Post/Author/DateTime	Post
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-09-04, 12:04 AM	Why do people insist on changing the Wizard? I have found nothing wrong with the Wizard. Just because another spellcasting class can't keep up, that doesn't mean that the Wizard is broken. The Wizard is actually one of the most stable of all the classes. Share your input.
Lawrence 07-09-04, 12:10 AM	*blinks* last I recall, it was the sorcerer and/or the soulknife that were getting this conversation...
Enslaved DM 07-09-04, 12:36 AM	The only time I mess with the wizard is when I mess the world's magic (I run a lot of home-brew). D&D's magic system is rather rigid and anyone who reads a lot of fantasy novels knows there are a lot of different options.
SweetMeats 07-09-04, 12:44 AM	I'm playing a wizard in an online game at the moment, and I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the sorcerer. The ability to pick and choose from your daily spells as and when you need them makes it vastly superior to the wizard, who I am finding stuck with limited choices that may not be what is needed. That is the balance between those two classes to be sure, but I wouldn't change it.
roetroc 07-09-04, 01:26 AM	Yep, I have to admit I would never take a wizard when the sorcerer option is there. In truth, I have only seen people take wizards to meet prestige class requirements at lower levers.
the Horc 07-09-04, 11:23 AM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Why do people insist on changing the Wizard? I have found nothing wrong with the Wizard. Just because another spellcasting class can't keep up, that doesn't mean that the Wizard is broken. The Wizard is actually one of the most stable of all the classes. Share your input. I think it's also because a lot of people hate the Vancian spellcasting system.
Sparks The untouchable 07-09-04, 11:26 AM	wizards have a lot more power then the sorcer. They can laern new spells quicker and more often. The only trick to the wizards is choosing your spells at the start of a new day, The sorcer takes them for life. The wizard also gains extra faets. But the wizard is far more versitile then the sorcer. And in the end its versility that gives you more options, and options are power.
Tony Vargas 07-09-04, 02:49 PM	The wizard has some problems that make it a very delicately balanced class, in terms of power, and for that matter, playability. One of the biggest is spellbook dependency. It's the 'elephant on the table' of the wizard class. Lots of people - DM's included - are afraid to mention it exists, let alone take it into account as a balancing factor. But, that's what it is. The Wiz has to put time & money into populating that book, needs it to access his most basic, central, and potent class ability - spellcasting - and has access to a feat (Spell Mastery) to reduce that need. Several pages of rules are devoted to the wizard's spellbook - it's characteristics, cost, use, and consequences of it's loss. There's no question it's an intentional balancing factor on the class. And a very poor balancing factor it is. The wizard without his spellbook is devestated, unable to prepare the spells that that constitute the vast majority of his class abilities. Frankly, if a wiz is without his book for more than a session or so, the character is unplayable. Given that, DMs are understandibly reluctant to **** off players by actually allowing them to experience the downside of spellbook dependence. So, reducing spellbook dependence would be a big help in making the wizard class better balanced. Of course, you'd need to reduce their power somewhere, to make up for reducing such a substantial disadvantage. Fortunately, there's already a clear mechanism for that: Spell Mastery. The existance of this feat gives you a clear gauge of the worth of reducing spellbook dependency. One simple fix would be to simply replace all of the Wizard's Bonus Feats with Spell Mastery. This wouldn't reduce the quantitative power of the class at all (he still has the same number of feats) - though, it /would/ reduce the player's freedom to develop a given wizard as he likes, since choice of how those feat are used is taken away (and, in D&D, loss of such choices is generally compensated with a slight increase in power, so it would constitute a bit of a 'nerf'). ... That's the downside of the wiz. The wizard is also potentially imbalanced on the upside. Wizards have unlimitted known spells, thus, potentially, the ability to always have the right spell for any given situation. In practice, in a well-run campaign, that potential is never comes close to being realized, and the class remains more-or-less balanced. However, variations from campaign to campaign can seriously alter the value of having a large number of known spells with the power & variety of the wiz/sorc list. For instance, if a campaign features copious wealth, downtime, and access to resources, a wizard can have many known spells, and the opportunity to place most (or even all) of them into items (scrolls or whatever). The more spells known the wiz can make available through items, the greater his effectiveness. At a restrained level, this just helps make up for the disadvantages of prepped casting - taken even a little too far, though, it allows the wiz to become decidedly over-powered. Similarly, even if items don't cause a problem, a wiz can become overpowered if challenges in the campaign become too predictable. If the wiz can know with some certainty what challenges he'll face, and can face them on his own terms (having had time to prep an ideal set of spells, for instance), his effectiveness increases dramatically. If that sort of thing happens consistently, again, you have an over-powered wizard. Item creation can be held in check with careful monitoring of wealth, downtime, and availability of raw materials - but, it can also be reigned in by the same simple expedient above (replacing all the Wizard's bonus feats with Spell Mastery). This doesn't eliminate item creation, but it does set a steeper (or, at least, much more evident) price on it. Predictibility of challenges, OTOH, is prettymuch the DM's problem. You can't tweak the rules to make it harder for a player to guess what his DM has planned.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-09-04, 03:22 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek Why do people insist on changing the Wizard? I have found nothing wrong with the Wizard. Just because another spellcasting class can't keep up, that doesn't mean that the Wizard is broken. The Wizard is actually one of the most stable of all the classes. Share your input. Most stable? In most cases, the wizard's varying spell selection means that the wizard's ability to handle any given situation changes on a daily basis -- for better and for worse. The wizard's power is entirely campaign (i.e. DM) dependant, as a DM can really screw over the wizard in a low magic campaign or a campaign with little downtime, or a few other aspects of a campaign that can be altered slightly that would ultimately hurt the wizard more than help. Also, from a playability point of view, the wizard is fine. I don't know where you or anyone else has gotten the idea that wizards must change in some form or another to be balanced. However, I don't know of any spellcasting class that can't "keep up" with the wizard. If you're insinuating that the sorcerer is somehow less of a spellcasting class than the wizard (based on all of your previous arguements regarding the sorcerer), you're wrong. Simple as that. However, if I were to change the wizard, I'd change the class features to discourage the necessity of prestige classing (in a similar manner as what I did to the sorcerer in my sig.) This is something that I feel that is a problem for the cleric, sorcerer, and wizard.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-10-04, 10:58 PM	I don't think the Wizard needs to be changed, I have seen a few posts that suggest the Wizard is broken, more or less an excuse as to why the Sorcerer is the way it is. I find the Wizard to be the most balanced spellcaster in D&D...flat out. Some points...One downtime..No downtime isn't a disadvantage for a Wizard cause Wizards don't have to take item-creation feats, and two if the DM is allowing them, then he needs to give downtime or not allow them at all. A Wizard as the ability to adjust himself on a half-day basis. This is not a disadvantage, please get it out of your heads. A Sorcerer and Bard pick for life. Wizard: Hmm what will I need today? Sorcerer: Hmmm what will I need for all the days that I am alive? I hope you people understand this concept? Personally I find the Sorcerer too limited. Playing a Sorcerer is like playing a game of Diable, on the PC is fine, but in table top, I like to have variety. It's like I was talking about in another, Quantity is no substitue for Variety.
Linkrulesx10 07-11-04, 07:41 AM	WIzard's rule sorcerer's dont in my opnion, i like wizards cause they are in the constant pursuit of knowledge and i dont like sorcerer's cause they cant know everything, i am the person that likes to know everything so i would like to role play that way to. I am not saying sorcerer's are under powered or that wizards are overpowerd it's just that sorcerer's are not for me, also there are other way's you can make up for a spell book, u could always not cary your spell book in this demension, im pretty sure there is a spell that allows you to put items in an extradimensional space so you could always try that, try negotiating with your DM to make it :D "special" :D so it disapears and reapears with a command word unfortunently i have never played a spell caster as of yet but when i do get to a good lvl i will try to make that "special" book so i wont be without my PRECIOUS
Jell_Moo 07-11-04, 12:37 PM	I personally find the wizard to be relatively balanced, if on the highish end of the power spectrum. That being said, I would do the following. 1- Do not allow the Wizard to leave spell slots open. A wizard dhould prepare all of his spells at the start of the day, and any unused slots are simply wasted. This would benefit the sorceror as he would have a bigger edge when it came to spontaneous casting. As it stands, the wizard simply needs 15 minutes to prepare something in an unused slot, and he's good to go. I would eliminate that. The wizard would have to be even more select in what spells he prepares each day, and what scrolls and whatnot he crafts. 2- Heavilly enforce all rules of Item Creation. A lot of arguments as to why Wizards are better than Sorcerors revolves around Item creation. And why not? It's a great ability. However, it has an awful lot of built in limitations that often seem to be overlooked. The biggest on is the sheer amount of time required to craft most items. I would make stricter guidelines around that. If it takes 100 days to make something, that is 100 days the wizard is stuck in his lab. No searching for accelerated time planes (which may or may not exist), just suck it up and craft when you have the time. 3- The spellbook is a viable target. If it's okay for the Fighter's sword to get sundered, it's okay for the wizard's spellbook to get stolen/destroyed/lost, etc... Spell mastery was designed specifically as an 'out' for just such an occasion. Wizard's should be spending a fair deal of time and energy making sure that just such a thing does not happen. It's fairly hard to guard it perfectly before 11th level or so, so that's half the game where the wizard is hoping real hard that nobody tries to steal his precious book. 4- While it is technically possible for a wizard to know every spell, it shouldn't be easy. Enforce time and costs to scribing and learning new spells. Make it a little more difficult to find a copy of every single spell. It is a balancing point that the wizard needs to research and acquire new spells, don't make it too easy. 5- Eliminate metamagic rods. Or at least force the wizard to use them at the start of the day. He can prepare his spells with them when he prepares all of his spells, he cannot simply use the metamgic rod on the fly. Those are my thoughts. Outside of the first 1, I don't think any of it is that drastic, only enforcing the rules a little more closely. Most of the in built weaknesses of the wizard are there for a reason, and for one reason or another are often overlooked. By tightening the reigns a bit, and making the wizard play by the rules a bit more, he is actually a beautifully balanced class.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-11-04, 02:02 PM	Originally posted by XunValDorl of HouseKilsek I don't think the Wizard needs to be changed, I have seen a few posts that suggest the Wizard is broken, more or less an excuse as to why the Sorcerer is the way it is. Hmm... I've never seen any arguements of this nature. If they exist, they are wrong in that approach. I find the Wizard to be the most balanced spellcaster in D&D...flat out. Some points...One downtime..No downtime isn't a disadvantage for a Wizard cause Wizards don't have to take item-creation feats, and two if the DM is allowing them, then he needs to give downtime or not allow them at all. Downtime isn't under the player's control. And yes, no downtime is a disadvantage for wizards. Ever play a wizard with only the base spells in thier spellbook? I have. It sucks. (I did that because I was waiting until I could make a boccobs blessed book and bypass ever making any scribing costs.) A Wizard as the ability to adjust himself on a half-day basis. This is not a disadvantage, please get it out of your heads. I don't recall anyone ever saying it was. However, it -does- have disadvantages where having spells known but casting spontaneously -doesn't have disadvantages (and, in some cases, advantages.) A Sorcerer and Bard pick for life. Nope. Spell swap. Sorcerers gain it at level 4. I don't immediately recall when bards gain it. Wizard: Hmm what will I need today? Sorcerer: Hmmm what will I need for all the days that I am alive? I hope you people understand this concept? The only concept you seem to be conveying is "Sorcerers suck, wizards rule" drivel that you've done again and again and again. We understand that you absolutely loath sorcerers. However, they're not less powerful than wizards and if you need proof, go to any of the threads that you've started that discussed that very topic. Personally I find the Sorcerer too limited. Playing a Sorcerer is like playing a game of Diable, on the PC is fine, but in table top, I like to have variety. That's your own personal opinion. I've never found that a sorcerer's spells known list to be that limiting. I've always gotten along just fine in every group I've ever played D&D with in which I bothered to make a sorcerer in. And finally, just because a wizard can know a spell doesn't mean the wizard has it when he needs it. It's like I was talking about in another, Quantity is no substitue for Variety. The sorcerer has more than one spell. It can have up to 43, actually. Which is more than enough to cover all the arcane bases on a daily basis that a wizard otherwise would. -plus- it gets quantity. Just because a wizard gets a greater variety, doesn't make the wizard superior to the sorcerer in any way, shape, or form.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-11-04, 02:13 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Hmm... I've never seen any arguements of this nature. If they exist, they are wrong in that approach. There are several, just go and look. Downtime isn't under the player's control. And yes, no downtime is a disadvantage for wizards. Ever play a wizard with only the base spells in thier spellbook? I have. It sucks. (I did that because I was waiting until I could make a boccobs blessed book and bypass ever making any scribing costs.) Actually no downtime isn't a disadvantage. You can always find downtime to scribe spells into his spellbooks. It's called a simple 2nd level spell called Rope Trick. I don't recall anyone ever saying it was. However, it -does- have disadvantages where having spells known but casting spontaneously -doesn't have disadvantages (and, in some cases, advantages.) I have recalled many times, even you yourself have said that preparing spells ahead of time is a disadvantage. Nope. Spell swap. Sorcerers gain it at level 4. I don't immediately recall when bards gain it. Actually this spell swap isn't really that great because you have to swap out a higher level spell for a lower one. It is in no way an advantage. The only concept you seem to be conveying is "Sorcerers suck, wizards rule" drivel that you've done again and again and again. We understand that you absolutely loath sorcerers. However, they're not less powerful than wizards and if you need proof, go to any of the threads that you've started that discussed that very topic. I don't think that Sorcerer's suck, they just don't stand up to the Wizard. I have played both and I don't like the limiting factor of the Sorcerer. That's your own personal opinion. I've never found that a sorcerer's spells known list to be that limiting. I've always gotten along just fine in every group I've ever played D&D with in which I bothered to make a sorcerer in. And finally, just because a wizard can know a spell doesn't mean the wizard has it when he needs it. What happens when your Sorcerer picks things like Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace etc... and then at high levels can't use these spells anymore? Kind of limiting to me. A Sorcerer has more of a chance to not have the right spell than the Wizard. The Wizard can cast "ANY" arcane spell, the Sorcerer can't, the Wizard can benefit from "ANY" arcane spell, the Sorcerer doesn't, and the Wizard has the option of changing his spell selection in a matter of hours, the Sorcerer can't. The sorcerer has more than one spell. It can have up to 43, actually. Which is more than enough to cover all the arcane bases on a daily basis that a wizard otherwise would. -plus- it gets quantity. Just because a wizard gets a greater variety, doesn't make the wizard superior to the sorcerer in any way, shape, or form. A Sorcerer's few spells they get can't cover every aspect of a campaign. No way possible.....
Votan 07-11-04, 02:36 PM	Originally posted by Jell_Moo 3- The spellbook is a viable target. If it's okay for the Fighter's sword to get sundered, it's okay for the wizard's spellbook to get stolen/destroyed/lost, etc... Spell mastery was designed specifically as an 'out' for just such an occasion. Wizard's should be spending a fair deal of time and energy making sure that just such a thing does not happen. It's fairly hard to guard it perfectly before 11th level or so, so that's half the game where the wizard is hoping real hard that nobody tries to steal his precious book. This is extremely hard to do. 1 - The spellbook contains class features for the wizard (the 2 spells per level known plus the first level spells). No other class is vulnerable to having class features destroyed like this. 2. It tends towards metagaming to go after the book. Very few magic effects will affect items on the person of a wizard. The practical effect of targeting the spellbook in battle is to have a berserk wizard tryign to kill you. 3. Without a spellbook the wizard is terribly nerfed. Even with spell mastery, only few spell can be chosen except in very high games. With the elite array, a first level wizard can know 2 whole spells in case of book loss. Even with a solid investment in these feats it is hard to know 10 spells by 11th level. 4. Divine casters have just as much selection as the wizard and don't have this weakness. If you target spellbooks you push up the relative power of the cleric and druid classes. With domains (and domain spontaneity) you can't even argue that the clerics fail to get access to the best spells. Okay, maybe they only know shapechange and timestop but the wizard has limits too and doesn't get true ressurection or miracle. I have recently run an experiment where I wwent after the party's equipment to see how much of an effect it would have. The effect was obsene even in a group that was not very item dependent. I've seen this done to a wizard and seeing the poor guy play a wizard for 4 months real time with NO spells except the 3 he mastered (because you can't master new spells without a book and if nobody will sell you the arcane materials for political reasons . . .). It was pretty awful. Having items stolen from a party is too easy for a DM. It can work to make players hate somebody but in general I have been underwhelmed by the success of the tactic.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-11-04, 02:49 PM	Downtime isn't under the player's control. And yes, no downtime is a disadvantage for wizards. Ever play a wizard with only the base spells in thier spellbook? I have. It sucks. (I did that because I was waiting until I could make a boccobs blessed book and bypass ever making any scribing costs.) Actually no downtime isn't a disadvantage. You can always find downtime to scribe spells into his spellbooks. It's called a simple 2nd level spell called Rope Trick. and how is rope trick gonna help? Rope trick lasts hours/level. Not days. Rope trick is best suited for being in the middle of a dungeon or essentially in between battles. Not when the party has someplace to go and doesn't want to wait a few weeks for the wizard to scribe a few scrolls into his or her spellbook. I don't recall anyone ever saying it was. However, it -does- have disadvantages where having spells known but casting spontaneously -doesn't have disadvantages (and, in some cases, advantages.) I have recalled many times, even you yourself have said that preparing spells ahead of time is a disadvantage. I'm sorry, I'm not gonna just take your word for it. I've never deleated any of my previous posts, so quote me. Secondly, I said that preparing spells had disadvantages. I -never- said that it was a disadvantage in and of itself. Nope. Spell swap. Sorcerers gain it at level 4. I don't immediately recall when bards gain it. Actually this spell swap isn't really that great because you have to swap out a higher level spell for a lower one. It is in no way an advantage. and why is swapping out a "known for life" spell that might have become useless for one that *is* useful not an advantage? The only concept you seem to be conveying is "Sorcerers suck, wizards rule" drivel that you've done again and again and again. We understand that you absolutely loath sorcerers. However, they're not less powerful than wizards and if you need proof, go to any of the threads that you've started that discussed that very topic. I don't think that Sorcerer's suck, they just don't stand up to the Wizard. I have played both and I don't like the limiting factor of the Sorcerer. You might not like it, but the sorcerer can stand up to the wizard fine and excel at it. They're just as good at arcane spellcasting and can do some things better than the wizard. That's your own personal opinion. I've never found that a sorcerer's spells known list to be that limiting. I've always gotten along just fine in every group I've ever played D&D with in which I bothered to make a sorcerer in. And finally, just because a wizard can know a spell doesn't mean the wizard has it when he needs it. What happens when your Sorcerer picks things like Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace etc... and then at high levels can't use these spells anymore? Kind of limiting to me. Swap it out with that ability gained at level four (and every two levels thereafter) that you said wasn't an advantage. or better yet, don't pick it at all. A Sorcerer has more of a chance to not have the right spell than the Wizard. No, they have pretty much an equal change of not having the right spell for the occasion. The difference, however, is that a sorcerer's limited spell list makes the sorcerer more predictable in terms of what challenges the sorcerer can and cannot counter. This is something that the other party members (or just the sorcerer him/herself) can actually plan around and bypass without intervention from the sorcerer. The wizard, however, is different. The wizard cannot prepare every spell that might be needed, nor can the wizard have the spell that might be needed even in his/her spellbook. What challenges the wizard can and cannot tackle changes on a daily basis, which presents problems that would likely not be encountered with a sorcerer at all. The Wizard can cast "ANY" arcane spell, the Sorcerer can't, the Wizard can benefit from "ANY" arcane spell, the Sorcerer doesn't, and the Wizard has the option of changing his spell selection in a matter of hours, the Sorcerer can't. No, the wizard can't cast or benifit from any arcane spell. They don't know every arcane spell, so they can't benifit from any one of them. They can benifit from any arcane spell that they happen to have scribed in their spellbook over the course of their career. But they cannot benifit from all of those on any given day, either. They only get up to 4 spells/level + 1/4 of their intelligence modifier (rounded up) -.25 per spell level above 1st. Instead, they have to rely on what spells they did prepare that day and those spells will never always contain what you deem as the "right" spell for any given challenge. The sorcerer has more than one spell. It can have up to 43, actually. Which is more than enough to cover all the arcane bases on a daily basis that a wizard otherwise would. -plus- it gets quantity. Just because a wizard gets a greater variety, doesn't make the wizard superior to the sorcerer in any way, shape, or form. A Sorcerer's few spells they get can't cover every aspect of a campaign. No way possible..... lol. opinion, not fact. Anyway, this is off-topic. You wanna discuss wizard vs. sorcerer debates again, start another thread, though it'll just be a repeat of all of the others you've started and they'll still be coming to the same conclusions as your "Tell Me Again Why the Sorcerer was Ever made" thread. To answer the question of this thread, no, I don't think the wizard needs to be changed in the grander sense. Though, I do think the wizard suffers a similar problem as the sorcerer and cleric do, which is their lack of class features. I think th three classes should be modified so that they actually loose something worthwhile when going into a prestige class. EDIT: Some clarification. A few editing mistakes corrected. Note: One more thing, Xun, please edit your posts so that all of yoru comments can be more easily discerned from the quotes you make. Trying to pilfer through a blob of bold sentences to find ones that aren't mine is downright annoying. Thank you. It makes your posts look more professional also.
Jell_Moo 07-11-04, 07:18 PM	Originally posted by Votan This is extremely hard to do. 1 - The spellbook contains class features for the wizard (the 2 spells per level known plus the first level spells). No other class is vulnerable to having class features destroyed like this. I disagree. Take a fighter for example. A fighter who has his weapon sundered in the middle of a battle is effectively taken out of the game. A fighter who has nothing but archery feats, and loses the bow, is simply taking up space. True, it is much easier to fix the situation, but you also have to compare their relative power levels. After about 5th level, the wizard is constantly outpacing the fighter. His one real weakness, when compared to any other primary caster, is his spellbook. 2. It tends towards metagaming to go after the book. Very few magic effects will affect items on the person of a wizard. The practical effect of targeting the spellbook in battle is to have a berserk wizard tryign to kill you. It could be considered metagaming if the DM is constantly thinking up ways to get rid of the spellbook. However, if the party is going up against an intelligent opponent, it could make absolutely perfect sense. The wizard is useless without the spellbook, the BBEG knows this, so he takes measures to remove the spellbook from the wizard's possession. If every single encounter the player's face involves somebody trying to get the spellbook, I'd cry foul. Of course I'd do the same if everyone they fight is constantly trying to sunder the fighter's weapon too. 3. Without a spellbook the wizard is terribly nerfed. Even with spell mastery, only few spell can be chosen except in very high games. With the elite array, a first level wizard can know 2 whole spells in case of book loss. Even with a solid investment in these feats it is hard to know 10 spells by 11th level. The wizard becomes little better than a commoner, true. That's why it's such a nasty ploy. However, the Sepll Mastery feats exist for a reason. Stealing/Destroying spellbooks is a viable option. A mean one to be sure, but viable. I personally wouldn't do it incredibly often, and would always give the player an 'out', but it is an option. It is an advantage every other caster has, which is something that is rarely taken into account when wizard vs sorcerer debates spring up. 4. Divine casters have just as much selection as the wizard and don't have this weakness. If you target spellbooks you push up the relative power of the cleric and druid classes. With domains (and domain spontaneity) you can't even argue that the clerics fail to get access to the best spells. Okay, maybe they only know shapechange and timestop but the wizard has limits too and doesn't get true ressurection or miracle. Of course. Divine casters have a HUGE advanateg in that regard. Not only do they not have to worry about losing a spellbook, but they gain every spell in the book when they level up. Massive advantage. Of course, divine casters have a limitation of their own. They have to either stay true to their deity or their alignment. A really crappy balancing tool, but one that WotC seems to feel is ok. Any act that could be seen as inapropriate in the eyes of their god or their ethics, then they can be completely stripped of their powers. Depending on the situation, that could last a very long time. Also take note that there is an ongoing problem of people, for whatever reason, not wanting to play a divine caster. That is why they have been given a power up in 3e/3.5. I have recently run an experiment where I wwent after the party's equipment to see how much of an effect it would have. The effect was obsene even in a group that was not very item dependent. I've seen this done to a wizard and seeing the poor guy play a wizard for 4 months real time with NO spells except the 3 he mastered (because you can't master new spells without a book and if nobody will sell you the arcane materials for political reasons . . .). It was pretty awful. Oh, I agree that it sucks. Totally. I would never do that to a player. A wizard who goes without a spellbook for 4 months just bites. However, removing the spellbook for a session or two, and making a plot hook out of it could be quite fun. WotC for good or bad, seems to think that targetting the spellbook is a viable act. They give quite a few options for wizards to protect themselves from this tactic. My opinion is that if it is done, it should be done in such a way that the wizard does not feel completely useless for the next few weeks. By the same token, however, what's good for the goose, should be good for the gander. If a DM thinks the party's gear is a viable target (through theft, sundering, whatever), then the spellbook should be a viable target as well. A wizard without a spellbook is useless, but then again, so is a fighter without armor or weapons. This also puts into perspective the importance of spell mastery. Having items stolen from a party is too easy for a DM. It can work to make players hate somebody but in general I have been underwhelmed by the success of the tactic. Oh, it can definitely work. Of course, it works better against different characters. A melee type who loses his gear is not a match against anything near the party's CR. A wizard without his spellbook faces the same problem. However other classes are slightly less weakened by the tactic. A monk, a sorcerer or a psion for example, can fare pretty well without any gear whatsoever. Sure they need stuff to survive, but they have more built in tools to help them out.
Votan 07-11-04, 10:42 PM	Originally posted by Jell_Moo I disagree. Take a fighter for example. A fighter who has his weapon sundered in the middle of a battle is effectively taken out of the game. A fighter who has nothing but archery feats, and loses the bow, is simply taking up space. True, it is much easier to fix the situation, but you also have to compare their relative power levels. After about 5th level, the wizard is constantly outpacing the fighter. His one real weakness, when compared to any other primary caster, is his spellbook. [/b] Well, a fighter probably has more than one weapon at a given time. Especially in 3.5E where different types of DR lead to a "golf-bag" approach to weapons. Losing one weapon is not the end of the world. Losing a spellbook is much worse. Even worse, this balances awkwardly. At low levels this tactic is highly effective against a wizard. This is when a caster is either weaker than or competitive with a fighter. At high levels when the fighter has lagged behind then the spell bookl stops being a limitation as backup copies and wards become more common. It could be considered metagaming if the DM is constantly thinking up ways to get rid of the spellbook. However, if the party is going up against an intelligent opponent, it could make absolutely perfect sense. The wizard is useless without the spellbook, the BBEG knows this, so he takes measures to remove the spellbook from the wizard's possession. If every single encounter the player's face involves somebody trying to get the spellbook, I'd cry foul. Of course I'd do the same if everyone they fight is constantly trying to sunder the fighter's weapon too. True, but the ability to ruin the character really hurts. The wizard becomes little better than a commoner, true. That's why it's such a nasty ploy. However, the Sepll Mastery feats exist for a reason. Stealing/Destroying spellbooks is a viable option. A mean one to be sure, but viable. I personally wouldn't do it incredibly often, and would always give the player an 'out', but it is an option. It is an advantage every other caster has, which is something that is rarely taken into account when wizard vs sorcerer debates spring up. Fair enough. But if it happens even once or twice under realistic conditions it will end the wizards career. Joel Rosenberg did this in "Guardian's of the Flame" and the wizard never, ever recovered from this little setback. Of course. Divine casters have a HUGE advanateg in that regard. Not only do they not have to worry about losing a spellbook, but they gain every spell in the book when they level up. Massive advantage. Of course, divine casters have a limitation of their own. They have to either stay true to their deity or their alignment. A really crappy balancing tool, but one that WotC seems to feel is ok. Any act that could be seen as inapropriate in the eyes of their god or their ethics, then they can be completely stripped of their powers. Depending on the situation, that could last a very long time. Also take note that there is an ongoing problem of people, for whatever reason, not wanting to play a divine caster. That is why they have been given a power up in 3e/3.5. The RP restrictions don't seem to be a big deal given the number of different dieties that can be choosen. It is hard to imagine that this would be a massive limitation. This seems even more true in the case of the druid where the connection to a formal organization is much, much weaker. Oh, I agree that it sucks. Totally. I would never do that to a player. A wizard who goes without a spellbook for 4 months just bites. However, removing the spellbook for a session or two, and making a plot hook out of it could be quite fun. WotC for good or bad, seems to think that targetting the spellbook is a viable act. They give quite a few options for wizards to protect themselves from this tactic. My opinion is that if it is done, it should be done in such a way that the wizard does not feel completely useless for the next few weeks. By the same token, however, what's good for the goose, should be good for the gander. If a DM thinks the party's gear is a viable target (through theft, sundering, whatever), then the spellbook should be a viable target as well. A wizard without a spellbook is useless, but then again, so is a fighter without armor or weapons. This also puts into perspective the importance of spell mastery. Oh, it can definitely work. Of course, it works better against different characters. A melee type who loses his gear is not a match against anything near the party's CR. A wizard without his spellbook faces the same problem. However other classes are slightly less weakened by the tactic. A monk, a sorcerer or a psion for example, can fare pretty well without any gear whatsoever. Sure they need stuff to survive, but they have more built in tools to help them out. Yeah, but it is a lot easier to get a melee type back up to minimum competence with standard gear. A club or a staff can get the fighter back into useful territory fast (and if the fighter is also a grappler then that isn't an issue). A wizard without a spell book simply can't contribute in a meaningful way to the party. If losing gear is a common feature of a particular game universe and it is not an easy thing to fix then it makes a wizard utterly inappropriate to play (and makes a monk look like a great choice). It isn't really a balancing factor if it renders the character instantly nearly useless.
Jell_Moo 07-12-04, 12:15 AM	Originally posted by Votan Well, a fighter probably has more than one weapon at a given time. Especially in 3.5E where different types of DR lead to a "golf-bag" approach to weapons. Losing one weapon is not the end of the world. Losing a spellbook is much worse. While it is possible that a fighter will have a bag 'o weapons, I've found that it is far from always being the case. Many times I've seen melee types pour all of their time and resources into a single weapon. All the warriors money, and feats pumped into a single Greatsword, for example. Also, consider something like the Kensai. Everything he has is pumped into a single weapon. If that weapon is sundered, then he is completely out of luck. Does losing a spellbook suck more than losing a warriors sole weapon? Yup. Won't dispute that. I still think it's a viable, and perfectly logical tactic. The fighter functions rather poorly without his Uber Killer Greatsword of Chicken Maiming +4. And the wizard performs rather poorly without his spellbook. Even worse, this balances awkwardly. At low levels this tactic is highly effective against a wizard. This is when a caster is either weaker than or competitive with a fighter. At high levels when the fighter has lagged behind then the spell bookl stops being a limitation as backup copies and wards become more common. Naturally. At low levels, the fighter hurts a lot less when his weapon is destroyed. They are cheapish, easily replaced, and he hasn't devoted a lot of time, money, or feats into that single weapon as of yet. The wizard, on the other hand, has only that single spellbook, and no real means of either protecting or replacing it. Unfortunately, this is the way the game goes. Fighters are great at low levels, but become obsolete very quickly. Wizards struggle to survive at low levels, and dominate the game later on. Attacking a spellbook is a similar thing. At lower levels, it is a vicous tactic, easily done, and completely neuters the wizard. at higher levels, it is next to impossible to do, and if done, the wizard is sure to have a backup. True, but the ability to ruin the character really hurts. It sure does. I'm not saying that taking a wizard's spellbook is nice, or even particularly fair, but it is possible. Players should never assume that the DM will never target the character's spellbook. A wizard would go to great leangths to make sure it is protected, which takes a great deal of resources. If a player works under the assumption that a DM would never target the spellbook, and does nothing to protect it or make another copy, then I think it becomes fair game. The fact that a wizard is 100% reliant on his spellbook should be considered a balancing factor, and the wizard should be doing his utmost to make sure that he never loses it. That costs resources, and by having him spend those resources on safe guarding his spellbook, that creates a small but important balancing factor between the wizard and the sorcerer. The RP restrictions don't seem to be a big deal given the number of different dieties that can be choosen. It is hard to imagine that this would be a massive limitation. This seems even more true in the case of the druid where the connection to a formal organization is much, much weaker. I hate the fact that a RP restriction is considered a balancing factor. However, it appears that WotC seems intent on using it. That's why a cleric must be within 1 step of his deity's alignment, druid's must not use metal armor, yada yada yada. It is technically possible, that because of a player's decision in some event, that his divine caster will lose his powers. A wizard does not face this problem. If for whatever reason, a Lawful Good wizard quickly falls from to a Neutral Evil alignement, his powers are completely intact and untouched. A cleric, on the other hand, would be facing some serious problems. Yeah, but it is a lot easier to get a melee type back up to minimum competence with standard gear. A club or a staff can get the fighter back into useful territory fast (and if the fighter is also a grappler then that isn't an issue). A wizard without a spell book simply can't contribute in a meaningful way to the party. If losing gear is a common feature of a particular game universe and it is not an easy thing to fix then it makes a wizard utterly inappropriate to play (and makes a monk look like a great choice). It isn't really a balancing factor if it renders the character instantly nearly useless. That depends heavilly on the level of the party. At low levels, losing a spellbook is way worse than losing a sword. However, at higher levels, a fighter is starting to face much more trouble. If the Fighter who has invested 75% of his money, and prcatically all of his feats into a Spiked Chain, is suddenly without it, then he is in trouble. What if he is facing monsters with DR 10/Magic and all he has is the club he picked up off the ground? He is completely useless. Now, if the fighter is in a party with a wizard who is currently without a spellbook, but has taken Spell Mastery: Magic Missile, who is worse off? If losing gear is a common feature of the campaign, a melee type is almost as bad off as a wizard. Melee types are seriously dependant on their gear. Of course this type of situation makes Monks, divine casters, and psionic characters look really sweet. I think that the spellbook is a balancing factor because WotC gave people a way of handling it, at least for the short term. Spell Mastery was introduced for just such a reason. The balancing is really so much the removal of the spellbook, but rather the possibility of it's loss. If a wizard truly wants to be prepared for such an eventuality (and from an in-character point of view, that seems to be a given), then the wizard will spend resources on it's protection, replacement, and going for a short while without it if need be. It might not be a huge deal, but it is one thing that gives the sorcerer a slight advanatge.
Votan 07-12-04, 12:28 AM	Originally posted by Jell_Moo Also, consider something like the Kensai. Everything he has is pumped into a single weapon. If that weapon is sundered, then he is completely out of luck. This is an excellent counter-example. Yes, a Kensai would be just as bad off as a wizard for losing stuff as it would eradicate class abilities. It sure does. I'm not saying that taking a wizard's spellbook is nice, or even particularly fair, but it is possible. Players should never assume that the DM will never target the character's spellbook. A wizard would go to great leangths to make sure it is protected, which takes a great deal of resources. If a player works under the assumption that a DM would never target the spellbook, and does nothing to protect it or make another copy, then I think it becomes fair game. The fact that a wizard is 100% reliant on his spellbook should be considered a balancing factor, and the wizard should be doing his utmost to make sure that he never loses it. That costs resources, and by having him spend those resources on safe guarding his spellbook, that creates a small but important balancing factor between the wizard and the sorcerer. Well, this is fair but the risk is so dreadful that if it happens with any frequency at all I would basically cross the wizard off of the lsit of available classes. Now, to be fair, I prefer sorcerers to wizard for a lot of reasons but this is one of them. Heck, I like the psion, sorcerer and wilder for most purposes over the wizard which just does not seem to quite work in terms of the flavor that I prefer in an arcane caster. Wow, picking a class for flavor over power -- I amy have to turn in my memebrship card to the min-maxer club! :) I hate the fact that a RP restriction is considered a balancing factor. However, it appears that WotC seems intent on using it. That's why a cleric must be within 1 step of his deity's alignment, druid's must not use metal armor, yada yada yada. It is technically possible, that because of a player's decision in some event, that his divine caster will lose his powers. A wizard does not face this problem. If for whatever reason, a Lawful Good wizard quickly falls from to a Neutral Evil alignement, his powers are completely intact and untouched. A cleric, on the other hand, would be facing some serious problems. This, of course, is why the dietyless cleric exists. :) In practice this is an awful weak balancing factor but we will be going down an old road if we compare divine casters to arcane casters and wonder why the divine caster seems to come out so well. Also note that other classes like the Monk, Barbarian and Paladin have an even mroe severe version of this balancing factor. They have many fewer options to hanlde a radical alignment change by simply wandering down the street to a new temple. I think that the spellbook is a balancing factor because WotC gave people a way of handling it, at least for the short term. Spell Mastery was introduced for just such a reason. The balancing is really so much the removal of the spellbook, but rather the possibility of it's loss. If a wizard truly wants to be prepared for such an eventuality (and from an in-character point of view, that seems to be a given), then the wizard will spend resources on it's protection, replacement, and going for a short while without it if need be. It might not be a huge deal, but it is one thing that gives the sorcerer a slight advanatge. True. But it is a small factor at best unless loss of the spellbook is likely. However, I do agree with you that completely ignoring it does seem to hurt the sorcerer relative to the wizard.
Jell_Moo 07-12-04, 02:47 PM	Originally posted by Votan This is an excellent counter-example. Yes, a Kensai would be just as bad off as a wizard for losing stuff as it would eradicate class abilities. There are a few other examples, such as the OA Samurai, the Occult Slayer, and a few others I acn't think about right now. Any class that is 100% dependant on a particular item would be wise to do their utmost to make sure that item survives. For example, because the kensai is so dependant on that particular weapon, I would never play one unless the weapon was adamantine, and more than likely a mace of some sort (Warmace being my personal choice). Sunder is just such an ugly thing. Well, this is fair but the risk is so dreadful that if it happens with any frequency at all I would basically cross the wizard off of the lsit of available classes. Now, to be fair, I prefer sorcerers to wizard for a lot of reasons but this is one of them. Of course this isn't the type of thing that happened all the time. If I were playing a game where my spellbook was stolen every session, I'd promptly quit. That is simply not fun. However, if I am playing a wizard, I always take measures to safeguard my spellbook. It might never be stolen, but I do my best to protect it because one day it [i]might[/b] be taken away from me. And every piece of gold, and every feat I burn to protect the spellbook, is one less feat and one less gold that the sorcerer does not have to spend. Is it a brilliant balancing point? Not at all. Should it be considered? I think so. Heck, I like the psion, sorcerer and wilder for most purposes over the wizard which just does not seem to quite work in terms of the flavor that I prefer in an arcane caster. For my money, I would simply cross out the PHB sorcerer, and replace it with the Wilder. To me, that's what a sorcerer should be (Simply my personal opinion). I can never really manage to keep a wizard together. Managing spellbooks, learning new spells, crafting items... It's just too much work for. When people say that the wizard is so superior to sorcerers I think they overlook the little things like protecting the spellbook, having finite resources for learning spells and item creation, and the sheer joy spontaneous casting is. Wow, picking a class for flavor over power -- I amy have to turn in my memebrship card to the min-maxer club! Oh crap, that would leave just me! ;) Be careful though. One time I chose 'role playing' over power gaming. It did not go so well. This, of course, is why the dietyless cleric exists. Of course. Well, unless you're in the realms. In practice this is an awful weak balancing factor but we will be going down an old road if we compare divine casters to arcane casters and wonder why the divine caster seems to come out so well. Of course. It's a terrible balancing point simply because it boils down to DM's fancy. Each and every DM has a different view of what does and does not violate a cleric's ethos. Something like this should not be used to balance a class's power level, but for the moment, WotC seems to think it's a good idea. Also note that other classes like the Monk, Barbarian and Paladin have an even mroe severe version of this balancing factor. They have many fewer options to hanlde a radical alignment change by simply wandering down the street to a new temple. The paladin is the worst of all because not only must he follow his alignment, he also must follow a personal code. If a DM wants to, he can make a paladin player's life miserable. Barbarians have it easier than monks simply because it is easier to remain non lawful, than it is to remain lawful. Still, it's a silly way to balance a class. True. But it is a small factor at best unless loss of the spellbook is likely. However, I do agree with you that completely ignoring it does seem to hurt the sorcerer relative to the wizard. It isn't a big thing, but it is often overlooked. In all of these Wizard vs Sorcerer type threads (there must be thousands by now), people seem to assume a great many things. People assume that the spellbook is never targetted, that wizards have loads of free time to craft items, and that they will of course come accross every spell in the game and be able to scribe them all into their spellbook. All of these things have a cost. Whether it's gold, experience, or simply time, they all have a cost. These are also things that sorcerers don't have to worry about. So while it is probably true that the wizard is ultimately more powerful, he has to go through a lot more trouble getting that power. Joe Shmo's wizard may be more powerful than my sorcerer, but at least I don't have such a headache at the end of the day. :D
pyromage2012 07-12-04, 08:24 PM	I solved all my problems by using the recharge magic variant in Unearthed Arcana.
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-13-04, 01:48 AM	Originally posted by pyromage2012 I solved all my problems by using the recharge magic variant in Unearthed Arcana. I solved all my problems in a different manner. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248817) :D
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 07-13-04, 10:03 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels and how is rope trick gonna help? Rope trick lasts hours/level. Not days. Rope trick is best suited for being in the middle of a dungeon or essentially in between battles. Not when the party has someplace to go and doesn't want to wait a few weeks for the wizard to scribe a few scrolls into his or her spellbook. Dude, you memorize Rope Trick about 4 or 5 times say at oh I guess 10th level, thats 40 to 50 hours you can stay inside that extra dimension. You could make a Wand with that spell. That would give you plenty of time to relearn and do a lot of other things. You might not like it, but the sorcerer can stand up to the wizard fine and excel at it. They're just as good at arcane spellcasting and can do some things better than the wizard. Actually they are not as good because they can't cast all arcane spells like a wizard, and they don't have a use for all spells like a Wizard does. No, they have pretty much an equal change of not having the right spell for the occasion. The difference, however, is that a sorcerer's limited spell list makes the sorcerer more predictable in terms of what challenges the sorcerer can and cannot counter. This is something that the other party members (or just the sorcerer him/herself) can actually plan around and bypass without intervention from the sorcerer. The wizard, however, is different. The wizard cannot prepare every spell that might be needed, nor can the wizard have the spell that might be needed even in his/her spellbook. What challenges the wizard can and cannot tackle changes on a daily basis, which presents problems that would likely not be encountered with a sorcerer at all. See what your saying is, is that the campaign will work around the Sorcerer, but it won't. They do "not" have an equal change. Are you sure you play a lot of D&D? Yes the Sorcerer is more predictable therefore he is easier to defeat. The Wizard can keep them guessing everyday. Actually what the Sorcerer will have the right spells for change on a day to day basis, hmm the Wizard can change if need be, the Sorcerer can't. You seem to be stuck on this thing about a Wizard and time, that a Wizard may not be given this amount of time etc... First of all, if the group leaves, then either the Wizard will just catch up, or the players are being greedy. A Wizard will make time. Also, you make the amount of time a Wizard needs sound like it's years and years and the whole world is going to end if the heroes don't defeat whatever, sure thats some games but only a small fraction. You need to understand more about campaigns. If players just want to kill things 24-7 then thats called a hach and slash quest. Not really a campaign. No, the wizard can't cast or benifit from any arcane spell. They don't know every arcane spell, so they can't benifit from any one of them. They can benifit from any arcane spell that they happen to have scribed in their spellbook over the course of their career. But they cannot benifit from all of those on any given day, either. They only get up to 4 spells/level + 1/4 of their intelligence modifier (rounded up) -.25 per spell level above 1st. Instead, they have to rely on what spells they did prepare that day and those spells will never always contain what you deem as the "right" spell for any given challenge. Actually they can!
TheDarkestOfAngels 07-14-04, 03:38 AM	and how is rope trick gonna help? Rope trick lasts hours/level. Not days. Rope trick is best suited for being in the middle of a dungeon or essentially in between battles. Not when the party has someplace to go and doesn't want to wait a few weeks for the wizard to scribe a few scrolls into his or her spellbook. Dude, you memorize Rope Trick about 4 or 5 times say at oh I guess 10th level, thats 40 to 50 hours you can stay inside that extra dimension. You could make a Wand with that spell. That would give you plenty of time to relearn and do a lot of other things. 1. Wizards prepare their spells these days. 2. Umm... a PC needs a place to work on items. Like an arcane laboratory. A rope trick extradimensional space does not qualify as such a place. 3. 48 hours is two days, which is enough time to create One 2k gp item (or less) or two 1k gp (or less) items or scribe two level one scrolls or one level two scrolls. 4. Rope tricks aren't difficult to find if you're an EL 10 encounter. It's also easy to set a trap for when the effect ends. It's also tremendously more efficient and generally a wiser thing to be making and scribing when you're not in imminent danger. 5. I was talking about scribing scrolls. Not crafting wands. You might not like it, but the sorcerer can stand up to the wizard fine and excel at it. They're just as good at arcane spellcasting and can do some things better than the wizard. Actually they are not as good because they can't cast all arcane spells like a wizard, and they don't have a use for all spells like a Wizard does. actually, dude, they are. No, they have pretty much an equal change of not having the right spell for the occasion. The difference, however, is that a sorcerer's limited spell list makes the sorcerer more predictable in terms of what challenges the sorcerer can and cannot counter. This is something that the other party members (or just the sorcerer him/herself) can actually plan around and bypass without intervention from the sorcerer. The wizard, however, is different. The wizard cannot prepare every spell that might be needed, nor can the wizard have the spell that might be needed even in his/her spellbook. What challenges the wizard can and cannot tackle changes on a daily basis, which presents problems that would likely not be encountered with a sorcerer at all. See what your saying is, is that the campaign will work around the Sorcerer, but it won't. I did NOT say that. They do "not" have an equal change. Are you sure you play a lot of D&D? As a matter of fact, I do play a lot of D&D. In the 3 games I'm participating in now, I'm playing a Deep Imiskari Wizard, a 1/2 Drow Fighter/Transmuter, and a Human Cleric of the Red Knight. My usual choice of character class is usually some type of spellcaster with sorcerers and wizards usually at the top of the tier in what I decide to play. And yes, they do have an equal chance because wizards don't have every spell they know at the tip of their sleeves any more than sorcerers do. Wizards do not have a significantly better chance of having the correct spell prepared for that day. Having a spell scribed in a spellbook is not the same as having it prepared. Yes the Sorcerer is more predictable therefore he is easier to defeat. The Wizard can keep them guessing everyday. A wizard is more volitile and therefore has more difficulty in taking on different challenges. A sorcerer can take on the same challenge again and again and again. See, I can use false logic and slippery-slope to pretend that I'm right too. Actually what the Sorcerer will have the right spells for change on a day to day basis, hmm the Wizard can change if need be, the Sorcerer can't. You seem to be stuck on this thing about a Wizard and time, that a Wizard may not be given this amount of time etc... Actually, I'm "Stuck," as you say, on this thing that a wizard does not always have the right spell prepared for every occasion. Are you even reading my posts? This has been argued time and time again. The wizard's ability to prepare new spells each day doesn't make them better at tackling any challenges encounted that day than what the sorcerer would be capable of handling, unless the wizard had plenty of forewarning (and the correct spells scribed into the spellbook.) If the wizard didn't have the right spell prepared, then the wizard CAN'T use a needed spell in the exact same manner as if the sorcerer didn't have a vital spell known. First of all, if the group leaves, then either the Wizard will just catch up, or the players are being greedy. No, the players just don't feel like waiting around for weeks in order to wait for the one party member. They're not just gonna sit around and twiddle their thumbs while one party member is off doing his own thing. A Wizard will make time. And how, pray tell, is that? The wizard isn't the one running the party's time schedule. Also, you make the amount of time a Wizard needs sound like it's years and years and the whole world is going to end if the heroes don't defeat whatever, sure thats some games but only a small fraction. You need to understand more about campaigns. If players just want to kill things 24-7 then thats called a hach and slash quest. Not really a campaign. :rolleyes: like I said. The party's schedule doesn't revolve around the wizard's schedule. Second, I've been playing D&D for years in all kinds of different campaigns and I've heard of the goings on of plenty of other games and I understand perfectly what does and doesn't occur. I never made any comment nor passed any inclination that "years and years" pass. However, the time spent creating items is not brief. PCs have players in a game in which weeks can pass in the blink of an eye, but those Players control characters that have to be doing something in that space of time, which can be anywhere from a few days to several months for a single item. Plus scribing times that the party has to do nothing -but- wait in order to continue in an adventure. And no, lack of downtime is not a singular trait of only "hack n' slash" adventures. No, the wizard can't cast or benifit from any arcane spell. They don't know every arcane spell, so they can't benifit from any one of them. They can benifit from any arcane spell that they happen to have scribed in their spellbook over the course of their career. But they cannot benifit from all of those on any given day, either. They only get up to 4 spells/level + 1/4 of their intelligence modifier (rounded up) -.25 per spell level above 1st. Instead, they have to rely on what spells they did prepare that day and those spells will never always contain what you deem as the "right" spell for any given challenge. Actually they can! actually, they can't. And, on a final note for this post, This conversation is OFF TOPIC. If you want to continue this arguement on yet another sorcerer vs. wizard debate, I'll be there. Resurrecting arguements already dealt and over with. However, this cannot continue here without it heading for a thread lock.