Since CO people often lament, "What were the designers thinking?" let's try to get into their heads.
Let's assume all first party material is available. No magazines. Use the latest errata by default.
1: Melee types (especially Fighters) are mostly fine as-is.
In the early game, when Wizards are still casting on grease and hiding behind the meat shields, melee characters are top dog. Being able to hack and slash with your shiny double digit HP every level, fleeing only when it's dramatically appropriate or you're screwed otherwise makes melee seem valuable at high levels by extrapolation.
Unfortunately, as the 'tech level' of foes increases, so does the amount of tricks each non-caster needs to pull to stay competitive. Is the enemy invisible? You need blindsight, blindsense, true seeing, or see invisibility. Can the enemy fly? Wings of Flying provide continuous flight, but potions of fly and levitate help you even the odds. Does the enemy have 30' reach? You better get a reach weapon and someone to transform you into something with comparable reach. Teleporting foes giving you trouble? Hope someone in your party can dimensional anchor, or dimensional lock them when they're in range, or that someone can teleport you near them, or you're able to kll them before they unmake you from existence. It's a literal arms race with Fighty McFighter spending lots of money to keep up.
Casters participate in a similar arms race, but proper spell selections allow them to counter more readily.
Tome of Battle's classes went a significant way toward easing the burden on melees. Passing saves via Concentration checks gives them the resilience they often need, and Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink helps greatly for mobility. ToB and Travel Devotion (Complete Champion 62) helped greatly by giving melees uses for swift actions and lots of maneuvers, short 'burst' abililities that can refresh in 5 minutes or less.
2: Base Attack Bonus is awesome.
Don't get me wrong- I'd rather have 6 BAB than 5- but short of some rare exceptions, every creature gets more HP, BAB, skills, and saves with enough additional hit dice. Being a Fighter and saying, "I can hit stuff more accurately or much harder now!" doesn't much help when every other creature out there is getting the same thing you get.
Dipping classes that give 1 BAB every level does nothing to make me want to stay with that class. Even if I got 0 BAB from various dips, the other abilities may be worth it, but I'd still probably be behind the curve.
The wrong things have BAB prerequisites. Power Attack should require 1 BAB since it requires BAB while Weapon Finesse has no business requiring any BAB, just DEX. Improved Critical requires 8 BAB and its effect isn't all that cost-efficient. Keen edge does the same thing as a magic effect 3 levels sooner.
3: Crappy prerequisites justify big payoffs later.
In theory, this works. Just like in reality, many times you do things you'd rather be doing immediately because the promise of reward is alluring. You spend feats or get skill ranks you wouldn't normally or would rather not use to get something you want 3 to 10 levels from now.
Unfortunately, payday may never come. Your character may die. The campaign may end. Your DM may let you use your uber ability once, declare it banned, and leave you with the crappy prereqs. More 'lazily,' you could make a character who's powerful right now then kill him off when you could play the character you really wanted to play when you can skip past the growing pains.
This seems like the guiding philosophy of most metamagic. Here's what 3.0's designers expected.
-Direct damage (and instant healing) is good.
-Let's make people pay extra for bigger numbers.
-We won't charge them experience.for this. Instead, force them to use a higher level spell slot for this effect!
-High level casters don't really need the help, and there are few feats for them. Let's charge 'em a feat to make sure they really want this, then force them to prepare each metamagicked spell individually OR increase spontaneous casters' casting time so they prepared casters won't feel so bad.
After further experimentation, the designers realized 'normal' metamagic wasn't worth the effort. They didn't want to overhaul the system, but instead invented metamagic rods. Metamagic rods rock because you spend gold, not spell slots, to spontaneously apply a certain feat at no slot adjustment. That sure beats how you were expected to use metamagic!
4: Spontaneous casters deserve their disadvantages compared to their prepared brethren.
How I wish it were true! Sorcerers and other fully spontaneous casters- not Clerics who convert spells to cures- are able to cast from a small list as they see fit. Major spell selection decisions come at level time, not day by day. As a Wizard, I know I'd like to be able to pick a spell from my library and cast it willy nilly. (As a Hathran with an acorn of far travel, I did it once. The spells I spontaneously cast weren't that much different compared to the ones I'd normally prepare.) What were the designers thinking?
They didn't realize how potent crowd control was. In 2E, you were lucky if something like save or die or otherwise non-damaging worked. You were typically astonished if it worked reliably. In 3E, smart casters don't bother with pew pewing their foes into oblivion when Big Stupid Fighters (see #1) can do it for them and much better. You only need an offensive spell or two from each spell level to
I believe they were focused on direct damage. Who needs versatility when you can chuck fireballs every round at it 'til it dies? Their small number of spells known probably reflects how the designers felt such casters wouldn't need much variety when it's just damage, damage, damage and maybe mage armor or mirror image or teleport once in awhile.
I also firmly believe the designers didn't realize just how powerful a Wizard's specialization is. They didn't notice how weak the schools of Enchantment and Necromancy were, in general. Evocation they thought was a keeper; no Wizard in his right mind would dare give up blasting! They mistook quantity for quality and relied on 2E's philosophy of "damage is uber."
5: Direct Damage is Uber
Hey, if it worked in 2E, it's still true, right? The designers probably thought standardizing HP wouldn't change things that much, but there's a major disconnect between how much HP something has and another creature's ability to efficiently kill it through HP damage.
In 2E, power word kill would probably kill its victim at full HP, or half HP at most. In 3E, the same spell is regarded as a weak finisher, easily forgotten when spells like gate and time stop are around.
Magic missile was my favorite 2E direct damage spell. It always hit and it always disrupted anyone who was casting, unless they had shield. In 3E, magic missile, fireball, and lightning bolt just can't keep up.
The Hathran I mentioned above was in a party with a Sorceress who loved direct damage spells. She rarely even cast the buffs she knew; it was magic missile and fireball over and over with the occasional scorching ray or ineffective Enchantment or Illusion spell. With merely fireball and magic missile, she was able to hurt groups of weak mobs, whittle down incorporeal creatures, and take out mirror images. With a party to support her, she didn't die, but she didn't do much of anything. She scratched and even wounded mobs, but things she hurt could have been fairly easily killed in a round from the melee guys.
Meanwhile, I could cast Evard's black tentacles and hide out while the fight took care of itself. Once, the only spell I cast in a fight was slow and it stopped the surprised and sitting enemies in their chairs. They fumbled around trying to get up, grab their weapons, and hurt us while the melee went in and whacked 'em down.
An exception to the rule of "casters avoid direct damage" is when the damage is deadly. Fireball is weak at 5d6 to 10d6, but enough explosive runes will punch a hole through a planet. At that point, you're probably dealing with cheese far outside the realm of designer expectation.
6: High-level magic isn't that powerful.
Everyone who understands why this is false, please join me for a facepalm in 3... 2... 1... .
In truth, WotC inherited much of 2E's magic system from TSR. I never played a 2E tabletop game where we could remake reality to our image and was seemingly possible in 2E, but in 3E, each level 9 wizard spell at least comes very close to ending a fight. Gate calls a wickedly powerful creature, or combined with reverse gravity, makes for an inescapable trap for anything who can't fly or teleport away immediately. Time stop lets you decide how to either leave quickly or litter the battlefield with buffed minions. Dominate monster ends conflict in a blink of an eye. Astral projection makes you immortal; you did make all the proper preparations and sealed yourself in a vault only you can access, right?
Mind you, we're still in the teens for levels, pre-epic. Why should mortals, even 'superheroes' have this much power? What's a DM to do?
WotC admitted most their playtesting was for levels 1-12 with an emphasis on 5-12 when things are most balanced and interesting. Beyond that, it seemed like any group who dared play with level 7+ spells was well prepared for the risks.
I believe WotC's designers didn't want to touch something so alien to them. Despite Bastion of Broken Souls and Epic Level Handbook, I believe they fumbled around in the dark for this level of play.
The main reason why things escalate so quickly isn't because a CR20 creature is that much of a threat, but because spells can do effectively anything. A Wizard can cast contact other plane and bug greater deities enough times to know exactly what's going on. From his private demiplane. As an astral projection. That can only be reached by someone who worships his now-dead pet pony from when he was 6.
By this point, you can only learn about the problem Wizard if you have similar magic, and even you have a slim chance of reaching him. Logically, if he's worth his spells, he's been farming wishes from genie's he's called via planar binding since before you were born. In the spirit of fair play, however, groups much agree to a certain style of tactics that are appropriate, lest they walk out.
7: Weaker at-will effects balance out with limited use stronger effects.
This assumes groups don't have a "15 minute workday." A Fighter's stamina works when he can just keep swinging his sword, thrusting his spear, or bashing skulls with his greatclub. Fighty McFighter gets disappointed when he's at the beck and call of some smarty-pants caster who dresses funny and smells of bat crap.
A caster's power directly depends on him being able to use it. If he can't cast- he's out of spells, he's silenced, he's dead, you're in the way, he ain't about to waste his valuable resources- then he's far worse off. Truly rare is the player who wants to be twiddling this thumbs, doing effectively nothing, while the rest of the group is going all-out or close to it.
If, suddenly, the 15 minute workday becomes a 4 hour workday or an 8 hour workday, that's closer to what the designers intended. Now Godfrey Godson knows he can't waste his power on trivial things, meaning he uses the most powerful spells he can. Since his spell budget is so tight, each spell needs to (nearly) win a fight or ensure a party member's survival to be worthwhile. This may escalate until magic is uber.
8: Be glad we incorporated a workable skill system this time, but don't ask us to balance it! (Empirate)
Skills (and, by extension, a use for the Thief class beyond disabling traps) were sorely missing from prior editions of D&D. Therefore, many of us were overjoyed to discover the new skill system, which has some noticable perks:
It works off the same mechanics as everything else (roll d20, add appropriate ability bonus, add skill ranks, compare to DC, that's basically it).
It gives us another way to round out a character. Want to play a concert pianist, an architect, or a basketweaver? Now you can assign numbers to that!
It gives us a way to challenge PCs that doesn't rely on slaughtering things and taking their stuff. "If you don't manage to scale that cliff in time, quietly, the guards will notice!"
It provides much-needed pampering for some mediocre class chassis, like Ranger (since dual wielding isn't so powerful anymore), Bard (before Inspire Courage optimization), and most importantly Rogue (Sneak Attack isn't enough to make this class worthwhile.)
All these are good, but again, the designers never bothered playtesting skills in a double-digit-level campaign. Skill checks nearly never pass the threshold of DC 20, or 25 at most, though there are some arbitrary but much-needed limits on UMD, and an Incantatrix's Metamagic Effect Spellcraft DCs quickly amount to 60, 70, or more. (By the way, thanks for including skill boosters that give +30 or more to a skill. Those are really handy!) The kind of DC which could challenge a 16th level Rogue's sneaking abilities only comes along when you fight 16th level Rangers. Apparently, the designers thought skill checks would balance themselves out at higher levels because of this. The basic idea being: you just need to maximize Move Silently if you want to sneak past a 16th level Ranger.
Obviously, almost always, you don't just sneak past a 16th level Ranger, you teleport, wind walk or ethereal jaunt past him. The bottom line, starting from about 8th to 10th level (sometimes much sooner, cf. invisibility, silence, knock and the like), seems to be: anything you can do without magic can be done better with spells. The only exception to this is, tellingly, the Use Magic Device skill.
So again, skills don't scale with level because:
-skill-based challenges often don't scale with level if they don't rely on opposed checks,
-skills are trumped by magic even relatively early on. As level rises, magic becomes exponentially more powerful, while skills increase in a linear fashion. Guess what happens.
So skills are basically only needed at low-mid levels. After that, who needs skills much when magic's around? The designers tried to counter this effect somewhat by installing skill prerequisites for feats and PrCs, but these lead directly into #9.
9: Feats are precious. Skill points aren't. (Empirate)
If, for the moment, we accept that skills are useful and needed, this is obviously not true. The few skill points most classes get can often only maximize two to three skills (more in the case of high Int classes, but still). And if you followed the previous point, skills are actually expected to hold up to a skill-based, level-appropriate challenge, so basically, skill points invested in skills you don't plan to maximize are wasted. Unless, that is, this is a skill which doesn't rely on opposed checks. This makes for a seriously screwed system, in which every skill point is carefully weighed before it is expended.
On the one hand, you have skills like Move Silently or Bluff. You'll roll opposed checks a lot, so you try to keep these maximized. For many classes, this would tie up most of their skill points, so they don't bother and rely on magic to solve their problems.
On the other hand, you have skills like Tumble, Concentration or Climb. Once you can reliably tumble past an opponent or cast your spells defensively, you'll never put a point here again (unless for specific mechanics like the DC 40 tumble check for a 10' step, or if you can use Concentration instead of rolling a save).
Either way, skill points are alway kind of rare: either because you're in a class with lots of them but lots of skills to keep maximized (sneaky types, party faces etc.). Or because you're in a class with two piddly skill points per level, which you need to increase Concentration and Spellcraft to acceptable levels (at which point, you forget all about skills anyway).
Oh, and then there's the fighter. Care to tell me what he can do with his 2 skillpoints/level, that would actually be useful? Coz I sure don't have an idea.
Out of the PHB base classes, this leaves the Fighter as the only class that can use skillpoints for actual customization for role-play purposes. All others need their few skillpoints to, well, increase the mechanically useful skills. Some later reach a certain point at which role-play-based investment of skill points becomes feasible again.
Now let's step back again and take #8 into account. Skills are not useful at higher levels (say, past 8th to 10th level or so). At lower levels, however, they're pretty much required. So maybe you could squeeze in a few skills to just round out your character's flavor, right? At least at higher levels?
Wrong. You don't want to stay a base class forever, right? Heck, you probably PrCed four levels ago. So most likely, some or even most of your skill points are locked into suboptimal skill choices to fulfill requirements. If you want any payoff from your skill points, you're basically forced to use them for PrC requirements, for PrC class features are much, much more useful (and often much more flavorful as well) than anything else in the game short of 9th level spells.
So what PrC skill requirements do is force a certain (skill-based) flavor on your character. No room for customization whatsoever. You want a bard who's actually good at spellcasting? You better want your character to be an astrologer as well! You want a wizard scientifically interested in chance and fate? Guess what, you're playing a professional gambler! Oh, and those Suel Arcanamachs you wanted to join, well they are, by the way, not only fighting spellcasters of the highest order, but an Olympian training cadre of high vaulters, and you have to measure up to their standards...
Right. Before this devolves into a rant about the ridiculousness that is PrC prerequisites, let me finish this by saying:
Skills work. Just barely. If you don't really pay attention. If your DM likes you. And if you don't want to be able to do shiny things without magic.
Afterthought: And don't give me skill tricks. Those are a really nice idea, but they never got any further support beyond Complete Scoundrel, and by then, 3.5 was mostly over. They should have started that way, not ended.
11: Favored classes and multiclassing penalties are justified.
The designers seemed to believe each class was a separate entity, and multiclassing similar classes to achieve a goal (Rogue/Ranger, Fighter/Ranger, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger...), was seen as a big deal, for reason unknown to me. Most likely, the designers expected people to make characters simple in concept and simple in mechanics and wanted to discourage ridiculous levels of complexity, hence favored classes and experience penalties. They believed stereotypes should exist, but allowed people to break these stereotypes to some degree.
Then they made prestige classes which had no experience penalty. This went against the 'complex multiclass' idea, but PrCs were assumed to be extensions and specializations of a base class.
Unfortunately for these designers at least, the idea that a DM should reward players for acting a certain way by making an organization or elite sect they could join soon went another direction. PrCs had feat and skill requirements, and feats and PrCs filled books. WotC had to sell books to survive as a company. Hence, the 'homebrew gift' became mass produced and well-read players often defined themselves via a PrC instead of base classes or a concept like 'wandering swordsman.'
Another thing that seemed to go awry was front-loaded classes. Aside from Tome of Battle classes, there has rarely been a non-full casting base class I've greatly wanted to take for more than 2 levels.
In core, Fighter1 and Fighter2 give a feat each. Fighter3 is a dead level.
Barbarian1 gives Rage and Fast Movement, which various sources allow trading for things like Whirling Frenzy and Pounce, while Barbarian2 gives Uncanny Dodge. Barbarian 3 gives Trap Sense, which may as well be a dead level.
Paladin1 gives detect evil at will and Smite Evil 1/day. Paladin2 gives Divine Grace (probably the main reason you're a Paladin), as well as Lay on Hands (meh). Paladin3 makes you immune to all diseases via Divine Health, which is good against Mummy Rot but sucks if you want to catch lycanthropy. Pal3 also makes you immune to fear, an ability that either sucks or rocks.
Ranger1 gives Track as a bonus feat, 2 good skills, 6+INT mod skill points from a spiffy list, a favored enemy, and 1 BAB. Ranger2 continues this trend, and gives Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting. Ranger3 continues with skills and BAB, but gives Endurance, one of the worst feats in the game. I have never needed it besides a prereq, nor have I ever encountered the situations Endurance is meant to help.
Rogue1 gives d6 Sneak Attack, probably the best non-caster skill list for a core class, and more skill points than many characters get in their lives. Trade Sneak Attack for a bonus fighter feat using a variant if you wish. Rogue2 gives Evasion, a lovely ability that's worth 25,000 gold on a ring. Rogue3 is compelling, since it gives another Sneak Attack die and I'd probably want to take it, but I also want levels in other classes to boost my Will and Fortitude saves as well as HP.
Monk1 gets Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist (your feat choices suck in core), all good saves, WIS bonus to AC while unarmored, and Flurry. Monk2 continues my saves, gets me another feat (probably Combat Reflexes in core, or a better feat outside of core), and the ever-lovely Evasion. Monk3 gets me +2 on saves versus Enchantments (meh) and +10' move speed (). If I went monk, I'd probably want only the first two levels anyway, since Evasion is spiffy, the saves are good, and better classes exist.
Other base classes in core all have a caster level equal to their level in that class.
12: Heavy armor should be the best way to get AC.
Were magic not so prevalent, I'd agree. I can get a Mithril- they call it 'mithral'- Chain Shirt for 1100 gold. This armor has 4 AC (same as mage armor), and no armor check penalty or speed reduction It weighs less than even leather armor. It has 10% arcane spell failure, or enough to discourage most Wizards from using it as-is. Normally, however, you can wear it with no penalty, regardless of proficiency.
You could get a Ring of Protection I (2000 gold), Necklace of Natural Armor I (2000 gold), and make this armor +2 (4000) gold for the same AC as a cheaper full plate. This 9100 gold may seem like a waste, and you can duplicate these AC bonuses with shield of faith, barkskin, and magic vestment- all core spells- but let's see if we can transform full plate into a quiet, unobtrusive suit of armor.
Alternatively, there's full plate. Normal full plate costs 1500 gold, gives 8 AC, weighs the most of any armor in the PHB and is tied with the half-plate for weight, and has a max DEX of 1 and armor check penalty of 6. Six! Masterwork full plate costs 1650, has a max DEX of 2, and an armor check penalty of 'only' 5. (People can hear you, Sir Clanksalot!) Being a dwarf helps little. Your movement speed is always 20' (the same in full plate or naked), and while you could theoretically Tumble in full plate, you're probably untrained or your Tumble bonus is so low as to not be viable.
Maybe mithril will help, as now a standard chain shirt weighs as much as Mithril Full Plate, but Mithril Full Plate costs 16,500 gold, and your armor check penalty is still 3! Outside core, there are expensive ways to reduce full plate's ACP but you're spending far too much to try salvaging something that just isn't worth it.
Don't get me started on tower shields. They're about as bad a full plate! Now, smart people use no ACP bucklers (masterwork or darkwood for non-arcanists and mithril for arcanists) to keep their hand free. Light shields simply shouldn't exist when bucklers are around, and heavy shields are heavy though cheap compared to bucklers. While the rules as written don't prevent light or heavy shields from interfering with somatic components, some DMs just say no.
Apparently, mobility and armor check penalties were seen as low priorities for someone on the front lines. "They should wear full plate!" people said in 2E. When I played late 2E and early 3.0, designers said, "Now people will have a reason to use armor lighter than full plate!" Unfortunately, there's very little reason to wear anything but light or no armor because so many class abilities rely on it.
13: People will choose style over substance most the time - AKA "Newbie traps are OK."
This relates to the point that the designers didn't expect everyone to be or want to be uber at every level. Unfortunately, based on the sheer volume of material produced since 2000, there have been many abilities not worth the paper on which they were printed.
To paraphrase one of my players in a recent campaign, "My character is an elf rebel exiled from the elven homeland. He's a level 1 Swashbuckler." When I think elf exiles, I think self-exiled casters and political figures powerful enough to pose a threat to the established hierarchy, but that may just be me.
When I started 3.0, I thought half-elves were cool. Humans had short lifespans and no low-light vision, and elves had a yucky CON penalty, especially harmful to a Wizard. I played a half-elf Wizard and realized my race was probably worse than either of them!
Also at first I was disappointed to find my Wizard to be so weak he had to rest after every fight just to be useful, but that's when I thought magic missile was uber and didn't realize the power of grease and sleep.
Having played a from level 1 Wizard in a recent campaign, I'm reminded why I thought that way. Even a 20 INT specialist has a piddly 4 level 1 slots per day. I contribute more to the party by standing in back and reciting interesting trivia about the world. This is another reason why a gish seems appealing. At level 1 when spells are meh, go Warblade or Fighter or Barbarian so I can do something in combat besides trying not to die due to my single-digit HP. Alternatively, go Rogue1 so I can sneak and eventually go Unseen Seer/Arcane Trickster and have Rogue skills but Wizard HP and BAB.
They assumed that players don't want to be uber. They want to 'suffer' the low levels where non-casters rock, and play into the sweet spot of 8-12 where it starts to come together and there is a good party dynamic. Then when casting and the sheer number of 'save or dies' packed by monsters becomes awkward at around level 15, they'll stop playing.
The system essentially fails to work at higher levels, which is a problem, because many play groups want a high-powered super-powered game (as witness by the number of requests to optimise already powerful characters seen on these boards). And to be honest, if you want to play that kind of game, then buy Ars Magica or something, because 3.5 is just a bad option for entertaining your schoolboy dreams of world domination. The system should have started to crumble when it went off the scale in the ELH, not in the basic ruleset.
Something else that I noticed is that 'tricky' options were rewarded by the designers. Play an 'easy' sorc and you are weaker than the more paper-work intensive wizard. Because heaven forbid the person willing to do paperwork be more inherently cunning and better able to leverage what they have anyway. Also, the designers believed that being a party cleric means being a healbot, and nobody would want to do it. So there are sweeteners and bribes for clerics. A lot of them. And they effectively mean that a cleric not wanting to 'just' heal is more effective than a lot of other classes.
Clearly the basic ruleset was not geared towards the sheer volume of feats and PrCs available, too. A glance at most of the classes is pretty solid proof, and there are simply too few feat slots open for anything other than PrC requirements, along with a small selection of the most efficient feats. There's not much room for flavour in there!
Finally, the designers assumed that players would be happy with the magic balance: That of magic being poor early on due to the small amount and power level, and great later. They thought that wizards would suffer in silence, waiting for their time to come. That's not true, as evidenced by later classes having more low level power and reserve feats, as well as many games starting at higher levels of play. It's really thrown the perspective of things.
Skills (and, by extension, a use for the Thief class beyond disabling traps) were sorely missing from prior editions of D&D. Therefore, many of us were overjoyed to discover the new skill system, which has some noticable perks:
It works off the same mechanics as everything else (roll d20, add appropriate ability bonus, add skill ranks, compare to DC, that's basically it).
It gives us another way to round out a character (want to play a concert pianist, an architect or a basketweaver? Now you can assign numbers to that).
It gives us a way to challenge PCs that doesn't rely on slaughtering things and taking their stuff ("if you don't manage to scale that cliff in time, quietly, the guards will notice!").
It provides much-needed pampering for some mediocre class chassis, like Ranger (since TWF isn't so powerful anymore), Bard (before IC optimization), and most importantly Rogue (we all know SA isn't enough to make this class worthwhile).
All these are good, but again, the designers never bothered playtesting skills in a double-digit-level campaign. Not many skill checks pass the threshold of DC 20, or 25 at most (except some arbitrary, but much needed limits on UMD). The kind of DC which could challenge a 16th level Rogue's sneaking abilities only comes along when you fight 16th level Rangers. Apparently, the designers thought skill checks would balance themselves out at higher levels because of this. The basic idea being: you just need to maximize Move Silently if you want to sneak past a 16th level Ranger.
Obviously, you don't sneak past a 16th level Ranger. You teleport, windwalk or ethereal jaunt past him. The bottom line, starting from about 8th to 10th level (sometimes much sooner, cf. Invisibility, Silence, Knock and the like), seems to be: anything you yourself can do, can be done better with spells. The only exception to this is, tellingly, the Use Magic Device skill.
So again, skills don't scale with level because:
a) skill-based challenges often don't scale with level if they don't rely on opposed checks,
b) skills are trumped by magic even relatively early on. As level rises, magic becomes exponentially more powerful, skills increase in a linear fashion. Guess what happens.
So skills are basically only needed at low-mid levels. After that, who needs skills much? The designers tried to counter this effect somewhat by installing skill prerequisites for Feats and PrCs, but these lead directly into Nr. 9.
9. Feats are rare, so they should be picked with care. Skill points, on the other hand, are not rare, so you can use them to customize your character.
If, for the moment, we accept that skills are useful and needed, this is obviously not true. The few skill points most classes get can often only maximize two to three skills (more in the case of high Int classes, but still). And if you followed the previous point, skills are actually expected to hold up to a skill-based, level-appropriate challenge, so basically, skill points invested in skills you don't plan to maximize are wasted. Unless, that is, this is a skill which doesn't rely on opposed checks. This makes for a seriously screwed system, in which every skill point is carefully weighed before it is expended.
On the one hand, you have skills like Move Silently or Bluff. You'll roll opposed checks a lot, so you try to keep these maximized. For many classes, this would tie up most of their skill points, so they don't bother and rely on magic to solve their problems.
On the other hand, you have skills like Tumble, Concentration or Climb. Once you can reliably tumble past an opponent or cast your spells defensively, you'll never put a point here again (unless for specific mechanics like the DC 40 tumble check for a 10' step, or if you can use Concentration instead of rolling a save).
Either way, skill points are alway kind of rare: either because you're in a class with lots of them but lots of skills to keep maximized (sneaky types, party faces etc.). Or because you're in a class with two piddly skill points per level, which you need to increase Concentration and Spellcraft to acceptable levels (at which point, you forget all about skills anyway).
Oh, and then there's the fighter. Care to tell me what he can do with his 2 skillpoints/level, that would actually be useful? Coz I sure don't have an idea.
Out of the PHB base classes, this leaves the Fighter as the only class that can use skillpoints for actual customization for role-play purposes. All others need their few skillpoints to, well, increase the mechanically useful skills. Some later reach a certain point at which role-play-based investment of skill points becomes feasible again.
Now let's step back again and take Nr. 8 into account. Skills are not useful at higher levels (say, past 8th to 10th level or so). At lower levels, however, they're pretty much required. So maybe you could squeeze in a few skills to just round out your character's flavor, right? At least at higher levels?
Wrong. You don't want to stay a base class forever, right? Heck, you probably PrCed four levels ago. So most likely, some or even most of your skill points are locked into suboptimal skill choices to fulfill requirements. If you want any payoff from your skill points, you're basically forced to use them for PrC requirements, for PrC class features are much, much more useful (and often much more flavorful as well) than anything else in the game short of 9th level spells.
So what PrC skill requirements do is force a certain (skill-based) flavor on your character. No room for customization whatsoever. You want a bard who's actually good at spellcasting? You better want your character to be an astrologer as well! You want a wizard scientifically interested in chance and fate? Guess what, you're playing a professional gambler! Oh, and those Suel Arcanamaches you wanted to join, well they are, by the way, not only fighting spellcasters of the highest order, but also an olympian training cadre of high vaulters, and you have to measure up to their standards...
Right. Before this devolves into a rant about the ridiculousness that is PrC prerequisites, let me finish this by saying:
Skills work. Just barely. If you don't really pay attention. If your DM likes you. And if you don't want to be able to do shiny things without magic.
Afterthought: And don't give me skill tricks. Those are a really nice idea, but they never got any further support beyond Complete Scoundrel, and by then, 3.5 was mostly over. They should have started that way, not ended.
Basically, staring into that hell-pit of madness is not something I want to do.
The Horror! The Horror!
Basically, staring into that hell-pit of madness is not something I want to do.
:D
Actually, why not? It's what intrepid adventurers do! It's part of the job description!
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5348.msg179104#msg179104
That doesn't mean you should. God I hate forums sometimes.
I agree with the Lets make a class for new players called the Sorc, but will totally be inferior to the Wizard. Sure I get a familiar, but I'm a level behind in spells and I don't get bonus feats. OH well lets fix it by making a ton of heritage feats that players will definitly wanna take over metamagic or other useful feats.:P
Oh yes, completely and utterly inferior which is why sorcerers get useless junk spells like arcane spellsurge or wings of cover. No one plays with those. There's two excellent guides for sorcerers on this forum. I think you'd enjoy reading them.
Core sucks, this is nothing that's not already well-known.
Honestly, when I play a sorc, I buy a few scrolls of those "once in a campaign" spells, then use the same spells I would as a wizard anyway, with more versatility.
I will agree, for certain things, wizards are far better, but you shouldnt discount the sorc just because metamagic takes a little longer.
So you cant quicken a spell OMG lol, you can still apply metamagic spontaneously, and you get more spells per day than the wizard(thus the second penalty from metamagic of raising the spell slot is not as bad as it was.)
As long as you used your "useless" skills to boost concentration, you shouldnt have to worry about getting your spell interrupted.
And then! outside of core they came up with a variant that fixed it, Metamagic specialist, now you can spontaneously apply metamagic, with no increase in casting time.
and you have so many spell slots anyway, where is the drawback?
I will take on a 20 wiz with a 20 sorc any day, and when he has run out of spells because of my dispel magics, and greater dispels, I will rock his face in with my 2 spells per spell level.
Why does no-one like sorcs?
Honestly, when I play a sorc, I buy a few scrolls of those "once in a campaign" spells, then use the same spells I would as a wizard anyway, with more versatility.
I will agree, for certain things, wizards are far better, but you shouldnt discount the sorc just because metamagic takes a little longer.
So you cant quicken a spell OMG lol, you can still apply metamagic spontaneously, and you get more spells per day than the wizard(thus the second penalty from metamagic of raising the spell slot is not as bad as it was.)
As long as you used your "useless" skills to boost concentration, you shouldnt have to worry about getting your spell interrupted.
And then! outside of core they came up with a variant that fixed it, Metamagic specialist, now you can spontaneously apply metamagic, with no increase in casting time.
and you have so many spell slots anyway, where is the drawback?
I will take on a 20 wiz with a 20 sorc any day, and when he has run out of spells because of my dispel magics, and greater dispels, I will rock his face in with my 2 spells per spell level.
Some minor things you seem to have forgotten...
At 8 out of 20 levels, you have 1 spell of your highest level. Sure you can cast it more often, but there's only one of them.
For another 8 out of 20 levels, you have spells one level lower than the wizard.
If you reach outside of core, you find the Focused Specialist, which gives the wizard more spells than the wizard, at least, on average. There may be some points where you have the same number of spells.
General consensus is that three metamagic feats are worth the price: Quicken Spell, Extend Spell and Sculpt Spell. Some may be useful to specific styles of play. (e.g. Heighten spell to a shadowcraft mage, Split Ray to a ray-specialist)
The fiirst two points mean that if I'm in a party with a wizard, and I'm a sorcerer, I will probably find myself regretting my decision. And, to clarify, every wizard I have played since CM came out has used Focused Specialist. I have not felt gimped because of it.
Which were both bolted on to help re-address the issue. As conceived, sorcs just blew chunks. And when things rolled in like substitutions and PrCs, sorcs still lost ground on the whole.
A double spec'ed wizard gets 6 spells per day of each level... same as a sorc. So having more spells is a real myth. And a wiz that isn't specing isn't really doing it right in my book.
I'm okay with that
More importantly, you picked level 20. How many games go to 20? More importantly, how many start at 20? By doing so, you're ignoring one of the sorcerer's many flaws; getting your spells one spell level later. Aside from the obvious problem when in a party with someone getting their spells before you, it also limits the spell levels you can lose from multiclassing. It's a small point, admittedly, but it's a lot of small points who's eventual sum causes people to prefer the wizard.
And really, who would mind being supposedly 'forced' to memorize two extra conjuration, illusion, or transmutation spells per level? I generally would anyways.
In all fairness, a lot of people like sorcerers. I certainly do. But, the sorcerer as intended simply wasn't properly thought out. Their weaknesses can be mitigated, depending on the player's choices, but it doesn't change the class' inherent flaws. It is still a terrific class, and is potentially much more powerful than several others.
At least, that's my opinion on the matter.
Right, Evocation, which is useless aside from a handful of spells. Which are replicated by other schools. Enchantment, which is negated by a single spell, not to mention a myriad of common enemies. Abjuration and Necromancy are next up, in my experience, and neither are too integral to drop.
I agree with Evocation, however, enchantment being stopped by a single spell is not a valid argument, because every bit of magic is stopped by a single spell (AMF) IMO Abjuration is one of the best schools of magic, based on the fact that it can shut down every other school. and necromancy has the most save or die effects in the game. All schools of magic (barring evocation) has its uses.
More importantly, you picked level 20. How many games go to 20? More importantly, how many start at 20? By doing so, you're ignoring one of the sorcerer's many flaws; getting your spells one spell level later. Aside from the obvious problem when in a party with someone getting their spells before you, it also limits the spell levels you can lose from multiclassing. It's a small point, admittedly, but it's a lot of small points who's eventual sum causes people to prefer the wizard.
I picked level 20 because that seems to be the standard by which people judge a characters power. Limiting the levels you can lose sucks, I agree, but the best prestige classes don't lose levels. A better argument however would be that you have to enter many prestige classes late, which, if your not going up to 20, is not that big a deal, however, it does put a lot of people off.
And really, who would mind being supposedly 'forced' to memorize two extra conjuration, illusion, or transmutation spells per level? I generally would anyways.
Im not saying you would mind, but my two extra spell slots can be any spell, whereas yours have to be from your main school.
you make some good points, but i still don't think it's a reason to write off the sorcerer as the weak class many people (not you, i know you said it was strong) seem to think it is.
And my Warlock 20 will dispel everything you throw at him beat you within an inch of your life with his bare hands (and Hideous Blow) then Geas or Programmed Amnesia(UMD) your unconcious body to forget that you ever saw him except in passing.
I agree with Evocation, however, enchantment being stopped by a single spell is not a valid argument, because every bit of magic is stopped by a single spell (AMF) IMO Abjuration is one of the best schools of magic, based on the fact that it can shut down every other school. and necromancy has the most save or die effects in the game. All schools of magic (barring evocation) has its uses.
I picked level 20 because that seems to be the standard by which people judge a characters power. Limiting the levels you can lose sucks, I agree, but the best prestige classes don't lose levels. A better argument however would be that you have to enter many prestige classes late, which, if your not going up to 20, is not that big a deal, however, it does put a lot of people off.
Im not saying you would mind, but my two extra spell slots can be any spell, whereas yours have to be from your main school.
you make some good points, but i still don't think it's a reason to write off the sorcerer as the weak class many people (not you, i know you said it was strong) seem to think it is.
I will clarify that I don't think it is a weak class. It can still have some awesome things. However, the major things putting me off are the delayed access and the fact that when I get a new level of spells, I only get one of them. From levels 3 to 18, either the wizard has better spells than the sorc do (at odd levels) or I only have one spell of my top level (at even levels).
Into the Sorc Wiz thing, the main thing is that with the wiz you can play a diferent adventure every afternoon, each in variedly diferent situations, and it only takes you 8 hours to be perfectly suited for the task at hand. With the sorc you have to weight what spell will be used more often, and in the cases when it will be useful, what degree of usefulness it will have. To this you have to add the fact that you have to plan ahead, for you can only change 1 spell every 2 lvls after 8, so if you plan on playing till lvl 14-16 you wouldn't want to end up with half of your spells becoming obsolete by higher lvl ones... so all in all its a pain having to choose correctly, of course you can always get scrolls... but so can the wizards, as a matter of fact he makes them, and quite cheaply actually, a lvl 1 spell with a cl of 1 costs 12 gp and 1 xp ( O N E ! ), so even at lvl 1 a wiz can end up casting way more spells than the sorc. Still this only proves the wizard is a completely broken class..., on top of having an absurdly broken magic system, the wizard breaks it within the group of magic users...
Personally, I've found a lot of these problems really depend on what kind of group you're in. I've learned that when I run for newbie players who don't optimize, some of the above problems are not so great. I just slowly introduce new mechanics/optimized mobs to teach them things. It works out fine and we have fun.
I've made several house rule changes that speed up play and have tried to simplify things where possible.
And needing to plan your character out is not a design flaw.
It just means you need to be smart.
"And needing to plan your character out is not a design flaw."
It's a huge flaw. It means boards like this exist, where a character's entire 'life' has to be meticulously planned before the first game if the character is to be 'optimal'. No other RPG I can think of works in such a manner, and it effectively discourages a more characterful development and an RP emphasis on development. You can't pick up skills here and there that are appropriate 'at the time' because you might effectively hamstring your character. It's frankly dreadful, and the reason why some -very clever, so not through lack of 'smarts' - people I know refuse to play it in favour of less restrictive games.
Essentially, one of the main problems is the level basis. Few other modern RPGs bother with such a dated mechanic, but D&D is pretty much stuck with it.
It's really common. Very common in videogames too.
"And needing to plan your character out is not a design flaw."
It's a huge flaw. It means boards like this exist, where a character's entire 'life' has to be meticulously planned before the first game if the character is to be 'optimal'. No other RPG I can think of works in such a manner, and it effectively discourages a more characterful development and an RP emphasis on development. You can't pick up skills here and there that are appropriate 'at the time' because you might effectively hamstring your character. It's frankly dreadful, and the reason why some -very clever, so not through lack of 'smarts' - people I know refuse to play it in favour of less restrictive games.
+1 on this portion of Siranui's post.
On the other subject of Sorc vs. Wiz:
One area, not touched on when comparing Sorcerer to Wiz is flavor. Granted, that's not perfectly on topic when typically thinking of game mechanics. But... in a way it is - as flavor is part of the game design. If it weren't, you wouldn't have the number of prototype classes, multiclassing options, nor so many other prc's. If you use a Sorcerer to enhance other classes' primary job, and treat Sorcerer as a specialized spontaneous caster (rather than just a general casting threat), Sorcerer (due to it's casting mechanics) add's some usefuless that is stronger than a Wiz.
Here's some examples where Sorcerer exceeds Wiz in usefulness, though Sorcerer is not greater than Wiz as a pure caster: Using Sorcerer to enhance a survival (Ranger type) - spontaneous casting greatly enhances this build. Or using Sorcerer to enhance a Sneak type - again spontaneous casting greatly enhances this build. Or using Sorcer to enhance a traveler/get into & out of places type. Etc.
If you specialize the Sorcerer's function (which really is what his spellcasting mechanics lead to), he can be quite useful beyond the generalist Sorcerer.
Of course, being that this is the char-op board, by nature, gimping the Sorcerer casting in this way is a Cardinal sin. However, if you look at it as using the Sorcerer's mechanics to make a character's role stronger than it otherwise would be, then Sorc. has a whole extra usefulness. Granted, Wiz can do similar, but can be weaker depending on the character role.
Speaking of design flaws. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1CWRF1qhAI
Let me adjust my statement then. For the type of player like myself where I plan out every and any character I play from 1-20 before I play it, having to plan out your character is not a design flaw.
Speaking of design flaws. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1CWRF1qhAI
My personal problem with the planning it all out to the final detail before play is this:
It can have the effect of making you regret choices you've made after they've been firmly chosen/played - especially for new players of the game. This is particularly true in these cases:
1) As new product was being introduced (during the production cycle), which (nearly) invalidated many choices already having been made for existing characters.
2) If you come in late to this version of the game (as I did), then start adding/learning piece by piece, your in-play characters become semi-obsoleted as you gain a further understanding of the options.
That's where the PHII? retraining rules and other options came in handy (Chaos feat swap thing, etc.), but that isn't enough vs. all the sound options.
On a personal DM level, I allow retraining/rechoosing many things, particularly feats, if the intent is to add things that the player didn't have access to in the past. This way the character stays on par (power-wise/option-wise) with newly created characters with the new material. I don't allow it (without Chaos shuffle, etc.), as a way to just give up something you no longer want/need due to character level.
On the other hand, I love 3.5 best of all versions I've played BECAUSE of the options. So, I'd rather have the complexity plus the options (and rules to cover them), than to have too few options/rules. That's why I would like to see comprehensive, consolidated, and updated "Big Books of" editions for all material - to clean it up now that all material is out, errata the obviously broken stuff (like Tainted Scholar I just came across, but others have known about), but that would likely not be feasible from WoTC's view.
It was a good idea right up until they gave summoners the ability to *bamph* about. Plus sorc runs of Cha, and utility types tend to favour Int for the skills.
"Shadowrun, savage worlds, M&M, tristat to an extent...
It's really common. Very common in videogames too."
It doesn't make it a good mechanic, though. Frankly, it's a 'legacy' of first generation RPGs which D&D has got stuck with and most others have tried to move away from. Level systems not only discourage characterful skill buying both mechanically and abstractly (ie, the fact that buying a dot of 'mining' during a mine exploration won't help you until three weeks later when you level) it also doesn't give players as many options ('Today I *don't* want to get better at fighting! I want to put every single XP for the last 4 weeks into basketweaving') and character progression is in fits and starts.
As customising as a complex level system is, it still fails to give the player the most options, and it fails to give the player a tangible experience reward -ie an improvement- every game session.
And obviously, the XP system isn't great. Parties reap far greater rewards for simply blazing through dungeons than they do for complex sessions involving not a lot going on, expect for some good role-playing.
1. Yes melee needs scaling benefits. The problem is effect-based magic (not just bc), which make it difficult to 'scale to'.
2. Yes BAB isn't cool enough to justify the fighter. So break it with a war-chanter! Hurray! Break those BAB pre-reqs!
3. This is not a flaw with the system. This is a flaw with gaming. You don't always have the straight playing time you want. :D
4. They did the best they could. Those differences are hard to balance.
5. Spot on. What were they thinking with creatures in core that were immune to HP death???
6. Again, Yup. There is no easy fix for this, see my Dirty Handbook Fixes.
7. Yes. So a DM that allows a 15minute day is a BAD BAD DM. I am a big fan of more than 6 random encounters a day. Enough mooks to harass the wizard is good.
Empirate, I love the fact that the skill system is unbalanced. The fact that you only need to tumble so well, but you can always look harder makes sense to me. But yes magic is imba for everything including eclipsing skills
@sorc vs wiz: who gives a turd? Play a cleric! They put those goodies in for a reason you know! See? Even still you don't wanna play one. They have a stigma
Sorc vs Wiz
This document will attempt to quantify what everyone argues about – whether the wizard is truly better than the sorcerer, and by how much? The following attributes for each class are not meant to have any number applied to them – but the sheer number of benefits the wizard has over the sorcerer should speak for themselves.
Wizard vs Sorcerer
Spellbook vs limit on spells known
The lack of a spellbook is nice, but is only a real benefit in a campaign where the PCs will be kidnapped, or spells like Fireball force your items to make their saves to avoid being destroyed routinely (a very rough campaign indeed). Both receiving a certain number of spells per level free, the Wiz also has the option of adding as many as he can find (and can pay) to scribe into his books – the Sorc has no such option. His spells known are set.
Sorc – no abilities after first level.
This is just ludicrous. The Wizard gets special feats every 5th level, plus one at 1st – the sorcerer gets none. Thus the Sorc is forced to be very, very careful with his feats – not only does this limit his versatility compared to the Wiz, but it reduces the chance of him being able to attain PrCs as soon as the Wizard does.
Sorc - terrible skill list
The main difference between the two is that Wiz gets all Knowledge skills. This may seem like nothing at first, but consider the incredible number of arcane PrCs that require Knowledges other than Arcane. Though Bluff is a good skill for the Sorc as it works for their Cha, it may not be enough to tip the scales in this case.
Sorc - tougher skill acquisition
This ties in with the argument of whose prime requisite is better – Cha for Sorcs or Int for Wiz. Despite the usefulness of Cha in social situations and for specific builds like Pal/Sorc, Intelligence is more directly useful to the Wizard because both of them have 2+Int for Skills – very important in qualifying for PrCs with tough skill reqs (like Archmage). Also, consider the fact that, no matter how high the Sorc can get his Bluff with that Cha, the Wiz could spend skill points and eventually have it even higher – with points left over.
Sorc – bad magic item slot
For the Sorc, they will have to use what is considered to be the second most important magic item slot on an adventurer’s body for a Cloak of Charisma. This means no Cloak of Resistance, Displacement, or Elvenkind. The Wiz, on the other hand, must fund a Headband of Intellect – missing out on such gems as the Circlet of Persuasion or Blasting (utterly unnecessary for a Wiz), and the various Helms (Brilliance, Teleportation, Telepathy, Underwater Action, Comprehend Languages and Read Magic). I’m willing to say the Cloak of Resistance is the real gem of this pack.
Sorc – worse spell level progression
This really hurts the Sorc. Remaining one level behind the Wiz half the time could be an extreme disadvantage when certain spells are considered. Certainly the Sorc can cast more spells – in a drawn-out battle using only their available slots, the Sorc would be king. But especially at higher levels, it comes down more and more to who wins initiative.
Sorc – no Quicken Spell
This is more of a penalty than you may think. There is in the core rules no ability whatsoever to allow Sorcs to cast more than one spell a round. Thus, the Wiz can get more effects off early. Since battles between casters rarely last long enough for them to go through a majority of their spells, the Wiz wins out again by increasing the number he gets off in those first few precious rounds.
Sorc – cannot overcome spells known
For the Sorc, there is no way to get more spells known. To get more spell effects he can use, a Sorc would have to buy scrolls, wands, etc. at market price.
The Wizard, on the other hand, has a multitude of options when it comes to increasing his spells per day (the supposed trade-off). Pearls of Power, Scrolls, Wands, Staves – the Wiz gets Scribe Scroll for free (and his bonus feats can be used for any of the others), making him able to increase his spell efficiency for a vastly reduced cost. The Sorc can use these methods too of course, but he has fewer feats to use on them, and the Sorc’s weakness isn’t really spells per day anyway now is it?
Some might say these do not increase the Wiz’s effectiveness because these items suffer from lessened duration, DC, etc. – but enough spells exist without those limitations (like Enervation) that a smart Wiz (and they all are) can make excellent use of his resources. So he’s expending experience – it is a small amount, and any level retardation he suffers would only lower him to the point of having access to equal spell levels as the Sorc, at the most. Thus this, just as with the Spellbook, is mostly a matter of GP – but the Sorc can’t spend his extra coin on spells known, no – he’ll have to spend it on magic items he can’t pay half price for like the Wizard.
Another way for the Wiz to increase his spells per day is to Specialize – this brings with it its own penalties, but it remains another method by which the Wiz can make up the gap. Anything that is balanced and increases one’s options increases their effectiveness.
Finally, there is the simplest of ways to increase spells per day – a very high ability score. Again, the Sorc can do this as well, but again, the Sorc has less need of it.
Sorc – weapon proficiency
The Sorc has it with all simple, while the Wiz has a very restrictive list. At very low levels this can make a difference, but all too soon most arcane spellcasters will discover that if they have to resort to a hand-held weapon, they’re in more trouble than greater access to simple weapons can help.
Sorc – greater spells per day
Though this has already been covered exhaustively, it is worthy to note that with Specialization, the spell level advantage, and the creation of cheap magic items (like scrolls, Headbands of Intellect, etc.) with feats, the number of spells the Sorc has over the Wiz quickly shrinks from small to nonexistent.
Sorc – spontaneous casting
Along with greater spells per day, this is probably the Sorc’s strongest advantage over the Wiz – and the only one the Wiz can’t duplicate. With the ability to cast spells that he knows without setting them to specific slots, even adding metamagic feats at will, this is indeed a useful power. But is it enough to even the score? I submit that based on the above evidence, there will still be more Sorcs saying “I wish I knew such-and-such a spell” more often than Wizs saying “I wish I had more spells per day”.
Of course, the ultimate effectiveness of either class is often based on the type of campaign – in one with only a few high-CR encounters per day, the Wiz shines – in one with many lower-CR encounters per day, the Sorc will. But against each other, against monsters in general, and against other PC-classes, I think the above examples prove the Wizard has far too much on his plate compared to the Sorcerer. Let’s review:
Argument Neg/Pos
Sorc - Spellbook vs limit on spells known -/+
Sorc – no abilities after first level. -
Sorc - terrible skill list -
Sorc - tougher skill acquisition -
Sorc – bad magic item slot -
Sorc – worse spell level progression -
Sorc – no Quicken Spell -
Sorc – cannot overcome spells known -
Sorc – weapon proficiency +
Sorc – greater spells per day +
Sorc – spontaneous casting +
Decide for yourself.
Wizard vs Sorcerer
Spellbook vs limit on spells known
The lack of a spellbook is nice, but is only a real benefit in a campaign where the PCs will be kidnapped, or spells like Fireball force your items to make their saves to avoid being destroyed routinely (a very rough campaign indeed). Both receiving a certain number of spells per level free, the Wiz also has the option of adding as many as he can find (and can pay) to scribe into his books – the Sorc has no such option. His spells known are set.
Sorc – no abilities after first level.
This is just ludicrous. The Wizard gets special feats every 5th level, plus one at 1st – the sorcerer gets none. Thus the Sorc is forced to be very, very careful with his feats – not only does this limit his versatility compared to the Wiz, but it reduces the chance of him being able to attain PrCs as soon as the Wizard does.
Sorc - terrible skill list
The main difference between the two is that Wiz gets all Knowledge skills. This may seem like nothing at first, but consider the incredible number of arcane PrCs that require Knowledges other than Arcane. Though Bluff is a good skill for the Sorc as it works for their Cha, it may not be enough to tip the scales in this case.
Sorc - tougher skill acquisition
This ties in with the argument of whose prime requisite is better – Cha for Sorcs or Int for Wiz. Despite the usefulness of Cha in social situations and for specific builds like Pal/Sorc, Intelligence is more directly useful to the Wizard because both of them have 2+Int for Skills – very important in qualifying for PrCs with tough skill reqs (like Archmage). Also, consider the fact that, no matter how high the Sorc can get his Bluff with that Cha, the Wiz could spend skill points and eventually have it even higher – with points left over.
Sorc – bad magic item slot
For the Sorc, they will have to use what is considered to be the second most important magic item slot on an adventurer’s body for a Cloak of Charisma. This means no Cloak of Resistance, Displacement, or Elvenkind. The Wiz, on the other hand, must fund a Headband of Intellect – missing out on such gems as the Circlet of Persuasion or Blasting (utterly unnecessary for a Wiz), and the various Helms (Brilliance, Teleportation, Telepathy, Underwater Action, Comprehend Languages and Read Magic). I’m willing to say the Cloak of Resistance is the real gem of this pack.
Sorc – worse spell level progression
This really hurts the Sorc. Remaining one level behind the Wiz half the time could be an extreme disadvantage when certain spells are considered. Certainly the Sorc can cast more spells – in a drawn-out battle using only their available slots, the Sorc would be king. But especially at higher levels, it comes down more and more to who wins initiative.
Sorc – no Quicken Spell
This is more of a penalty than you may think. There is in the core rules no ability whatsoever to allow Sorcs to cast more than one spell a round. Thus, the Wiz can get more effects off early. Since battles between casters rarely last long enough for them to go through a majority of their spells, the Wiz wins out again by increasing the number he gets off in those first few precious rounds.
Sorc – cannot overcome spells known
For the Sorc, there is no way to get more spells known. To get more spell effects he can use, a Sorc would have to buy scrolls, wands, etc. at market price.
The Wizard, on the other hand, has a multitude of options when it comes to increasing his spells per day (the supposed trade-off). Pearls of Power, Scrolls, Wands, Staves – the Wiz gets Scribe Scroll for free (and his bonus feats can be used for any of the others), making him able to increase his spell efficiency for a vastly reduced cost. The Sorc can use these methods too of course, but he has fewer feats to use on them, and the Sorc’s weakness isn’t really spells per day anyway now is it?
Some might say these do not increase the Wiz’s effectiveness because these items suffer from lessened duration, DC, etc. – but enough spells exist without those limitations (like Enervation) that a smart Wiz (and they all are) can make excellent use of his resources. So he’s expending experience – it is a small amount, and any level retardation he suffers would only lower him to the point of having access to equal spell levels as the Sorc, at the most. Thus this, just as with the Spellbook, is mostly a matter of GP – but the Sorc can’t spend his extra coin on spells known, no – he’ll have to spend it on magic items he can’t pay half price for like the Wizard.
Another way for the Wiz to increase his spells per day is to Specialize – this brings with it its own penalties, but it remains another method by which the Wiz can make up the gap. Anything that is balanced and increases one’s options increases their effectiveness.
Finally, there is the simplest of ways to increase spells per day – a very high ability score. Again, the Sorc can do this as well, but again, the Sorc has less need of it.
Sorc – weapon proficiency
The Sorc has it with all simple, while the Wiz has a very restrictive list. At very low levels this can make a difference, but all too soon most arcane spellcasters will discover that if they have to resort to a hand-held weapon, they’re in more trouble than greater access to simple weapons can help.
Sorc – greater spells per day
Though this has already been covered exhaustively, it is worthy to note that with Specialization, the spell level advantage, and the creation of cheap magic items (like scrolls, Headbands of Intellect, etc.) with feats, the number of spells the Sorc has over the Wiz quickly shrinks from small to nonexistent.
Sorc – spontaneous casting
Along with greater spells per day, this is probably the Sorc’s strongest advantage over the Wiz – and the only one the Wiz can’t duplicate. With the ability to cast spells that he knows without setting them to specific slots, even adding metamagic feats at will, this is indeed a useful power. But is it enough to even the score? I submit that based on the above evidence, there will still be more Sorcs saying “I wish I knew such-and-such a spell” more often than Wizs saying “I wish I had more spells per day”.
Of course, the ultimate effectiveness of either class is often based on the type of campaign – in one with only a few high-CR encounters per day, the Wiz shines – in one with many lower-CR encounters per day, the Sorc will. But against each other, against monsters in general, and against other PC-classes, I think the above examples prove the Wizard has far too much on his plate compared to the Sorcerer. Let’s review:
Argument Neg/Pos
Sorc - Spellbook vs limit on spells known -/+
Sorc – no abilities after first level. -
Sorc - terrible skill list -
Sorc - tougher skill acquisition -
Sorc – bad magic item slot -
Sorc – worse spell level progression -
Sorc – no Quicken Spell -
Sorc – cannot overcome spells known -
Sorc – weapon proficiency +
Sorc – greater spells per day +
Sorc – spontaneous casting +
Decide for yourself.
"Or using Sorcerer to enhance a Sneak type - again spontaneous casting greatly enhances this build. Or using Sorcer to enhance a traveler/get into & out of places type. Etc."
It was a good idea right up until they gave summoners the ability to *bamph* about. Plus sorc runs of Cha, and utility types tend to favour Int for the skills.
Somewhat agree. I personally still use Wiz in those situations though I often go generalist domain wiz (using the domain to add flavor and an extra spell per level). One reason (as you suggested) was Intelligence helps both classes simultaneously. (Though, as levels go on, skills become less useful, so Cha isn't so bad anymore - particularly if your sneak is also a face type). I just leave some slots freed up for 15 minute study, than accomplish the task at hand assuming it isn't hyper time critical. The abrupt jaunt variant (is that for abjurers or transmuters instead of summoners - I forget?) was super beneficial, but more of general or combat usage, rather than something that is geared toward the sneak/survivor. Of course it certainly helps them as well. I like travel devotion in a lesser but similar capacity - helps everyone, but is of particular use to scout types, etc. But, while I love the bampf, I think spontaneous casting mechanic allows certain prototype meshes to be better at their job, than a wizard prototype mesh. Not always, just sometimes. In other words, the Bampf makes a stronger character. But spontaneous casting can make a character stronger at their role (sometimes) vs. Wiz.
I imagine one could take a 1 level dip into Wiz for the abrupt jaunt ACF, and continue using Sorcerer for the spontaneous casting. Again, that's with the understanding that the casting is to enhance the role of the character, not to make the character a powerful caster. 1 level dip into cleric can accomplish similar to get 2 granted domains, level 1 cleric tools, and various devotion feats (knowledge/travel) for example with the same goals in mind.
Far from "optimized", but in these situations it can make a much stronger prototype than the original model if you remember that's the goal. You will not be a good caster, but you will be a better sneak/survivor/traveler/possibly archer, etc. And, yes, there's other ways to do it - just comparing Sorc to Wiz in this instance.
Unfortunately it wouldn't easily translate to a RPG like D&D.
This is from memory, so bear with.
It has 2 pieces:
1) You level up based on section 2 below. When you level, you increase ability scores and hp. Some other things are probably effected like max skill rank, amount of magic you can use, etc.
2) As you adventure, your specific areas of expertise (skills essentially, including melee/missle combat, speed/endurance, spellcasting, sneaking, etc.) advance. So the more you use something the greater it increases. Once a certain number of your skills increase 3?) to the next threshhold, your character does a general level up. This is a constant/ongoing mechanic and is not dependant upon leveling.
The best part about this is you increase what you actually practice/use, but don't increase the other skills until you use them. For example, if you run/jump a lot, your endurance and run speed increase.
Very, very cool mechanic, but probably doesn't translate well to D&D.
Like maybe only your direct combat bonuses i.e. BAB, hp, offensive spells/abilities, etc. go up with Level; but other things like utility spells, non-combat skills, etc. work via an xp-buy system, like White Wolf and other rpgs have.
It would certainly be hard to balance.
Now then, back to the list!
11: Favored classes and multiclassing penalties are justified.
The designers seemed to believe each class was a separate entity, and multiclassing similar classes to achieve a goal (Rogue/Ranger, Fighter/Ranger, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger...), was seen as a big deal, for reason unknown to me. Most likely, the designers expected people to make characters simple in concept and simple in mechanics and wanted to discourage ridiculous levels of complexity, hence favored classes and experience penalties. They believed stereotypes should exist, but allowed people to break these stereotypes to some degree.
Then they made prestige classes which had no experience penalty. This went against the 'complex multiclass' idea, but PrCs were assumed to be extensions and specializations of a base class.
Unfortunately for these designers at least, the idea that a DM should reward players for acting a certain way by making an organization or elite sect they could join soon went another direction. PrCs had feat and skill requirements, and feats and PrCs filled books. WotC had to sell books to survive as a company. Hence, the 'homebrew gift' became mass produced and well-read players often defined themselves via a PrC instead of base classes or a concept like 'wandering swordsman.'
Another thing that seemed to go awry was front-loaded classes. Aside from Tome of Battle classes, there has rarely been a non-full casting base class I've greatly wanted to take for more than 2 levels.
In core, Fighter1 and Fighter2 give a feat each. Fighter3 is a dead level.
Barbarian1 gives Rage and Fast Movement, which various sources allow trading for things like Whirling Frenzy and Pounce, while Barbarian2 gives Uncanny Dodge. Barbarian 3 gives Trap Sense, which may as well be a dead level.
Paladin1 gives detect evil at will and Smite Evil 1/day. Paladin2 gives Divine Grace (probably the main reason you're a Paladin), as well as Lay on Hands (meh). Paladin3 makes you immune to all diseases via Divine Health, which is good against Mummy Rot but sucks if you want to catch lycanthropy. Pal3 also makes you immune to fear, an ability that either sucks or rocks.
Ranger1 gives Track as a bonus feat, 2 good skills, 6+INT mod skill points from a spiffy list, a favored enemy, and 1 BAB. Ranger2 continues this trend, and gives Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting. Ranger3 continues with skills and BAB, but gives Endurance, one of the worst feats in the game. I have never needed it besides a prereq, nor have I ever encountered the situations Endurance is meant to help.
Rogue1 gives d6 Sneak Attack, probably the best non-caster skill list for a core class, and more skill points than many characters get in their lives. Trade Sneak Attack for a bonus fighter feat using a variant if you wish. Rogue2 gives Evasion, a lovely ability that's worth 25,000 gold on a ring. Rogue3 is compelling, since it gives another Sneak Attack die and I'd probably want to take it, but I also want levels in other classes to boost my Will and Fortitude saves as well as HP.
Monk1 gets Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist (your feat choices suck in core), all good saves, WIS bonus to AC while unarmored, and Flurry. Monk2 continues my saves, gets me another feat (probably Combat Reflexes in core, or a better feat outside of core), and the ever-lovely Evasion. Monk3 gets me +2 on saves versus Enchantments (meh) and +10' move speed (). If I went monk, I'd probably want only the first two levels anyway, since Evasion is spiffy, the saves are good, and better classes exist.
Other base classes in core all have a caster level equal to their level in that class.
12: Heavy armor should be the best way to get AC.
Were magic not so prevalent, I'd agree. I can get a Mithril- they call it 'mithral'- Chain Shirt for 1100 gold. This armor has 4 AC (same as mage armor), and no armor check penalty or speed reduction It weighs less than even leather armor. It has 10% arcane spell failure, or enough to discourage most Wizards from using it as-is. Normally, however, you can wear it with no penalty, regardless of proficiency.
You could get a Ring of Protection I (2000 gold), Necklace of Natural Armor I (2000 gold), and make this armor +2 (4000) gold for the same AC as a cheaper full plate. This 9100 gold may seem like a waste, and you can duplicate these AC bonuses with shield of faith, barkskin, and magic vestment- all core spells- but let's see if we can transform full plate into a quiet, unobtrusive suit of armor.
Alternatively, there's full plate. Normal full plate costs 1500 gold, gives 8 AC, weighs the most of any armor in the PHB and is tied with the half-plate for weight, and has a max DEX of 1 and armor check penalty of 6. Six! Masterwork full plate costs 1650, has a max DEX of 2, and an armor check penalty of 'only' 5. (People can hear you, Sir Clanksalot!) Being a dwarf helps little. Your movement speed is always 20' (the same in full plate or naked), and while you could theoretically Tumble in full plate, you're probably untrained or your Tumble bonus is so low as to not be viable.
Maybe mithril will help, as now a standard chain shirt weighs as much as Mithril Full Plate, but Mithril Full Plate costs 16,500 gold, and your armor check penalty is still 3! Outside core, there are expensive ways to reduce full plate's ACP but you're spending far too much to try salvaging something that just isn't worth it.
Don't get me started on tower shields. They're about as bad a full plate! Now, smart people use no ACP bucklers (masterwork or darkwood for non-arcanists and mithril for arcanists) to keep their hand free. Light shields simply shouldn't exist when bucklers are around, and heavy shields are heavy though cheap compared to bucklers. While the rules as written don't prevent light or heavy shields from interfering with somatic components, some DMs just say no.
Apparently, mobility and armor check penalties were seen as low priorities for someone on the front lines. "They should wear full plate!" people said in 2E. When I played late 2E and early 3.0, designers said, "Now people will have a reason to use armor lighter than full plate!" Unfortunately, there's very little reason to wear anything but light or no armor because so many class abilities rely on it.
13: People will choose style over substance most the time - AKA "Newbie traps are OK."
This relates to the point that the designers didn't expect everyone to be or want to be uber at every level. Unfortunately, based on the sheer volume of material produced since 2000, there have been many abilities not worth the paper on which they were printed.
To paraphrase one of my players in a recent campaign, "My character is an elf rebel exiled from the elven homeland. He's a level 1 Swashbuckler." When I think elf exiles, I think self-exiled casters and political figures powerful enough to pose a threat to the established hierarchy, but that may just be me.
When I started 3.0, I thought half-elves were cool. Humans had short lifespans and no low-light vision, and elves had a yucky CON penalty, especially harmful to a Wizard. I played a half-elf Wizard and realized my race was probably worse than either of them!
Also at first I was disappointed to find my Wizard to be so weak he had to rest after every fight just to be useful, but that's when I thought magic missile was uber and didn't realize the power of grease and sleep.
Having played a from level 1 Wizard in a recent campaign, I'm reminded why I thought that way. Even a 20 INT specialist has a piddly 4 level 1 slots per day. I contribute more to the party by standing in back and reciting interesting trivia about the world. This is another reason why a gish seems appealing. At level 1 when spells are meh, go Warblade or Fighter or Barbarian so I can do something in combat besides trying not to die due to my single-digit HP. Alternatively, go Rogue1 so I can sneak and eventually go Unseen Seer/Arcane Trickster and have Rogue skills but Wizard HP and BAB.
I'm currently playing in such a campaign. We level-up when the GM tells us we can, and in the meantime, we get weekly XP to spend on skills, stats (for vast amounts of xp) and additional feats. We're using WEG's d6 system for skills, so there's actually a bell-curve involved too. If I was to level one criticism, it means that a class's skill points per level mean nothing, which tends to make high skill-point classes slightly weaker. But at least the skill system works, we get something every week, and we can actually obtain 'enough' feats.
Ranger1 gives Track as a bonus feat, 2 good skills, 6+INT mod skill points from a spiffy list, a favored enemy, and 1 BAB. Ranger2 continues this trend, and gives Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting. Ranger3 continues with skills and BAB, but gives Endurance, one of the worst feats in the game. I have never needed it besides a prereq, nor have I ever encountered the situations Endurance is meant to help.
Endurance is better than toughness, diehard, eschew materials, simple weapon prof and spell focus(evocation)
Don't say it sucks just because you've never moved at a forced march, or drowned
that's like saying Mounted combat sucks because your always in a dungeonThat being said, in a campaign I DM from time to time, Endurance is a much-coveted feat. It's E6 (not much magic to go around), set in a world with very harsh climate. Days and nights last much longer, and get so hot (or cold, respectively) you basically have to make Fort saves every hour you spend outside. Guess who still has a reason to go outside a lot? Right, the PCs. Everybody else just holes up underground and only comes out to gather food etc. during the long periods of dawn and dusk. In this world, that +4 bonus to strenuous tasks becomes very worthwhile. Also, I made it the prereq to several powerful homebrew feats I designed for this world.
But this is such a narrow example that I still feel Endurance is next to worthless - in most settings.
14. Flat bonuses are great! Let's make some feats with them!
The designers obviously felt that in a game which is all about numbers, increasing numbers would be enough to make a character feel "special". Feats like Endurance, Weapon Focus/Specialization/etc., Shield Specialization, Dodge, Toughness, Improved Natural Armor, Skill Focus, Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes/Great Fortitude, and of course the various +2/+2 skill feats all just give you a flat, passive bonus to certain stats. These stats are important, granted, but the bonuses provided by those feats are simply not felt that much in actual play.
Even Endurance's massive +4 bonus only comes into play very rarely. Negotiator's +2 to Diplomacy you'll never miss if you don't have it. A +1 to AC vs. one opponent (ugh!) or even a +1 to hit with a certain weapon are just not worth a feat IMO. Not only are they boring compared with other feats, which really let you do something "special" (Improved Familiar, Spring Attack, Sculpt Spell, Animal Devotion, Three Mountains Style, Divine Vigor). Their bonus is also much too small to matter much of the time.
Your feats are scarce, and they're the thing that make your character stand out, especially if you have no magic to pull a flashy stunt once in a while. So your feats ought to make a qualitative, obvious difference. Flat Plus-X-to-Y-Feats don't let you stand out enough to be worth your while.
Worse, many of these feats have been increased in importance (not quality...) by being made frequent prereqs for other feats or even PrCs (Dodge, anyone?). All the while, new feats have been published which do massively more, or different stuff for your character, making your feat choices ever harder.
Even in core, though, some feats have gone the right way. Take Improved Trip, for example. Even without the feat, tripping is a viable tactic in some situations, but it's hard to pull off. Improved Trip not only lets you avoid the painful part of tripping (AoO), it also provides a +4 bonus to the attempt (a bonus high enough to be felt), and it allows you a free attack on a successful trip attempt! This feat really does what it's name suggests.
Comparison with the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack tree reveals that these three feats would have been much better off rolled into a single feat. Similarly for other thinkable combinations like Shield Specialization/Improved Shield Bash/Shield Ward. Similarly for Endurance/Toughness/Diehard etc.
Feats should let you do a completely new thing, or they should let you do an existing thing much better, with a knack, and a trick.
Actually, this leads me to Nr.
14. Flat bonuses are great! Let's make some feats with them!
Feats should let you do a completely new thing, or they should let you do an existing thing much better, with a knack, and a trick.
That's been my beef since forever. The primary solution seems to be to not take them.
.In my campaign I houserule these things to scale with level, but that doesn't make them much more interesting.
And one more thing I wanted to add about that Sorc vs. Wiz thing, and the idea of dipping either to get better at what you do:
What is the most likely stat you'll have as a tertiary priority (after your main stat and Con, which should be second for every character)? Right, INT, because you can get skill points from it. So WHERE is the sorc a better dip? Also, where does it synergise better with PrCs that let you do your schtick better while doing some casting? I think the sorc totally fails at all of this.
Look at it this way:
Any melee character profits from taking one level of Conjurer and adding those juicy Abjurant Champion levels, if only for +9 shield armour class cast as a swift action, and Wraithstrike. Sure you can't do those spontaneously with a Wizard, but who cares? You just prepare as many shields as you'll likely have encounters, and likewise Wraithstrikes. You need 13 Int for this, and you'll get third level spells. As a sorc, you would end up with only second level spells, so you would need at least one more level of a gish PrC to compete (Spellsword).
A rogueish character can likewise rather improve his abilities with Int-casting. (Wiz or Beguiler, which is spontaneous to boot.)
A scout/sneaker would probably also rather have Int casting, because they need skillpoints.
An archer... well, I would say they would prefer being a cleric anyway, especially with flaws.
There is one reason only to use sorc as an addition to a meleer, and that's adding to two level of Paladin and then using one of the combat ACFs for sorcs, or both, and being a strict meleer. I've seen rather effective characters built on this model.
Apparantly that is what sorc was meant for (bluff lol).
And then there are favored classes which add depth and flavor. Can you believe some people ban them? That's a lazy DM who won't re-flavor.
12. Totaly. I say if you wear heavy armor, you learn to live with it. Dex penalties and armor check penalty and speed reduction are nice ideas but poor melees really, really need the boost.
13. I don't understand. If people want to be noobs, let them.
14. Flat bonuses have their moment... a very brief one. But its simpler. You should also keep in mind that if you are smart even those flat bonus feats (the not-so crappy ones) can be useful en masse. You already discussed the 'bad prereqs' part (damn I forgot to start that thread...)
There is one reason only to use sorc as an addition to a meleer, and that's adding to two level of Paladin and then using one of the combat ACFs for sorcs, or both, and being a strict meleer. I've seen rather effective characters built on this model.
I've only encountered one other way to make a Sorc dip work fairly well - when you are a Monk and take Sorc 1 for stuff like Mage Armor and Corrosive or Shocking Grasp, and Practiced Spellcaster (only Cha 11 needed). Of course this is somewhat niche anyway - the monk is pretty awful as-is, and it assumes you don't have a mage in the party to cast Mage Armor on you already.
Oh yes, completely and utterly inferior which is why sorcerers get useless junk spells like arcane spellsurge or wings of cover. No one plays with those. There's two excellent guides for sorcerers on this forum. I think you'd enjoy reading them.
Core sucks, this is nothing that's not already well-known.
I just read them today actually. Arcane spellsurge rox! Still though I think the wizard wins out on it.
And I didn't mean to strike a nerve, yes it is an unfair rant but that was the spirit of the Original Topic, point out things wrong with it.
Any way my original point was, Sorc got screwed for class features. There I said it! Kinda like paladin's progression of spells sucks, and Ranger same problem to me.
Any Way I use sorc when I want to arcane cast to get into a prc that is more physical, battle sorc varient and spell shield. Awesome base for Master Transmorgafist.
The sorc should of had a d6 hit dice and better bab (battle sorc var I know, I mean out of the gate). Then I wouldn't mind the slower progression inability to apply metamagic or no bonus feats.
*also I edited this 3 times, I didn't want to sound like an a*hole. All I want is to share my opinion without stepping on toes :P)
So you'd take a level of sorc instead of a level of specialist wizard for a dip? I'd still go wizard (well...summoner...) for that sub-out, AND you get to sub out scribe scrolls for another fighter feat. And skill points... Madness. I have to admit that spell shield and some of the more combative sorc substitutions are great, but I love fighter feats, and that immediate teleport has saved character's lives more times than I can easily recall.*
Basically, the system does nothing to discourage dips, and little to reward 'staying with it'. 3.5's Ranger might have been nerfed in the wake of 1-level dips, but WoTC completely failed to learn their lesson and bring in an across-the-board solution.
I love dipping to the bottom of my heart [I'm a Ftr/MU/Thief at heart]: It's the way that I can get character concepts to work in an otherwise straight-jacketed level-based system. But they are simply too good, as the jack-of-all trades becomes master of all.
It'd have worked better with less PrCs, and it'd have worked better with larger penalties.
*Because Conjurers needed a really good sub-out. And what did evokers get? Another reason not to bother playing one.
"I've only encountered one other way to make a Sorc dip work fairly well - when you are a Monk and take Sorc 1"
So you'd take a level of sorc instead of a level of specialist wizard for a dip?
Yeah, I'd probably still go Sorc. The wiz specialist superiority sorta depends (or is at least helped) by having enough Int for respectable spells/day, and monks are already horribly MAD. Also some of those dragonblooded feats can be as useful as the conjurer-tp for a monk. Of course I would change my mind completely if said monk was in a party with no wizard - even low level utility spells can help such a party immensely.
Yeah, I'd probably still go Sorc. The wiz specialist superiority sorta depends (or is at least helped) by having enough Int for respectable spells/day, and monks are already horribly MAD. Also some of those dragonblooded feats can be as useful as the conjurer-tp for a monk. Of course I would change my mind completely if said monk was in a party with no wizard - even low level utility spells can help such a party immensely.
Now...let's put this in perspective,ok? There is no reason to take more than 2 Monk levels, anyway, so taking Sorc from Lvl 3 is perfectly fine. I'd still go with a Pally base, though, or even Fighter. If you want to make a Monk caster, make a Sacred Fist. It actually makes sense, instead of dipping away from a pointless class, replace it.
Now...let's put this in perspective,ok? There is no reason to take more than 2 Monk levels, anyway, so taking Sorc from Lvl 3 is perfectly fine. I'd still go with a Pally base, though, or even Fighter. If you want to make a Monk caster, make a Sacred Fist. It actually makes sense, instead of dipping away from a pointless class, replace it.
sblocked as this is a tangent!
Agreed - no point in going more than Monk 2 (Diamond Soul is nice but 11 levels later ain't worth it!). That's why I didn't refer to Abundant Step vs the conjurer sub. Some good monk PrCs like Fist of the Forest though.
Sacred Fist is solid, but so is Enlightened Fist - they are extremely similar. EF even gives you Diamond Soul (SF gives you better SR but for just a few rounds a day). I like EF's abilities more, but SF has better BAB.
Sacred Fist is solid, but so is Enlightened Fist - they are extremely similar. EF even gives you Diamond Soul (SF gives you better SR but for just a few rounds a day). I like EF's abilities more, but SF has better BAB.