With the release of the shifter my curiosity about the Shades of the Uskwood has been renewed. With the relationship between Cheliax and Nidal being what it is, would Nidal offer the assistance of druids/hunters/shifters of the Uskwood as counter-insurgents for Cheliax? What would their relationship be?

On a similar note, is there published material on Nidal and specifically the druids near Pangolais?

Upon attempting to export images from Hell's Rebels for use online, the PDF alerts me that they are "password protected" and that I am not allowed to open them. Well, I own them, and I want to use them to run a game. Is there a reason this is happening or a way to circumvent it? I just downloaded them tonight, so it's not something new.

Thanks for any help!

It was either a developer post or an FAQ that clarified that anytime an item uses a phrase including "activate" or "activating", it is a standard action to do so. Because the ring works like invisibility, the invisibility function fails after an attack. This means that you would need to activate it again as a standard action.

I can't perform the same search wizardry that others here can, but this sort of thing has been clarified before.

When there exists lines of feats to solve the problem of casting while being watched and the feats themselves don't even simply give you that ability for free it's clear that the intention was to have obviously visible signs of spellcasting. It is such a simple and obvious concept that the writers of the CRB didn't even think it merited being mentioned. Ever spell you have ever cast without the feats to hide it or some other ability that stops enemies from seeing you cast has had a manifestation that the enemy can clearly see.

Bloodline Familiars are not archetypes, so yes, it WOULD apply. The thing that you can't stack two archetypes that modify the same feature is not a general rule, but a specific rule regarding archetypes, expressly stated in the archetypes chapter. This means that, whatever your 1st level bloodline power is, you don't get it and you get a familiar instead.

I don't think that's the intent at all. When you get multiple abilities that can replace the first level power no one can really say what overtakes what and you are left with an indecisive mess. Eldritch Scrapper and Tattooed Sorcerer replace the first level bloodline ability. Why is it that a bloodline familiar would take precedent over those replacements? Whether or not is calls itself an archetype does not matter in the slightest. Functionally, it's an archetype.

I don't think it matters if people call it an archetype or an option. The reality is that it modifies the same things as wildblooded and as such is not allowed in conjunction with wildblooded.

I can count the number of characters I have in PFS that have 10 strength or higher on no hands, and I love the utility of the Handy Haversack. I store probably over 1.5k gold in mundane items too numerous to name with most characters. I did say too numerous, but common additions include: potions of remove blindness, toolkits, grappling hooks, bloodblock, smelling salts, antitoxin, antiplague, book of letters (flavor), scrolls...

It's one of the best items in the game for its ability to avoid provoking to retrieve an item and its capacity.

Alright, thanks a ton. I really just wanted to make sure I could give my Handy Haversack to my familiar without worrying about resizing time or other issues on that front. If I wasn't sure it was RAW I wouldn't try to do it in a game and inconvenience the GM. It's easy to sympathize with a GM because I so often do it...

Anyway, thanks again for all the help. Sometimes it just takes another view to confirm things.

One size fits all, because they're not given a default size.

But also, regardless of who's wearing them, they all weigh the same.

(as in a Halfling wears the same 5 lb Haversack as a Human)

Thanks, Nefreet. Oh, so the weight doesn't scale to size? That's interesting. Just to clarify and make absolutely sure, if I were to take off my Handy Haversack and hand it to my friend who has been Permanency Reduce Person'd, he can wear it at that moment? Is there any "adjustment" time?

Just making sure on the RAW here because the actual statement I quoted can be interpreted in silly ways.

Under the "Size and Magic Items" rules you can find the following:

When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn't be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.

Is there any reason an unslotted wondrous item like a Handy Haversack would not resize for use on a smaller eligible individual? If I wanted to give it to a familiar, is there anything contradicting this interpretation? What about general items, like a Robe of Voidfrost or something similar?

I'm asking this not for generating loot, but for use during a game. Are wondrous items meant to be "one size fits all"? If I find one in loot sized for a giant, can I give it to a tiny familiar that qualifies to wear it?

Rather than make that page of UI legal via Additional Resources, it would be better to copy/paste the appropriate text straight into the Campaign Clarifications document. That way it is available to all.

I didn't realize this was an option. This would be a lot easier and more accurate than waiting for an errata to a document that isn't really effected.

As I recall they don't change any rules - those are already the CRB rules - they just explain them better. So action by leadership is necessary to start using the UI explanations.

Since the rules as outlined in UI were so informative I didn't even realize they were the same until I read this an compared them. I genuinely thought they were new rules that added to and clarified the rules in the CRB.

I disagree. Since illusion rules from the CRB are ambiguous, and a GM has to come up with a ruling, there is nothing illegal about a GM 7sing Ultimate Intrigue to help inform then how to make that ruling.

Thanks for the input. I won't hesitate to use these rules in games I run and hopefully, in the future, in games I play.

The clarification of illusion spells that so many I've seen asking for for so long were released not too long ago on pg. 158 of Ultimate Intrigue. I was talking to a few friends a while back and they brought up that these rules are technically not legal, as they aren't explicitly stated to be allowed in the additional resources document.

Is there a way we can solidly add these rules to PFS? I am of the opinion that we needed the clarifications here for a long time. It details what is and what isn't an interaction in regards to illusions that allow saves upon interacting.

I think this should be added as more than just guidelines. Illusions already suffer enough table variation; it would be nice to eliminate some of it.

The tired builds I can think of aren't really builds, but like others said, concepts. I don't know if these have been said, but here are a few:

- Any character who stays apart from the party and avoids contact. When their party is in trouble, they typically laugh and say "not my problem" as they run off.
- Characters with no character. This is more of a player trope than a concept, but players who don't care who they are playing, they just want to hit things and tend to either play on their phone or, occasionally, physically leave when combat isn't happening.
- "I WANT TO PLAY SASUKE FROM NARUTO OMG"
- Super 1337 gods from planet Xetan who ruled the universe once but are now level 1 kineticists.
- "And that is how I achieved a +258 to Acrobatics!"

And 2c on Cha discussion that doesn't really need to be happening at all: the people saying the difference is "5-10%" are ignoring the difference between someone who invested and someone who didn't. The difference is typically a -1 or -2 vs a +7 or +8. This roughly translates, in-game, to low Cha players never talking due to a rightful fear of ruining a social encounter.

I was thumbing through the APG and found Bloodvine Rope as a purchasable alchemical item. I don't see it banned anywhere, so it must be legal, but it seems really silly.

The break DC of the rope is 30. That's the same as an Arcane Locked, Stubborn Nail'd sturdy door. It's harder to break this rope than it is to break down an iron door, bend iron bars, and break down a sturdy door. I'm only asking because PFS tends to trim the fat and leave out things like this. I understand it's alchemically treated, but a DC of 30 is a bit much. Grapple-based characters can really run with this, as the DC to escape is 35.

Finally, if the rope is cut up, what is the new figure for each piece of rope? Is it the same as the whole rope? When is the rope considered "used", besides after is has been burst with a strength check or cut with a slashing weapon?

CN_Minus wrote:

Quote wrote:

Aside from verbal and mental actions, the only action a pinned creature can usually take is to attempt to free itself. Attacks are not listed as an action they can take.

Awesome. I'll be happy to tell my friend his grapple-based character is safe from most GMs saying their monsters can attack while grappled. He was already safe from me, as this has always been my interpretation.

Grapples isn't the same as Pinned. A creature can attack when only Grappled (and not Pinned) IF:

* They are using a one-handed or natural weapon
* They attack at -2

So, a creature with natural attacks could use all of them at -2. Likewise, a guy with a dagger can stab away at -2, but the greatsword user is out of luck.

This is from: "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform."

And: "A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."

Thanks, I think. I thought that much was obvious, though. edit: I see why you posted what you did. I meant pinned. I took the post explaining the grappled condition as a provocation. My fault. On a related note, however, those that are grappled are able to make full attacks.

The misinterpretation doesn't come from failing to understand the clearly laid out, easy to read and impossible to misinterpret grapple rules, it comes from the vague and difficult-to-pin-down pinning rules.

The important thing is that people don't view the pinned condition as a slightly increased penalty version of a normal grapple. I've seen it described that way often and from various sources, which is why it's necessary to clear up the ambiguity.

Aside from verbal and mental actions, the only action a pinned creature can usually take is to attempt to free itself. Attacks are not listed as an action they can take.

Awesome. I'll be happy to tell my friend his grapple-based character is safe from most GMs saying their monsters can attack while grappled. He was already safe from me, as this has always been my interpretation.

The list of what you are able to do while pinned is deliberately restrictive. The subject may be forced onto their face and arms twisted behind their back. It is more severe than grappled.

You are able to use a Supernatural ability if it is purely a mental or verbal action. Not all are (see discussion and last post). It depends on the description of the ability, and GM interpretation.

Other than that, I believe you are restricted to the list given. That is, for each action that is not a spell or SLA, you must ask: is the action purely mental or verbal? Attacking is physical, and does not fall into this category.

For spells and SLAs, you follow the rules given.

PRD wrote:

A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions...A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

Casting Spells while Pinned: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

It really does need a line of text that says something along the lines of "this list of actions is exhaustive". As it stands, many people interpret it differently and allow attacks and many other actions that are allowed during a grapple, but with the increased penalties imposed by pin.

Stare lovingly into their attackers eyes or spit in their face...

Both useful if you have a gaze attack or poisonous spit.

If you can spit, why can't you bite? This is the sort of clarification I want, you know?

The problem is that it IS poorly worded, and while Feral and Salbade's interpretations are what I personally use, I want it to be easier for those with the same problem in the future.

Has there been a formal clarification on the subject?

In the CRB pinned acts as an extension of the grappled condition. The rules for pinned are as follows:

It seems to disallow actions by omission here; by asserting that the pinned creature is limited to a set of actions and then proceeding to list actions that are allowed, by omission it is denying any other action. At least, that's one common perception of the rule as I've seen it asked.

So my question is as follows: Is a pinned creature allowed to attack? Are they allowed to do anything else that isn't listed under the pinned condition?

'Ere you go

Thanks, I appreciate it. The bit about being able to upgrade to specific magic items is something I didn't expect. How odd.

Anyway, to answer OP, you could "buff" Goggles of Night by lowering the price. It's significantly overpriced, imo. Either lower the cost, or add some neat new ability like 1/day for 10 minutes See in Darkness.

Where's the rule that denies player's the ability to continue enhancing specific magical arms and armor?

Are bonus feats gained as a result of activating the Rhomboid Ioun stone retrainable? Is there any RAW for this (at least in the scenario)? I can't find it. I ran this one ages ago, but I don't want the feat until level 10.

It definitely needs to be written. I found a few other times it has come up, but most people kind of accept it when they are told unlike some things which turn into big arguments. I think I will start an FAQ on it. It should be an easy, and hopefully quick one to resolve.

Please send me some kind of notice if/when you speak to a dev/start an FAQ.

I agree, but I was saying that there is no GM adjudication since that was a question you asked.

That's literally the only job the GM has in PFS other than running monsters and signing papers. You're there to resolve issues, and it's your job to know things. If you don't, however, you resolve it to the best of your ability and move along rather than extending the session and breaking the pace of combat.

I think I understand what you meant, and looking at my phrasing I agree. You can't make up rules. That said, I do need a foundation to base my ideas off of, and no one has submitted anything but the chart that says colossal creatures are 65ft tall. I will nearly certainly go with the "cube" idea, but since there's nothing in the rules supporting it that I've seen I might have to forego running this game.

CN_Minus wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

For PFS you should use the standard sizes as is found here.

Read the creature sizes table.
PFS specifically attempts to make an environment where players can know what rules to expect when they sit down at the table.

In a home game though, go by what makes sense to you. It'd be interesting, though probably really suck for any of the smaller PC races and would increase the power of many monsters.

Colossal creatures start at 65ft...? I fully understand the sentiment that PFS ought to be universal, and I totally agree. I just want to know whether this will be something I will have to adjudicate to my discretion, which occasionally needs to be done.

In the game the monster's statblocks determine reachs and how many squares it takes up. They stat blocks will tell you how many squares it takes up and the reach. If you run a PFS game you are not allowed to change the monster, or any other rules. This is done so that no matter if someone plays scenarios under you or another GM the have the same experience.

The statblock tells you the 2D interpretation of size. If it clearly and obviously applied to 3D as well, I wouldn't have even asked.

I'm not totally sure what you meant. Are you suggesting that it can reach nearly 100 feet? It seems to be the logical step from the material, actually.

30x30x65 w/ reach 30 = 95 foot reach, or more if it is taller.

If it helps, the monster in question is:

For PFS you should use the standard sizes as is found here.

Read the creature sizes table.
PFS specifically attempts to make an environment where players can know what rules to expect when they sit down at the table.

In a home game though, go by what makes sense to you. It'd be interesting, though probably really suck for any of the smaller PC races and would increase the power of many monsters.

Colossal creatures start at 65ft...? I fully understand the sentiment that PFS ought to be universal, and I totally agree. I just want to know whether this will be something I will have to adjudicate to my discretion, which occasionally needs to be done.

CN_Minus wrote:

So, a colossal monster, if I were running a game with one, would be 30ft by 30ft by 30ft? It just seems a bit like they would be... bigger? It's not really a problem. Also, I hate to be "that guy", but is there a source for this? I know a player who will contest it, and I want to be able to simply show it to him to settle is promptly. This is a high-death rate game, and they know it. I just want to settle an argument before it can start.

Ex: Colossal w/ 30ft reach can reach 60 ft. in the air?

The game does not describe 3D very well. But just tell him that they can reach from their topmost squares in the same way they can reach from there side squares.

There is a bit in the CRB about picking which square your attack comes from in and does not put limitations on top or side or even bottom squares.

Is there anything specifically detailing the height rule? I've seen a post by Mike Brock detailing how height works, but I'm sure it was for home-game use as it basically said to use the high given in the entry.

So, consider instead the following: a creature may stand taller than it's wide; it's space doesn't have to be a perfect cube, a cuboid will do. A human could fit into a 5x5x10 cuboid. A troll in a 10x10x15 cuboid. A rat swarm only fills a 10x10x5 cuboid.

I agree with your sentiment, and have the time to make sure the cuboid is the current size before a game.

So, a colossal monster, if I were running a game with one, would be 30ft by 30ft by 30ft? It just seems a bit like they would be... bigger? It's not really a problem. Also, I hate to be "that guy", but is there a source for this? I know a player who will contest it, and I want to be able to simply show it to him to settle is promptly. This is a high-death-rate game, and they know it. I just want to settle an argument before it can start.

Ex: Colossal w/ 30ft reach can reach 60 ft. in the air?

As I prepare for a 7-11 tier game, I discovered I didn't know how monster height is handled. In a home game I either guess the height or go with the material, but in PFS, I don't have any idea how they calculate height and deal with reach.

So, are monsters considered 5ft tall (I know, absurd, but sometimes PFS is absurd), giving them an effective 3D vertical reach of that which is listed for reach, or do they get their height in addition to that reach?

Ex: A specific Huge creature has 15 foot reach. Does he reach 15ft up, or does he reach 15+ his height (somewhere around 25-30ft) up?

I am completely excluding normal reach rules, as they are well understand and don't have any nuance.

I understand that the Eidolon in PFS unchained and it's evolution list are the only legal options. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, though. You'll get your answer one way or another.

I'll do some looking.

Including the newbies or just the people that should know better?

If the latter i'm really not surprised. At a convention there's no chance/expectation of reciprocity.

Ironically, the new players are much, much more altruistic when it comes to sharing resources and expecting nothing in return. It's the veterans who tend to have a mental block against "lowering their WBL on purpose, man.

To be fair, I don't really like sharing with people who should know how to handle their own healing. I'm glad to help newer players, but at some point you really should become more self-sufficient.

The East Texas Pathfinder Society group will be hosting a mini-con. It will be held at Pleasant Bowl, a local bowling alley in Mt. Pleasant with a large enough area in the back to host a number of games.

The event will be this Saturday, April 30 and the first game will be at 1pm. We will have multiple tables running at the same time of multiple levels, and Warhorn signups should be available within the next day.

Pleasant Bowl's is 754 E 16th St, Mt Pleasant, TX. I will be looking forward to meeting and running games with anyone who participates.

Yeah, that's the issue. It makes no sense for a familiar to lose intelligence, but the actual material says that you are treated no differently that a regular familiar in that regard.

I've heard some people say it's only the "dumb" familiars that get bound, justifying their outlook, but that to me implies familiars are slaves or indentured servants.

I thought there might be official word out and was looking forward to looking dumb having not found it.

I've seen this asked before, but I haven't seen a definitive answer. For Improved Familiars, are you meant to apply the intelligence score for familiars detailed in the table, or is it assumed that the familiar keeps the intelligence score of a creature of its type?

For example, a Lyrakien Azata has 14 intelligence, but going by the chart you'll see it ought to have 9.

Which ability score are you meant to go by?

They were not both errata and Ultimate Equipment is the newer printing. This was noted when the errata for the price change occurred in ARG. It costs 500 or 8000 gp depending on source.

Why would they even bother adding the increased price to the ARG errata, then? They are not attempting to garner funds from the Mask of Stony Demeanor audience. So, they essentially just did it for no reason whatsoever?

To be honest, I find that hard to believe. Regardless, thanks for the input. Skirting the rules by owning another book is silly to me.

I believe they can either

a. sell back at full cost
OR
b. pay the 7500 gp difference.

Even if they have Ultimate Equipment, a book that has it at 500gp cost to this day without errata?

Thanks btw.

I'm looking for an official ruling or something to show I am justified in the belief I am about to detail:

I have a couple players who own a Mask of Stony Demeanor. I checked the sheets and saw that they both purchased it for 500gp, after the ARG errata that details the new cost of 8000gp. Because it has two official sources (ARG/UE), why weren't they both errata'd at the same time?

Does this mean that a play who purchased the MoSD from the ARG must pay 16x more gold than a player who bought the same mask from UE?

If someone owned the mask before the errata, are they allowed to keep it? Sell it back for the new half? Sell it back for the old full price? Sell it back for the old half price?

If there is some sort of custom or guideline I can follow here to clear this up, I would appreciate it.

There is a specific PFS sub-forum that you could post in if nothing else.

Mike Brock used to be in charge of PFS, but I think he stepped down. I don't actually play so I don't keep up with that information.

Alright, I'll be bringing my rules questions to that subforum then. Thanks for the heads-up.

Well, not to be a jerk but when you know its an obvious error you should probably either look for an errata thread for the product or make one if it does not exist and post the inconsistency there.

I didn't know that errata threads existed. I just searched "Dusksight", and, when I didn't get any hits, assumed it wasn't covered.

However, the problem is that books like Blood of Shadows are not from the core line up of books, and as such almost never receive errata or corrections.

So in this specific instance, you should report the issue to PFS organizers and let them resolve it as it isn't likely to get resolved anywhere else, and isn't really a rules questions as it is just an obvious mistake.

Where can I report it to PFS organizers? Who are PFS organizers?

It should be concealment, not cover

Not to be a jerk, but I thought that was obvious. That said, I'm clarifying RAW for PFS. As it is it's reroll effect is useless, right?

Dusksight (2 RP): Characters who operate below canopies or fight in dimly lit caves and shadowy planes of existence learn to use their low-light vision to deduce a foe’s position from the flickers of shadows around a target. When making ranged attacks, characters with this trait can reroll the miss chance granted by cover to any target in dim light, and take the better of the two rolls. The miss chance for total concealment applies normally. Dwarves can take this trait in place of hatred and darkvision, also gaining low-light vision. Elves, gnomes, half-elves, and halflings can take this trait in place of keen senses. Half-orcs can take this trait in place of weapon familiarity, also gaining low-light vision.

I can't find anything, be it in the CRB or online, corroborating the assertion about miss chance for cover.

In the case of Half-orcs, who already have Darkvision, why would you want to take this trait? Is it exclusively for Half-orcs that take Skilled or Sea Raider as alternate racial traits for Darkvision?

CN_Minus wrote:

He'd already used it to get away from the bulettes during the surprise round, and now can't cast any extras of the spell because he thought he would only need one! Meanwhile, a sorcerer five levels lower already had the issue covered.

He uses his arcane bond to spontaneously cast it from his spellbook.

We can contrive answers like this all day, if you really want to keep moving the goalposts.

It's kind of laughable, though, that you'd accuse me of moving the goalposts when the entire scenario is hypothetical. The point was to illustrate a time when a wizard simply wouldn't be nearly as effective as a sorcerer.

The truth of the matter is that sorcerers have clear outlined benefits that a wizard doesn't and vice-versa. The wizard only barely edges out the sorcerer in overall power, all things considered. Wizard fanboys who can't see the other side of the argument, accusing others of moving the goalposts when they are purposefully designing a situation where one class has a leg up on its counterpart, is silly.

To answer the question, no, there's no reason that impact applied to bows would overpower anything.

CN_Minus wrote:

That said, some problems can only be solved by a sorcerer. Running from bulettes and come to a crevasse? Sorry, wizard, as weird as it sounds, didn't prepare fly 4 times. So, you're level 12 wizard wouldn't be able to help anyone but himself, but the level 7 sorcerer would.

That's because the wizard had overland flight cast that morning and didn't need such a short term buff. But he did spend a slot on dimension door, so he grabs the whole party and pops them across that mundane barrier.

He'd already used it to get away from the bulettes during the surprise round, and now can't cast any extras of the spell because he thought he would only need one! Meanwhile, a sorcerer five levels lower already had the issue covered.

CN_Minus wrote:

Wizards are more flexible as far as have spells prepared for specific situations, but what happens if something happens that you don't expect? You can't sit there and prepare a spell every time a problem comes up.

That's the weirdest argument for me. That situation where the 5 different spells the wizard has prepared are useless, but the 2 the sorcerer has happen to be the perfect choice?

Possible, I suppose, if you prepped for one specific niche situation and ran into a completely different niche case. It's far more likely though the wizard will prepare at least some of the relatively generic spells that the sorcerer is relying on to cover all her needs. So while he may not be able to make use of all his spells in any given situation, he'll have something to fall back on.

And in the niche situations, the sorcerer may also find his spells don't apply.

Again, in niche situations you have scrolls... The really exceedingly niche situations are a wizards friend, but how important is something that comes up so little a sorcerer wouldn't have a scroll for it?

When you say wizards can prepare 5 spells and sorcerers can only prepare 2 you seem to imply wizards have access to more spells on hand. That's actually the opposite of the truth. If, as everyone suggests, you prepare a niche spell or two and leave a slot open, you actually have less versatility than a sorcerer... and the point wasn't that a sorcerer would have an answer, just that the two classes would be equal in being unable to solve a problem.

That said, some problems can only be solved by a sorcerer. Running from bulettes and come to a crevasse? Sorry, wizard, as weird as it sounds, didn't prepare fly 4 times. So, you're level 12 wizard wouldn't be able to help anyone but himself, but the level 7 sorcerer would.

CN_Minus wrote:

Wizards are more flexible as far as have spells prepared for specific situations, but what happens if something happens that you don't expect? You can't sit there and prepare a spell every time a problem comes up.

You can't everytime, but then you aren't supposed to be adventuring by yourself either. Having a few surprise encounters you can't majorly participate in is better than having a single situation that your entire party can't overcome.

Anytime you run into a situation that your party wouldn't be able to overcome without a wizard you can rest assured that the person who built the encounter has no idea what he's doing.

Because a well played wizard has scrolls for days. He gets scribe scroll at level 1 and spends a good chunk of his wealth by level on learning new spells and scribing backup spells into scrolls. Obscuring mist is painfully situational, but the wizard has it ready on a scroll. Knock? Scroll. Mass Phantom steed? Scroll.

This means that at any given time a wizard should have a dozen ways out of a surprise, while the sorcerer has more fireballs.

Because sorcerers, as everyone knows, are unable to purchase and use scrolls and wands.

But really, if everyone is going to extol the wizard class incessantly I think it's about time someone made a point about sorcerers.

Wizards are more flexible as far as have spells prepared for specific situations, but what happens if something happens that you don't expect? You can't sit there and prepare a spell every time a problem comes up. Meanwhile, if a sorcerer has the spell, she can pass it around the party so everyone has a solution. People also seem to think there's no way to increase your spells per day as a sorcerer when Runestones of Power exist. Sure they're twice as expensive, but they exist.

Now that we know you have essential scrolls for tasks that you won't be ready for with your limited spells, what does the wizard have over us in versatility? The answer here is, of course, that the wizard has access to the most situational spells that exist. So, wizards can solve the smallest, most obscure issues better than a sorcerer, hands down. Now we have wizard schools and bloodlines, of which the bloodlines are clearly a little bit more powerful. Where the wizard has void, divination, and conjuration, the sorcerer has fey, ghoul, umbral, arcane, sylvan, psychic, sage, and specific bloodlines for specific builds like orc or draconic. Can a wizard gain hide in plain sight? An animal companion? How about the ability to cast from multiple different stats? And god forbid your GM allows your poisoner to take the nanite bloodline VMC. Oh, and check out the daemon bloodline.

What about metamagic? I can hear some saying "wait, doesn't the wizard beat the sorcerer here?" The answer is, as usual, "sort of, a little bit". See, sorcerers can pick the spells they want meta'd whenever at the cost of action economy.This makes their spells take longer to cast than a wizard, if he knows what he wants meta'd already. That's if he does. Once again, a situation can come up (as they often do) that you didn't expect. Now what does a wizard do if he really needed a maximized fireball?

"Ok then, cyanide, what else does the sorcerer have?" Sure, I'd be glad to help! Social situations, which sometimes have more influence over a campaign than fights, are largely based off of charisma. If you want to make the senator give his vote to a bill that will later help your group, what do you do but talk him into it? Most high-ranking officials are going to be guarded at all times, with more than a few people present. Fighting your way in is counter-intuitive. This is where the sorcerer is going to edge out the wizard a bit by going in, lying to the guards, having the guards vouch for your lie to another set of guards, and eventually lying to the senator in an attempt to make him vote one way or another.

Now, none of this is to say the sorcerer is stronger than the wizard. I believe the wizard does actually edge out the sorcerer by a fraction, but for the most part they're on equal ground.

It was just annoying to hear all of the ways "wizards are better than sorcerers", as if it was an obvious, head-and-shoulders issue.