'd figure they'd do more than, oh, nothing and perhaps develop their abilities more than that. They've got **** for spells known, they absolutely suck at using metamagic due to the full round action meaning that enemies have many more chances to disrupt your casting and make you lose the spell, and as the icing on a big *** shaped cake, they're outpaced by wizards at every even level. And to pound home the fact that sorc's suck at using metamagic, a wizard can invest in cheap and insanely useful rods which instantly apply metamagic with no time adjustment, but when a sorc uses it, guess what? Screwed again! Those extra spells per day? Wow. A whole 18 spells at the most over a wizard. Four of which are level 1 and 2, which won't make much difference at the higher levels. So 12 spells over a wizard that are mostly useful. Oh, but wait! Wizard's have spells and rings which give them more spells per day anyway! In fact, it gives them more spells of levels 1-4 per day than a sorc!. And then you add in the wizard's ability to spend a trivial amount of exp and GP, and have as many extra spells as they need. Yeah. We can see who WotC loves more here. Sorc's need some serious beefing up. The best way to start is by adding about 3 more spells known at each spell level, and fixing their casting progression so wizard's don't make an utter joke out of them. Then tossing them Eschew Materials and possibly a bonus feat at 8, 12, 16, and 20.
solbergb 12-11-05, 03:36 PM	Which just goes to show the prior poster doesn't understand sorcerers. You can't disrupt a metamagicked spont spell any more easily than a normal spell, because the full round action begins and ends in your initiative (unlike a 1 full round spell like summon monster 1) They have *enough* spells known, especially if they take some metamagic. Finally, it isn't about the handful of extra spell slots. It is the fact that a single top tier slot can be used to "prepare" every single spell they have, and every single metamagic combination they have. They have the wizard "15 minute" flexibility instantly on tap. This translates in play to more efficient use of their slots, and fewer situations where their spells aren't useful. Yes they get fewer skill points than a wizard. Yes their skill list doesn't synergize with their attribute mix very well. *shrug* Has no effect on their ability to fill the arcane role. Cha skills are mostly not "trained only" unlike Kn skills, so they can take advantage of their high stat anyway, and they have enough skill points for the only skill they actually need (concentration). Unlike a wiz, a sorc really doesn't need spellcraft, so one of those "extra skills" is recovered right off the bat. Yes they have no real ability beyond "I cast spells". However they do that ability exceedingly well, and it is extraordinarily hard to take that ability away from them. So their effectiveness will live or die on their spell selection. They get enough spells, and enough feats, to select sufficient options to be useful, in combat and out of combat.
Gemstone 12-11-05, 03:37 PM	Those extra spells per day? Wow. A whole 18 spells at the most over a wizard. Four of which are level 1 and 2, which won't make much difference at the higher levels. So 12 spells over a wizard that are mostly useful. Oh, but wait! Wizard's have spells and rings which give them more spells per day anyway! In fact, it gives them more spells of levels 1-4 per day than a sorc!. And then you add in the wizard's ability to spend a trivial amount of exp and GP, and have as many extra spells as they need. Yeah. We can see who WotC loves more here. Sorc's need some serious beefing up. The best way to start is by adding about 3 more spells known at each spell level, and fixing their casting progression so wizard's don't make an utter joke out of them. Then tossing them Eschew Materials and possibly a bonus feat at 8, 12, 16, and 20. Sorcerors can also get extra spells per day (perhaps even known) by utilizing magical items. Also, IMO, there would no longer be any reason to play a wizard if you beefed up the sorceror in such a way. It would effectivly broaden their spell selection with so much that they wouldn't be hampered by it at all and giving them extra feats would only take away the only mechanical core advantage the wizard has.
MysteryGilgamesh 12-11-05, 05:59 PM	Sorcerors can also get extra spells per day (perhaps even known) by utilizing magical items. Also, IMO, there would no longer be any reason to play a wizard if you beefed up the sorceror in such a way. It would effectivly broaden their spell selection with so much that they wouldn't be hampered by it at all and giving them extra feats would only take away the only mechanical core advantage the wizard has. There are no items thus far that add more spells known, or per day, for a sorcerer. There's at least one spell a 4 items for a wizard that add more per day, and adding more known is as simple as finding a scroll. As for core, you can't just count the core. You've gotta count all possible sources. And in doing so, the wizard kicks the sorc's teeth in, easily. There is simply no contest between the two.
MysteryGilgamesh 12-11-05, 06:08 PM	Which just goes to show the prior poster doesn't understand sorcerers. You can't disrupt a metamagicked spont spell any more easily than a normal spell, because the full round action begins and ends in your initiative (unlike a 1 full round spell like summon monster 1) They have *enough* spells known, especially if they take some metamagic. I understand sorcerers perfectly. I suggest you read page 174 of the PHB, specifically "Casting Time". A sorc who gets nailed during the time it takes for that full round action, is gonna get screwed, big time. Especially if he gets hit more than once. So yeah. Disrupting metamagic is a whole lot easier to do to a sorc. As for enough spells known? Hardly. They have 0 versatility. They don't have enough low level slots to nab the spells most casters need to function well, and a damage spell. The problem only grows greater as they scale, when they get even less spells known per level. Have you ever actually played a sorc compared to a wizard? The difference undeniably huge. Not to mention, check the CO boards some time. Ask them what they think of the sorc compared to the wizard. These are the people that know their stuff better than anyone else, and trust me...They ain't going to be saying a sorc is anywhere near a wizard, in terms of power.
Shadowmind64 12-11-05, 07:21 PM	I would agree that sorc's are a bit nerfed. the lack of versitality, the easiness of their metamagic spells being disrupted, less skill points, less feats. compared to a wizard. or god forbid a cleric. In my campaigns i allow sorc's to either a:have a medium BAB (to symbolize an inherintly offensive nature) b: wear light armor as a bard does or c: use a mp varient much like a psion. (think psion w/ arcane spells.) I find that this balances them out a bit more but doesnt make them broken. it also allows for the player to determine what their sorc is like seing how they are all very individual and such.
TheDarkestOfAngels 12-11-05, 08:01 PM	Having seen this arguement time and time again, I suppose I have this to say: First, the sorcerer isn't weak 'as is' in the PHB, or it at least isn't inferior to the wizard in any way, shape, or form. Even if you disagree with me, which is fine, that still doesn't negate that what is powerful and what isn't in D&D can be highly subjective and a lot of the reasons people use to 'factually implicate' that the sorcerer is underpowered (at least in contrast to the wizard, if not in general) is, in fact, little more than personal preference. The reason this is is because people generally have a different opinion on what makes a class powerful and what doesn't. That isn't to say that nothing is over or underpowered, but that is to say that the line shifts with the opinions of each person and what's under/over powered to one person might be fine (or even the opposite) to another. In any case, I do personally think that the sorcerer (among some other classes) deserve some fine tweaking - that doesn't mean I think it's underpowered (nor any of the others) - it just means that I think it could have been designed better, but in my sig I have an alternate sorcerer that I designed along with some feats and varients and whatnot along with it. If you don't like that, I have a listing of every varient or alternate sorcerer I could find in addition to every arguement and discussion made regarding this very topic. So this can die.
Gemstone 12-12-05, 04:17 AM	So yeah. Disrupting metamagic is a whole lot easier to do to a sorc. Doesn't spontaneous meta magic only remove the move action for a round? A sorceror can still cast a meta-magic spell and move 5 ft. It doesn't go the whole way round. There are no items thus far that add more spells known, or per day, for a sorcerer. There's at least one spell a 4 items for a wizard that add more per day, and adding more known is as simple as finding a scroll. As for core, you can't just count the core. You've gotta count all possible sources. And in doing so, the wizard kicks the sorc's teeth in, easily. There is simply no contest between the two. That's why I said "Perhaps". A sorceror doesn't get a "spell known" for picking up a scroll, but he can still cast it. Also, counting all the other sources, nothing I've seen this far makes the sorceror less viable than the wizard. In fact I've played both and to me, it looks like the soceror is more a "Battle" type than the actual wizard. A sorceror is a perfect blastmachine. But still, that's my oppinion
WayneTheGame 12-12-05, 09:30 AM	I *do* feel that the Sorcerer is a bit underpowered; only knowing two spells at 1st level is pretty... lame. I would like to see something like this: - d6 Hit Die - Wear light armor with no ASF - A modified spell list, like the Warmage, but includes a good mix of spells (some combat, some buff, some utility, etc.). The Sorcerer automatically knows all the spells on the list and can cast them the same amount of time as a Warmage (i.e. Warmage progression) The problem with Sorcs is that they get shafted in spells known on the basis of "They can pick from any spell in the game!" but that's a pathetic excuse because most spells aren't worth picking as your choice; you'd be wasting a choice on a spell that MIGHT be useful once or twice. Typically you'd want at least one combat spell and at least one buff, depending on your sorcerer's role. I would gladly give up the so-called "versatility" of being able to pick spells from anything for a more well-rounded list that I know everything out of. I say make the sorcerer like the non-blaster optimized Warmage. Because as it stands right now, to do what a sorcerer is supposedly best at (i.e. blasting things with magic), the Warmage does it ten times better. Saying that a warmage only has blasting/combat spells is no excuse, because thats what a sorcerer was INTENDED to do, if I remember correctly.
solbergb 12-12-05, 12:16 PM	I understand sorcerers perfectly. I suggest you read page 174 of the PHB, specifically "Casting Time". A sorc who gets nailed during the time it takes for that full round action, is gonna get screwed, big time. Especially if he gets hit more than once. So yeah. Disrupting metamagic is a whole lot easier to do to a sorc. I suggest that YOU read the feats introduction in the PHB on how metamagic works for sorcs/bards: "If the spell's normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.)" They explicitly point out that a FULL ROUND ACTION is not the same as a ONE FULL ROUND casting time. Ie, a metamagicked spell takes as long as doing a charge action or a full attack. It begins and ends on your initiative count. Only a readied action can interrupt a metamagicked sorc spell...same as only a readied action can interrupt a std action spell. Have you ever actually played a sorc compared to a wizard? The difference undeniably huge. Yes..I actually have played both. Have you? The difference in style was significant. The difference in abiltiy to be the party arcane caster? Miniscule, and only in HOW they approached a challenge and to some extent WHICH challenges were easier, not WHETHER they could approach a challenge or WHETHER they could pull their weight. Perhaps YOU can not figure out how to cover offense, defense, mobility and utility with a handful of spells known plus a few scrolls, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Others have done it and are doing it.
Tevin Illithane 12-12-05, 12:26 PM	There are no items thus far that add more spells known, or per day, for a sorcerer.(Emphasis mine)Did you forget about these little guys? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#wizardry) Read your items, man. I've used these on every sorcerer I've played(which is nearly 1/3 of my characters) to expand my spells-per-day to crazy amounts. (EDIT: Hmm...the URL isn't scrolling down the page like it should. Anyway, the items in question were the Rings of Wizardry[which is a misnomer because any arcane caster can use them, not just wizards])
solbergb 12-12-05, 12:26 PM	I say make the sorcerer like the non-blaster optimized Warmage. Because as it stands right now, to do what a sorcerer is supposedly best at (i.e. blasting things with magic), the Warmage does it ten times better. Saying that a warmage only has blasting/combat spells is no excuse, because thats what a sorcerer was INTENDED to do, if I remember correctly. I think you remember incorrectly. One of the reasons sorcs are perceived to be weak is there seems to be an irresistable attraction for some people to use them only as artillery platforms for a series of direct damage spells. If you build them more like a superhero "energy projector" (ie, flight, force fields, ranged combat, enhanced senses) it comes out a lot better. A good sorcerer build can generally has spells for several unrelated kinds of attack (direct damage, battlefield control, save or XXX vs different saves), plus one or two defensive spells and some party buffs and utility spells by level 6-7. Below that level, they lean on scrolls to cover bases their spells known don't. This works in spite of limited spells known because many spells are dual or even triple purpose. Just to pick one example - Grease is an attack spell (it disarms) a battlefield control spell (it trips or can break up charges/5' steps on folks without good balance skills) and a defensive spell (it gives +10 against grapplemonsters, or to help a friend escape a grapple). It also has a normal range (close) and an area rating, which means enlarge and sculpt metamagics work on it. It has a useful save or XXX effect at any level, which means it is also a heighten candidate. It has a targeted mode (the defensive mode) so chain spell can protect your whole party from moderate strength grapple attacks or spells. There are a lot of multipurpose spells in the PHB alone, and the splatbooks just add options. One important addition to the sorc was all the new swift/immediate action spells (the phb has only feather fall) - put a few of those on your spell list and you won't miss quicken spell.
savant_warlord13 12-12-05, 01:55 PM	follow the sorcerer link in my signature for my opinion