Post/Author/DateTime	Post
God of Slivers 02-14-05, 08:49 PM	I'm pondering the idea of letting sorcerers learn more spells by expending time and xp (and possibly gp), but I decided to come here and see what the boards had so say about it. I'm not sure how expensive it should be or whether or not it would imbalance things any. I personally don't see this as gamebreaking, but proper cost determination is crucial. So, what do you guys (gals) think? Maybe something like [level^2 *100xp] with cantrips half the price of first level spells.
Mandarbgrim 02-14-05, 09:34 PM	Very interesting and cool idea. You would probably have to let someone play this and figure out the exact balance. It seems like a good balance to the Wizard's ability to make magical items that is a lot harder to manage with a Sorceror. My only thought... <Spell Level>^2 X 100 XP would mean Level 1= 100 XP Level 2= 400 XP Level 3= 900 XP Level 9=8100 XP Low Level Spells will really cheap... Compare.. 1st Level Sorceror who has learned +8 1st Level spells, and +4 0-Level Spells 2nd Level Wizard who knows a similiar number of spells and only has half the number of spells a day than the Wizard. Therefore, at lower levels a Sorceror beats a Wizard. At mid levels the spells cost a lot more, but the Sorceror can keep his himself intentially 2-3 levels below the party so he gets more XP out of an encounter according to the XP reward system in the DMG. At high levels the new Spells cost way too much XP under this system. Make the XP cost linear and the Gold cost exponential might be a better idea. Spell Level X 200 XP per Spell & Spell Level^2 X 200 Gold Spell 1 Day per 1000 Gold cost + 1 Day per Spell Level hmmm..It seems like that still puts the gold cost too low for low level spells.
Lexarius 02-14-05, 10:06 PM	It would have to be a rather large amount of XP to be balanced, since XP is easy to get. In fact, the less XP you have, the faster you get it. I've seen a wondrous item somewhere that lets a Sorcerer know an extra spell. Double the price and make it slotless if you like. Maybe even allow sorcerers to craft this item without taking a feat. Gold is good because it is a little more finite than XP, and a physical item is good because it can be bought, sold, stolen, or destroyed. From a balance perspective, that is. Taking the item out of the picture for security should probably be a x3 price modifier.
Talcoram Cyndar 02-15-05, 01:11 AM	This is an idea that was kicked around on a few 'fixing the sorcerer' threads. In the variant sorcerer I use in IMC, I have taken away one spell slot for each spell level. This way the sorcerer wil only end up 5 1st Level spell slots for example. In return, the sorcerer gained a bonus to spells known based upon his INT modifier. This forces a sorcerer character to choose wherer he is going to invest his ability raises. Basicly he needs to choose versatility v. firepower. Another idea very similar to what you are proposing was siply that the sorcere could learn a number o bonus spells based upon his CHR nidifier, but would need to pay a cost in x.p. I believe the suggested rate of X.P. cost was (spell levelx 1000x.p.) with cantrips costing 500 x.p. Just a cautionary word. Be careful in giving the sorcerer too many 'free' abilities. It is a powerful and balanced class when compared with the other primary spellcasters. It does however, lack flavor and character and a reason to stay a sorcerer rather than grabing the first PrC available. I hope this helps... -TC
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 10:51 AM	Has anyone ever tried playtesting this (or something similar) before? I kinda see it as a varient of magic item creation. The wizard crafts all kinds of wonderous items and scrolls and such, and the sorcerer crafts new spells known. Both increase the power of the caster at the expense of XP. Okay, whats more balanced? spell level x 1000 XP or spell level^2 x 100 XP
sollmn 02-15-05, 11:24 AM	It will [still] definately take play-testing.
ArochanoX 02-15-05, 12:03 PM	I remember some feat that gives you an extra spell known. From T&B maybe in complete arcane. If you want that exp cost, I'd suggest spell level ^ 2 x 100exp. But I think that the cost to "buy" extra spells known, doesn't lower the efective XP amount of character. (see below) A 1st level sorcerer who has 500 xp in a 2nd level party which has average exp of 1500xp, and who has used 1000xp in bonus spells known is considered 3rd level character who has 1500xp like the rest of the party. That doesn't offer sorcerers tricks to benefit from this loss of exp.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 12:19 PM	A 1st level sorcerer who has 500 xp in a 2nd level party which has average exp of 1500xp, and who has used 1000xp in bonus spells known is considered 3rd level character who has 1500xp like the rest of the party. That doesn't offer sorcerers tricks to benefit from this loss of exp. Then perhaps we should do the same to the crafting wizard, you know, so he doesn't get the tricks from his loss of XP. :rolleyes: Seriously, this would cripple him, find me one person who would rather be a first level caster with a few bonus spells than a third level caster with the standard.
Dracspero 02-15-05, 12:20 PM	I'm pondering the idea of letting sorcerers learn more spells by expending time and xp (and possibly gp), but I decided to come here and see what the boards had so say about it. I'm not sure how expensive it should be or whether or not it would imbalance things any. I personally don't see this as gamebreaking, but proper cost determination is crucial. So, what do you guys (gals) think? Maybe something like [level^2 *100xp] with cantrips half the price of first level spells. I think it's a great idea. I would make the following suggestions, however. 1) Create a feat the sorcerer would need to take in order to have this ability. It could be considered similar to a craft feat. Perhaps a minimum spellcraft skill as well. 2) Make the exp cost 1000+(level^2)*100 and add a gp cost = 25 x exp cost. So a 1st level spell would cost 1100xp and 27500 gp 2nd 1400, 35000gp 3rd 1900, 47500gp 4th 2600, etc This might seem expensive, but it would, I believe, prevent abuse. If you think it's too much, make it 500+ instead of 1000+, but I do think there should be a base cost.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 12:31 PM	Anyone willing to spend 1100xp and 27500 gp for a first level spell please raise your hand. Your system for calculating the XP cost might be okay, but there is no way I'd ever spend almost 30k for a first level spell known. Maybe have the gp cost similar to the wizards, that way theres no way he can have more spells known. Something like spell level x 100gp.
Tapper Cobblerock 02-15-05, 01:22 PM	Anyone willing to spend 1100xp and 27500 gp for a first level spell please raise your hand. Your system for calculating the XP cost might be okay, but there is no way I'd ever spend almost 30k for a first level spell known. Maybe have the gp cost similar to the wizards, that way theres no way he can have more spells known. Something like spell level x 100gp. I agree. Besides, all this xp and gold cost is to simply know an extra spell -- it isn't letting the sorcerer cast more spells per day.
Lina_Inverse 02-15-05, 02:55 PM	1100exp?for that kind of price i can purchase an unlimited use first level spell of my choice.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 03:02 PM	Rather than looking at the weakest of spells maybe we should look at three different levels, 1st, 5th, and 9th. spell level^2 x 100 XP 1st = 100 XP 5th = 2,500 XP 9th = 8,100 XP spell level^2 x 100 XP + 1000 XP 1st = 1,100 XP 5th = 3,500 XP 9th = 9,100 XP spell level x 1000 XP 1st = 1,000 XP 5th = 5,000 XP 9th = 9,000 XP If gp costs are added it should be similar to a wizard, something like an extra 100 or 200 gp per spell level, or maybe require the sorcerer to buy a scroll of the spell he wants to learn. I invisioned this as a way for a mid-high level sorcerer to be able to pick up some lower level utility spells. If I do use this I would probably get rid of spell swap, as this is an alternate way to aquire more useful spells.
sollmn 02-15-05, 03:24 PM	Having read on and done some off-site math, I would only add a feat, because I prefer to add feats than change the basics of a core-class. XP = spell-level^2 x100 + price of scroll of the spell to be learned (the scroll is consumed in the learning process). This will require either a friendly wizard to teach you, or enough gold to buy pricey scrolls on the open market. It will limit the likelyhood of sorcerers adding too many high-level spells, as those scrolls will be harder to come-by. Spellcraft check to learn spell: 15+spell-level. This will make sorcerers with higher intelligence and more ranks better at learning new spells than just boring intelligence-dumped battle-sorcerers. If the check fails, neither the XP nor the scroll are consumed. No retry until you gain at least one more rank in spellcraft. Time required is 1 day per spell-level. Finally, Favored Souls, Bards, and other spontaneous casters could do the same.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 04:07 PM	Having read on and done some off-site math, I would only add a feat, because I prefer to add feats than change the basics of a core-class. XP = spell-level^2 x100 + price of scroll of the spell to be learned (the scroll is consumed in the learning process). This will require either a friendly wizard to teach you, or enough gold to buy pricey scrolls on the open market. It will limit the likelyhood of sorcerers adding too many high-level spells, as those scrolls will be harder to come-by. I assume that the price of the scroll is the gp cost required, not the price of the scroll in gp is spent as XP right? Something like this. XP spent = spell-level^2 x100 GP spent = price of scroll (which is consumed)
sollmn 02-15-05, 04:57 PM	Yup. After hearing if more people have more to say on all this, and after thinking it over more, I'll probably actually type it out formally as a feat, and correct for obscurities there.
ajs 02-15-05, 09:09 PM	I would suggest that you skip the gold cost (perhaps replace it with something else, or up the xp cost). It makes sense mechanically in balancing against the wizard, but there's no roleplaying reason for it. Sorcerers gain their power through an internal process of discovering their untapped reseviors of power, not researching arcane tomes like wizards. There's nothing to spend that gold on that will help the sorcerer to gain the understanding they need. That is... unless you require the acquisition (through adventuring or purchase) of a magic item... perhaps one that boosts CHA... but that might be pushing it.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 09:52 PM	Quick question, would anyone here learn an extra 9th level spell if it cost 8,100 XP, or is that too high?
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-15-05, 10:33 PM	I'm pondering the idea of letting sorcerers learn more spells by expending time and xp (and possibly gp), but I decided to come here and see what the boards had so say about it. I'm not sure how expensive it should be or whether or not it would imbalance things any. I personally don't see this as gamebreaking, but proper cost determination is crucial. So, what do you guys (gals) think? Maybe something like [level^2 *100xp] with cantrips half the price of first level spells. I can't see how this is balanced. It does lead to problems with sorcerers being able to get a lot of spells known with little or no upper limit. This can become especially unbalancing at epic, when even the 9th level costs will become meanial. Particularly since sorcerers, after paying the associated costs, will never have to pay it again and can have the ability to quickly outpace the variety of spells a comparible wizard can have available at any given time - except the sorcerer will never have to worry about using it once and *poof* it's gone. These spells will be available at all times in, perhaps, a much greater variety of spells known than even the wizard could attain without a prohibitively large number of spells (in a spellbook) and a massive inteligence score. What I'm saying is that this option will make the sorcerer far, far more powerful than the wizard and possibly every other core class in the PHB, the complete books, and the expanded psionics handbook.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 10:44 PM	I can't see how this is balanced. It does lead to problems with sorcerers being able to get a lot of spells known with little or no upper limit. This can become especially unbalancing at epic, when even the 9th level costs will become meanial. Particularly since sorcerers, after paying the associated costs, will never have to pay it again and can have the ability to quickly outpace the variety of spells a comparible wizard can have available at any given time - except the sorcerer will never have to worry about using it once and *poof* it's gone. These spells will be available at all times in, perhaps, a much greater variety of spells known than even the wizard could attain without a prohibitively large number of spells (in a spellbook) and a massive inteligence score. What I'm saying is that this option will make the sorcerer far, far more powerful than the wizard and possibly every other core class in the PHB, the complete books, and the expanded psionics handbook. To be honest I really don't care about epic right now. Epic level play is screwed up as is when it comes to spellcasting, so that doesn't concern me until either wotc fixes it or I do, until then I only care whether or not this is balanced pre-epic.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-15-05, 10:50 PM	To be honest I really don't care about epic right now. Epic level play is screwed up as is when it comes to spellcasting, so that doesn't concern me until either wotc fixes it or I do, until then I only care whether or not this is balanced pre-epic. What I said does apply to non-epic as well, but I did mean that is a much grander problem at epic. However, disregarding the balance at epic will only make things (in epic) worse than they already are. Right now, it isn't so bad that it's impossible to play a balanced, epic game (without a greater number of houserules that one would expect at any other game) but disregarding epic play to make something balanced at pre-epic will only make things worse. As it stands, putting the add-to-spells known mechanic through feats is much more balanced (since you only gain a limited number of feats) than using an xp-to-spells known method, which only has the limit of the number of xp a character can gain.
God of Slivers 02-15-05, 11:06 PM	Well who gets more milage out of the 8,100xp, a sorcerer who learns a new 9th level spell, or the wizard who crafts an item worth more then 200k?
sollmn 02-15-05, 11:22 PM	As a 18th level sorcerer, I would probably not pay 8,100 xp for an extra 9th level spell known. As a 20th level sorcerer I might, but then, I wouldn't be 20th level for long until becoming epic anyway. I don't think it is unbalancing at epic levels, at all. And I think epic, especially spell-casting and magic items, is pretty twink-heavy, but adding additional spells for loads of XP is not going to make Sorcerers any better than Wizards with Master Staff, Time Stop, Vision, and the subsequent insta-kills that derive from it. I also think most epic-twink issues can be solved with a few well-placed house-nerfs, and maybe if this becomes super-twinky at epic levels this can be too. But that is too off-topic to go into. Back to this though, I think the scroll, being a magic item, and actually magically storing a spell, is a good game mechanic expense for a sorcerer to add to the xp cost. I think it also has the side benefit of adding a secondary step in difficulty, adding to balance. As previously stated, any final conclusion will have to wait for play-testing reports. Glad you brought this idea up, GoS, as now I've got a great mechanic for all my campaigns. Have a cookie! :cookie:
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-15-05, 11:27 PM	Well who gets more milage out of the 8,100xp, a sorcerer who learns a new 9th level spell, or the wizard who crafts an item worth more then 200k? depends on the spell or the item. a sorcerer that aquired energy drain vs. the wizard that just completed 200k worth of items (or one 200k item or some combination thereof) In my opinion, the sorcerer will benefit far more often from energy drain (or any of the many 9th level spells) will be able to benefit from energy drain for the entire remainder of the sorcerer's career in addition to the other 9th level spells the sorcerer has in addition to the other items a sorcerer can have. The wizard just spent 100k, 8000xp, and 200 days to create an item or set of items that will only be useful a limited time in his career after expending much more (overall) to aquire these items that will, more likely than not, have a much more limited benefit, whereas the sorcerer can and more likely than not have more uses more often at no additional charge beyond the exp to gain the spell known for that extra ninth level spell than the wizard would have to create 200k worth of items. In addition, that extra spell known can and likely will be useful for as long as the sorcerer knows that spell (with certain exceptions - summon monster IX won't be useful in epic levels, when the sorcerer could use gate or some epic spell that summons a creature or creatures.)
DM Zoc 02-15-05, 11:32 PM	Slightly off topic: I've been finding with my spontaneous casters that I know way too many low-level spells; there's no room to keep track of them all on my character sheet, and it complicates things a great deal when I constantly have to look at my spell list. What sort of tradeoff could there be for a sorcerer who never knew more than two spells of any given level (while still given the variety to choose whichever two spells I want, unlike the Warlock)?
God of Slivers 02-16-05, 12:18 AM	depends on the spell or the item. a sorcerer that aquired energy drain vs. the wizard that just completed 200k worth of items (or one 200k item or some combination thereof) In my opinion, the sorcerer will benefit far more often from energy drain (or any of the many 9th level spells) will be able to benefit from energy drain for the entire remainder of the sorcerer's career in addition to the other 9th level spells the sorcerer has in addition to the other items a sorcerer can have. The wizard just spent 100k, 8000xp, and 200 days to create an item or set of items that will only be useful a limited time in his career after expending much more (overall) to aquire these items that will, more likely than not, have a much more limited benefit, whereas the sorcerer can and more likely than not have more uses more often at no additional charge beyond the exp to gain the spell known for that extra ninth level spell than the wizard would have to create 200k worth of items. In addition, that extra spell known can and likely will be useful for as long as the sorcerer knows that spell (with certain exceptions - summon monster IX won't be useful in epic levels, when the sorcerer could use gate or some epic spell that summons a creature or creatures.) I can see where you're going, however as sollmn pointed out, a wizard with master staff is more or less emulating the strong point of the sorcerer, yet he still has access to all those spells known. So why can't a sorcerer emulate a wizard and gain some more spells known? Glad you like it sollmn, if you get to playtesting be sure to let me know how it turns out. I too think that requiring a scroll is a good idea (could be because i posted it ;) ), it limits it to finding a scroll and adds a gp cost to the spell while maintaining flavor.
Yak of Darkness 02-16-05, 12:33 AM	What sort of tradeoff could there be for a sorcerer who never knew more than two spells of any given level (while still given the variety to choose whichever two spells I want, unlike the Warlock)? Simple. Trade in your sorcerer's character sheet, and pick up one for a wilder. :D They get (if you take each new power known at its highest possible level, which you don't have to do if you don't want to) two first and ninth level powers and one power at every level in between, not including powers gained through prestige class abilities (like the elocater) or the Expanded Knowledge feat. No sense in spending a bunch of time trying to overhaul (and not necessarily "fix," just change) one mechanic so you can get it to look a lot more like something that's both already made for you, and free with the SRD.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-16-05, 01:23 AM	I can see where you're going, however as sollmn pointed out, a wizard with master staff is more or less emulating the strong point of the sorcerer, yet he still has access to all those spells known. So why can't a sorcerer emulate a wizard and gain some more spells known? and a sorcerer with master staff (and a staff) is essentially emulating the strong point of a wizard by increasing the variety of spells known without spending any further feats. To answer your question, why should a sorcerer have to? I don't think they even need to emulate a wizard or require said power-up. The power up proposed here is a touch too powerful and virtually eliminates the need to have a wizard at all.
God of Slivers 02-17-05, 09:57 PM	and a sorcerer with master staff (and a staff) is essentially emulating the strong point of a wizard by increasing the variety of spells known without spending any further feats. To answer your question, why should a sorcerer have to? I don't think they even need to emulate a wizard or require said power-up. The power up proposed here is a touch too powerful and virtually eliminates the need to have a wizard at all. Well if you wanna talk about epic then fine. Why does a 50th level sorcerer have the spells known of a lowly 20th level sorcerer? And don't tell me to blow an epic feat to get an extra two spells known, thats crap. Those epic feats need to go towards getting higher level spell slots and to boosting charisma. Because epic doesn't have a spells known progression for the sorcerer his is gimped in epic compared to a wizard. They try to fix this by tacking on a feat to smooth it out. However, if a character needs a feat to be effective it isn't a choice anymore, and if it isn't a choice it should be a class feature.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-17-05, 10:18 PM	Well if you wanna talk about epic then fine. Why does a 50th level sorcerer have the spells known of a lowly 20th level sorcerer? And don't tell me to blow an epic feat to get an extra two spells known, thats crap. Those epic feats need to go towards getting higher level spell slots and to boosting charisma. Because epic doesn't have a spells known progression for the sorcerer his is gimped in epic compared to a wizard. They try to fix this by tacking on a feat to smooth it out. However, if a character needs a feat to be effective it isn't a choice anymore, and if it isn't a choice it should be a class feature. lowly 20th level sorcerer? That's an odd combination of words. no, "blowing a feat on two extra spells" isn't crap. That *is* why it exists. to continue the sorcerer's spells known progression - just like how feats continue the progression for all of the other classes. There's a huge - huge - difference in power between a sorcerer that has virtually limitless access to spells known (which is what your thing grants) at all times as long as there are spell slots available. One that breaks the sorcerer. Even at epic. And no, spell knowledge isn't the only set of spells known the sorcerer can gain access to. Remember the feat - master staff? it may as well be a (pre existing) gateway to having access to all spells known except that has limitations in and of itself in addition to the fact that it can't be accessed until epic and it still costs money to get these staves. Then we add on things like spell knowledge, other items, and epic spells. The sorcerer's power doesn't reside in versitility of spells known. That's the wizard's job and giving the sorcerer access to these spells known pretty much eliminates the necessity of having the wizard as a class at all. Even with higher level spells.
sollmn 02-18-05, 12:12 AM	Would it be acurate to say that in general, you, God of Slivers, believe that the RAW Sorcerer is weaker than the RAW Wizard? And would it also be accurate to say that in general you, TheDarkestOfAngels, believe that the RAW Sorcerer is not weaker than the RAW Wizard? If both those things are true, than it would seem that that is the source of your disagreement, not the mechanic that God of Slivers is here proposing. TheDarkestOfAngels, if that is the case, than perhaps you should simply state that you don't think anything like this should exist, and leave the thread to those of us who do think the wizard is better than the sorcerer, so that we who agree on that fundamental point can go on discussion this mechanic without being sidetracked. :)
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-18-05, 01:24 AM	Would it be acurate to say that in general, you, God of Slivers, believe that the RAW Sorcerer is weaker than the RAW Wizard? And would it also be accurate to say that in general you, TheDarkestOfAngels, believe that the RAW Sorcerer is not weaker than the RAW Wizard? If both those things are true, than it would seem that that is the source of your disagreement, not the mechanic that God of Slivers is here proposing. TheDarkestOfAngels, if that is the case, than perhaps you should simply state that you don't think anything like this should exist, and leave the thread to those of us who do think the wizard is better than the sorcerer, so that we who agree on that fundamental point can go on discussion this mechanic without being sidetracked. :) What does whether I think the sorcerer is balanced against the wizard (and yes, I don't think the sorcerer is weaker than the wizard) matter? I'm not argueing that the ability shoots sorcerers from being balanced to overpowered, I'm saying that the mechanic he's proposing is too powerful. Therefore, it might (as in, it also might not be a) factor of the dissagreement, but not the source. Therefore, that isn't off-topic. I've been saying that the mechanic is too powerful because it gives sorcerers too much of an advantage. That is, it's overpowered. Whether I think the sorcerer is weaker, equal to, or stronger than the wizard is irrelevant to this conversation - the same as if I were arguing anything else.
God of Slivers 02-18-05, 01:32 AM	Would it be acurate to say that in general, you, God of Slivers, believe that the RAW Sorcerer is weaker than the RAW Wizard? And would it also be accurate to say that in general you, TheDarkestOfAngels, believe that the RAW Sorcerer is not weaker than the RAW Wizard? If both those things are true, than it would seem that that is the source of your disagreement, not the mechanic that God of Slivers is here proposing. TheDarkestOfAngels, if that is the case, than perhaps you should simply state that you don't think anything like this should exist, and leave the thread to those of us who do think the wizard is better than the sorcerer, so that we who agree on that fundamental point can go on discussion this mechanic without being sidetracked. :) Yes, I do believe that to be an accurate assesment. TDOA does bring up a valid point though. Is this balanced at epic? Without a side-by-side comparison of a min/maxed sorcerer and a min/maxed wizard this will be hard to decide. So, anyone here wanna min/max the hell out of an epic sorc and a wiz? I sure as heck don't (not right now anyway). However, having read quite a bit about epic and playing it breifly I think its safe to say that epic requires very min/maxy skills. With the amount of wealth thrown around things can break very easy. That being said I would like to add that an epic wizard will more or less know every spell in the world. Now, even with my variant a sorcerer can not come anywhere near that many spells. Granted it adds flexibility, but with that same XP the wizard can scribe boatloads of scrolls to up his flexibility, something that the sorcerer cannot. So maybe just consider this expensive scroll scribing.
Sithobi1 02-18-05, 02:17 AM	Whether a person believes a sorcerer is inherently weaker or equal to a wizard is central to this discussion, because this variant will obviously increase a sorcerer's power. If one believes a sorcerer is balanced with a wizard, this would seem to make the sorcerer overpowered. On the other hand, if one believes a sorcerer is weaker, this would merely be seen as a means to balance the classes.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-18-05, 04:42 PM	Whether a person believes a sorcerer is inherently weaker or equal to a wizard is central to this discussion, because this variant will obviously increase a sorcerer's power. If one believes a sorcerer is balanced with a wizard, this would seem to make the sorcerer overpowered. On the other hand, if one believes a sorcerer is weaker, this would merely be seen as a means to balance the classes. I disagree that it is. Even if you do consider the sorcerer to be underpowered. "Fixing" it with an overpowered mechanic that has the possibility to eliminate the need for its competition isn't the way to solve the problem. For example, people (wrongly, IMO) consider the fighter underpowered as well. The primary reason often cited for this because the fighter has few high level feat choices in the PHB in order to be effective as a single-classed fighter at high levels (which is a problem with the feats available in the PHB, not of hte fighter class.) Now, the way to go about this is twofold - allow the fighter access to a greater depth of feats - possibly by creating some and by allowing some from splatbooks. But giving the fighter the equivelent of rage (and higher level variations thereof, such as tireless rage and mighty rage) would not only make the fighter more powerful than the barbarian, but would eliminate the need for the barbarian entirely. This is what I believe this mechanic does. You're introducing a mechanic that allows the sorcerer to not only have the advantages it already has, but also have access to a wider variety of spells as well - which is strictly the domain of the wizard - the variety of spells it can cast while the sorcerer's advantages are elsewhere - residing in the way it casts its fewer known spells. At high levels, the lower level (and mid-level) spells are cheap enough to keep taking until the sorcerer can have virtually any useful spell it needs with full access to it as long as the sorcerer has spell slots. As the sorcerer gets higher and higher in level, it has the ability to spend more and more experience on those spells (as the cost becomes cheaper and cheaper and the sorcerer accumilates experience points) until eventually it'll have all the spells known it'll ever need -in addition- to all of the previous advantages it had before. Pre-epic, the only limitation is the expensive cost of the highest level spells known, but even wizards have a hard time finding its highest level spells (in addition to still having to scribe them and still spend its precious few spell slots to prepare them.) In epic, even those limitations go out the window whereas the wizard still has a number of other limitation factors whereas the sorcerer's biggest limitation factor, as a spellcaster, is its limited number of spells known and this mechanic makes that limitation go bye-bye. Therefore, I strongly believe this mechanic is broken and largely unnecessary. Even if you do think the sorcerer is underpowered (which I strongly believe is an incorrect assessment of the sorcerer's power, but I'm not here to debate that) using an overpowered mechanic is not the way to go about fixing it. In my own sorcerer fix thread (in my sig) all of these arguements and a whopping 100+ sorcerer fixes could give better ideas, IMO. Though my alt. is geared toward fixing the "no specials worth not prestiging over" problem rather than any "underpowered" problem.
sollmn 02-18-05, 04:51 PM	:rolleyes: So anyway... do people think that adding a scroll mechanic to the sorcerer learning is too wizardly, or is it okay? If it is too wizardly, than what other control mechanic could you introduce, on top of the experience payment?
God of Slivers 02-19-05, 12:07 AM	Well then TDOA I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that the scroll requirement is fine as is. He uses it as a source to learn the spell from, he studies the magic contained within to learn the spell.
sollmn 02-19-05, 09:23 AM	I also agree that the scroll works. Anyone else? But what about a top-end control mechanic? Like something based on a core stat. Maybe, a sorcerer can only learn a bonus number of spells equal to his charisma bonus, or even just raw charisma score.
God of Slivers 02-19-05, 12:20 PM	I also agree that the scroll works. Anyone else? But what about a top-end control mechanic? Like something based on a core stat. Maybe, a sorcerer can only learn a bonus number of spells equal to his charisma bonus, or even just raw charisma score. Well pre-epic I don't think it would be a problem, after all the XP cost gets a little high. Epic I don't know, I haven't played much of epic. The XP cost is still very high, that and the gp cost are limiting factors. I don't know if it needs another.
Multani 03-01-05, 09:18 PM	Well, first i would like to apologize ahead of time for possible horrible spelling, and if i am repeating what other people have stated already. That out of the way... I DM for a number of groups and play in others quite frequently as well, and i almost always play a sorcerer or wizard, so i belive i am in somwhat of a postition to say somthing usefull. I hope... I would first like to touch base on the subject of the "balence of the Wizard vs. the Sorcerer." Now it should also be noted that i favor the sorcerer. In comparison, the sorcerer pales to the sheer amount of spells a wizard knows, and for a wizard i have always found it easy to learn nearly all the sells that i ever need (and many i dont) and through their item creation, i have never, ever run into a problem of versitility. The sorcerer cannot truly measure up to the wizard in this aspect. However, Items aside a sorcerer is more capable though not by very far, than a wizard on the fly due to the spontaineous casting ability. Though the spontaious casting and more fun roleplaying oppertunities has me favoring the sorcerer, I do have to note that in almost every instance i have encountered a wizard is more powerfull than a sorcerer. Also remember that a sorcerer is always a step behind in the spell level that he can cast. Now If my information and all my experience with them has been wrong or misinformed, please let me know. I am fully open to opinions on this matter, as i try to keep as much as an open mind as possible. :D Now as far as this idea goes, I would be more than happy to test this out for you. I will keep you updated on how it is working out for me and my players. :mage: :mage: :mage: :mage: For those people who complain about these sort of varients, please keep in mind that it is what it is called. A varient. If you dont want to use it you dont have to, and complaining about how much you hate it is pointless and immature. For those who want to grant a srcerer a few tasty and often much needed bonus spells without using a nifty system idea such as this, you might consider an item that is usable once, and grants the person a new spell of whatever level they can cast. If you feel they need a couple new spells to fling about, just toss a couple into a treasure hoard as you please. Finally i must congradulate God of Slivers, TDOA, and all who have posted on this thread for finally being able to discuss somthing like this without constant major ranting. :pint: :tiphat: :tiphat: :tiphat: :pint: Ok.... my brain has just gone poof... i need a sandwich and a good movie... :bump:
God of Slivers 03-01-05, 09:23 PM	Now as far as this idea goes, I would be more than happy to test this out for you. I will keep you updated on how it is working out for me and my players. That would be awesome. Thanks a lot Multani. If you do find it to be a little unbalancing please come back and suggest some 'errata.'
Multani 03-06-05, 08:45 PM	Well, so far so good. The 100x rule is working very nicely, I have not run into any problems yet. I will keep you updated on how it does at higher levels. :dancin: :dancin:
God of Slivers 03-06-05, 11:51 PM	Well, so far so good. The 100x rule is working very nicely, I have not run into any problems yet. I will keep you updated on how it does at higher levels. :dancin: :dancin: Thank you for testing. If I may ask, how was this varient used? What did they learn and at what level?
zamil77 03-13-05, 05:11 AM	I, personally, think the Sorcerer should have some bonus feats. I realize that spontaneous casting is great, and it is worth alot. But, I'm sorry that is the sorcerer's only ability, that and a familiar, which we all know takes some serious creativity in order to be a highly effective part of your character's CR :) Anyway, I digress. The proposed Sorcerer is not unbalanced. One cannot continually expend xp to get new spells known, because it would wipe him/her out in the long run, stunt his/her growth so much that the other party members might soon come to see him/her as less than an equal team player. Here is what I do suggest though. It is true that if the Sorcerer were to gain access to a massive amount of extra spells known, it would begin to down play the abilities of a Wizard. However, a Sorcerer, no matter how many extra spells s/he gets, cannot replace a Wizard. Every wizard should know up to 90% of the spells they could possibly know, and the others should be in a magical scroll case for rainy day use. You should put up a restriction on the number of new spells known s/he can acquire via this XP and GP dumping method of yours. I think the GP should most definitely be counted in. Say it is ground up into fine powder and used in the ritual to tap into the source of power which grants you your innate magical abilities. Make it significant, but not blunt force trauma to his/her treasure trove. spell lvl squared times 200 is sufficient, and then the XP cost should be half of that. That ought to be good. Finally, base the number of spells s/he can learn on his/her primary casting stat modifier table. Say, s/he can have no more extra known spells than the table dictates for his/her upper two levels of spells, and no more than twice that number for all the other spell levels. For Example: I got a Charisma of 27, late in my career, obviously. This would, under these stated rules, allow him to learn by spending xp and gp as stated, one possible extra 8th and one 7th level new known spell to cast, and/or 2-6th, and/or 2-5th level spells known, and 4-0 through 4th level spells known. Don't let the caster learn more than two extra spells per caster level through this method of spell acquisition :) And, there ya go. I think that that will balance out just nicely for the trade in of gold, xp and some reasonable limits on how much this rule can be exploited.
God of Slivers 03-13-05, 11:34 AM	You should put up a restriction on the number of new spells known s/he can acquire via this XP and GP dumping method of yours. I think the GP should most definitely be counted in. Say it is ground up into fine powder and used in the ritual to tap into the source of power which grants you your innate magical abilities. Make it significant, but not blunt force trauma to his/her treasure trove. spell lvl squared times 200 is sufficient, and then the XP cost should be half of that. That ought to be good. Finally, base the number of spells s/he can learn on his/her primary casting stat modifier table. Say, s/he can have no more extra known spells than the table dictates for his/her upper two levels of spells, and no more than twice that number for all the other spell levels. How about he is limited to the number of bonus spells/day based on his charisma mod for learning extra spells? So if he gets to cast one extra 5th level spell because of high charisma he could also learn one extra 5th level spell. When his charisma gets high enough so that he can cast two extra 5th level spells per day then he can choose to add another spell known for 5th level if he desires.
Pax 03-13-05, 01:42 PM	If I were to do something like this? Here's how I'd do it: Spell research. Seriously; there're rules for that, already - and Sorcerors ARE allowed to use it to fill spells-known slots. To know the spell without filling an existing spell-known slot, I'd just charge the Sorcerors XP equal to about 1/10 the research cost of the spell ... and that XP would have to be spent BEFORE making the spellcraft check (meaning, if you fail, well ... sucks to be you). So, the costs would be: GP = 1000 x spell level XP = 100 x spell level Downtime = 1 week x spell level Which basically means, the sorceror and Wizard are on even footing for getting new spells by research, but the sorceror pays XP instead of GP as a "scribing cost". You could, alternately, double the price in GP I might, instead, require a feat for the Sorceror to be able to do this. Dunno what I'd call it, but that might be a fair opportunity-cost for such an ability. And I'd make it only require spontaneous casting, too - 'cause even Bards can research new spells.
zamil77 03-13-05, 03:46 PM	How about he is limited to the number of bonus spells/day based on his charisma mod for learning extra spells? So if he gets to cast one extra 5th level spell because of high charisma he could also learn one extra 5th level spell. When his charisma gets high enough so that he can cast two extra 5th level spells per day then he can choose to add another spell known for 5th level if he desires. That is what I am talking about, the bonus spells per day chart, based on his/her primary casting ability stat. Except I don't think that the bare minimum is good enough. Also, don't allow too much access to extra spells known at upper level spells the character can cast. Grant the opportunity to learn a number of new spells know, via your new rules, by what the chart says for her score and her two highest spells levels she can cast, and then either twice as many as the chart says for the rest of the spell levels she can cast. For example, once again: Given a character is a Sorcerer with a CHA of 28 she is level 16, she can cast up to 8th level spells at this point in her career. With this score, the boni on the chart say 3/2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1, this character should be given the opportunity, through your special rules, to learn 6/4/4/4/4/2/1/1 extra spells known at this point in her career. These spells should be kept track of as the extra spells she knows! and, should their be points in the game where her CHA score gets damaged, those spells known are not castable until her score returns...they aren't lost forever, she's just lost access to them temporarily. Also, don't allow these particular spells to be just switched out, should she want to change a spells she's acquired this way, she can exchange it, but only through another one of your rituals. ALSO, I like what someone said about making it a feat. I don't think that any one can argue that if it takes a feat, gold, and xp, that it is unbalanced. Anyone that says that a sorcerer getting a few new lower spells known and one or two extra upper level spells known is going to just *BOO HOO* take some of the wizard's fire away, they can keep crying, cause that is totally unsubstantiated reasoning. Reason why? Check it out... A wizard that is smart is continually buying Boccob's blessed books, and making sure that each of them is protected with a number of wards, and protective magics. Each of thess books contains (get this) 1000 pages, yea, they cost a bit more, but they are a bit better, too! So, you purchase this thing for 12, 500gp, and it pays for itself because you dont' have to pay anything else to scribe the spells into the book, no gp for special ink, no gp for special anything else, except for possibly having to find a scroll if no friendly wizards are around. Anyway, the limitations set for a wizard is, nothing. A wizard could even start preparing for upper levels early, as long as the spellcraft check goes through, s/he can scribe it, and then start making scrolls of it, until s/he can cast it with his/her own power. SO, a sorcerer gets what a maximum of 5 spells known for 1 and 2, 4 for 3 to 5, and 3 spells known 6 to 9th level spells. A wizard on the other hand, and this is JUST from the Player's Handbook, can learn up to 40, and you know how much space that would take up in his little blessed book? 40 pages, leaving him/her 960 more pages for other spells. But it must get really bad by like 5th level spells, cause at that point it is taking up a whopping 5 pages per spell at that point, right? uhhh, sure, wizards can learn up to 43 spells at that level, and 43 times 5 must be MONSTEROUS, right? uhhh, or maybe it is just 215 pages...215 pages is not much, but it must be so time consuming?!?! In case some of you missed it, which I'm certain many of you did, the time to scribe a new spell is no longer a day per level or whatever the hell it was, the time to scribe a new spell period, is 24 hours. Yes, one day, and since it says 24 hours, and no more specifics, that means you can break it up over the course of a few days. So how long did it take that wizard that is acting like a hermit to scribe all of those spells, 215 days, and if s/he has a room of haste, which any smart wizard would build given the opportunity, it would only take 112.5 days, no rounding necessary since the process is broken into hours, it can be stated that 112 days and 4 hours would be the time required for such a thing. Now, how marvillous is a wizard in comparison? Still totally amazing. There will always be a reason to play a wizard, any book worm, or uber geek which we all can relate to, can see his/herself playing a wizard. Only the free spirited feel the need to play a Sorcerer, I've done both, and it is the most frustrating thing to deliberate for weeks in books finding the exact spell to take at my next level...one friggin spell, one. And, for the ability to spontaneously cast any of them...its not all that amazing. people argue that the wizard doesn't have enough time, if that is true, then the DM is not being fair. If a wizard has two earth weeks, that is 14 spells of any level s/he can learn. That is no joke. Anyway, there you go, my buck 25...
Pax 03-13-05, 05:36 PM	That is what I am talking about, the bonus spells per day chart, based on his/her primary casting ability stat. Except I don't think that the bare minimum is good enough. Also, don't allow too much access to extra spells known at upper level spells the character can cast. Once you make it cost a feat, GP, and XP, I don't see the reason to limit the Sorceror, any more than you would limit a Wizard. A wizard that is smart is continually buying Boccob's blessed books, and making sure that each of them is protected with a number of wards, and protective magics. Each of thess books contains (get this) 1000 pages, yea, they cost a bit more, but they are a bit better, too! So, you purchase this thing for 12, 500gp, and it pays for itself because you dont' have to pay anything else to scribe the spells into the book, no gp for special ink, no gp for special anything else, except for possibly having to find a scroll if no friendly wizards are around. Better, get CraftWondrous Item, and make them for yourself for 6,250gp and 500XP. That same feat is, IIRC, needed for those protective enchantments you mentioned, btw, making the selection of that feat, for a spellbook-conscious wizard, an extremely good idea. And once you have TWO of them made, you can secrete one in a hidden place, as your "backup" spellbook. Heck, make a third, and hide THAT copy somewhere unobtrusive, too. Once the BBB's are made, it's only time to scribe spells into 'em. Anyway, the limitations set for a wizard is, nothing. A wizard could even start preparing for upper levels early, as long as the spellcraft check goes through, s/he can scribe it, and then start making scrolls of it, until s/he can cast it with his/her own power. Actually, you've got a wee small problem with this part: you can't scribe a scroll of a spell until you can actually cast it with your own power. No 1st-level Wizard is going to be scribing scrolls of Fireball, sorry. [...] people argue that the wizard doesn't have enough time, [...] And remember, any time the Wizard doesn'thave time, the Sorceror wouldn't either, using the feat the way I set itup - heck, the Wizard might have the time, and the sorceror might still NOt have enough, since it'd take the Sorceror 1-9 weeks per spell, rather than one day per spell. ^_^
zamil77 03-13-05, 06:53 PM	Actually, you've got a wee small problem with this part: you can't scribe a scroll of a spell until you can actually cast it with your own power. No 1st-level Wizard is going to be scribing scrolls of Fireball, sorry. The feat states, requirement of caster level 1st, and that the wizard know the spell. There is nothing anywhere that says that a Wizard of lower level cannot scribe such a scroll :) It would be a funny fireball, though. Imagine a level 2 caster scribing a lame fireball eheheh, oh my god 2d6 in 20ft spread! run for cover eheheh I think it'd be cute, though. This same wizard can attempt to cast a regular scroll of Fireball, there are rules for casters attempting to cast spells from scrolls of higher level than they can cast, ya know? There is no where that says a scribing wizard must be able to actually cast the spell normally to scribe the scroll, just that the wizard know the spell, as in it is part of his/her spell book or from anotehr wizard's spell book for that matter. You can look it up, no where does it say, if you don't have the spell slots to cast it, you can't scribe a scroll of it. I've never actually done it, but just realized that one could, and waste some significant gold, and a tiny amount of xp, for his/her level.
DM Zoc 03-13-05, 06:59 PM	A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. You were only slightly off.
trapspringer 03-13-05, 07:11 PM	At level 6 a sorcerer can take arcane disciple and learn one spell a level from a clerical domain list. This makes him pretty powerful in general. I don't foresee a sorcerer sacking EXP when he could pick up 9 spells for one feat.
Pax 03-13-05, 07:14 PM	The feat states, requirement of caster level 1st, and that the wizard know the spell. There is nothing anywhere that says that a Wizard of lower level cannot scribe such a scroll :) It would be a funny fireball, though. Imagine a level 2 caster scribing a lame fireball eheheh, oh my god 2d6 in 20ft spread! run for cover eheheh I think it'd be cute, though. The feat may only say caster level 1, but the DMG and SRD rules for actually making scrolls says differently Specifically, consider this little gem: CREATING SCROLLS [...] The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. [...] Now, I think it'd be a wee bit difficult for a 1st level wizard to prepare Fireball, seeing as how he cannot prepare third-level spells, yet. So all I can tell you is to re-read the rules, andmore carefully this time; specifically, you can find the relevant pasage in the SRD file "MagicItemsI.rtf", or in the DMG, on page 287 - starting right at the tippity-top of the left-hand column. It's th second paragraph thatyou'll need to read, if you're using the DMG instead of the SRD. There is no where that says a scribing wizard must be able to actually cast the spell normally to scribe the scroll, just that the wizard know the spell, as in it is part of his/her spell book or from anotehr wizard's spell book for that matter. See above. You can look it up, no where does it say, if you don't have the spell slots to cast it, you can't scribe a scroll of it. See above.
Sithobi1 03-13-05, 07:25 PM	At level 6 a sorcerer can take arcane disciple and learn one spell a level from a clerical domain list. This makes him pretty powerful in general. I don't foresee a sorcerer sacking EXP when he could pick up 9 spells for one feat. The feat explicitly says it adds them to your class's spell list, but not to your spells known.
Multani 03-26-05, 01:54 PM	Im sorry i havent posted in a while, but ive been quite busy and havent had a chance to DM as of late. Hwever, a couple games are coming up soon as far as i know. So hopefully ill have somthing for ya then.
Gnarl 03-26-05, 02:20 PM	I a game I ran, one of my players used to play a sorcerer and I let him add a number of extra spells to his list of known spells equal to his charisma modifier, for each spell level he could cast. After play testing it for weeks, it never turned out to be unbalancing whatsoever. There are a couple of things I should mention though. The player was not exactely a power game, it was the conversion of a former 2nd edition enchantress and we barely knew the game mechanics (in other words, how to min/max a character). He used up most of his extra spell on enchantment spells, divination spells and a couple of abjurations (I'm don't recall ever seeing her toss a fireball). As a DM, I kind of enjoyed it, because somehow, this group composed of a necromancer, a sorceress and an arcane trickster always seemed to have some spell or trick at hand to make a challenge easier (not to mention creativity). I admit the sorceress with all those extra spells was a lot more usefull than the rest of the casters because she had a lot more utilitarian spells at hand.
God of Slivers 03-30-05, 11:33 AM	How about limiting the number of extra spells known to match the table of bonus spells/day based on a high charisma mod?