|
So, in the eternal battle for arcane supremacy between wizards and sorcerers, wizards are always hailed as being more powerful than sorcerers. Sorcerers are the weaker class option.
Wizards are the "rigid, learned sages" of the arcane spellcasting world. They've learned rituals by repetition and practice, rote memorization. Sorcerers sculpt magic naturally, without effort. They're instinctive and creative.
So why the heck are wizards so good with metamagic, and sorcerers have to blow full-round actions to use it? Heck, sorcerers could use the buff! It would bring their level of power up a bit, and make them lag behind wizards a bit less.
I can't see it breaking anything to allow sorcerers to apply metamagic feats to spells without adjusting casting time. It doesn't make a bit of thematic sense, and it doesn't even have any roots in game balance, as the weaker class gets shafted.
What do you think? Any problems with this approach?
I've been playing with it for a while: It's mostly fine, honestly. It means spontaneous casters can make use of Quicken Spell (one of the most important metamagics for prepared casters) and it gives them an extra edge of in-encounter flexibility over prepared casters. Things only break down when you combine this with certain things that assume full-round action casting times for spontaneous metamagic, like Arcane Fusion (and the entire Arcanist metamagic mechanic). But those problems are patched easily enough.
I've never seen the extra casting time as an issue.
It just means you don't move that round.
I do know some DMs who let Sorcerers take a Metamagic version of a Spell as a Spell known and then they don't have the extra cast time on it.
It's never bothered me much. I've always been amused by the fact that Wizards are in theory better while in the 'reality' of game play it's always the Sorcerers that are more effective.
Wizards are so restrictive they're almost unplayable for me.
|
I've been playing with it for a while: It's mostly fine, honestly. It means spontaneous casters can make use of Quicken Spell (one of the most important metamagics for prepared casters) and it gives them an extra edge of in-encounter flexibility over prepared casters. Things only break down when you combine this with certain things that assume full-round action casting times for spontaneous metamagic, like Arcane Fusion (and the entire Arcanist metamagic mechanic). But those problems are patched easily enough.
Spontaneous casters already can use Quicken Spell. See Metamagic Feats. Quicken Spell is called out as a specific exception to metamagic feats taking a full round action when used by spontaneous casters.
It's never bothered me much. I've always been amused by the fact that Wizards are in theory better while in the 'reality' of game play it's always the Sorcerers that are more effective.
Wizards are so restrictive they're almost unplayable for me.
Me thinks you've not a seen a wizard in the hands of a skilled player. Scary.
If both of those characters go into random X situation, the sorcerer will be better overall. He can cast more, he can spam the useful spell, and he has general purpose useful spells, and often just as many known at any one time as the wizard.
If both of those characters go into a situation the wizard has prepared specifically for, the wizard will be better. He can hopefully tailor his spells to the situation, both the spells and the metamagic.
If he's not prepared, he can be next to useless unless falling back on the wands and scrolls tricks everyone can use. The sorcerer's general use repertoire can generally see him through.
==Aelryinth
If both of those characters go into random X situation, the sorcerer will be better overall. He can cast more, he can spam the useful spell, and he has general purpose useful spells, and often just as many known at any one time as the wizard.
If both of those characters go into a situation the wizard has prepared specifically for, the wizard will be better. He can hopefully tailor his spells to the situation, both the spells and the metamagic.
If he's not prepared, he can be next to useless unless falling back on the wands and scrolls tricks everyone can use. The sorcerer's general use repertoire can generally see him through.
==Aelryinth
The wizard will be better in the first scenario as well. A good wizard will have spent a large portion of his wealth on scrolls which he scribed himself with his access to every spell on his list. He will also make use of rings of wizardry and pearls of power both of which are useless to a sorcerer. Also, there is a 50% chance he will have access to a higher level of spell than his sorcerer counterpart, which will give him more spells per day than the sorcerer for the most powerful spells. Plus wizards also get an extra spell slot for their favored school. Plus they get the arcane bond which lets them cast yet another spell at highest level that they don't have to prepare ahead of time.
All of this is aside from the fact that every time a gaming book is released the wizard gets better, automatically. He can immediately begin to learn the new spells and add them to his repertoire. Once a sorcerer chooses his spells he is stuck with them.
You're confusing gold expenditure with class features. The sorc can spend all the gold to equal effect, and thus end up ahead.
A sorcerer has access to all his spells at one time, and can spam the ones that are useful.
The wizard has to spend money to do the same thing. Furthermore, you're referencing pearls and rings, and the sorc grabs Knowstones and the like, and buys his own scrolls of the marginally situational thing. Indeed, he might have the ability to scribe scrolls from his own class features, and if not, scrolls are cheap.
Indeed, the sorc can grab a magic item that allows him to Know Spells that are NOT EVEN ON HIS SPELL LIST. The wizard can't quite match that.
The inability to spam is the main drawback for the wizard in a normal situation. Anything he can do outside of casting, the sorc can do equally well.
If he has time to prepare, he's golden, because he'll have his spam memorized and meta'd up, and be styling.
==Aelryinth
Guys, can we not debate sorcerers vs. wizards?
At all?
Not for this thread. This thread is about homebrew. Please get back on topic or make a new thread.
.
My apologies. The question just reminded me of one of many things Wizards have to 'guess right' on ahead of time which is one of th ereasons why why I so much prefer Sorcerers.I see nothing game-breaking about taking away the extended time for casting metamagic'ed spells, but the limitation is put there for balance reasons - Sorcerers can apply any metamagic feat they know to any spell they know at any time whereas Wizards have to figure it out ahead of time and hope they got it right or its a wasted spell slot. A move action seems to be a small price to pay for that.
Just to clarify, a Sorcerer using a metamagic feat with a spell that has a standard action casting time is basically like a Fighter making a full attack action - it goes off right away but the caster only has a Swift action left available to him.
You're confusing gold expenditure with class features. The sorc can spend all the gold to equal effect, and thus end up ahead.
Its a good point that when debating the relative merits of this class or that, what the character can buy should never be part of the equation.
You're confusing gold expenditure with class features. The sorc can spend all the gold to equal effect, and thus end up ahead.Its a good point that when debating the relative merits of this class or that, what the character can buy should never be part of the equation.
The point I was making was that he could buy ANY scroll at half price. Because he can craft them himself AND has access to every spell. So while a sorcerer can buy scrolls as well, he will be limited to 1)1/2 price for the limited spells he knows, 2) Paying double, 3)Burning a feat on it, 4)some combination of 1-3.
A wizard of any level will have access to more and a wider variety of scrolls than a sorcerer as a function of their character wealth.
I've long since removed this limitation as well as knocking Sorcerer progression back a level so they get their spells at the same time as Wizards. Did the same for Cleric/Oracle. Have had no problems with it.
Me thinks you've not a seen a wizard in the hands of a skilled player. Scary.It's never bothered me much. I've always been amused by the fact that Wizards are in theory better while in the 'reality' of game play it's always the Sorcerers that are more effective.
Wizards are so restrictive they're almost unplayable for me.
I just don't like prepared casting. I've never played a Wizard (outside of Neverwinter Nights) and I haven't touched Cleric since Oracle and Inquisitor came out. Kobold Press's Shaman even gave me a spont Druid, so that's solved too.
Magus and Witch I like enough because they have unique tricks that make up for the agony that is prepared casting, but if there were spontaneous variants (which there is a 3pp spontaneous Magus, though I haven't gotten to try it out, and Paizo's Shaman might give me that for Witch, remains to be seen) I'd never touch them again either.
The way that I see it, Prepared casters, such as wizards, start casting the spell when the prepare their spells. Then to cast it they just complete the spell. Because of this they already put in the extra time needed for the metamagic.
Where as sorcerers have the ability to just cast the spell on the spot without needing the time to precast and study, and build everything the way that a wizard does. So to apply metamagic to a spell they must put in more time, the same as a wizard, just the wizard puts it in ahead of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't used that rule in many, many years. I have observed no issues with it. Any concept that the metamagic slowdown is intended to 'balance' the sorcerer with the wizard is laughable at best.
Me thinks you've not a seen a wizard in the hands of a skilled player. Scary.It's never bothered me much. I've always been amused by the fact that Wizards are in theory better while in the 'reality' of game play it's always the Sorcerers that are more effective.
Wizards are so restrictive they're almost unplayable for me.
I just don't like prepared casting. I've never played a Wizard (outside of Neverwinter Nights) and I haven't touched Cleric since Oracle and Inquisitor came out. Kobold Press's Shaman even gave me a spont Druid, so that's solved too.
Magus and Witch I like enough because they have unique tricks that make up for the agony that is prepared casting, but if there were spontaneous variants (which there is a 3pp spontaneous Magus, though I haven't gotten to try it out, and Paizo's Shaman might give me that for Witch, remains to be seen) I'd never touch them again either.
I agree totally.
You're confusing gold expenditure with class features. The sorc can spend all the gold to equal effect, and thus end up ahead.Its a good point that when debating the relative merits of this class or that, what the character can buy should never be part of the equation.The point I was making was that he could buy ANY scroll at half price. Because he can craft them himself AND has access to every spell. So while a sorcerer can buy scrolls as well, he will be limited to 1)1/2 price for the limited spells he knows, 2) Paying double, 3)Burning a feat on it, 4)some combination of 1-3.
A wizard of any level will have access to more and a wider variety of scrolls than a sorcerer as a function of their character wealth.
Free access to every spell when and where he wants it is an awful lot to assume...
You're not confusing a full-round action for a 1 full round casting time, right?
So you can't move and cast. It's a metamagic! You're already obscenely mobile by that point in the game. Sure it's not always ideal, but if you're casting from within 60 feet of the opposing force and nobody's running interference, you might want to revisit your tactics.
You're confusing gold expenditure with class features. The sorc can spend all the gold to equal effect, and thus end up ahead.Its a good point that when debating the relative merits of this class or that, what the character can buy should never be part of the equation.The point I was making was that he could buy ANY scroll at half price. Because he can craft them himself AND has access to every spell. So while a sorcerer can buy scrolls as well, he will be limited to 1)1/2 price for the limited spells he knows, 2) Paying double, 3)Burning a feat on it, 4)some combination of 1-3.
A wizard of any level will have access to more and a wider variety of scrolls than a sorcerer as a function of their character wealth.
First of all, that's an outright exaggeration.
Getting all the spells in the core books would put the wizard back about 90k in scribing costs, and its really expensive at low levels before he gets Blessed Books to minimize the costs. He is, in effect, paying double for his scrolls - cost to acquire, cost to make.
Kindly note that with his class abilities, he only gets 1-2 more Spells Known per level then a sorc...and that is if he's a specialist with casting restrictions for two schools. Let's not ignore the penalties if we get the bonuses, right? And two of those guaranteed spells are always going to be of the same school. Hardly versatile.
Secondly, the sorcerer can get Rings of Spell Knowledge and make his own spellbook up. Better yet, he can change the spell inside the ring multiple times per day...a utility no wizard can match.
And to add insult to injury, he can do so with spells off his list. He gets this right about the time it gets cheaper for a Wizard to scribe spells into a book. The sorc can make a spellbook just for his ring, too, and at the cheap cost.
And hey, Scribe Scroll is a standard feat for Arcane Bloodline sorcs, so it's a class ability.
The gold expenditure will be minor, given what the sorc gains elsewhere. Remember, if he has the Ring, and a 'spellbook', he can just shove the spell into his head and never needs the scrolls.
He especially doesn't need them for SPAM. Because, you know, it's inbuilt.
So, he has to spend less money on scrolls, because he doesn't need them as much.
--------------
My point stands. Sorcs are better off the cuff and in general situations.
Wizards are better when they have time to prep. ANd really, isn't blowing thousands of gold on extra spells, spending days and days scribing them, preparation? While the wizard is making scrolls, the sorc can be doing other things.
And just so you don't forget, Rings of Wizardry are unfortunately very pricey for what they do.
==Aelryinth
Spontaneous casters already can use Quicken Spell. See Metamagic Feats. Quicken Spell is called out as a specific exception to metamagic feats taking a full round action when used by spontaneous casters.
Really? That's awesome! I had no idea that was changed from 3.5. Good job, Paizo.
I've long since removed this limitation as well as knocking Sorcerer progression back a level so they get their spells at the same time as Wizards. Did the same for Cleric/Oracle. Have had no problems with it.
Yep. Three years and counting without my game coming crashing down.
Why not just use the 3.5ed option of sorcerers exchanging a familiar for not having to extend casting time for metamagic spell? If your sorcerer takes the Arcane bloodline that lets them get a familiar like a wizard, then opt out of a familiar, then they can cast metamagic spells like a wizard. If they want to use a different bloodline, then you have to deal with the extra casting time.
What do you think? Any problems with this approach?
Well one problem is that sorcerers are better than wizards.
I see nothing game-breaking about taking away the extended time for casting metamagic'ed spells, but the limitation is put there for balance reasons...
Specifically, full-turn casting is one of the limitations that the 3.0 team inflicted on the sorc because they thought that spontaneous casting would be TEH MEGAROXORZ!!! This belief also led to the sorc's one-level delay in spell-level acquisition, and the game's new save-boosting item (cloak of charisma) competing with the game's Charisma-boosting item for a single body slot.
History lessons aside, I've had the same experience that Orthos, Zhayne, and Peter Stewart have had: removing any or all of these limitations doesn't break anything. If anything, it's good for balance.
I will suggest throwing out the increased casting time next time I game. I will also suggest throwing out the ring mentioned. Like fighters should not be able to use magic missile or the shield spell, Sorcs should not be able to memorize spells from a spellbook. Wizards should not be able to cast spontaneously.
I will allow sorcs to replace a spell known by studying a spellbook, or a tome if you are using this new idea(Which I like).
Note that the claimed superiority of the wizard is only in the long term. In the short term, with a wizard and a sorcerer with the same spells known/prepared, a sorcerer is the superior choice. Aren't characters not allowed to rest while doing a scenario in PFS?
With all these changes you all are making to your campaigns, how many players bother playing wizards any more? As it is with the default rules, in my local PFS groups, for being the so-called superior class, while I see sorcerers fairly often, wizards are practically extinct.
I don't personally know anyone who prefers Wizards to Socerers. I have heard many debates over which Sorcerers are the best, but a Wizard never even enters into the conversation.
Personally, one of my favorite full-caster characters is a Human Sorcerer with the Arcane Bloodline. Talk about tons of spells known and lots of metamagic versatility...
With all these changes you all are making to your campaigns, how many players bother playing wizards any more? As it is with the default rules, in my local PFS groups, for being the so-called superior class, while I see sorcerers fairly often, wizards are practically extinct.
Seems like a 50/50 split, or there abouts. On the other hand, most of the people I play with are more interested in their character than raw mechanical power. I was considering a swap to sorcerer after frustration with a two year stretch of the campaign that was relatively unforgiving towards wizards (and after a few magic items that have been released which really blur the lines between wizard and sorcerer), but was ultimately talked out of it because it didn't fit the character.
With all these changes you all are making to your campaigns, how many players bother playing wizards any more? As it is with the default rules, in my local PFS groups, for being the so-called superior class, while I see sorcerers fairly often, wizards are practically extinct.Seems like a 50/50 split, or there abouts. On the other hand, most of the people I play with are more interested in their character than raw mechanical power. I was considering a swap to sorcerer after frustration with a two year stretch of the campaign that was relatively unforgiving towards wizards (and after a few magic items that have been released which really blur the lines between wizard and sorcerer), but was ultimately talked out of it because it didn't fit the character.
.
It simply seems to me that the talk of theoretical Wizard (or prepared caster) superiority is based on hypotheticals... in other words, one has to assume that a Wizard is able to get all the information needed to prepare his spell list perfectly ahead of time AND that he has every spell he could possibly need at his fingertips whenever and wherever he wants them. That's a lot to assume. Moreover, it seems to be the standard assumption that any magical gear that could possibly be desired (assuming it fit within established WBL) was also on hand and readily available at all times. And lets not even get into the Wizarding dependence/vulnerability of his spellbook.Even with all of those presumptions, the Wizard still can't possibly know if he'll need 6 Scorching Rays or 12, based on what befalls his party as a result of dice rolls or tactical errors... the Sorcerer has none of those concerns. He can cast 30 Scorching Rays or none over the course of a day's adventuring and never have a wasted spell slot, nor will he ever have to cast a Metamagic'ed spell when he doesn't need one, simply because that's what he had memorized. Honestly - and this is germaine to the OP's question - I think a move action is a small price to pay for being able to metamagic any spell you know, at any time as you need it.
Finally, and this may just be personal preference, but I tend to find the Sorcerer abilities much more useful and effective than those gained by Wizardly school.
I'd suggest that wizards should be allowed to take the Collegiate Mage feat from Complete Arcane, which gives a 1st-level Wizard 6 free spells (plus Int bonus) and doubles the two free spells gained each subsequent wizard level.
It simply seems to me that the talk of theoretical Wizard (or prepared caster) superiority is based on hypotheticals... in other words, one has to assume that a Wizard is able to get all the information needed to prepare his spell list perfectly ahead of time AND that he has every spell he could possibly need at his fingertips whenever and wherever he wants them. That's a lot to assume. Moreover, it seems to be the standard assumption that any magical gear that could possibly be desired (assuming it fit within established WBL) was also on hand and readily available at all times. And lets not even get into the Wizarding dependence/vulnerability of his spellbook.
It's not about tailoring your entire spell list specifically to the situation, it's about preparing the spell you need. Most problems an adventurer can encounter can be solved with just one or two spells of sufficiently high level: This is especially true for non-combat situations. It's simple enough to keep a sufficiently broad daily list of the spells that can cover the most common situations, and if you know you're going to be facing an issue in advance you can prepare a spell just for it (Hmm, we're talking to that crime boss tomorrow? Better prepare a Suggestion or two...). Also, keep a couple of slots open. You can prepare any spell into one with just 15 minutes of work, 1 minute if you take Fast Study.
And while you totally can mess with a wizard by restricting their access to scrolls or targeting their spellbook, this doesn't really make the wizard any less powerful, it just makes them more tedious and unfun to play.
Discounting metamagic rods, I've seen metamagic wielded far more expertly by spontaneous casters than prepared casters. The full-round action to use it is rarely more than a minor inconvenience.
And just so you don't forget, Rings of Wizardry are unfortunately very pricey for what they do.
And also don't forget, Sorcerers can use them too (and get more out of them).
Sorcerer: pays 2x normal cost to have two copies of X number of spells
Wizard: pays more than 2x normal cost to buy one copy, scribe into spellbook, then write two copies of X number of spells. After that, they start coming ahead on scrolls.
Both classes have their points, but metamagic has always seemed a point strongly in favor of the sorcerer.
With all these changes you all are making to your campaigns, how many players bother playing wizards any more? As it is with the default rules, in my local PFS groups, for being the so-called superior class, while I see sorcerers fairly often, wizards are practically extinct.
I have one player who dislikes spont casting as much as I dislike prepared. So wizards haven't gone the way of the dodo with him (though he prefers druids). Another likes them all equally and bounces between them as suits his concept.
I play wizards when I want to be Batman.
I play sorcerers when I want to be Superman.
I play wizards when I want to be Batman.
I play sorcerers when I want to be Superman.
Perfect.
And just so you don't forget, Rings of Wizardry are unfortunately very pricey for what they do.
huh?
the only truly affordable ring of Wizarddry is the type 1. which requires you to be a bard, wizard, sorcerer, magus, arcanist, bloodrager or witch and has the following high end advantages for a wizard or sorcerer
for a wizard, magus or witch it doubles the number of 1st level slots you can prepare different spells in for batman scenarios, especially wizards, whom have the most versatile spell list and the most prepared slots to gain this benefit with magi gaining the least benefit due to their restricted spell list, limited slots, and the fact it merely allows them to prepare more shocking grasps, that if they wish to metamagic, require magical lineage or wayang spellhunter
for a sorcerer, bard, arcanist, or bloodrager it doubles 1st level slots for spammability, especially sorcerers. arcanists get the second highest benefit from this method due to their arcane resevoir and bloodragers the least due to not being dedicated casters and due to being glorified rangers and paladins.
but yes, doubling your 1st level slots per day is extremely pricey. it's nice to have when you have mountains of spare funds to blow, or when you really need 1st level spells at YOUR caster level. but at the level they are afforded, 1st level spells are purely recreational
It simply seems to me that the talk of theoretical Wizard (or prepared caster) superiority is based on hypotheticals... in other words, one has to assume that a Wizard is able to get all the information needed to prepare his spell list perfectly ahead of time AND that he has every spell he could possibly need at his fingertips whenever and wherever he wants them. That's a lot to assume. Moreover, it seems to be the standard assumption that any magical gear that could possibly be desired (assuming it fit within established WBL) was also on hand and readily available at all times. And lets not even get into the Wizarding dependence/vulnerability of his spellbook.
My experience has been that the wizard has the potential to be much more flexible across given days than a sorcerer, but that in practice within the games I've participated in the sorcerer has much greater flexibility within a single day (especially with the human FCB) and can probably make his spell list work for him in the vast majority of circumstances.
My experience is also that the assumption by many of the wizard puffers on these boards - that the wizard will have access to virtually the entire wizard / sorcerer spell list in their spellbook - is rarely accurate for a variety of reasons. Even if we assume you know what your objectives are for the day and their is no bait and switch on you (not an unfair assumption in many campaigns), the reality has often been in my experience that the wizard rarely has all or even most of the spells they might want to prepare.
At lower levels scribing scrolls into a spellbook is relatively expensive and requires hard currency on hand which you may not always have. It is also quite easy to be cut off from sources of additional spells for extensive periods of time entirely, regardless of the coin you may have (the STAP is a good example of a published AP in which the party goes 4-5 levels without access to any additional spells for a wizard beyond what they gain based on level).
At higher levels it requires effort to find wizards of similarly high level who have spells you don't have and who will allow you to simply access their most precious possessions for a paltry fee even in the largest metropolises. Not only are high level wizards relatively rare in general, but the assumption that something like forty years of lore and every major published campaign setting has put forth is that they are relatively jealous of their arcane lore and loath to share it with outsiders. When you proceed from that assumption it’s amazing how much more limited the wizard class becomes compared to when you proceed from the assumption that you can simply purchase any spell you want from another wizard in any local you may be in regardless size or standing. It’s also amazing how much more rewarding I’ve found that style of play relative to the more mundane and immersion breaking ‘just mark off the coin’ route – but I’ll freely admit it isn’t for everyone.
Ring of Wizardry Stuff
Generally speaking, a ring of wizardry is only really cost effective if you are are double-tapping your spell slots for multiple classes with it (e.g. wizard / sorcerer multiclass). Otherwise you are overpaying.
It's not about tailoring your entire spell list specifically to the situation, it's about preparing the spell you need. Most problems an adventurer can encounter can be solved with just one or two spells of sufficiently high level: This is especially true for non-combat situations. It's simple enough to keep a sufficiently broad daily list of the spells that can cover the most common situations, and if you know you're going to be facing an issue in advance you can prepare a spell just for it (Hmm, we're talking to that crime boss tomorrow? Better prepare a Suggestion or two...).
I'll be honest, this is the sort of thing I've found in play to be relatively hit and miss. Sometimes a single spell can help a party past an obstacle (e.g. fly to get up a cliff or suggestion to get a prisoner to talk), but more often ham fisted arcane solutions to many (especially social) challenges only create more problems in my experience. Enchantment magic in particular is one of those things that I've never seen as an effective replacement for social skills, because spellcasting is explicitly an obvious action and unlikely to produce positive results in the presence of individuals of power. More often than not if you go to charm or suggest the king or crime boss you should find yourself in a brawl as a result.
Also, keep a couple of slots open. You can prepare any spell into one with just 15 minutes of work, 1 minute if you take Fast Study.
This can be very true and quite helpful. It can also backfire quite severely even when your GM isn't out to make a point about it. As a purely anecdotal example, I'd started leaving a relatively large number of open slots during a major adventure in a city, because I'd thought we'd be able to move relatively freely between focuses. At one point during the course of that adventure the party astral projected to accomplish a goal, only to return to their bodies and find themselves imprisoned and forced to fight their way free and recover their gear. I went through most of that day with half a dozen or more empty slots that were absolutely useless while missing out on some utility magics I might have normally prepared with the assumption I could just prepare them later.
I'm not saying this doesn't actually work most of the time, but it is one of those things that can blow up badly on you even without that kind of specific circumstance - e.g. you need a given spell on the quick, rather than after 10 or 150 rounds.
And while you totally can mess with a wizard by restricting their access to scrolls or targeting their spellbook, this doesn't really make the wizard any less powerful, it just makes them more tedious and unfun to play.
I don't think you have to specifically target a wizard's spellbooks to limit them - and I tend to feel that doing so frequently is kind of a kick in the nuts to players. That doesn't make the spellbook something a GM should never separate his player from, but it does make it something he shouldn't specifically target without some careful consideration. Limitations of scroll access in my experience tend to come more from the nature of treasure and the limitations of crafting while trying to complete time sensative objectives than from anything a GM goes out of their way to do.
Since scribing scrolls requires hard currency, and I think (especially at higher levels) the assumption is that most of your treasure will be in the form of magic items and other goods it can be difficult for wizards to have lots of coin on hand to accomplish crafting even with time because they simply don't have a giant stack of coin to convert into items. While you can absolutely sell the items you recover, unless you are relatively heavily invested in crafting and have lots of downtime it will often set you relatively far behind the rest of a dedicated party. For me the wizard experience tends to be one of a constant 'if only I had more coin and more time'.