|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see the problem, if Sorcerers weren't still one of the most stupendously powerful and effective classes in the game, with a huge array of options and powers available to them.
Like, if you think Paizo hates Sorcerers, I wonder what you imagine they think of any class with less than 9th level spellcasting...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If ever the question is asked "Why does Paizo hate <x>?", the answer is invariably: "They don't."
Oh, is it time for this argument again?
It's like 2010 all over again!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't hate sorcerers?
I think the problem here isn't that they are unbalanced. Your looking at a glass with just one perspective. Wizards and sorcerers, while similar, have different roles.
Naturally, Wizards are Tier 1, and Sorcerors are Tier 2 (Note that the tier system is NOT a measurement of power, but rather a measurement of how much they can throw a GM's story off-track). Sorcerors perform better when they have to fill a specified role in the group, and are better at improvising at a moment's notice. Wizards have to be careful about what spells to prepare, and to have some flexibility, have to leave some slots open. I'm sure you know all this though, you've even mentioned it. So don't get mad if the sorceror is not as good as the wizard in some things, take a different perspective and the sorceror becomes better. It's when a wizard becomes better than the sorceror at what the sorceror is supposed to be best at is when there's a problem.
As for the feats, remember that a wizard has to spend very limited resources (feats) to become like a sorceror. While he does that, the sorceror takes feats that actually improve his spell casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the hyperbole, he's correct on a few counts IMO. There's no real reason for the stunted progression.
I hate OP's tired 'why does Paizo hate x' thread
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP, since you rant about "recent changes" then uses Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide rules as examples, I find it pretty hard to take you seriously.
At least adding the bloodline to gain extra spells and feats were a big step up from D&D 3.5.
In Pathfinder terms, the wizard gained the bonded item choice in place of a familiar. This only made PF wizards slightly more powerful than the D&D 3.5 wizard. In contrast, sorcerers were explicitly given eschew material feat (which we house ruled back in 3.0/3.5 days), and gave them bloodlines. If anything, Paizo gave them a lot of upgrading love considering the source material.
I'm only pointing this out in case the original poster didn't know that all the core rulebook classes were core classes from D&D 3.5 that were slightly altered and empowered.
Some classes were shown more love than others, true. The sorcerer gained massive upgrades though. Imagine playing a sorcerer without bloodlines, and you will see what a huge step PF was.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. Worse, but not strictly worse, especially with the paragon surge trick--that's better than an arcane bond, if a little more expensive to pull off.
Besides, you're talking about being worse than a wizard, commonly accepted as the "most powerful" class in Pathfinder. Being a little "worse" isn't necessarily a bad thing. You can get by just fine not having haste or fireball until 6th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I simply homebrew it for my own game and put them on similar progressions. Hasn't caused any problems yet.
Sorcerers do have to be more gimmicky to do well. They have "builds" so different spell interpretations can ruin a sorcerer, so you need to talk to your GM ahead of time.
That being said this 26 point buy sorceress out performs mythic rogues and fully geared magi made under the same rules. Not only that, but this sorcerer would work well with the wizard in the party.
IMO: Wilders and Psions ftw!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers are fine. It's Crossblooded Sorcerers that get hit pretty hard.
Sorcerers are massively powerful, and get a huge number of PF-specific options, as noted above. The versatility of spontaneous casting is a huge bonus in itself.
IMO, this more than makes up the two fundamental drawbacks of sorcerers (late spell progression and limited spell list). Especially considering the fact that there are many, many work-arounds for the limited spell list problem.
Indeed, given all the variety and power of bloodlines, it surprises me that anyone could claim that sorcerers have a "problem" of any sort.
To be fair most of the bloodlines are mechanically terrible either filled with redundant spells, trivial sla's which are generally outdated by the time you get them or useless melee orientated abilities. There are about 6 bloodlines which are actually any good out of the lot.
Indeed, given all the variety and power of bloodlines, it surprises me that anyone could claim that sorcerers have a "problem" of any sort.
I'm curious. Which ones do you think are worth it?
|
It's just the way it is. Wizards study all their lives, and Clerics devote themselves to their deity. It only makes sense that they have an advantage beyond flexibility and school powers...
The wizard should have early progression because that the nature of the class, no reason to take away its distinctiveness to improve an already strong class.
There's no mechanical basis for any of this. Heck, there's barely a flavour basis- many great artists and musicians receive minimal formal training and that doesn't make them inherently worse than those that study. The difference between natural talent and training is a massive personal variable that makes it a terrible justification for any mechanic.
I agree with the idea that Sorcerers don't require a power up simply because they aren't as good as Wizards, as they still remain very powerful when played correctly. That doesn't change the principle that there appears to be little reason for their power differential. The trade off between Spells Known vs Spells per Day should be enough without putting the Sorcerer (and Oracles) at a point where they will not get to 9th level spells in most Adventure Paths.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem in comparing sorcerers and wizards isn't that sorcerers are underpowered. It's that wizards are overpowered.
You think Sorcerers are underpowered?
My friend, you need to take a look at the Sorcerer from 3.5. THAT is "underpowered"
The Sorcerer is now one of the most powerful classes in the game, and the Wizard is only as broken as your DM gives you time to prepare for - which, honestly, isn't that hard to either counteract or just mess with.
The Sorcerer has backup tricks via his Bloodlines that make him effective even if the DM has answers ready for every spell he can cast.
Now, the ARCANIST. The Arcanist isn't broken by any stretch. But hoo-BOY is he powerful - and honestly could very well put the Wizard out of a job plenty of times. Combine the preparedness of a Wizard with the on-the-fly spellcasting of the Sorcerer, and a bag of tricks that's as varied as Bloodlines yet as tech as School Abilities.
The Sorcerer is Son Goku
The Wizard is Batman
The Arcanist is The Doctor.
Beware the first two but FEAR the third.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers have so many spells per day, combined with their significantly more effective metamagic (even with the increase to full round actions) that IMO they are about equal to wizards in power, if not stronger. Especially when you include the ridiculously powerful human favored-class bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have concerns about options being released for the sorcerer. Paizo only gave sorcerers archetypes and bloodlines in Ultimate Magic which was a huge let down for me. It was then "justified" by saying they gave them new spells as well (which the wizard could also use and most of those spells I don't find as useful for a sorcerer as other spells I could take, and I mainly play sorcerers). All the while, wizards got arcane discoveries. Why didn't sorcerers get that as well? I also agree with andreww in that most of the bloodlines are garbage. I don't need claws on my sorcerer since, even if I were to use them, I'll most likely miss with my poor BAB. The rakshasa bloodline, while having useful spells and abilities, gets shafted for bloodline feats. Just some food for thought. Not saying Paizo hates sorcerers, but the lack of good and flavorful options for sorcerers beyond character creation is pretty disheartening.
I let sorcerers progress as if they were one level higher with regard to spells known and spells they can cast per day, but I also admit, they don't need it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well since people are discussing sorcerers again:
This project could use some more help. Please note that it is tied to the original Sorcerer's Aid Project: Sigils and Talents which is (in my honest and biased opinion) and excellent product for those wanting more options for sorcerers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just the way it is. Wizards study all their lives, and Clerics devote themselves to their deity. It only makes sense that they have an advantage beyond flexibility and school powers...
The wizard should have early progression because that the nature of the class, no reason to take away its distinctiveness to improve an already strong class.There's no mechanical basis for any of this. Heck, there's barely a flavour basis- many great artists and musicians receive minimal formal training and that doesn't make them inherently worse than those that study. The difference between natural talent and training is a massive personal variable that makes it a terrible justification for any mechanic.
I agree with the idea that Sorcerers don't require a power up simply because they aren't as good as Wizards, as they still remain very powerful when played correctly. That doesn't change the principle that there appears to be little reason for their power differential. The trade off between Spells Known vs Spells per Day should be enough without putting the Sorcerer (and Oracles) at a point where they will not get to 9th level spells in most Adventure Paths.
In my opinion the oracle was how paizo fessed up that they boned the sorcerer.
The oracle is to the sorcerer as the cleric is to the wizard. However the oracle plainly got a better deal than compared to the cleric than the sorcerer did compared to the wizard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dont like the idea of bloodlines giving sorcerers claws and/or trying to push them into melee by other other means. If they want players to have a melee sorc then make an archetype or a PrC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean like Dragon Disciple? ^_^
Errr...I'm not sure how you expect him to back up statements he didn't make.
He didn't say Oracle > Sorcerer. He said Oracle::Cleric > Sorcerer::Wizard.
The Oracle got a better deal as the "Divine Sorcerer" compared to the Cleric ("Divine Wizard") than the Sorcerer did, is what he said.
Sorcerer bloodlines could be better, and work less on giving things that sorcerer don't want to use (normally) and focus on providing things that remain useful throughout the character's existence.
However, do sorcerer's have a problem? HELL NO. They might be weaker than a wizard, but being second fiddle to the greatest player in the universe aint bad. If anything, sorcerers don't need to be made better. Wizards need to be made worse.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said it and I'll say it again, I have zero problems with the Sorcerer lagging a level behind the Wizard in spells.
What I do have a gripe with is the fact that, whenever the Sorcerer gets a new spell level, he will have one single spell to fill his new slots.
One. Single. Spell.
All the 6-level spontaneous progressions get two new spells known when them reach a new spell level. The Oracle gets three (one to choose, one from the Cure/Inflict series, and one from her mystery).
The Sorcerer, however, gets one spell now; his Bloodline spell coming up a level after.
Which not only leaves him with a single spell of his new level, but also leads to the effect that his Bloodline (which, according to fluff, is the very reason that he is wielding magic in the first place) comes in later.
I'd do nothing to 'fix' the spell level lag.
I would, however, grant Sorcerers their Bloodline spell of a certain spell level the very instant their spellcasting progression reaches said spell level, to reflect the importance of the Bloodline.
|
He's not arguing revelations are better than bloodlines. He's arguing that revelations compared to domains is better than bloodlines compared to school powers.
A to B is better than C to D.
Do you think bloodlines are a good trade compared to schools? And do you think that trade is better than the trade of revelations compared to domains?
Remember that even if revelations are only equal to domains, they still win if you think bloodlines SUCK compared to schools.
What I do have a gripe with is the fact that, whenever the Sorcerer gets a new spell level, he will have one single spell to fill his new slots.
What I think you're overlooking here is the sorcerer's vast repertoire of metamagic possibilities. Sure, he's only got a single spell of the new, higher level. But he can also do a lot of cool magic with lower-level spells bumped up through metamagic. On the fly. Any way his feats let him roll. All for the price of casting as a full-round action. That's major.
There are also other ways to add spells to the sorcerer's repertory. What was that magic device called again, the one that lets him cast off scrolls using his slots instead of expending the scroll?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone honestly believe that Sorcerers would outshine Wizards if we were to remove the level adjustment and allow them to get spells at the same pace as wizards? Look at how few spells Sorcerers get.
I don't think that anybody with much play experience has believed this in about a decade. With respect to PF, the staggered spell progression for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters is simply the result of the inertia of backwards compatibility and tradition.
Two very poor reasons to keep any bad habit, but there ya go.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only real annoyance I have with the sorcerer is the level at which she gets bonus spells. They really should show up when she acquires a new spell level rather than the following level; as it is, a sorcerer can be "punished" for choosing a spell appropriate for the bloodline before it would be granted anyway as a bonus spell. To put it another way, a non-Efreeti bloodline sorcerer is more likely to take fireball at 6th level than an Efreeti bloodline sorcerer, and that just makes no sense. The level-up-spell-swap mechanic can get around this, but it shouldn't have to--that's using up a valuable swap when it should be straightforward, and it essentially removes the fixed bonus spell mechanic in a lot of cases.
Retraining has made this easier, but (again) it shouldn't be necessary.
Edit: Oracles don't have this problem; Paizo fixed the issue for them. For some reason, though, they choose not to errata the sorcerer in similar fashion, probably because it'd be a fairly high-impact change with respect to existing material. Thankfully, it's simple enough to do at home.