Hey everyone, My character just got brutally murdered. I've tried every single class in the PHB and some outside of it, except for a sorcerer.
I've always felt that wizards were far better arcanists. Lots and lots of different spells to chose, and I'm especially fond of "Combos" with specific spells working together to a great effect, not very easy with a limited spell selection. And although sorcerers do not prepare and that is nice and all the slow spell progression is killing me.
I want to play a sorcerer, but I don't want a crappy character. I assume I'm either mising something from the class or it IS in fact inferior to the wizard. However, I would like some input from you guys. What do you think about Sorcerers? Is there something I'm not considering?
|
I have always thought that the sorcerer was underpowered. I've tried building 1st level and 4th level characters to play, to no effect.
But then, I have a friend in Chicago who swears by his 15th level sorcerer who can cast fly, improved invisibility, and strafe the enemy with fireballs, while using silent and empowered metamagic feats ...
The wizards have to forsee the events to come and prepare spells IN CASE OF. I guess the sorcerers' strength really comes from having all of his spell at his disposal. Usable anytime, anywhere, when needed.
The sorcerer is a deadly foe when you think of it. He can turn every single third level spell slot into a fireball when needed. The regular wizard probably has one (or maybe two) prepared in advance.
My sister plays one in my campaign and, believe me, those sorcerers are formidable foes.
Ultradan
I have always thought that the sorcerer was underpowered. I've tried building 1st level and 4th level characters to play, to no effect.
But then, I have a friend in Chicago who swears by his 15th level sorcerer who can cast fly, improved invisibility, and strafe the enemy with fireballs, while using silent and empowered metamagic feats ...
True but my problem is that at 15th level wizard could do the same thing, to greater effect even since he has 8th lvl spells to toss around. That and a wizard can cast metamagic spells as a standard action so he could move after each shot for a better bombing. No offence to your friend.
The wizards have to forsee the events to come and prepare spells IN CASE OF. I guess the sorcerers' strength really comes from having all of his spell at his disposal. Usable anytime, anywhere, when needed.
The sorcerer is a deadly foe when you think of it. He can turn every single third level spell slot into a fireball when needed. The regular wizard probably has one (or maybe two) prepared in advance.
My sister plays one in my campaign and, believe me, those sorcerers are formidable foes.
Ultradan
Agreed, in certain situations I can see a sorcerer trumping a wizard, I just do not see that many. I think I might have issues because my spell style, to invent a phrase, doesn't revolve around blasting away with fireballs and damage spells. Although that isn't to say I don't keep several scrolls handy, but the list I prepare has a lot of buffing and little tricks.
Agreed, in certain situations I can see a sorcerer trumping a wizard, I just do not see that many. I think I might have issues because my spell style, to invent a phrase, doesn't revolve around blasting away with fireballs and damage spells. Although that isn't to say I don't keep several scrolls handy, but the list I prepare has a lot of buffing and little tricks.
I do not like sorcerers for the reasons you mention above. Sure they get more castings of their spells, but they know so few that unless you're job is artillery (and let's face it, in many games that's what the mage's job is) the benefit of sorcerers is at best very limited.
Personally, I like the Warmage class for artillery vice the sorcerer because it just sounds cooler IMO. Also something to look at is the Magelord PrC from one of the FR books. They use Mastered spells like clerics use spontaneous healing spells. I made a character that memorized nothing but defensive and miscellaneous spells, but mastered only attack spells. That way he'd always have the spell he needed (well, mostly) for any situation. I know it sounds like a work-around - and it is - but playing some class that actually has to study to learn spells, take Spell Mastery to make the class work sublimely, and is still a wizard just feels better to me than playing a sorcerer does. Your milage my vary, or course.
Celric
The viability of the sorcerer depends almost entirely on the attitude of the DM towards availability of magic items for purchase.
If you are able to buy a scroll of just about any spell you want, a sorcerer becomes a very interesting and flexible character. You only "know" spells that have DCs, with maybe one or two utility spells that you want to cast frequently (like Fly) - everything else you buy on scrolls. If the fighter in your group wants to have you casting Bull's Strength on him, he needs to buy (some or all of) the scrolls of that spell for you to cast on him.
On the other hand, if you can't buy scrolls fairly freely, and you seldom or never find scrolls and wands as treasure, sorcerers become far weaker than wizards.
I'm of the opinion that the core rules support the former approach, allowing PCs to spend their money on whatever they want to. But many DMs don't like that idea, and it adversely affects certain character types...
|
I totally agree that DM style places alot of emphasis on certain classes and play styles. I am currently in a low magic setting which would make a sorcerer very weak. No one is playing a sorcerer. I personally love sorcerers (multiclass with rogue or cleric) and would love to play one but buying a wand is next to impossible and rods/staffs are almost unheard of in our campaign. So I gotta stick by my Rogue/fighter.
oh well
FH
|
Style is deffinatly the key, imagine your wizards presious speelbook goes up in flames, no more spells until you can either researce more or reaquire those spells in some other way.
The sorcerer needs no spellbook,and has can use any of his spells he wishes(provided he has some slots left for the day), if your going for an arcane buff machine they can be quite effective at the utilitarian task at the expense of more combat oriented ones.
Guess it all depends on what your after greater knowledge or greater flexibility.
|
I think that a lot of the sorcerer's utility comes into play in games that emphasise a bit more role-playing... Since the sorcerer draws from CHA instead of INT, you should utilize skills that are bolstered by that ability. The sorcerer can be a strong voice for the party, helping to intimidate or circumvent trouble. I was in an urban campaign where the sorcerer was almost indespensible (Hello, City Guards...Oh no, there's no trouble here.).
Like Ultradan said, the flexibility of the sorcerer's spell accessibility can be really useful. It is a trade off, not having the number of spells at their disposal to choose from, but having absolute control over all the spells you know is very beneficial. Using scrolls or wands is also a very useful extension of their casting abilities.
I agree with Ultradan.
It takes a serious powergamer mentality to not realize the versatility of a sorcerer. With a little thought they can easily be better than a wizard. You must make serious choices when deciding your spells, however.
Think of it this way: at any time you can cast a metamagic spell...on the fly, no memorizing. Maximized spell mantle, extended defensive spells can keep a sorcerer in a fight longer. Plus, they have better fighting skills.
Hey!
The way to go is with a themed sorcerer! With only a few spells to choose, you can easily make a formidable and memorable caster. In our current Planescape game we a sorcerer, with all necromancy spells. It's working out great and it's a character none of us will forget.
Doing so is 'sub optimal' but in a decent game this shouldn't be an issue. Pick an element, or image and stick with that. Add a couple of skill points here and there and away you go!
E.g. A 'Sneaky' themed human sorcer with an intelligence of +2 gets plenty of skill points to put a few ranks in some of the rogue skills. Then spells like spider climb, cone of sound (for distracting those guards and dealing damage), open/close etc. Or for a more charisma based rogue; charm person etc. helps round it out. Remember unless you're going epic you can drop knowledge (arcana) and most of the meta-magic feats (bar one - either max. if you deal damage or extend if you have duration based spells like invisibility etc.)
Sorcerer's are ACE! Give one a go! ;)
Peace,
tfad
What do you think about Sorcerers? Is there something I'm not considering?
I personally like sorcerers a lot. I am really aching to play one again, now that I've read Complete Arcane and the Draconic Heritage feats. It gives you a lot of options, like take Draconic Breath (for emergency offense) and stock up on utility and buffing spells.
Sorcerers get enough spells per day to pull out survival better than most wizards. If you aren't a fan of lots preparing and investigating to play a wizard, the Sorcerer is key. (Also stands if your group and/or DM doesn't give a lot of hints or allow a lot of research into what lies ahead).
Just my $.02,
-c
Sexi nows this already, but for those of you out there with helful sorcerer comments, the situation will be a FR Dalelands campaign, designed to go from 1st to 20th level. Access to magic items won't be trivial, but it won't be a major ordeal, either.
As far as researching and investigating, I'm the type of DM that likes to strictly control what the players know about campaign-centric info, but I won't cheat them from their knowledge skills or divinations, or make it hard on wizards. I'll give them what they need to know, and maybe just a tad more to reward those who've invested their skills and spells, but no more. I'm always sure to keep a few surprises up my sleeve.
I figure the really big secrets aren't out there in books to be read up on anyway, at least not until very high level, and that the characters should work to earn that. Information is a powerful weapon.
I eagerly anticipate Sexi's sorcerer. We both appreciate any tips that can be given to make the experience as good as it can get.
The key to sorcerers is specialisation. They know too few spells to be truley versitile without scrolls etc. Sorcerers are best used as artillery or task-specific utillitarians (sp?) such as open/close, detect traps, etc.
The biggest bonus in my mind for sorcerers is the metamagic feats. You can maximise, empower, twin and substitute energy on a fireball to do HUGE amounts of damage at really low levels with just a full round action. Page 83 Dragon #340. If you are a human you could this off at about 6th level and be casting fireball or something really silly like that.
Warning: this does turn you into a one trick pony.
But you could apply the same philosphy to buffing spells - empowered, extended Bull's Strength! 6 STR bonus for long time! Mage Armour +6 for long time! etc. (I think this is right, anyway ...)
my 2c
igi
The biggest bonus in my mind for sorcerers is the metamagic feats. You can maximise, empower, twin and substitute energy on a fireball to do HUGE amounts of damage at really low levels with just a full round action. Page 83 Dragon #340. If you are a human you could this off at about 6th level and be casting fireball or something really silly like that.
Huh? I don't get what you're saying. At 6th lvl all I could do is empower a first lvl spell. Plus empowering a spell only affects dice rolls. I believe the feat says it augments random numeric values only. Plus these spells would occupy slots that I won't have for some time.
I have decided to play a sorcerer though I have not decided fully how I feel about them. I am going to try it at least so either way I'll have an educated understanding.
Also one of the draws of the class for me is the charisma based skills, I enjoy being the party leader and taking center stage in roleplaying encounters. In fact my one problem with my Gnome illusionist was that even though he was constantly pulling illusion enhanced lies he was never socially adept enough to pull it off a face to face disguise.
I do not like the warmage however for the simple fact that it steals the sorcerers thunder. I really do not like the fact that they essentially do a sorcerers job but with a huge list of spells to draw from. Also I dislike the built in reason for them not to use spellbooks. "The warmages spend time familierizing themselves with all damage spells even those they cannot cast, so by first level a warmage knows how to cast all the spells on his list"
I like the concept of a sorcerer so I have no problems with the roleplaying aspect but I also like my characters to be the best they can be at their job. I just feel the sorcrer is not as good at his job. I'm first level. Next level I can look forward to a new 1st lvl spell slot and one cantrip, yipee. A wizard gets two new spells for free and a new slot. not to mention they are a level ahead of me when it comes to spell levels. AND they get bonus feats, and even though I like charisma based skills I feel that all the knowlege skills and a wizards naturally high Int are a more than even trade.
I know a sorcerer can grab scrolls and wands to be more diverse. But I do the opposite with my wizards. They Scribe scrolls of fireball to give them more blasting power. A wizard has to spend more of his scroll money on his spellbook and I understand this, but a wizard gets bonus feats for item creation so the wizard ends up with the same if not more "bang for his buck"
As several have already said, SORs need to have an idea as to WHY they cast spells: in short, specialize.
For example, I just built an NPC SOR for a high-level campaign...his entire spell selection is based on battlefield manipulation. He doesn't buff, he doesn't fire off artillery. He looks at a battlefield and then shapes it to his will. Lots of Transmutation and Illusion, plus evocation for things like Grease and Web. He uses Abjuration for Traps and Wards. The point of this NPC is that the PCs will have a very hard time getting close to him.
This kind of thematic build can be very rewarding, roleplay-wise. For the above NPC, I decided on this theme of battle-shaping, and from it I have character history (training), personality (he's rather shifty) and a basic sense of how he thinks, acts, moves, etc. For a PC, your theme can shape when a party relaxes or panics during a given situation...it gives you a starting point for conversation...and, as mentioned in previous posts, the CHA helps with this sort of social effect, as well.
Because of this need for specialization, however, I do view SOR as similar to a Bard; they're not the going to be a party's battle front-runner as a WIZ can...they're better for localized and specific support.
OK...done rambling. Hope this helps a bit.
I agree with Ultradan.
It takes a serious powergamer mentality to not realize the versatility of a sorcerer. With a little thought they can easily be better than a wizard. You must make serious choices when deciding your spells, however.
Think of it this way: at any time you can cast a metamagic spell...on the fly, no memorizing. Maximized spell mantle, extended defensive spells can keep a sorcerer in a fight longer. Plus, they have better fighting skills.
I know a sorcerer has great versitility but I think a wizard has an equal versatility with his large pool of spells to draw from. But when a wizard also gets a faster spell progression and bonus feats that, to me, tips the scales.
And yes I admit I am a powergamer but doing so has led to a lot of fun both in role play and roll play so I'm not likely to stop.
|
|
I will note that offering the sorceror a d6 is not a terrible thought, as they tend to be a little suboptimal (I've also heard Eschew Materials as a bonus feat suggested). That being said, the raw capacity of a socreror to cast a very potent spell, and then cast it again and again cannot be overlooked.
On the note of specializaed sorcrors, I've found that this is an incredibly entertaining option, esp. if you have certain favorites. For example, a 3rd level necromancer may like his ray of enfeeblements, but to completely fill his 1st level slots with this spell runs the risk of being unable to deal real damage in a pinch (vs. high AC or DR foes, like a wererat) or suffer from a fight where only one opponent is present, and only that first ray was necessary. The sorceror's case, they are completey free to go "hogwild" with the ray, if they so choose, but their 3+ other 1st level spells may also be stronge alternatives and they won't be caught off-guard like an unlikely wizard might. In low-level play, a sorceror with sleep, magic missile, and ray of enfeeblement is truly a force to be reckoned with.
As you hit the higher levels, a wizard with a bulk of scrolls is still going to be more versatile, but your 4th or 5th fireball of the day isn't costing you any precious money or exp.. after seeing one of my players run a sorceror/archmage with Mastery of Energy and delayed blast fireball my NPCs soon learned the meaning of fear ;)
If your DM will allow them, I recommend the "bloodline feats" in Dragons #311 and #325. They give access to extra spells and abilities and are a great stimulus to the roleplaying imagination. I just built a rockin' NPC with a necromantic bloodline for my Age of Worms campaign.
If you want to focus on doing damage, I'd consider some non-traditional spell combinations that are less prone to being negated by SR and energy resistance. I recently ran a certain Dungeon adventure featuring a sorcerer who combined Evard's Black Tentacles and Cloudkill in a particularly nasty way. I'm sure there are dozens of other such combos out there that are not frequently exploited. I'd also diversify the kinds of energy damage you can draw on as you get more low level spells--one advantage of a sorcerer is that you can just keep throwing magic missiles and Melf's acid arrows at people, and even Ray of Frost can make a significant contribution if you use it in the right situation--and if you have four or five types of energy you can throw at monsters, it's real easy for a sorcerer to find the right one, even if he didn't do his homework on what barbed devils are resistant to.
Monster summoning tends to be weak at low levels, but can be a great asset to your party later when you run into BBEGs that laugh at your fireballs. They can flank whoever your fighter is pounding, and if they're smart they can even aid another to help him hit. They can cover your retreat when it's time to run for it. They can provide an aerial or swimming ally to go after that monster that retreats where you can't follow. They can go through the door first when you know it's trapped. They can even break the door down when your rogue can't figure out the lock. And SR doesn't keep your summoned creature from taking off your opponent's head, if he's a weak combatant. (Hint: take combat casting if you want to do a lot of summoning, as the spells are all full-round actions).
Sexi actually ran Eschew Materials by me as a bonus feat already, and I think it's more than fair, as it really is only a flavor thing most of the time. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, but a wizard's spellbook/spell component pouch being stolen has yet to happen. The party's just never been in much of a situation to worry about it.
Thank you for the tips from Dragon, but please refrain- I don't have a subscription. :) No one in the group does.
I will consider the d6 HD. Some more posts on other people's thoughts concerning this modification would be appreciated. Granted, the sorcerer is, in theory and in his niche, very powerful, but it does seem to me, as well, that that niche can easily be filled to much more effective extent by a wizard. The d6 HD might just be the last little "umph" the sorcerer needs to bring it into obvious balance with the other PHB classes. Thoughts? Comments?
Another option is the "Tainted Spellcaster" from Dragon Back issue, gives some special abilities, some cool role-playing opportunities and great plot hooks for the DM, while allowing 1d6 per level.
My campaign has one, although he's not quite sure this is what he is, Sorceror/Tainted Spell caster/Half-fiend (it's complicated), and it has made for a very memorable experience.
|
|
I think the sorcerer could be improved by adding a bonus feat at 1st (bloodline or else) plus eschew material, and then gain one other feat every, say, every 6 levels beginning at 2nd (at level 2, 8, 14...).
Otherwise, I prefer a wizard, even a specialized one, to a sorcerer.
Let's compare :
- both have a companion, few weapons available and no armour,
- both have a good variety of spells (more spells per day for the sorcerer, but much less variety),
- wizard has scribe scroll as a bonus feat at 1st, then one bonus feat each 5 level, while sorcerer has nothing,
- the wizard has a larger choice of skills, and more skill point (thanks to his high intelligence),
- the wizard reach a new spell level every odd level, when the sorcerer reach a new spell level every even level (hey, I can cast dispel magic or fireball, while you're stuck at mirror image and web...),
- the wizard can use metamagic feats with a better efficiency.
As a DM, I would improve my PC's sorcerer as written above.
As for the warmage, I don't like it : I see it as a battle-oriented sorcerer, with too many advantages compared to the sorcerer (better hit points, armour, free feat use, wider selection of spells even if those are only battle oriented, ...).
A sorcerer with only evocation / abjuration spells is beaten by the warmage, and I see the warmage as a bit unbalanced compared to others classes.
I'm playing a cleric/sorceror working his way towards mystic theurge. The cleric's deity gives him access to the trickery and knowledge domains, plus he has an 18 CHA. Having picked a FR feat that enhances Bluff and with an amulet of persuasian, he's now +17 to Bluff at 6th level (Cleric3/Sor3). He's tons of fun to play--his sorceror spells focus on offensive and battlefield spells only while his cleric spell selection rounds out the character.
Yes, that's all very good, but what I'm really looking for is opinions on the d6 for HD; not options from Dragon (which, as I said, I don't have a subscription to and have no interest in ordering back issues from) or another comparison between the Sorcerer and Wizard. I don't want to sound hostile, and I appreciate the input, but what are your thoughts on the D6 HD?
|
|
I would need to play-test it to really know, but, I like it! So it must be a bad choice. I fear that it would make the class into a more powerful class than intended. I feel something else may work. Maybe "light armor proficiency with no arcane spell failure chance, sorcerer spells are inborn and don't require the exacting precision that wizard spells do for casting". I just hope that neither option renders the class overpowered.
FH
|
|
but what are your thoughts on the D6 HD?
I'm for it. I always let characters have max HP for the first level (or the first 2 if it's going to be a bloody, majorly combat-centric campaign). I think that D6 is an acceptable swap for that. I don't think it unbalances the arcanists to have those two potential extra HP. Heck, they can be critical at low levels. Otherwise, most of the time, your dead/unconcious body is just something for those engaged in combat to trip over.
I play a sorcerer and I don't need no d6 to kick ass!
I've played wizards before but I was always out of spells when I needed them or worse I didn't prepare the correct ones.
But now as a sorcerer (who favors necromancy) I almost never run out of spells and because I have selected a good repertoire of spells I am a force to be reckoned with.
My only advice for playing a sorcerer is: Find yourself a nice piece of mobile cover and hide behind it (the fighter will do).
Then cast magic missile to save the day.
Huh? I don't get what you're saying. At 6th lvl all I could do is empower a first lvl spell.
My bad, I miss read the article. You are right it takes up a spell slot too high for you.
igi
OK so d6 hp? Not a bad idea, however what is the sorc doing going toe-to-toe with a melee combatant? Sor and Wiz are almost always ranged combatants, they don't need more hp. The same could be said for armour. I can see a need for no spell failure with light, non-metallic armour; but why do you need the armour? Just cast mage armour!
If you want your sorcerers to be more flexible and allow them to enter melee combat then making d6 hp is the way to go. Tagging on a reduction in spell failure similar to the warmage would also benefit a more melee oriented sorcerer.
IMO the above detracts from the essence of a true arcanist. Which is to stand at the back of the party, away from harm, and cast spells ad nauseum.
2c
igi
Try playing the archetypal Sorcerer/Sorceress...you know, the tall dark and handsome/beautiful one. Normally I prefer wizard over sorcerer but I recently tried a new theme and hit gold. Max ranks in bluff plus Charm Person creates incredible RP opportunities. The campaign started with the PCs in prison. Within minutes, Steve the prison guard was running to unlock Mononoke's door. Sure we had to knock him out later, but the barbarian and fighter never had to make all that racket busting down their cell doors.
The d6 HD might just be the last little "umph" the sorcerer needs to bring it into obvious balance with the other PHB classes. Thoughts? Comments?
Actually it sounds like Erik Mona uses d6 HD for both Arcane classes according to the Demon Boy Campaign journal and if it's good enough for Erik...
Seriously Commoners are the ONLY other d&d entitiy i can think of the uses d4 and i don't want to group ANY adventurer with that sorry lot. I think Sorcerers as the newest 3 ed class still need to have the kinks worked out which didn't happen in 3.5. IMC i've only seen them used as artillery at least until warmage came out. I give Eschew Material Components as a bonus feat and have thought about switching out the Familiar for something more useful like Limited Telepathy or maybe a bonus Bloodline Feat. My players have shown little interest in Sor though.|
|
I was really glad that they created the sorcerer class in 3.x. My personal feelings are that it is especially nice for players who want to play a spellcaster but really don't want to know about all 3,000 different spells that are in existence. From a DM's point of view, it took a little getting used to seeing the same spell used over and over and over again. If they have fireball, expect it to go off 2 or three times a fight. If they have haste, expect everyone to be hasted most of the time. I don't think that I would ever play one (unless it was for a quick one-shot adventure). I like wizards too much. I like metamagic feats and with a sorcerer it takes two feats to make it worthwhile and since they don't have bonus feats...
To anyone creating a sorcerer -- blast spells are the obvious, but make sure that you take spells that will help support the party -- haste is a big one, invisibility, spider climb, fly, slow, enlarge person, possibly bull's strength (and related), etc. I have seen too many times where the sorcerer encounters a creature that has really high magic resistance (golems) or their magic is ineffective for other reasons (fireball vs. fire elemental) and they don't have any spells that will help in other ways.
Bill
OK so d6 hp? Not a bad idea, however what is the sorc doing going toe-to-toe with a melee combatant? Sor and Wiz are almost always ranged combatants, they don't need more hp. The same could be said for armour. I can see a need for no spell failure with light, non-metallic armour; but why do you need the armour? Just cast mage armour!
If you want your sorcerers to be more flexible and allow them to enter melee combat then making d6 hp is the way to go. Tagging on a reduction in spell failure similar to the warmage would also benefit a more melee oriented sorcerer.
IMO the above detracts from the essence of a true arcanist. Which is to stand at the back of the party, away from harm, and cast spells ad nauseum.
2c
igi
Well, more hp is always good. You don't have to be in a melee to take damage. Raising the HD to a d6 would make the Sor average hp 1 higher than a wizard's per level, meaning that at whatever level the Sor is, that's how many more hp it will have over a wizard on average. That can save your life. Not only that, if you roll a little high throughout the character's career, the bigger HD allows for about 2 more hp/level for the Sor over the Wiz, which is a very nice feature. As I've indicated, I feel that, given their slower spell advancement and small, small number of spells known, I think the bigger HD is just what the Sor needs. I will try it and test it out. Somebody's got to do it, might as well be my group!
Well, more hp is always good. You don't have to be in a melee to take damage. Raising the HD to a d6 would make the Sor average hp 1 higher than a wizard's per level, meaning that at whatever level the Sor is, that's how many more hp it will have over a wizard on average. That can save your life. Not only that, if you roll a little high throughout the character's career, the bigger HD allows for about 2 more hp/level for the Sor over the Wiz, which is a very nice feature. As I've indicated, I feel that, given their slower spell advancement and small, small number of spells known, I think the bigger HD is just what the Sor needs. I will try it and test it out. Somebody's got to do it, might as well be my group!
I don't think the hp increase is a good idea. Spellcaster w/rogue hp screams 'BROKEN!' to me. Arcane casters are supposed to be fragile. How about taking it in different direction? How about giving sorcerors the Improved Familiar feat as a bonus? I'd justify it with some mumbo-jumbo about the sorceror's "mystical connection" blah, blah, blah. In general, I think familiars are underused and underappreciated. Adding a familiar boost might mitigate both that issue and your perception of sorcerors' weakness.
I've talked to Sexi, and he isn't so excited about modifiying the Sorcerer at all. He and I feel that it might be good for him to try to play the Sorcerer as written, just so he can get a good sense of what about the class is good or bad.
What he wants now (he isn't currently in a position to get online) is a list of people's views of Sorcerers. If you don't like it, post so and say why. If you do like it, post so and say why, and make sure you also tell why a wizard couldn't do that same thing. He's going to play the Sorcerer one way or the other, to form an opinion on it in a more objective manner, but he also wants to see what the community has to say about the Sorcerer, in the hopes that there's something really good that he's missed thus far that will salvage the class.
Sexi feels that the wizard has two "dump" abilities, Str and Cha- they generally mean little to full-classed wizards, stat-wise (We're looking at stats here, so please refrain from roleplaying comments. They are important to our group, but this discussion isn't focusing on that aspect). A Sorcerer needs that Charisma, and certainly needs every other stat that a Wizard needs, equally as much. This leaves him with only one ability, Str, that he can afford a terrible stat in. Everything else plays a major contribution to the Sorcerer's effectiveness and/or survivability.
His view now is that the Sorcerer using scrolls doesn't balance it, since a wizard can make scrolls for half price. Similarly, the wizard can keep many scrolls of Fireball which makes up for the fewer spells per day. Also, any wizard worth his salt should have an escape plan, such as Dimension Door or something, that a Sorcerer doesn't necessarily have without wasting one of his precious spells known, and even then, it can be thwarted more easily than a wizard's. The wizard's ability to prolifically scribe scrolls and know so many spells, he feels, completely nullifies the Sorcerer's own versatility of not having to prepare spells.
He hopes once he starts to play the character he'll form a different opinion, but just looking over the class as written, he can't see how it balances with the wizard.
sure, a wizard can create scrolls right off the bat, no feat burned. however, that costs xp and time. so, scribing scrolls is less of a mitigator than it first sounds.
while i have never played a sor, i have had a friend play one in two separate campaigns. each one, to my knowledge, never ran out of spells, and had impeccable spell choices (fly, invisibility, teleport, and an array of combat spells on the one that survived to a level where he could cast 7th level spells). the other died a horrible death at 4th level, like the rest of the party, which included a druid, two fighters, and a rogue.
sorcerer survival is based greatly on group survival. as long as there is someone keeping at least most of the baddies away, or the sorcerer has some spell for movement the baddies dont have, the sorcerer survives, unless a rival arcanist or archer puts him down, and that usually means the fighter-type kills the poor guy who slew the sorcerer.
having seen one in action, i think it works well as is, with no changes. well, ok, familiars suck all the way around, but that is true for wizards, too. btw, in the campaign we play now, summon familiar = bonus feat that has some bearing on spellcasting if you dont want a familiar.
tog
Sorcerers are a strange class in that they are great for beginners and great for master-level players, but bad for your average DnD player.
Beginner players find that the limited choice and flexible spellcasting is great for teaching them the game. Where a beginning Wizard might memorize a bunch of Sleep and Charm spells for an adventure only to find out that its the "fight the zombie attack" adventure and he's useless, a Sorcerer can fall back and know that at least he's got a something on hand that he can cast each round.
Average play always go to the wizard. Too many situations come up where the wizard knows what is coming beforehand and he can specialize his spell list. Fighting a Red Dragon? The Wizard buffs the party with energy resistance/immunity spells, and doesn't pick up Fire magic and memorizes battlefiend control magic or some other energy type. The average Sorcerer is going to be useless sometimes when played by this player, and magic items can round him out, but the "win" goes to the wizard.
Then there is master-level play. Players of extraordinary skill will humiliate the master-level party Wizard over and over. By desiging the character well before playing and choosing every spell in way to cover as many situations as possible, a master-level Sorcerer player can triumph in encounters that would kill a wizard. While a Wizard gambles that he's needs X copies of each spell, he often falls flat in unexpected siutations. For example, a Wizard who was expecting to battle single powerful monsters might memorize spells like Scorching Ray and Phantasmal Killer. Put that same Wizard in a mass battle with large numbers of weak enemies, and he's going to be quite feeble. In the same situation, the well-built Sorcerer is suddenly switching over to his battlefield magic and mopping up his enemies with Fireballs and Solid Fogs.
Sorcerers are also quite weak before 6th or 7th level, further cementing in people's minds the weakness of the class.
In all the campaigns I've run my players have taken sorcerers over wizards, and have done just fine- especiallys as they got a little higher in level and broadened their spell selection. Lots of PC's died in those over the course of the campaign, but the sorcerers always seemed to survive. However, I think that they still need plenty of access to scrolls and other magic items to give them the variety of spell casting they need- particularly at low levels.
I have no personal experience with sorcerers. And, like Sexi, I have concerns about how they stack up against wizards. However, I just bought Monte Cook's Complete Book of Eldritch Might, which contains a variant sorcerer class. The changes seem to be minimal -- a small bump to the number of spells known and d6 for hit points.
|
|
Let's not forget that a Sorceror can take the Dragon disciple prestige class, while a wizard cannot. (IIRC, it says you have to be able to cast arcane spells without preperation) While it also requires Language: Draconic, which only wizards can learn, I find the idea of a sorceror/wizard so contradictory i just say screw it, let sorcerors learn draconic. (Also, in campaign terms, this fits because sorcerors are often descended from dragons)
|
|
Additionally, I agree with the people who say bad things about having to prepare spells. If you're expecting a specific opponent, this is not so bad, but if caught completely by surpise, it can spell death. Think about random encounters.
"uhh... i think ill probably, Quite by coincidence, encounter a -monster name here- today, so i'll prepare -spell that works very well on that monster-."
I think Sorcerers are only OK, despite what anyone says. It seems that some anti-wizard people here are bemoaning the wizard's tendency to prepare a spell, and have it not be useful in a pinch. The sorcerer has the same problem. Sure, he can cast whatever spell the situation needs, but his limited repetoire means he probably won't have the right spell in every situation, same as a wizard.
A sorcerer, like any other class, just requires tinkering, like others have suggested. My feeling, though, is that it is easier to make the wizard versatile. The bonus feats, for one, but also the fact you can have any conceivable spell. A smart player can look at what they are likely to face and toolbox the wizard to deal with it. A sorcere can be good, but I think a wizard is a stronger choice in most situations.
If you really want to play a different caster, and your DM is game, I would suggest either the Archivist, from Heroes of Horror, or the Wu-jen from Complete Arcane (from Kara-tur, possibly).
Wizards need a spellbook. Sorcerors do not. That alone gives them a considerable advantage when adventuring.
Furthermore, sorceror is an excellent class to take additional levels in when you have a stealth based character already. 6 levels in sorceror makes a rogue excellent, for example: spells whenever they need them, plus wands and scrolls without having to spend slots in Use Magic Item.
My campaign has not reached that high a level but both kinds of casters are around in my campaign so thats got to be taken into account in my post.
For starters I'll say I think that the two classes are pretty well balanced compared to each other. They each have some strengths and weaknesses. The wizard is more versatile at the start of the day when choosing actual spells but the sorcerer has more versatility in the actual adventure - if he needs that third Fireball or a second teleport its available while the wizard has only what he chose at the start of the day.
Both classes do very well if they have access to lots of extra spell scrolls around since neither can manage to cover all their bases in all circumstances.
I do think that the sorcerer has to choose his limited number of spells vary carefully - one wants spell choices that can cover a lot of ground and that are very often useful when cast repeatedly since you get so few choices in total – this problem decreases as levels go up – a limited number of choices is not so noticeable if you have 6 spells from that level as you'd usually not seriously be considering more then 6 or 7 favored spells for any but exceptional circumstances in any case.
If you have 5 players in your party then one very potent combo is to convince another player to take a wizard. A party that has both a sorcerer and a wizard has a combo thats more then the sum of its parts as each sub classes strengths covers the others weakness extremely effectively.
OH! Everything i wanted to say has been said.:(
But, yeah,sorcerers kick butt, IMO! No memorizing, no spell book, multiple castings, and a great diplomat. what is not to like? Better than a book worm;)
later
A.
Wizards need a spellbook. Sorcerors do not. That alone gives them a considerable advantage when adventuring.
Furthermore, sorceror is an excellent class to take additional levels in when you have a stealth based character already. 6 levels in sorceror makes a rogue excellent, for example: spells whenever they need them, plus wands and scrolls without having to spend slots in Use Magic Item.
You steal or destroy a spellbook and the wiz can't get new spells but it doesn't ruin the ones he still has, You steal his component pouch however and he is left with two or three spells he can use, and a sorcerer would be equally screwed
And as for me I could never handle that rouge sor combo. 6lvls of skills in the toilet, no snak attack, bad BAB, no ref save, and no advancement toward those sweet special abilities?
*shudders* I don't see that as a fair trade personally, but thats probably just because of how I play my rogues
|
|
Alot of spells are ranged touch attacks, who needs a good BAB to touch someone and sneak attack with a ray attack or with 3-5 magic missiles (1d4+1)+(3d6) each, they can't miss. Good spell choices can make BAB matter very little when it comes to flanking and ghoul/vampiric touching some creature. I like a rogue/sorcerer PC, gives a nice punch to a weak spellcaster.
FH
I didn't catch all the posts in this thread, so if I repeat please slap me.
PHB Sorcerers are very dependent on how the DM runs things (as was stated before my attention span withered) and also what you already have in the party. If your filling the arcane spell caster slot, sorcerer is a good fit until you run into a few nitchy situations. Say you need to make someone think that worthless copper ring is the one ring to rule them all, chances are your sorcerer didn't spend one of his very few spells known on nystil's (sp?) magic aura. But if you need to sneak the whole party past that pesky guard station your in luck, cuz I'd say it's good odds your sorcerer did learn invisibility, and can cast it plenty of times.
If your party is larger than normal, and your looking to make an interesting fun and useful character, the sorcerer is absolutely the way to go. Artilery isn't your only option. I played a sorcerer a while back who's only offencive spell was ray of enfeeblement, which I only ever got to work on a city guardsmen I hit on accident. Sorcerers make great charlatin characters, with charm person, illusion spells, and expiditious retreat for when all goes bad. Except for that anoying trap finding thing (where only the rogue can find DC 21+ traps) a sorcerer will probably make a better thief than the rogue can. Add in some nonePHB books like complete arcane and complete warrior and your sorcerer and his big and buffed worg familiar can wade into combat arcane striking and breathing dragons breath.
Then you have my personal favorite, the Eldritch Might Sorcerer. The book of eldritch might 2 (which originaly had the class) is out of print, but the Complete book of eldritch might is still findable and has all three of the books. This sorcerer has more hitpoints, more skill points, and an altered spell list (to account for their ability to machine gun spells, as well as flavor alterations like taking out some not so sorcery spells). Personaly I feel this is how the sorcerer should have been (and considering the author is the same guy who did the dungeon masters guide I feel very justified in saying that), with the only problem being the new spell list only has PHB and eldritch might spells in it.
Alot of spells are ranged touch attacks, who needs a good BAB to touch someone and sneak attack with a ray attack or with 3-5 magic missiles (1d4+1)+(3d6) each, they can't miss. Good spell choices can make BAB matter very little when it comes to flanking and ghoul/vampiric touching some creature. I like a rogue/sorcerer PC, gives a nice punch to a weak spellcaster.
FH
Sorry FH But magic missle can't be aimed so it can't get a sneak attack. Too bad though that sounds really painful. I have had some good magical rouges but always with a wizard combo because my rogues have high int for skills and it works for spells plus I get the spells a level higher, of course I always liked the arcane trickster prestige class and I could get into it earlier with wiz levels plus the bonus feats let me get magical skills without too much trouble.