I'm beginning to have a major preference for sorcerers over wizards, especially in the role playing department. Here's why:
A typical wizard will have a staggering hodgepodge of useful utility, damage, debuffing and other spells. You get so many new spells granted that you can learn large chunks of the classes' spell list.
On the other hand, a sorcerer has so few spells to gain per level that he can sort of collect every spell around a certain theme. For example, a necromancer can make it his goal to collect only death spells and related dark, icky spells like black tentacles, undead anatomy and perhaps magic missiles modified by sickening spell.
On top of that the sorcerer gets awesome flavor abilities based off his bloodline which in many cases are actually pretty damn good.
I see wizards as more of a minmax class and sorcerers as more of a role playing option, with wizards summoning dire badgers one minute and throwing fireballs the next where a sorcerer can have a more cohesive theme and still function fairly well.
Anyone agree?
Hmm, my experience with sorcerers has been almost the opposite.
My experience with all spontanious casters(sorce and bard mainly) has been that I am trying to cover all the bases with only X known spells. Since I get spells related to my bloodline automatically, I find myself taking vastly different spells to try to cover all the bases.
Meanwhile with the wizard, I have 2 opposition schools(never played a universalist wizard) that I avoid taking spells from like the plague. At most, I get them in my book to make a scroll of that spell. I also must memorize one spell from my speciality school every level, so a large chunk of the spell in my spellbook will be from that school.
I see wizards as more of a minmax class and sorcerers as more of a role playing option
I present to you THE STORMWIND FALLACY
Basically pointing out that "minmax class" and "role playing option" are not mutually exclusive concepts, and in fact, aren't related to each other at all.
As for your point regarding Sorcerer types vs. Wizard types, I agree that Sorcerers make better "Theme magic" builds than Wizards (though ultimately, there is no reason why you can't do a "Theme magic" build with a Wizard).
I do like the image of the scholar lugging around the books who studies every day, and who has power as a result of intellect rather than strength or presence. I think this concept appeals to a lot of us who were labelled "Nerds" growing up, the idea that ultimately, intellect will overpower strength. The Wizard can fit this role, the sorcerer cannot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A typical wizard will have a staggering hodgepodge of useful utility, damage, debuffing and other spells. You get so many new spells granted that you can learn large chunks of the classes' spell list.
Alot of people assume that wizards are going to have a vast selection of spells. They only get 2 free spells per level and have to pay gold for the rest, something that no other core class has to do. And depending on your DM and the campaign, just finding or researching new spells might be a major undertaking. Most of the wizards I've played didn't have more than 5 or 6 spells of each spell level (except for level 1-2 spells, which I had about a dozen each). And I spent a tremendous chunk of my time and my gold on new spells, money that could have been spent on permanent items.
On the other hand, a sorcerer has so few spells to gain per level that he can sort of collect every spell around a certain theme. For example, a necromancer can make it his goal to collect only death spells and related dark, icky spells like black tentacles, undead anatomy and perhaps magic missiles modified by sickening spell.
Interesting. I've actually found that my wizards tend to be more focused on themes than the sorcerers I play. For one thing, as a wizard, I can afford to take alot of redundant, similarly themed spells. As a sorcerer, not so much. As a Wizard, I feel the pull toward specialization, to find a niche out of the larger selection of abilities I have available. As a sorcerer, I feel the pull to be as versatile as I can be, given my limited spell selection.
On top of that the sorcerer gets awesome flavor abilities based off his bloodline which in many cases are actually pretty damn good.
Wizards also get some neat abilities, as well as bonus feats that can now be used on some pretty cool discoveries.
I see wizards as more of a minmax class and sorcerers as more of a role playing option, with wizards summoning dire badgers one minute and throwing fireballs the next where a sorcerer can have a more cohesive theme and still function fairly well.
Anyone agree?
I haven't found either class to have a stronger emphasis on roleplaying than the other.
I will admit to having built and played more thematic builds on sorcerer, but I don't think that's anything truly inherent to the class. Back in the day (3.0 that is), I played a very theme-based, roleplay heavy wizard and enjoyed it very much. And it worked out with the party.
I think both are viable and it's just about which idea suits you better. Sorcerers limited spell selection does tend to make them a little less focused for me, but that's usually because i'm the only arcane caster in the bunch at those moments.
I do like the image of the scholar lugging around the books who studies every day, and who has power as a result of intellect rather than strength or presence. I think this concept appeals to a lot of us who were labelled "Nerds" growing up, the idea that ultimately, intellect will overpower strength. The Wizard can fit this role, the sorcerer cannot.
I play a high-int sorcerer (not a sage bloodline either!) that puts a lot of effort into studying the effects of bloodlines and is writing a treatise on sorcery. You don't have to be an int-based caster to do int-based things. :P
I do like the image of the scholar lugging around the books who studies every day, and who has power as a result of intellect rather than strength or presence. I think this concept appeals to a lot of us who were labelled "Nerds" growing up, the idea that ultimately, intellect will overpower strength. The Wizard can fit this role, the sorcerer cannot.I play a high-int sorcerer (not a sage bloodline either!) that puts a lot of effort into studying the effects of bloodlines and is writing a treatise on sorcery. You don't have to be an int-based caster to do int-based things. :P
Not saying sorcerers can't be smart. I'm saying that the Sorcerer does not get his power from his Int.
A professional athlete could be brilliant and study lots about sport history, but it is the scientist that actually uses his int to succeed.
A typical wizard will have a staggering hodgepodge of useful utility, damage, debuffing and other spells. You get so many new spells granted that you can learn large chunks of the classes' spell list.Alot of people assume that wizards are going to have a vast selection of spells. They only get 2 free spells per level and have to pay gold for the rest, something that no other core class has to do. And depending on your DM and the campaign, just finding or researching new spells might be a major undertaking. Most of the wizards I've played didn't have more than 5 or 6 spells of each spell level (except for level 1-2 spells, which I had about a dozen each). And I spent a tremendous chunk of my time and my gold on new spells, money that could have been spent on permanent items.
On the other hand, a sorcerer has so few spells to gain per level that he can sort of collect every spell around a certain theme. For example, a necromancer can make it his goal to collect only death spells and related dark, icky spells like black tentacles, undead anatomy and perhaps magic missiles modified by sickening spell.Interesting. I've actually found that my wizards tend to be more focused on themes than the sorcerers I play. For one thing, as a wizard, I can afford to take alot of redundant, similarly themed spells. As a sorcerer, not so much. As a Wizard, I feel the pull toward specialization, to find a niche out of the larger selection of abilities I have available. As a sorcerer, I feel the pull to be as versatile as I can be, given my limited spell selection.
On top of that the sorcerer gets awesome flavor abilities based off his bloodline which in many cases are actually pretty damn good.Wizards also get some neat abilities, as well as bonus feats that can now be used on some pretty cool discoveries.
I see wizards as more of a minmax class and sorcerers as more of a role playing option, with...
As a player and GM, I really like spells dropped into adventures in creative ways. Of course, you can make the search for a spell a goal of an adventure, but there are so many other possibilities-spell runes inscribed on a stele, a collections of tiny potsherds inscribed with runes that need to be pieced together to make sense as a spell, a ciphered spell written in the stars, the notes of a song that can be translated into a spell, with intensive study.
As a player and GM, I really like spells dropped into adventures in creative ways. Of course, you can make the search for a spell a goal of an adventure, but there are so many other possibilities-spell runes inscribed on a stele, a collections of tiny potsherds inscribed with runes that need to be pieced together to make sense as a spell, a ciphered spell written in the stars, the notes of a song that can be translated into a spell, with intensive study.
I do that when I run games. I used the Unearthed Arcana incantations rules so that plot-related spells were not restricted to particular classes and nobody had to spend permanent character options to learn them.
I usually DM. Generally I don't like the way wizards get their spells. So while I'll allow it (at a new level you gotta find a mage guild of some sort to learn your spells from), generally I add in side quests that allow for a wizard player to track down npc wizards (or the remains of their towers/houses/libraries if they are long dead) and learn under them or find their spellbooks. It allows for the insertion of a lot of flavor, as you say it.
I've not run for a wizard yet in Pathfinder, and I don't have access to many of the various supplements, but for 3.5 the players always enjoyed finding a spellbook with some twisted flavor to it with spells gathered from obscure supplements.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the most exciting parts about playing a wizard for me is, after the protracted battle against the BBEG wizard who has been hurting me and my friends with powerful magic I don't know or can't cast, finding his spell book in his backpack or in his lair, and taking that magic, which earlier was giving me such trouble, and claiming it for my own. By far the most satisfying way of getting new spells, much more than going to the local magic shop and grabbing a handful of scrolls from the bargain bin
I like both classes for the number of differences they lend to the table. Wizards tend to be looked at as your classic book-carrying weakling while the Sorcerer is the charismatic-carrying weakling. Power gamers to tend to push that image but both can be extremely complex.
The biggest reason for this is the large number of schools anf focused schools for the wizard and the various bloodlines for the sorcerer. A Necromancer can certainly be different from a Conjurer. A Celestral Sorcerer will be completely different from another Sorcerer with the Arcane or Destiny bloodline.
In Ultimate Combat there is the Spellslinger who can take a completely different approach with spells than your normal wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock
Unless of course he is one the sage-blooded. (Not particularly sure I'd allow either that or his wisdom counterpart though. a non-charisma based spontaneous caster seems wrong to me.)I do like the image of the scholar lugging around the books who studies every day, and who has power as a result of intellect rather than strength or presence. I think this concept appeals to a lot of us who were labelled "Nerds" growing up, the idea that ultimately, intellect will overpower strength. The Wizard can fit this role, the sorcerer cannot.I play a high-int sorcerer (not a sage bloodline either!) that puts a lot of effort into studying the effects of bloodlines and is writing a treatise on sorcery. You don't have to be an int-based caster to do int-based things. :PNot saying sorcerers can't be smart. I'm saying that the Sorcerer does not get his power from his Int.
Sage bloodline is the way to play a soreceror if you do not want to have horrible skill points per level though.
|
My experience with all spontanious casters(sorce and bard mainly) has been that I am trying to cover all the bases with only X known spells. Since I get spells related to my bloodline automatically, I find myself taking vastly different spells to try to cover all the bases.
In my experience, that's where the problem comes from playing sorcerers. My feeling is that as a sorcerer, you are not Batman. You are Superman.
Batman has all these gizmos at his disposal, and given enough time and money to prepare, he'll have the perfect tool for the job, every time.
Superman, on the other hand, has super-strength, flight, heat vision, and x-ray vision. He can do all sorts of neat tricks with his powers, and many times he can duplicate other abilities because of these powers, like super-breath and super-weaving. But in the end, he's got the same powers, every day. But he can use them all day, without any prep time.
If the rest of the party expects you to contribute as a wizard to the party when you're a sorcerer, you'll all be disappointed. But if the sorcerer is recognized to fill a custom-sized role in the party, then the PC will work well.
For example, if I need pillbox artillery, get me a sorcerer. If I need a slow Swiss Army knife, get me a wizard. The role considered "Arcane Caster" is usually actually a few different styles of role, and different party members can fill those roles in different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards would certainly roleplay better. 2 skills/level is not enough.Are you telling me that if I want to roleplay a character who is a bit of a dreamer, fancies himself to be a poet (though his poetry is all bad), and drives everybody crazy with his incessant political banter, that I can't do that very well if my class only gives me 2 skills/level??
+1
more skills does not = better roleplaying
Roleplaying is up to you, not your character's mechanics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I should introduce you all to Kanli the Mad, my Aberrant Sorcerer. He's a garrulous, larger-than-life fellow who can wax rhapsodic for hours about the continued attempts of frogs to seduce the Granite Heirophant. He will lead you in prayer to worship the Blood Goddess, and himself, the Bloody Prophet, the Red Hand. He will explain how he recognized that his effectiveness was lacking due to the fact his hands spent far too much time at the ends of his arms, and that he has been working to remedy that. He regualrly notes the passage of shadow denizens as they migrate through this reality. He relishes the power of the Golden Mushroom. He enjoys reminiscing multiple possibilities with the nonexistent.
He is, of course, completely full of it. But hey, he's got a 7 Intelligence, and nearly no skill points. He has no clue about how things actually work around him. But he never lets the truth stop him.
Care for some eagle jerky? You can pick your teeth with the feathers.
Having skill points is not just for roleplaying but could be mechincal based on player prefrence. I like making skill checks for example. You get to get a knowledge skill of your choice and knowledge arcana spellcraft.
A background for a sage bloodline sorceror could be your father was a wizard and wandered off after a one night stand. You could grow up on the streets looking for books and knowledge and maybe you grow up poor your local village realises you are smart and their are a few books you are given on nature by a wandering adventurer you happen to help so you get knowledge nature as your class skill from bloodline and an arcane book to get knowledge arcana and spellcraft. and now you still have some spell points to play with.
Growing up poor does not make much sense since wizard school costs a lot and this allows a new story.
My philosphy is combine crunch and flavor in ways you think are fun.
political banter? You've got a bit of a problem. First, you've got to know what you're talking about at least a little.roflmao you don't spend much time on the Internet do you?They have 1 skill rank and no class skill in Knowledge(Politics). If your character doesn't even have one skill rank why would he even think about politics.
Think of all those medieval peasants who have no clue who their king is and what his duties are.
Too many gamers are applying a modern educated populace standard and not thinking in a medieval uneducated mindset. An uneducated peasant/sorcerer wouldn't even have the concept of poetry much less think himself as a poet.
I disagree about poetry. I can't say how a scop or transmitter of the epic poetic traditions of ancient Greece thought of himself, but oral traditions, including song, have been hugely important across cultural time and space, precisely because most people were not literate. Of course, poetry as a literary enterprise, the province of the educated, is a different species. But poetry was important long before the advent of widespread literacy.
I disagree, I think the reason skills are largely seen as irrelevant is that too many DM/GM let things slide due to roleplaying when they should be requiring skill checks.
I never said skills were irrelevant. They are very relevant to character utility.
What I said was that more skills does not = better roleplaying.
Roleplaying is coming up with an interesting idea for the character and bringing that idea alive at the table.
It does not rely on the skills of your character, it relies on YOUR skills as a roleplayer.
A player could take a character with tons of abilities and skills and make it completely forgettable and bland, while another player could take a character with no skills that nobody will ever forget because of excellent flavor of the character and roleplaying it well.
I am guilty of that as well. If someone is making a passionate speech and including historical quotes and all. If you really want to stress skills should be making at least 3 checks. Linguistic, diplomacy and knowledge (history).
Lots of interesting characters don't make passionate speeches. However - nitpick - the skill would be performance(oratory), and then maybe a knowledge(history) if there is going to be historical references the average slob wouldn't know.
Would you really say that the only interesting and well roleplayed characters you've ever experienced either had lots of skills, or should have had lots of skills?
In one of my campaigns now, one of the most memorable characters is largely memorable due to the emphasis for his lack of skills and charisma.
I'm beginning to think that many people nowadays don't know what roleplaying is.
I presume we can agree that the forums aren't a good representation of the roleplaying community at large though.
I've played with a number of guys who don't really get what roleplaying is. They are usually in the background with forgettable characters, that make the appropriate rolls at the appropriate times.
However, more of the players I play with are pretty good at it. I could write about the personalities of every character in both campaigns I'm currently playing in, and give quite a bit of detail, without ever referring to class, specific alignment or specific skills. They are all more than the sum of their parts.
+1
Not to mention the other side of his argument is that classes with lots of skills are ´bad role playing choices´ for character concepts that don´t involve lots of skill mastery over any subject.
Obviously, Wizards are bad choices to represent characters who don´t believe in magic, and Fighters are bad choices to represent pacifists who live in loin cloths and speak with the dead on occasion. Amazingly enough, one should choose classes based on how they develop abilities you envision the character having. As mentioned, it´s very easy to get something like 5 skill ranks/level with a Sorceror of ONLY 12 INT, so if that´s your priority, you can achieve moderate skill mastery. Since PCs generaly have better stats than just about anybody, and many more HD than just about any other humanoid, you will have no problem achieving skill mastery if you wish to.
The main difference is in comparisons with other PCs of your level... which is meta-gaming to begin with, and not really that relevant for whether a character´s concept is realized or not: BUT JOE HAS MORE SKILLS THAN ME!!!! really has no bearing on whether you can deploy skill ranks to areas that are appropriate. At some level, you can routinely pass high difficulty skill check in whatever your choice of expertise... I because you have less skill ranks, you don´t have those skills MAXED, but spread around instead, that doesn´t really mean squat: so you achieve the same level of mastery several levels later. I don´t see a character-personality-based reason to say that if you don´t have X skill modifier by Y character level, that character personalty isn´t realized. X and Y are obviously arbitrary, and any ´high skill´ character will also not achieve the same thing at low levels as at high levels.
|
|
Too many gamers are applying a modern educated populace standard and not thinking in a medieval uneducated mindset.The typical DnD world isn't "medieval". It's DnD. The difference is huge and for a lot of reasons. Just to think of one, the impact of retired adventurers on the socioeconomics of pretty much everyone within a 100 miles of where they live. To think of another, every Lord is constantly aware that somewhere among all the peasants he oversees there may well be a child who is going to grow up to be powerful enough to turn all that Lord's holdings into ash or make that Lord rich and powerful beyond imagination. What is objectively true can be known. Clerics of a LG god are never evil. Individuals can be more powerful than entire armies. Castles are of very limited military use. Spells can build or destroy powerful economies. Priests, Lords, and Wizard cabals know that the most profitable thing they can do is train promising young people to the fullest extent possible and hope they'll be loyal.
Exactly. The "medieval mindset" assumption for D&D died long ago. Pathfinder never had it--even the barbarians can read! (Your campaign may vary, of course, but it won't be a published version.)
Or, as Kanli might say, "There appears to be a peasant in your brain. Perhaps you'd like it consigned to the Netherworld?"
|
With 7 intelligence should he even be speaking in full sentences?Hmm, I should introduce you all to Kanli the Mad, my Aberrant Sorcerer. He's a garrulous, larger-than-life fellow who can wax rhapsodic for hours about the continued attempts of frogs to seduce the Granite Heirophant. He will lead you in prayer to worship the Blood Goddess, and himself, the Bloody Prophet, the Red Hand. He will explain how he recognized that his effectiveness was lacking due to the fact his hands spent far too much time at the ends of his arms, and that he has been working to remedy that. He regualrly notes the passage of shadow denizens as they migrate through this reality. He relishes the power of the Golden Mushroom. He enjoys reminiscing multiple possibilities with the nonexistent.
He is, of course, completely full of it. But hey, he's got a 7 Intelligence, and nearly no skill points. He has no clue about how things actually work around him. But he never lets the truth stop him.
Care for some eagle jerky? You can pick your teeth with the feathers.
That does sound like a low WIS character to me. I think of your general Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter series type for low WIS. That is, they've got a very wide-range of facts and ideas to pull from, but no idea how to connect them or when they're appropriate.
|
|
That does sound like a low WIS character to me. I think of your general Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter series type for low WIS. That is, they've got a very wide-range of facts and ideas to pull from, but no idea how to connect them or when they're appropriate.
Actually, connecting things in weird and interesting ways that others cannot, creating unique insights is the essence of high wisdom. Not caring if it's appropriate or not is simply Chaotic. Luna=Chaotic good wizard with high mental stats and a perfect illustration of how you can make a wizard interesting.
It comes down to your ability to make your own Luna, or Rastalin, or as a Sorcerer, Illyana Rastputin or whatever.
|
I do like the image of the scholar lugging around the books who studies every day, and who has power as a result of intellect rather than strength or presence. I think this concept appeals to a lot of us who were labelled "Nerds" growing up, the idea that ultimately, intellect will overpower strength. The Wizard can fit this role, the sorcerer cannot.I play a high-int sorcerer (not a sage bloodline either!) that puts a lot of effort into studying the effects of bloodlines and is writing a treatise on sorcery. You don't have to be an int-based caster to do int-based things. :PNot saying sorcerers can't be smart. I'm saying that the Sorcerer does not get his power from his Int.
A professional athlete could be brilliant and study lots about sport history, but it is the scientist that actually uses his int to succeed.
The Ultimate Magic has an option for the Arcane Bloodline which uses int instead of charisma as the casting stat. So, you now have a brainy spontaneous caster option. If you want a familiar choose the normal arcane bloodline.
Also, as for the idea that Sorcerer's are lacking in spells known. A human Sorcerer with the Arcane Bloodline (or Sage if you want high int as well) can gain plenty of spells known.
The wizard gains spell levels faster and earlier on in each level will have more variety then the sorcerer, but the sorcerer gets more per day. So, our sorcerer is going to be pumping his max level spells longer each day. Also, with his higher number of max level slots he can use more metamagic feats (heighten and reach being personal favorites).
The wizard can cast metamagic at normal casting time, but the sorcerer does not have to prep his metamagic feats ahead of time. For example. I love to use heighten spell with my sorcerer and being able to decide when to use it and when to cast another spell during combat is great. The wizard must be ready for anything at the beginning of the day, but I can choose how to spend my power in the moment I need it.
After several levels with access to a certain level of spell the sorcerer will have more spells known unless the wizard decides to burn gold in order to get these spells. Even once the wizard has these extra spells the number of slots is going to leave you trying to fit in places for each. The wizard has scribe scroll, but the cost for scrolls only makes up for the difference if the sorcerer has to buy multiple scrolls of each spell the wizard pays to learn. A sorcerer can just buy 1 or 2 highly situational scrolls and then intelligently choose his spell list to come out ahead at the end of the day.
I just do not see where the wizard is superior to the sorcerer unless you just enjoy keeping track of spellbooks and preparing spells. Honestly I even like a lot of the sorcerer bloodlines more than the wizard schools. I have been sold on the sorcerer in pathfinder and I was an adamant wizard supporter in 3.5. In my opinion the wizard should have the same number of slots per day as the sorcerer. The ability to cast what you want in the moment is enough to make up for having a limited list of spells known.