|
I'd still prefer to see sorcerers get the same spell level progression as wizards and clerics, especially given the boost that wizards have gotten in PF with their domain abilities. I can't think of any major backwards compatability issues related to that 1-level stunting, but I'm not going to push the issue, just note my opinion.
That being said, I love the bloodline idea, and spashing in smaller little flavor abilities along with bloodline-based spells added to the list is a superb idea. Maybe less big one-shot powers, but things that scale or accumulate as the character levels up.
I would also support the idea of adding eschew materials as a default for sorcerers. Anything expensive would require a GP cost component or focus as it is, but it would fit more with the flavor of the character coming into their own innate powers.
I can't see a sorcerer figuring out that he needs to get some gum arabic, feathers, and coal to cast some random spell; at some point the energy is going to bleed out of him (or her) almost without their control. The idea of requiring components for them seems to run counter to the idea behind the class, and behind their innate abilities.
Wizards, yes, I can absolutely see them needing components, due to the studious, analytical, structured nature of their casting style. Sorcerers shouldn't have the same sort of restriction.
I also like the idea that sorcerers lost the ability to get a familiar as a default. That also seems like a traditionally wizard specific ability.
|
I would actually like to see sorcerers get an extra slot or 2. Wizards get 4, +1 for ability, +a number of spell-like from specializing.
Sorcerers get 6 per level, +1 for ability.
6ish to 7 per spell level....
but then wizards can Metamagic well.
My suggestion is to give extra spell slots by theme.
EXAMPLE-Undead lineage sorcerers get to have a deadicated necromancy spell slot at every spell level that can have metamagics applied on-the-fly.
I'm in favor of ditching any class feature that has a major power of: you lose XP.
Eschew materials isn't necessary. Material components are stupid, lame jokes that need to die a painful death. Somatic and verbal components offer up enough options along the lines of 'ways spellcasting can be screwed up by enemies'
|
I think the cleric is. The wizard has actual good spells right from level 1 (and a crossbow's good enough as a backup if and when they run out), and the druid gains a fighter as a class feature.
Surely though you see that no wizard would make it to level 2 without a cleric or fighter around to keep him standing. This is the synergy I am speaking about. And if a party had to choose, they would take a second cleric or a second fighter over a wizard on their first two or three dungeon runs because the wizard contributes so little at first.
In any situation where you allow people to choose what they like best out of a pool, you are totally supposed to make the choices equally good. Of course, exactly equal's impossible, but you are supposed to get as near it as possible, and it certainly's possible to go farther than what's done at the moment (note, I mean with regards to interclass balance, not necessarily other stuff). Therefore, they are expected to be balanced, and didn't accomplish it. No contradiction, no sudden change.
This is a glaring assumption on your part that in no way agrees with any design goal I have seen published for 3.x. This is a personal perception brought to the game and nothing more. Worse, it belies a view that the game is linear in its execution. If all characters were created about equal, the the sum of their parts would be that much more greater than it is now, leading to an even greater monster vs character imbalance, a key point of contention of those that think the classes were designed poorly to begin with. You cannot both have equally powerful characters and an “equitable” player vs monster system. 3.5E designers chose the group over the individual, perhaps even weakening certain members so that the group as a whole met the challenges they felt were appropriate (even if they got the difficulty of those challenges wrong at times).
The problem's when some classes don't have weaknesses and others cover no weaknesses of others (to give the easy examples, beguiler and soulknife; to get into the argued territory, that there's no situation where a sorcerer's preferable to a wizard). Also, I doubt this AoW's really untraversable by 4 rogues ...
I am not sure what you are saying here, it just doesn't make sense to me concerning the soulknife and beguiler. But I do understand your sorcerer vs wizard point; a 3rd level sorc is certainly preferable to a 3rd level wizard when facing shadows for example. And AOW would be very very difficult for an all rogue group. No sneak attack, death effects, ample dispel magics, the creatures could be run as written, and barring broken rogue builds (halfling hurler I am looking at you) they would be smoked.
”First, it's hilarious how the game continuously fails to catch up with millenia of myth (a.k.a. warriors that are any good, among others). Anyway, do I really need to tell you anything about the vast number of completely thematic groups that fail at life? All-warrior parties were straight unfeasible before ToB (and well, the 4th "warrior" would be ... a rogue), a number of thematic parties such as, say, the 4 Miniatures Handbook classes (or hell, swap one of the divines for a scout, keeping the military feel while having a varied party) sucks hard, and so on. Finally, pick the "iconic" cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard party: the fighter, at least, is swappable by a number of classes that do its own job along with other stuff; that must be a problem of some sort.
I guess this point is in reference to my all-rogue group (not sure), but I have heard so much about rogues and druids I have to ask, why aren't they played to the exclusion of all other classes if they are that much more effective? Personally, I think the answer is exactly the one you give here, that no matter how good a class is, it has weaknesses and it needs the help of others. That is a Good Thing, since I believe that is a 3.5 core design goal. As far as the fighter being swapped with something that does its job, what core class does the job of a fighter? Non-core classes aren't germane here because they are not going to be used in Pathfinder. I would answer that there really isn't a good substitute, unless the other martial classes were used, and then only at low level.
Respectively: yes, you can (by making each class be a situationally better choice in about the same percentage of situations), at least to a better extent than currently; fine; yes, the number of all possible combinations' intractable enough that you won't be able to fine-tune them all, but I'm fairly sure you can make the sucker classes actually good at something and the winners bad enough at some stuff that they might need the others.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Can you provide an example?
Arcane
Your family has always been skilled in the art of magic. While many of your relatives were accomplished wizards, your powers developed without the need for study and practice. Bonus Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Counterspell, Improved nitiative, Iron Will, Scribe Scroll, Skill Focus (Knowledge [arcana]), Spell Focus, Still Spell Bloodline Powers: Magic comes naturally to you, but as you gain levels you must take care to prevent the power from overwhelming you.
Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level.
Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, wizards forge a powerful bond with an object or creature. This bond can take one of two forms: The first is a familiar, following the standard rules for such creatures (see Familiars) and the second is a bond with an object, using it to cast spells and enchanting it with even greater powers. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded.
If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a Spellcraft check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell’s level.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard knows, just as if the wizard had cast it. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard’s prohibited schools.
A wizard can enchant his bonded object as if he had the required feats. Any powers added to his bonded object are done so at half the normal cost. If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its enchantment when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties. If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the subject of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week’s time in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete.
Would it be overpowering for the Arcane Sorcerer to be able to cast any spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list since it would provide a little more utility in game?
|
|
I'm in favor of ditching any class feature that has a major power of: you lose XP.
Eschew materials isn't necessary. Material components are stupid, lame jokes that need to die a painful death. Somatic and verbal components offer up enough options along the lines of 'ways spellcasting can be screwed up by enemies'
OK, I find this kind of thinking so strange. On one hand, this group of "all teh classes are teh sucks" proponents (sorry, they are far wittier than I, but "sucks on a stick" has been mentioned so...) think casters are overpowered yet the same group by and large wants to:
and then has the stones to tell the rest of us that the other 90% of the classes are underpowered by using these casting classes as a yardstick for normalcy.
So for my own sanity, which is it? Are arcane casters useless because of the 15-minute day (when daily spells are recovered, well daily - every 24hours), or are they overpowered and eclipsing fighters and other downtrodden classes everywhere because of their multiple uses of high level spells? Or is it they are too weak because they have very expensive spellbooks and components to worry about, or is it they are too overpowered because they can get infinite wishes, or are they too weak because splatbook X replaces them with the Uberclass of Penultimate Castability?
It boggles my mind. And all I want is to know. I really do.
Edit: clarity
Ok so lets look under the hood of spell casting for a momment.
The only class features i am taking into account is pure spell casting and i am specificially looking at damage potential.
Both casters have an intelligence or charisma of 17(human, with elite attribute and their bonus placed in their primary casting stat.)
Both have effectively the same combat spell arrey.
Both are sixth level and stripped of all class features save spell casting.
1st magic missile
2nd scorching ray(we are assuming that these all hit)
3rd lightning bolt
Who the hell uses lightning bolt any more? :-P Sorry, had to put that jab in there. Haven't seen that spell used by a PC since 2nd edition.
I sincerely don't understand people claiming that Wizards provide little early in the game. Twice a day a first level Wizard can force a group of enemies to save or die. Becoming unconscious for several rounds at first level is lethal. Color spray and sleep hit groups of enemies.
A first level Wizard is fragile, but his offensive output is enormous. He is essentially casting wail of the banshee as far as the people of his level can tell. First level is very swingy. People live and die by individual good and bad rolls. But the Wizard makes several opponents at once live or die by individual rolls.
The Pathfinder Wizard is a lot weaker at first level because he doesn't have the third spell slot and his bonus damage plink is a sick joke. But he is still easily able to pull his weight in early encounters. I mean seriously, a 1st level "very hard" encounter is four orc warriors, and a 1st level Wizard is quite likely to drop them all in a single spell.
-Frank
I would also support the idea of adding eschew materials as a default for sorcerers. Anything expensive would require a GP cost component or focus as it is, but it would fit more with the flavor of the character coming into their own innate powers.
I houseruled that in 3.5, and will almost certainly stick with it in 3.PF. Granted, that does nothing to help with the "spell level behind" syndrome, but it seems like that never kept most people from playing sorcerers in 3.5, so I guess maybe it doesn't need fixing.
I would wager that the amount of time spent at Paizo worrying about splatbook support approaches nil. Splatbook features of any type will not appear in Pathfinder and Jason and crew have more than enough to do to make the needed rules improvements. The entire debate concerning PRPG Core vs Splatbook X can be summed up this way: if your DM wants to try and balance all of this out, let him, just as he did in the past with 3.5 Core and Splatbook X. Meanwhile, we have a game to improve.
If people think the sorcerer class is weak compared to a Beguiler, go play a Beguiler (if your DM allows them in your Pathfinder game). It doesn't do the conversation as a whole much good to talk about splatbook comparisons when such comparisons are likely not even being considered during design and have never been a goal of the design. And lest I be accused of supposing too much concerning design intent, I offer the new Sorcerer as a demonstration that the intent is not to make the class "comparable to the splatbooks"; clearly it is...
I kind of see his point but doesn't the fact that their aiming for backwards compatibility open up splat book PRC's, at least of the WotC variety and thus make such comparisons hold at least some merit? Just curious... I know few of my players have any interest in playing SRD prestige classes without at least something involved from a splat book. The system is being made so those poor bastards who spent their hard earned cash on books like Complete Warrior and Heroes of Horror and the like can continue to get use out of those books while playing the pathfinder game.
Granted my characters are happy with their classes, they each chose something from the first release and seem more than happy enough to take it to 20th level. Someday, probably after this campaign ends and the Beta is released, I'll see if they feel the same about the other classes. Though knowing my players Paladin and Sorcerer will likely still be avoided or end up with some PrC being tossed into the mix for the latter at least. Druid is nifty and while my druid enthusiast was a touch lackluster in his enthusiasm that was mainly due to the fact the the druid class was only tweaked slightly... understandable seeing as they were a surprisingly potent class already.
The Pathfinder Wizard is a lot weaker at first level because he doesn't have the third spell slot and his bonus damage plink is a sick joke. But he is still easily able to pull his weight in early encounters. I mean seriously, a 1st level "very hard" encounter is four orc warriors, and a 1st level Wizard is quite likely to drop them all in a single spell.
-Frank
(1) In theory he could have 3 spell slots (if you count an extra slot from a bonded object).
(2) I wouldn't call 1d6 ranged touch damage a "sick joke" at 1st level; on average that's probably as good as a melee cleric or a ranger archer is doing (less damage, but better chance to hit).
(3) Four orc warriors aren't a "very hard" encounter according to Pathfinder's challenge rules; creatures with only 1 NPC level have a CR of 1 - 3 = 1/4 (or something like that), and 4 * 1/4 = CR 1 -- an "Average" encounter under the new system.
(4) Other than that, I agree 100%.
|
These boards are getting on my nerves, this is the third time I'm trying to post.
As I've said on multiple other threads, I too proposed:
a) light armor proficiency
b) skill point increase to 4+int
c) medium BAB (3/4) *no longer valid*
d) metamagic use doesn't increase casting time *no longer valid*
e) bonus feat: Eschew Materials (if not already)
f) one extra spell known per spell level
Reasoning:
a) As a sorcerer's magic is innate, derives from possibly a supernatural being or from a strong influence of magic, it implies that the magic cast is closer to a spell-like ability. Over generations (or whatnot) the effect gets a tad mild, and in the end the sorcerer's spell casting isn't as good as a spell-like ability's. Whereas a sorcerer would cast a spell with a quick flick of a wrist.
b) Since a sorcerer does not need to spend weeks, months, or even years studying magic theory, she could do farm work at the crops or attend to stage shows and so on. A sorcerer's life is much more free, thanks to her innate abilities. A broken mug? Mending, no problem! They simply have more time to themselves. Now that there are no cross-class skills, a sorcerer with Profession (Farmer) would be a viable choice for a role-player.
c) Jason exclaimed a BAB change won't happen.
d) A sorcerer is not hurt by a minor increase in metamagic use.
e) Partly the same reasoning as in a). Deriving the spell casting from a supernatural ancestor, and the magic comes from within, not from petty materials. The exception comes with powerful magic which requires costly components.
f) This would be just to prevent a sorcerer being a one-trick-pony, having 4 slots on some level, and being able to cast only one particular spell at that level.
Personally I don't feel like a sorcerer, at least with these changes, should have the spell progression be transformed into a regular (wizard) type. Instead, with these modifications the sorcerer would definitely have a 'new' touch to it. There does lie a danger, however, as some people would become rebels and still use the house ruled version of their "ideal" sorcerer.
It appears as if there is no real way of creating a sorcerer that would please all. The above suggestions would make a sorcerer a viable choice for me at least (provided that warmages and beguilers keep out of PRPG for the time being.)
I'd gladly receive comments on the ideas above. I hope you think about the issues flavorwise as well. Or would you rather have a roleplaying character have rules dictate flavors, or flavors dictate rules?
|
|
Lich-Loved: I apologize. I was making a long post full of quotes and lost it because I had to keep 2 windows open (because the reply function seems to dislike long text), and reloaded the wrong one. Due to this and other shortcomings of this forum software (as this was far from the first time something I wrote got eaten somehow, I believe it's already been nicknamed "Postmonster"), I'm not sure I'll even post here again. If you were interested in my thoughts said anywhere else, I'd still supply them ...
It's frustrating. Those that post here a lot try to post longer items in an editor and copy the result into the post form.
I am interested in what you are saying, especially your examples on giving more options more of the time while maintain player vs monster balance - what there is of it at least. Contrary to the way I may come across, I do not think 3.5 as a whole and the classes are "perfect". There is ample room for improvement with 3.5 and with what Jason is proposing. Thus all things that work toward the goals of improvement are good things, and I am more worried about why people feel improvements are required and in what places and to what degree, since I feel that design time and resources are limited and there is only so much that will be accomplished with PRPG before the book has to be published.
Much like the wizard class itself, it is a question of resource allocation. I want to help direct the fixes to be where they are most needed overall given that we operate in a vocal community with hundreds of niche problems with the 3.5 rules.
OK, I find this kind of thinking so strange. On one hand, this group of "all teh classes are teh sucks" proponents (sorry, they are far wittier than I, but "sucks on a stick" has been mentioned so...) think casters are overpowered yet the same group by and large wants to:
do away with material components - a major limiting factor for casters.
allows their arcane casters to aquire spells per day more often than per day by misapplying the "needs 8 hours of rest rule"
advocates use of wonky spell descriptions to generate infinite item/wealth loops and then has the stones to tell the rest of us that the other 90% of the classes are underpowered by using these casting classes as a yardstick for normalcy.
So for my own sanity, which is it? Are arcane casters useless because of the 15-minute day (when daily spells are recovered, well daily - every 24hours), or are they overpowered and eclipsing fighters and other downtrodden classes everywhere because of their multiple uses of high level spells? Or is it they are too weak because they have very expensive spellbooks and components to worry about, or is it they are too overpowered because they can get infinite wishes, or are they too weak because splatbook X replaces them with the Uberclass of Penultimate Castability?
Its neither. You're conflating different arguments by different people who aren't actually saying what you think they are.
Material components aren't a limiting factor. Even in games where people actually care about them, you just buy multiple spell component pouches and its covered. They're really a joke. And they're really, actually jokes. Amber rod + cat fur = lightning? Really, static electricity is the funny?
The casters aren't the yardstick for normalcy. The best candidate for that is probably the rogue. He can do stuff. He can do it all day, do level appropriate damage, do things in combat, out of combat and just generally all around be fun. Unfortunately, in my view, the casters are significantly beyond him, and fighters are significantly behind him (and paladins and monks are sadly even under that).
The sorcerer, to go back on thread topic for a moment, needs a couple things to be actually good. Being off the spell progression is one thing that needs to go. Extra spells per day is over-balanced by limited spells known, he doesn't need to be punished further by not being able to cast level appropriate spells. Metamagic shenanigans need to go, there isn't any reason for this exception to punish them. They pay perfectly well with the increase in spell level.
Third, it needs some flavorful class features. Jason tried this, and while the concepts are decent, the mechanics aren't. They don't actually help the sorcerer be a sorcerer. They are random and arbitrary when they are on theme, and just plain bizarre when they aren't (and yes, I am looking at the weird fey = poisonous plant thing). And they encourage the sorcerer to commit suicide. 'Hello Mr Troll, I will slap you with my completely meaningless melee touch attack. Yay! Ouch, oh gods, the pain...'
On arcane casters: they don't need to regain spells multiple times per day. A 3.5 wizard, out of the box, can toss sleep 3 times. Thats three of the expected 4 daily encounters he pretty much wins. Add in the speciality focus in Complete mage, and he has 4 of 4 at first level. At higher levels, it really doesn't matter any more. He has the resources to toss around whatever he wants in any combat he's in, by the expected encounter guidelines, even resting once a day.
It isn't *advocating* wonky stuff. Its pointing out that wonky stuff actually exists in the rules. Its really there. You can ignore them and try to fix them as they blow up during a game, or maybe, perhaps, Paizo can take this opportunity to actually fix them.
I sincerely don't understand people claiming that Wizards provide little early in the game. Twice a day a first level Wizard can force a group of enemies to save or die. Becoming unconscious for several rounds at first level is lethal. Color spray and sleep hit groups of enemies.
A first level Wizard is fragile, but his offensive output is enormous. He is essentially casting wail of the banshee as far as the people of his level can tell. First level is very swingy. People live and die by individual good and bad rolls. But the Wizard makes several opponents at once live or die by individual rolls.
The Pathfinder Wizard is a lot weaker at first level because he doesn't have the third spell slot and his bonus damage plink is a sick joke. But he is still easily able to pull his weight in early encounters. I mean seriously, a 1st level "very hard" encounter is four orc warriors, and a 1st level Wizard is quite likely to drop them all in a single spell.
-Frank
Frank, I have agreed with many of your arguments in the past (all silent and watching like) but saying a 1st level wizard... Well, suffice to say out 1st level (now second) generalist wizard has gone through a goblin attack and a mini dungeon without casting any spells save in roleplay. With his mage hand ability wielding a longsword and getting an intelligence bonus to attack and damage... suffice to say he'll do fine on the melee front for some time without actually putting himself in danger. Now, mind you, there are many ways to overcome him but the player is smart and the enemies he's faced thus far haven't been, save for a certain quasit but some clever grappling by a cloistered cleric of Desna no less cut that beasty down to size. You want a laugh? Have a small size halfling cleric use his travel domain ability to get the jump on a flying tiny outsider who has been reported to cut down most 2nd level parties. Suffice to say he got bonus xp particularly with the line 'Luck favors the bold'.
I would also support the idea of adding eschew materials as a default for sorcerers. Anything expensive would require a GP cost component or focus as it is, but it would fit more with the flavor of the character coming into their own innate powers.I houseruled that in 3.5, and will almost certainly stick with it in 3.PF. Granted, that does nothing to help with the "spell level behind" syndrome, but it seems like that never kept most people from playing sorcerers in 3.5, so I guess maybe it doesn't need fixing.
Building off this idea...
Tie in the Eschew Materials feat with their spell selections.
Spell Casting: A Sorcerer may only choose spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list which may be affected by the Eschew Materials feat.
Cantrips: The cantrips a Sorcerer knows may be used at will, furthermore these cantrips are cast as Spell-like Abilities, requiring neither somatic, verbal or material components.
Arcane Apophysis:At 4th level a sorcerer's understanding of his art increases, granting him access to either the Still Spell or Silent Spell feat. The effect of the feat chosen is automatically applied to his 1st level spells without increasing the casting time.
At 6th level, the Sorcerer gains access to the second feat. This feat is also applied directly to his 1st level spells. They are now considered Spell-like Abilities.
At 8th level and this point beyond, spells 2 levels below the Sorcerer's max spell casting level are treated as Spell-like Abilities. Spells 1 level below, may have either the Silent or Still effect applied, without increasing the casting time.
Just a random thought running through my head. O,o
I would also support the idea of adding eschew materials as a default for sorcerers. Anything expensive would require a GP cost component or focus as it is, but it would fit more with the flavor of the character coming into their own innate powers.
Seconded. And I can't believe that I forgot to bring that up.
|
I would also support the idea of adding eschew materials as a default for sorcerers. Anything expensive would require a GP cost component or focus as it is, but it would fit more with the flavor of the character coming into their own innate powers.Seconded. And I can't believe that I forgot to bring that up.
Saw this, had to say "ditto!" Brings sorcerers more in line with being instinctive spellcasters.
|
|
I would also support the idea of adding eschew materials as a default for sorcerers. Anything expensive would require a GP cost component or focus as it is, but it would fit more with the flavor of the character coming into their own innate powers.Seconded. And I can't believe that I forgot to bring that up.
I read a counter argument to this somewhere, but I can't remember where. Apologies for the following paraphrased plagiarism.
Anyway, if you think that spells typically require three components to cast, then the sorcerer's innate ability allows him to figure out the words, gestures and materials (bat guano) he needs to cast fireball.
(A wizard doesn't know this, but fortunately has the procedure written down somewhere.)
When it comes to removing one of the three components, the sorcerer is in the same position as the wizard. He needs to put in time and effort to figure out how to do it i.e. spend a feat.
Personally, I'd remove all material components from all spells apart from Tasha's Hideous Laughter. However, if they are in the game then I don't see why the sorcerer should be able to simply ignore them.
i can never have enough spider climbs, feather falls and expeditious retreats. not to metion the solid gold that is knock and detect thoughts.
Yes. Yes we do. I can't remember the last time I had a character fall in a hole, and knock and spider climb = someone should play a rogue. Expeditious retreat is too situational to blow a known spell. Detect thoughts is decent, but really depends on the campaign- if its an intrigue campaign, certainly. If its a 'Let Blood, Blood, Blood be your motto' campaign, then certainly not. If it might come up during the campaign, its probably wizard territory. He can afford to have spells that don't come up often, the sorcerer can't. If you don't run into circumstances where the spell would be a viable option every day, you shouldn't be taking up space with it.
Good low level utility spells: silent image, invisibility (which you immediately forget when you can get your claws on greater invis). A couple others, but its mostly stuff that a wizard would just have on a scroll, just in case in comes up. Like fireball.
I had already stated that we probably didn't consider the same spells useful.
Knock and Spider Climb: The group i play D&D tends to shun traditional 'party' structures, often acting independantly within a setting city, persuing different plot threads, personal agendas or clues. Their for i can rarely depend on a rogue to be present to jimmy open a door for me as i desperately flee boss nar'scags kneebrakers or snoop around a house, or for him to climb up to top of a bell tower to get an eyeball on a traitorous hose member whos looking to defect with the secret plans for a new elemental airship engine.
Expedious retreat, Jump and Featherfall: having played my last sorcerer in an enviroment full of hights and completely without offessive magic of her own(thought i usually carried a wand or two.). It often served me well, if caught alone by less savory types to either, flee or fall. droppin six stories is an Then sprinting at super human speeds tends to be an excilent way to out passes your average thug. You just have to hope they dont have crossbows.
Detect thoughts: The very bread and butter of what my character was all about. wonderful spell.
To put this in context, the last characer i played with any great regularity, was an inquisitive in sharn. The campaign was socially based, with large elements of investigation. We had a pulp detective feel/ blended with some cyberpunk elements. Sufficed to say, My coolest momment in campaign was doing an impression motoko kusanagi at a crime bosses window, before falling away slowly turning invisible. Something that would have been completely impossible without feather fall and spider climb.
You guys have a habit of talking in absolutes. The simple fact is, yours isn't the only table. Every table has different expectations of a game. For my style of play at that table, the ability to choose in an instant between a limited number of powers which i knew did the jobs i wanted, without my character having to carry around a scroll case which would spoil the line of her bespoke tailered, and very sharp new suit, was a blessing.
|
|
My group and I had a gaming session today. We work at home, so we took a brake from the real world, and orthodox Easter is very soon, so... Most of all, we were impatient to tryout new rules. The group is consisted of a CG drow sorcerer, LN quagoth fighter, N thri-kreen house-ruled ranger and a NG dwarf cleric. The player characters were level 5 at a start, and progressed to level 6 in ten hours that gaming session lasted.
Sorcerer was combat oriented, and had high dexterity score, as well as CHA and INT. It was frightening to behold. Battlecaster feat enabled the sorcerer to use light armor, and Weapon Finesse raised the attack, so the sorcerer could take care of himself in a melee. My players are very experienced, so the group functioned rather well. At the end of the session we talked about the new rules. There were several things that my drow-sorcerer player thought should change: give sorcerer slightly better armor and a better attack bonus. That's about it. During the next session we'll try spell point system. Jason, I think that you should consider to allow an option of using something like that in some sidebar, or such. Almost forgot, considering hit points: All classes max at lvl 1, fighter 10 bonus hp and minimum hp received by fighter per level is equal to his CON modifier. That's all for now.
I'll say it again - the sorcerer in my group outblasts the wizard and the wizard's cohort combined. And he can Enlarge most of the group. And he can put Walls of Force all over the place. And he can change the elemental aspects of his best spells to pretty much be anything. And more Magic Missiles. And Grease up the wazoo. And he can pretty much Teleport all damned day.
And he can decide what to do when he wants it without trying to guess ahead of time which spells are the most useful and which benefit from metamagic.
Versatility is SO powerful and SO very underated.
Oh yeah...don't get me started on the Monster Summoning spells he picked up.
Huge fiendish monstrous centipedes all over the place. Sheesh!
...and then he needs a spell that he didn't realize he'd need last time he gained a level (as opposed to this morning). Good thing he packed a backpack full of scrolls, that he wrested from the Wizard.
Really, Sorcerers can blast very well, because a small spell selection is sufficient to do so, in fact they are encouraged into blasting because blasting-type spells have the widest applicability, and you only want to choose spells that are always useful as a Sorcerer because you have such a limited array. Same deal as the Warlock from Complete Arcane -- you can blast all day and all night, but since you only have 14 powers at level 20 (2 of which [Detect Magic and Eldritch Blast] are chosen for you), you need to choose ones that will be as useful as possible as often as possible, as opposed to anything with a more specific, limited use.
Wizards after all need something that thay can do well.
And that is, that they adapt more quickly to over all changes in a campaign.
If something sudden and unexpected happens, both wizards and sorcerers fall back on scrolls. Sorcerers just don't have to do it quiet so often because they can roll with the punchs a little more within an encounter.
One bad day, and the Sorcerer might not have nay spells that can be used in the adventure (ever see a Fire Sorcerers fighting Fire Giants?).Been there, played that. Even the most dedicated fire sorceror is going to have *a* non-fire spell. ("I can't believe I am using a third level spell slot to cast magic missile.")
Just because wizard has more versatility in spells known doesn't mean they'll have the right spell for the job prepared when they need it. I happen to think that the classes are very well balanced against each other.Magic Missile? Never heard of burning hands, huh? =)
I had a character we nicknamed the Pyrognome. He was a CN gnome sorcerer who believed his power was granted to him by Kossuth (God of Fire), was taken in by the temple of Kossuth in the borderlands of Thay when the first manifestations of his power destroyed his home and orphaned him. He played out as a very zealously devout servant of Kossuth, who at the same time had a great dislike of his temples and their structure (CN follower of a N deity with a LN church). Every offensive spell in his repertoire was fire based. Period. His powers were Kossuth's gift, after all. Even his defensive and mobility powers had a firey theme to them (Spell Thematics FTW).
That is pure awesome.
and i am guessing that since you put that much effort and focus into your character that the main focus of the campaign wasn't 'lets hunt the fire resistant monsters', i am sure that occationally you found something you couldn't touch but the campaign itself was never designed to screw you over. :)
I have two questions for you. What makes these classes a failure and would you even consider that their might be another explanation for this perceived failure?What makes them a failure? They're barely capable of playing the game as designed at 1st level. They fall behind somewhere between 2nd and 5th. From then on, they just can't deal with what the game throws at them. (or could throw at them).
On the opposite side, (clerics, wizards and company) are taking the game in a different direction. They aren't playing the game because they can take a single action and win any given situation. They don't win 100% of the time, but they're up around the 75% mark, easily.
Yes this is the point I thought would be raised. And - it's a fair point, or at least I concede that it can be shown they cannot meet these challenges (Frank Trollman has done an excellent job showing some of this in other threads). However, I would like to provide the following analysis; one of the following must be true to make your general statement about characters failing to meet the game's challenges true:
(1) The character designs are a monumental failure because they cannot meet the challenges the game expects (your view)
(2) The game challenge system is a failure because it misguides DMs on how to set level-appropriate challenges, causing the well-designed characters to fail (or succeed too easily) too often (a second view)
The question is: which one? To resolve this dilemma, I return to Occam's Razor. Either Cook, Tweet, Williams and the myriad of other authors were all completely off base better than 90% of the time or the CR system is off base 90% of the time. Which is the simplest explanation? The situation only becomes clearer when one notes that the CR system has always been acknowledged to be a bit difficult to work with and may not in all cases work as intended (reference monster design in the MM and CR/EL information in the DMG for pages - yes pages - of...
Exceptionally well made point.
Oh, right the swashbuckler. I knew I was forgetting someone. That ranks a severe flogging as well. As does the soul knife. The psychic warrior almost escapes that fate, but a psion/illithid hunter makes him look like a joke.
I don't have the class in front of me, but as far as i remember the swashbuckler was actually several kinds of awesome in a city based campaign. His focus on dex, cha and Int ment that he worked as multiclasser into wizard, bard or sorcerer. He was great in social situations, and could move around a cluttered battle field with ease.
|
|
I don't have the class in front of me, but as far as i remember the swashbuckler was actually several kinds of awesome in a city based campaign. His focus on dex, cha and Int meant that he worked as multiclasser into wizard, bard or sorcerer. He was great in social situations, and could move around a cluttered battle field with ease.
Yeah, the swashbuckler was great for two levels.
Bah, I'm enjoying my single-classed Warlock right now (although I painstakingly evaluate my invocation options -- took me the entire week between sessions last time I gained a level), although I'd agree with you on most of the others. The Truenamer isn't necessarily bad in concept, it just mostly needs someone who can add to reconsider the mechanics, when at levels 11-13 you need at least a feat to use your spells on *yourself* and beyond that you...Concept isn't the issue. The fact that the designer wasn't even passingly familiar with basic math skills is.
Enjoyment of a class is not the same thing as saying a class is good, or balanced, or well designed. The fact is, the warlock is never doing damage thats actually level appropriate, and though he can do his invocations infinitely, with a few exceptions at 1st, 2nd, and ...5th or 6th level (whenever he can first grab fly or invisibility) he isn't doing anything level appropriate with those either.
@LL- its a symptom of the same thing: the shoddy design leads to inescapable imbalance. Its not so much a matter of pit fights. Its that the druid is literally worth two or three other characters. And party effectiveness does matter. But a party consisting of a cleric, druid and wizard is easily just as, if not more, effective than a party consisting of a knight, a dragon shaman, a swashbuckler, a bard and a shadowcaster.
Again Voss, this is entirely a style of play issue. If you arn't playing in a 'dungeon' enviroment and are playing something other than hack and slash, the ability to perform a magicial feat every turn forever is immensely more powerful than performing one of a much more powerful spell.
As far as actual Sorcerer changes, I tihnk it's work out better if the Bloodlines granted something more along the following (note all references to level mean sorcerer level, not caster level, and none of these abilities advance (including spells known) with increases in caster level as opposed to sorcerer level [this is to discourage multiclassing somewhat]):
1. A single, at-will, shortish range ranged touch attack dealing 1d6+1/2 sorcerer level of an appropriate type of damage and considered a supernatural ability at 1st level, as opposed to "claws" (especially if they are keeping HD/2 BAB, melee abilities = bad). This could theoretically be reduced if the attack had some kind of side effect.
2. One additional spell known per spell level, of a type or form that indisputably fits the bloodline, possibly with a "list" for each variant of certain bloodlines (such as dragon or elemental). Add as a caveat that these spells cannot be metamagiced in a manner inconsistent with the bloodline where appropriate (generally energy substitution falls in here). These should mostly be situational, or things that most/all creatures of an appropriate type can do, such as water breathing for black dragon bloodlines, restricted list summon monster spells for most of them, etc. These should be either standard wizard/sorcerer spells or wizard/sorcerer spells that have been restricted in some way (self-only/limited summon list/etc).
3. One or more feat options under each bloodline similar to the "_____ Mage" feats from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Those feats granted improved access to a particular kind of spells beyond what your class is normally allowed and allowed a "template" you could apply to spells, essentially a metamagic-like effect but not as powerful, without the casting time increase (necessarily), and with a cost other than increasing spell level (i.e. 1d6 bonus fire damage on any damaging spell [2d6 if the spell has the fire descriptor] for adding a material component). As an example feat (probably needs...
I tend to agree with much of this. I personally think that atleast hald of the bloodlines should be mostly focused on spell casting.
However, some should keep their touch/claw however, and in these cases, i would like to see other bloodline powers give them a little more umph in close combat.
Not to say that sorcerers should be frontline fighters or anything, but a sting in the tail for those stupid enough to close with a clawed she-witch of dubious heritage should be given second thoughts.
Which brings me to, please have the abyssal keep the claws(though scaling the damage up more with levels would be good). Its a cool image and i can see meriad uses for them. Their is something to be said for never being unarmed.
Who the hell uses lightning bolt any more? :-P Sorry, had to put that jab in there. Haven't seen that spell used by a PC since 2nd edition.Ok so lets look under the hood of spell casting for a momment.
The only class features i am taking into account is pure spell casting and i am specificially looking at damage potential.
Both casters have an intelligence or charisma of 17(human, with elite attribute and their bonus placed in their primary casting stat.)
Both have effectively the same combat spell arrey.
Both are sixth level and stripped of all class features save spell casting.
1st magic missile
2nd scorching ray(we are assuming that these all hit)
3rd lightning bolt
What can i say, it was the only 3rd lvl. evocation spell(in the SRD) that fit the general model of direct damage to a single target i have been working from in the example.
Having playtested a Sinister Adventure, my wizard-wife does not like her character as much as she thought. A lot of it has to do with being responsible for underwater adventuring and (modified) spellbook planning, etc. Therefore, she and I both looked forward to the Alpha2 release of the sorcerer. My initial take was confirmed by her excitment and subsequent overwhelming feelings that the sorcerer did a lot of neat, categorical stuff.
My wife has a lot of character creation experience, mostly because we sometimes don't finish what we start. However, due to this experience, she and I suggest that the FEY bloodline be more respective of the traditional fey. I think an earlier poster suggested a cleaner distinction between plant and fey bloodlines; I would agree. The fey bloodline looks like a blur between druid and sorcerer, possibly making it the ideal girlfriend player character!!
Triple-post, but I'd at least like SOME feedback on this.makes sense, but I'd not want your firebloodline wizard to be able to energy sub these spells, it would defeat the theme to me. To use your example, if they want cone of cold, they'll have to buy it seperately.
Oh, yes. I just meant that the cone of cold spell would be cast as though it were a fire spell.
Sudden thought:
What if bloodlines grant bonus known spells, sort of like how domain spells worked in 3.5. This adds flavor while simultaneously adding a nice mechanical advantage to up the sorcerer's repertoire without significantly increasing firepower.
I did not want to come out and say it quite yet, but this is a change I am seriously considering right now. Each bloodline would have a list of spells, and you would get to choose one every time you gain a new level of spells (4th, 6th, 8th, etc). I like that, but to give them a bit of a bit more balance, I might drop all those levels by one (that is they can choose a bonus 1st lv spell at 3rd, 2nd lv at 5th, etc).
I realize that some folks would really like to see their progression change. Right now, I am not willing to make that change. The sorcerers benefit has always been more spells, just at a slightly slower progression. You may disagree, but right now, I am sticking with this concept.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The progression deal is understandable. It is entrenched in people's minds, so I'm sure that there'd be a bigger uproar if you changed it.
I do like the idea of extra spells known tagged to the Bloodline. I'd put them at the new spell level levels (2nd level spells at 4th, for example). That way the Sorcerer would get two spells to choose from when he gets a new spell level.
A complete abandonment of the transformational aspect is not necessary, but it does lead to some silliness. For example, Sorcerers who cast polymorphing spells end up being monsters with the Bloodline features (because as class features, they show up in tiger form or whatever....I could see Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers turning into giant snakes that had claws and wings.... which is weird).
Ps. I appreciate the flavor choices of the bloodlines. I REALLY don't like the xenphilia angle, so its nice to see other flavor options.
If you are ever in the Silicon Valley area, I'll totally buy you a beer.
Why does the beguiler get mentioned so favorably so often? So many of his spells are mind-affecting (which means goodnight nurse when the undead come out to play) and have no effect if a saving throw is made.
A basic sorcerer with Magic Missle and Fireball pretty much guarantees some level of results.
And to some previous posters: yes, I do have a good player. And his sorcerer is his first spellcasting character ever.
Which brings up another good point: next to fighters, sorcerers are one of the best classes to introduce new players into the game. With their narrower range of options, new players don't have to sweat through a spellbook each day. And lets face it: the first time they get to start throwing 5d6 around the table it's fun to watch the light come on in their eyes.
|
|
Why does the beguiler get mentioned so favorably so often? So many of his spells are mind-affecting (which means goodnight nurse when the undead come out to play) and have no effect if a saving throw is made.
A basic sorcerer with Magic Missle and Fireball pretty much guarantees some level of results.
And to some previous posters: yes, I do have a good player. And his sorcerer is his first spellcasting character ever.
Which brings up another good point: next to fighters, sorcerers are one of the best classes to introduce new players into the game. With their narrower range of options, new players don't have to sweat through a spellbook each day. And lets face it: the first time they get to start throwing 5d6 around the table it's fun to watch the light come on in their eyes.
Because Beguiler is useful outside battle also. 'nuff said.
Which brings up another good point: next to fighters, sorcerers are one of the best classes to introduce new players into the game. With their narrower range of options, new players don't have to sweat through a spellbook each day. And lets face it: the first time they get to start throwing 5d6 around the table it's fun to watch the light come on in their eyes.
My thoughts exactly.
Because Beguiler is useful outside battle also. 'nuff said.Why does the beguiler get mentioned so favorably so often? So many of his spells are mind-affecting (which means goodnight nurse when the undead come out to play) and have no effect if a saving throw is made.
A basic sorcerer with Magic Missle and Fireball pretty much guarantees some level of results.
And to some previous posters: yes, I do have a good player. And his sorcerer is his first spellcasting character ever.
Which brings up another good point: next to fighters, sorcerers are one of the best classes to introduce new players into the game. With their narrower range of options, new players don't have to sweat through a spellbook each day. And lets face it: the first time they get to start throwing 5d6 around the table it's fun to watch the light come on in their eyes.
sorcerers can be great out of combat too.
Yes, the sorcerer in Gurubabaramalamaswami's example could also have any spells the beguiler could, and at the same time don't suffer in that combat situations (undead).
Beguilers are great, but neither class is intrinsecally better than the other.
Yes, the sorcerer in Gurubabaramalamaswami's example could also have any spells the beguiler could, and at the same time don't suffer in that combat situations (undead).
What? I don't know if you've checked since AD&D days, but Undead are not immune to Illusions. At low levels, undead have a tendency towards limited or no intelligence, meaning that a simple silent image makes you automatically win (skeletons don't break themselves against walls when left alone). At higher levels you'll be confronted with more powerful, more intelligent undead, but by that point you can dump spells like slow and solid fog, which work plenty well enough against creatures whether they are clever or not.
The whole myth that Beguilers are somehow helpless or even slightly weak against mindless opponents is crazy talk. They only need one killer spell against any foe to be anywhere on their list to be killer against that opponent. So the fact that Beguilers have at least one such spell that smacks down Mind Immune monsters at every level means that they actually rock in such encounters.
Beguilers have so much depth that they are basically a broken class. They have divinations, buffs, crowd control, direct attacks, utility effects, and army builders at every level. And their incredibly powerful casting mechanic ensures that since there is something useful that any Beguiler can do in every situation that every Beguiler is useful in every situation. They are inherently better than Sorcerers. Heck, you can make a strong case that they are inherently better than Druids. I am uncomfortable making a Beguiler vs. Anyone comparison, and I would much rather put the Sorcerer up against the Dread Necromancer - a class which is fairly balanced in actual play.
-Frank
Frank
Given that under many conditions, the sorcerer is already a better spell caster within a narrowish feild than a wizard.
What changes would you make, and after those changes where made, what reason would there to be to play a wizard?
Frank
Given that under many conditions, the sorcerer is already a better spell caster within a narrowish feild than a wizard.
Not given. But whatever, moving on.
What changes would you make, and after those changes where made, what reason would there to be to play a wizard?
I would make the Sorcerer into a compromise between the basic Sorcerer that WotC abandoned and the multitude of Sorcerer Replacement Classes that they made for us. That is, I would give each of the Sorcerer schticks 3 fixed spells available at every spell level, and then let them learn a spell unique to themselves at every level past first.
And then they'd be better than a Wizard in some circumstances. But the Wizard would still make a better adventurer since he can custom craft his spell list to a specific adventure and use downtime spells like fabricate and animate dead without severely impacting his performance in adventures.
An example of such a package might be something like this:
Aberrant Power
You get power from beyond the spheres, from another world, another time. Your magic is bizarre and strange, outside of what others of your race have experienced.
Cantrips
- Dancing Lights
- Daze
- Resistance
1st Level Spells
- Disguise Self
- Obscuring Mist
- Sleep
2nd Level Spells
- Blur
- Rope Trick
- Touch of Idiocy
3rd Level Spells
- Confusion
- Deep Slumber
- Displacement
4th Level Spells
- Dimension Door
- Evard's Black Tentacles
- Fear
5th Level Spells
- Plane Shift
- Nightmare
- Teleport
6th Level Spells
- Eyebite
- Mass Suggestion
- Shadow Walk
7th Level Spells
- Insanity
- Prismatic Spray
- Teleport Object
8th Level Spells
- Dimensional Lock
- Maze
- Prismatic Wall
9th Level Spells
- Freedom
- Gate
- Prismatic Sphere
----
Such a character would be guaranteed to have a small grab bag of spells at every level, which further assure you of having some decent combat and utility spells. This keeps Sorcerers from having the "completely useless" adventures that they currently labor under without epically good spell selection.
-Frank
Yes, the sorcerer in Gurubabaramalamaswami's example could also have any spells the beguiler could, and at the same time don't suffer in that combat situations (undead).What? I don't know if you've checked since AD&D days, but Undead are not immune to Illusions. At low levels, undead have a tendency towards limited or no intelligence, meaning that a simple silent image makes you automatically win (skeletons don't break themselves against walls when left alone). At higher levels you'll be confronted with more powerful, more intelligent undead, but by that point you can dump spells like slow and solid fog, which work plenty well enough against creatures whether they are clever or not.
The whole myth that Beguilers are somehow helpless or even slightly weak against mindless opponents is crazy talk.
-Frank
SRD on the Undead type: "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)."
Now, Silent Image is a Figment, so you're right Frank when I very much thought you were wrong. Thank you.
But Frank, this is about human frailty and the overly complex rules. It takes a very, very good player to know the subtype of illusion spell that he's casting AND to insist that it will work against undead. It also must be combined with a very good DM to know that figments are one of the few types of illusion spells that work against undead.
Most of us, we just remember that they're immune to charms and illusions, because that's true the vast majority of the time. Combine that with DMs that don't like you to have computers at the table or to spend time looking that stuff up in two books...