Sorcerer vs the Wizard


Races & Classes


Ok, this may have been talked about already, and im not seeing it but I think there is a power balance issue between the 2 classes with what you folks have done. Below are my reasonings:

When a wizard takes a specialty class(ie abjurer, necro, etc...) he is required to drop 2 classes of spells that he can no longer cast. However, this is really forcing the character into being a specialty class for any real type of bonus. The universal powers are ok, but just do not really offer a whole lot in the way of increased power to the mage. ITs a bait a switch tactics. And yes I know this is the same as 3.5, but i 3.5 the wizard also got a +2 to dc for the cast ability of that school and rec'd bonus spells that they could choose, not something assigned as per these rules.

The sorceror is totally revamped. Dont get me wrong, I like the changes with the addition of bloodlines, but with them added, I dont see a real reason to play the wizard now. Yes a wizard can cast all spells while the sorceror is limited, but the sorc has had bonus spells added at levels too that go into their spell list. WHile its not an additional spell persei, it is a new spell they can cast without having to take a spell slot up. In addition, the sorc gains wonderous powers and also gains new feats(similar to the wizard). The only real loss the sorc is now taking, is he is limited to 5 known spells. While this is limiting, its not an overburden with the additions that have been made. Example, draconic bloodline getting breathweapon that is d6 per level up to 3 times per day at level 17. thats 17d6(can we say wow). Most campaign settings allow players to do lots of resting, which now makes this an very over powered ability. Look at elemental and its bonus spells gained as another example. If a wizard takes a specialist school of say evocation, they are now going to pick 2 schools which can be any wheres from 8 to 12 spells that they can no longer cast either without penalties. I know im rambling some, sorry on this.

The wizard class to me now seems to be more penalized than the sorceror. The only way to not, is to be generalized, and then there is no beginning special skills til he reachs level 20 when he can than have the +2dc. By level 20, this is not a major boon because all casters are going to be good on dc's from magic increases to stats and items. In addition, other than the necromancy path(as a friend pointed out to me last night) the powers of the specialist mage are not exactly over powering, while the sorceror bloodlines allow for some very nasty additions.

I think in order for more players to want to chose, there needs to be some underlying changes made to the wizard schools and class. A good start as we discussed(my friends and I last night) is the readdition of the +2dc for the type of spells. The next addition is a little more hard to discern. We threw around dropping the prohibited schools alltogether(with some much heated discussion). We also discussed the readdition of 1 spell per 2 levels in addition for the specialist wizard. Ie, an addition 1st level evocationalist would gain a +1 to 1st level spells in the evocation art. The only issue we came up with doing this, is how do you add to the generalist wizards? another thought was to allow specialist wizards to be able to use their maximize, empower, etc without the negatives. example, a 1st level evocationist wizard could empower his 1st level burning hands without the increase to spell levels on the spell. Mind you, these are all just thoughts.

Right now though, with the way the 2 classes are setup, your not going to find alot of players willing to go wizard. The sorceror just has to many better options available to it. What are you alls thoughts on this?

Liberty's Edge

Grayhorse wrote:

i 3.5 the wizard also got a +2 to dc for the cast ability of that school and rec'd bonus spells that they could choose, not something assigned as per these rules.

In 3.5, specialist wizards get:

* an additional spell per level per day, of the chosen school
* a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks that involve spells of their chosen school

That's it. There's no save DC bonus of any kind, unless they take Spell Focus or Greater Spell Focus - which, of course, many of them do, but which also still exists, unchanged, in Pathfinder.


Grayhorse wrote:
When a wizard takes a specialty class(ie abjurer, necro, etc...) he is required to drop 2 classes of spells that he can no longer cast. However, this is really forcing the character into being a specialty class for any real type of bonus. The universal powers are ok, but just do not really offer a whole lot in the way of increased power to the mage. ITs a bait a switch tactics. And yes I know this is the same as 3.5, but i 3.5 the wizard also got a +2 to dc for the cast ability of that school and rec'd bonus spells that they could choose, not something assigned as per these rules.

I think you might want to look over the rules again:

- In Pathfinder, a specialist can cast spells of their "prohibited" schools just fine. But if she does, she loses her "Specialist Bonus" ability (which is usually pretty weak, anyways).

- In 3.5, specialists didn't get a +2 to spell DCs for spells of their own school, just a boost on Spellcraft checks.

- In my opinion, the Universalist powers are at least as good as any other school (except maybe Conjuration or Necromancy)!

At any rate, Jason has hinted that specialists will be able to choose their extra spell/spell-like ability at each level in the Beta version of Pathfinder. So maybe specialists will get a boost.


Wizards also get their higher level spells 1 level earlier... that's huge.

Similarly, arcane bond for wizards is pretty darn good, and unavailable to sorcerers that dont have the arcane bloodline.

Its true that it seems that sorcerers have more flavor options, but strictly in terms of power; the wizard is clearly still the better class.


Hm. Certainly haven't tried every combination, but the Sorcerer and Wizard upgrades seem to be (very roughly) equivalent. Sorcerers have never been popular in most of our local games because most of them feature large worlds, with extremely large numbers of rare, exotic, and highly-specialized spells available* - making a wizard who investigates and plans a bit far more interesting than a sorcerer. In most games that's not an issue though, they tend to stick to the "standard" spell list a lot more closely.

* Since we went to using the Spell Template rules from The Practical Enchanter our standard spell list is pretty large. The basic "Enhance Attribute" template alone covers about 60,000 seperate spells even before general modifier options. Since the themplates are mostly OGL, I put one up on another thread here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha3/combatMagic/polymorphSpellsStillLacking&page=1#63526 4


awp832 wrote:

Wizards also get their higher level spells 1 level earlier... that's huge.

Similarly, arcane bond for wizards is pretty darn good, and unavailable to sorcerers that dont have the arcane bloodline.

Its true that it seems that sorcerers have more flavor options, but strictly in terms of power; the wizard is clearly still the better class.

Getting an additional higher level spell 1 level earlier is not huge. With the additions the sorceror is getting, its going to make a wizard redundant. I yet to fathom how the arcane bond is darn good, so I might be missing something. In order to add stuff to your bond, you still pay for it(just like any other magic item, just at 1/2 price). Am I missing something else there, and I very well might be!?!?

As far as power, the wizard can cast only 4 spells per day at 20th plus their int modifier. As Sorceror at 20 can cast 6 per day plus their charisma modifier. Their only limitation is the 5 known spells per level, and this is not even true because bloodlines add another for 6 now. A wizard with the evocation, abjurer, etc will still have 10 to 12 spells they cant cast without losing their arcane powers, leaving them with anywheres from 25 to 30 spells, and not all of them are even used in most games, so now limited more by the game they are in. To the dm's here, what is one of the big staple spells a wizard would cast and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th. Well, with this staple spell taken, now they are at 3 random(and most wizards take 2 of these spells). And like another player eluded too before you, the school powers or special abilities really are not that hot anyway(with maybe the exception being the necro). SO pound for pound, more flavor has been added to the sorceror. The additional bloodline powers are somewhat over powering when you compare them level to level against a wizard(in my opinion). And like I said earlier, I dont want to see the sorc changed, because I do like the changes I saw. I just want to see some of the same love to wizard so that players will still play.

As for the +2 to dc, that could have been a house rule we pulled from an earlier rules set to make them more interesting to play, cant remember. IM getting old what can I say.

As far as players in your campaigns(referring to another post sorry) not being willing to play sorcerors as they were in 3.5, we never had an issue with that, so I cant speak from there. See, in our campaigns, I made wizards carry their books or travel books, and as a DM, I would make them open game for being attacked too. ITs what any intelligent being would do to cut the wizards spells away from him. Thats why they played sorcerors as this couldnt happen.

Dont get me wrong guys, I dont want to cause issues, just dont want to see imbalance is all.


ok, i guess i need to explain...

I dont see how you dont admit that getting acess to better spells earlier is a big deal... It means... it means during a full half of gameplay the wizard can cast the next tier of arcane spells when the sorcerer can't.

If your a multiclassing kind of person, the wizard can multiclass into something that doesn't even have any spellcasting progression for one level (why would you, except for some prestige classes, but hey) and still be on par with a single classed sorcerer. Gives the wiz more versatility. Thats a big deal, and just being ahead a level is a big deal.

And as for Arcane Bond... it's great. Forget the familiar version and go right to bonded item. You can enchant the bonded item as if you had the feat to enchant it, and it 1/2 the normal cost, so 1/4 the market price. I really want to make a wizard that has a bonded item of any weapon and go into Eldrich Knight. A wizard with a bonded item (longbow) going into Arcane Archer would also be amazing.

If thats not your thing, try rechargable staffs, or cheap-to-enchant rings and amulets.


Grayhorse wrote:


Getting an additional higher level spell 1 level earlier is not huge. With the additions the sorceror is getting, its going to make a wizard redundant. I yet to fathom how the arcane bond is darn good, so I might be missing something. In order to add stuff to your bond, you still pay for it(just like any other magic item, just at 1/2 price). Am I missing something else there, and I very well might be!?!?

As far as power, the wizard can cast only 4 spells per day at 20th plus their int modifier. As Sorceror at 20 can cast 6 per day plus their charisma modifier. Their only limitation is the 5 known spells per level, and this is not even true because bloodlines add another for 6 now.

It depends on what level you normally play. I notice your example cites a level 20 sorcerer where there is no issue since both classes have leveled up.

At low levels 1-7 this is a "huge" factor for a sorcerer with a limited fixed known spell list.

Liberty's Edge

I've found that level 5 tends to be truly painful for the sorcerer, since the wizard is getting to play with their shiny new 3rd level spells, all of which are noticably more powerful than the 2nd level ones (in a way that 2nd level ones aren't better than 1st level), while the sorcerer is still struggling with having just two 2nd level spells known...


I prefer the old system. At one end of the spectrum you had the Sorcerer, loads of spells/day but hardly any choice, and at the other end of the spectrum you had the Wizard, few spells/day but could have many spells in his spellbook. In between these two were the Specialist and Focused Specialist were a Wizard would narrow his spell choices for extra spells/day.

It all worked fine although the Sorcerer did need a boost. PF has given the Sorcerer that boost with the Bloodlines [which are excellent]

The new system the Wizard has is poor in comparison. Bonus spells are now given, not chosen, an unneeded change IMO, that does little to balance the power of the Wizard and pigeonholes his versatility. The given spells are driven off Charisma, another unneeded change. One could argue that this change means the Wizard now has to put some points into Charisma which makes the class more MAD [multi ability dependant] which does help balance the class but isn't true of all the specialist schools. But PF then allows access to the prohibited schools by giving up a half-baked power that isn't a hardship to lose at all, which makes no sense?

PF is saying if you specialize we'll give you some average bonus spells [which we know you don't really want and that'll have very weak save DC's] but you have to give up two schools of magic to gain them, but don't worry, we'll let you cast spells from these two schools anyway if you give up a crap ability that we know you don't want anyway...?? What’s the point in specializing if it doesn't mean anything? Banned/Prohibited means... NO/NONE/ZIP !

Abjuration and Conjuration would appear the only two schools that don't really need any charisma to function properly. All the bonus spells that grant a save will be very weak in comparison to your regular spells unless you pump your Charisma, which a Wizard doesn't really want to do!

If the goal is to balance the power of the 3.5 Wizard [and come to think of it, the Cleric and Druid too] then the easiest way would be to make Wisdom or Charisma determine save DC's and Intelligence determine just spells/day [reverse for Cleric/Druid] and leave the rest as it was. Then delete/change all the overpowered spells that were problematic.

I want PF to fix the 3.5 problems not meddle for meddle's sake.

Just my 2 cents [in semi-rant format, sorry about that!]


Grayhorse wrote:
I dont see a real reason to play the wizard now. Yes a wizard can cast all spells while the sorceror is limited...

Actually, you've just shown us why the Wizard class was and still is way more powerful than the Sorcerer: his spellbook.

For example, I recently had a scenario where the party led a group of island natives against an evil fortress. I used Hallucinatory Terrain to make the surrounding area like itself while I used Move Earth to fill in their trenches, then I dismissed the Hallucinatory Terrain for the assault. I followed up with some Summon Monster VIIs to make some Earth Elementals to take out the fortress's gate.

I'd like to see a Sorcerer do that. Where Wizards can prepare the perfect solution to a problem, Sorcerers have to settle for applying the same solution to every problem.

-Matt


Mattastrophic wrote:
Grayhorse wrote:
I dont see a real reason to play the wizard now. Yes a wizard can cast all spells while the sorceror is limited...

Actually, you've just shown us why the Wizard class was and still is way more powerful than the Sorcerer: his spellbook.

For example, I recently had a scenario where the party led a group of island natives against an evil fortress. I used Hallucinatory Terrain to make the surrounding area like itself while I used Move Earth to fill in their trenches, then I dismissed the Hallucinatory Terrain for the assault. I followed up with some Summon Monster VIIs to make some Earth Elementals to take out the fortress's gate.

I'd like to see a Sorcerer do that. Where Wizards can prepare the perfect solution to a problem, Sorcerers have to settle for applying the same solution to every problem.

-Matt

Matt,

I dont believe I have. You seem to think that having access to the spells in some ways makes them more powerful. IN truth, it doesnt, because they are still limited to the number per day on what they can cast, it only makes them a little more universal to situations. You are adding a huge amt of flavor to the sorceror(which like i said before, is a good thing), while trying to repackage something that isnt so powerful. The arcane schools are not powerful, sorry but they are a joke. Plus with the arcane schools, you are now limited with what it says you can have for spells. Granted, another post here says that could change in beta, but for now we will have to wait for that. When you add new spells at 3rd, 5th, etc for sorc, you add bloodline powers and also bloodline feats, you are increasing the sorc power exponentially. A wizard gets 4 new feats, well now your giving a sorc 3. You are also now giving 5 new powers(dont have rules in front of me, but i think it was 5) to the sorc, with no new powers to the arcane school, just spells(and some arent even useful) magehand for universalist anyone? All im saying, is while they have given alot of flavor love to the sorc, they have not to the wizard. A revamp of the schools would be a useful thing to bring them up to where the sorc is going is all im saying.

A note here.....having access to the multitude of spells does not equate to power, when 1; a wizard must rest for 8 hours to change spells, 2; must lug a spell book around thats easilty destroyed if not careful, 3; still prohibited from 2 schools without penalties, 4; given second rate abilities from the schools they have chosen to go into(other than necro).

Another poster talked about the bonded item and going arcane archer. Ok, while he is right this could be a possible nice addition, your still having to take a prestige class to do it. The wizard class is truely not standing alone, its taken a subset like arcane archer, archmage, etc to bring it up....while the sorc is an all in one prestige class wrapped up profession now. Even the fighter class has been ramped up, monk and ranger both have had lovely additions as well. Truthfully, I love alot of the changes made to the classes, its just that it seems to me that the wizard wasnt given the same love(my opinion anyway).


The benefits of Arcane Bonded (Bonded Item):
1/2 Cost Enchanting - Means that you basically can assume the Wizard will have TWICE the number/monetary value of item Enchantments. So all Sorcerors except the Arcane Bloodline will have half the 'buff' enchantments, or half the spell-trigger items/charges. Spell-trigger items (wands, etc) quickly outstrip the higher number of memorized spells a Sorceror gets by the lower mid-levels. And if Sorcerors WANT to Enchant anything, they are forced to get the necessary Feats to do so, while Arcane Bond means you never need ANY Item Creation Feats, so you can spend those Feats wherever else you'd like -- Sorcerors have to give up Feats to get even HALF of the Enchanting ability that Wizards get for free (It's enough to say that non-Arcane Bloodline Sorcerors should just not bother Enchanting at all, since they have to waste Feats on something they will be weak at anyways.) Even the Arcane Bloodline Sorceror (who gets Arcane Bond) is at a disadvantage because you need to KNOW the spell you are enchanting, so their limited spells-known really makes their Arcane Bond worth alot less than a Wizard (they can use found/bought scrolls, but it's still weaker, because the Wizard can then CAST those spells, memorized or thru their Bonded Item)

Bonus Spell - This is spontaneously cast from ANY SPELL YOU KNOW. So while pretty much a linear bonus for an Arcane Bloodline Sorceror, since they spontaneous cast all their spells anyways, it's amazingly great for the Wizard, because they're getting the spontaneous casting flexibility of the Sorceror, but while being able to choose that spell from their MUCH larger spell list.

It's unfortunate that there's this big power difference between the two classes, because it seems like everyone loves the FLAVOR of the Sorceror Bloodlines, but they don't keep up at all as spellcasters... It seems like they work best as multi-classers, especially the Bloodlines with claws/touch-attacks, since full-casters would want to avoid having to be in melee for the most part.

I'm hoping that Arcane Bond gets limited in some way, such as having a Spell Level limit, like half your maximum Spell Level, on the enchantments it's bonus applies to... Or perhaps if the Wizard Schools are going to get a choice of bonus spells once again, the Arcane Bond bonus spell could only be chosen from that list. I feel that would also make the School Specializations more flavorful, instead of an Evoker casting some crazy Polymorph spell off of his Bonded Item, that he didn't even memorize for the day (for example).

I'd also like to see the Bonded Item reigned in because it's just so crazy powerful & useful, that the Familiar option just doesn't look as good in comparison... They should be equally attractive options, in theory.... Hopefully we'll see this dealt with in Beta in a few weeks...


CastleMike wrote:
Grayhorse wrote:


Getting an additional higher level spell 1 level earlier is not huge. With the additions the sorceror is getting, its going to make a wizard redundant. I yet to fathom how the arcane bond is darn good, so I might be missing something. In order to add stuff to your bond, you still pay for it(just like any other magic item, just at 1/2 price). Am I missing something else there, and I very well might be!?!?

As far as power, the wizard can cast only 4 spells per day at 20th plus their int modifier. As Sorceror at 20 can cast 6 per day plus their charisma modifier. Their only limitation is the 5 known spells per level, and this is not even true because bloodlines add another for 6 now.

It depends on what level you normally play. I notice your example cites a level 20 sorcerer where there is no issue since both classes have leveled up.

At low levels 1-7 this is a "huge" factor for a sorcerer with a limited fixed known spell list.

The 20th level was just for easy processing sake. At low levels, up til around 6th I agree, a wizard was a more useful in 3.5 set because of the early advance in spells, but look what happens after 6th in 3.5, it actually allows for a sorc to become a nuker more so than a wizard. Now, take a look at the additions that these new rules added to the sorc, and tell me the rolls are not reversed to some extent. In addition, now the sorc doesnt even need to depend on a prestige class, its all inclusive. The same can not be said for the wizard.

I dont know, maybe im just being blind. To me, it just seems to be more ascued towards the sorc now.


Quandry,

Im not sure im following you. The way I was reading bonding, you still had to have the feats to enhance I thought(again i am probably wrong, because I dont truely understand it thoroughly).

In addition, you still have to pay 1/2 the cost to upgrade a item with a spell, which can run into the 100s if not 1000s for a level 1 enchantment. Also, the bonus feats for a wizard are still limited to wizard class feats. They cant be any feat, only the item creation and meta magic stuff or did I miss something there too?

Ive read the bonded item section several times, and to be truthful, i just cant get a feel for what they were trying to do, or even what or how it will effect the wizard class. We are suppose to play test this towards the end of the month, so I guess ill figure it out before too long(I hope).

Again, sorry for seeming like a blockhead, just dont understand it that well.


I have a soft-spot for sorcerers. I think that the lore behind charisma-driven spellcasters is very intriguing. Sorcerers, with their poetic abilities, have the kind of swashbuckling savvy and magical moxie that is much different from the logical approach to the arcane commonly used by wizards.

I've always thought that WotC did sorcerers wrong. All a sorcerer is a wizard with far less spells known and two more spells per level per day. If anything, I'd suggest nixing sorcerer spells altogether and give them a more direct control over magic. They should make them like warlocks only less... contrived.

When I run games, I use a little-known (to my players, at least) version of sorcerers where I give them access to clerical domains. A sorcerer with the Fire domain, for example, has all those domain spells automatically known but cannot cast ice or electricity spells. A healing socerer can use all the healing spells listed, but cannot cast necromancy spells or spells or illusion spells. I also give elemental sorcerers bonuses on diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive checks when dealing with creatures of their elemental subtype.

Sorcerers are really only good, sadly, for magical blasters. But when you have the warlock class who, at 5th level, can charm people at will and deals 3d6 damage every round with a ranged touch attack (not to mention the invocations that allow the blast to sicken, slow, blind, etc. the enemy), why would anyone want to be a sorcerer?

Now I hear that 4e has turned the tables so sorcerers are now more likeable than wizards! I think that the sorcerer is done the wrong way. Instead of making a wizard with more spells, they should give the sorcerers more spells known but only allow them to cast from certain lists (ala beguiler, which is a masterfully done class). Perhaps a sorcerer can't prepare a spell from every school, but maybe he can spontaneously cast any spell from the Illusion and Enchantment school.

To avoid people picking the Evocation school and becoming far too powerful, I'd say bar the overtly offensive schools and instead give the sorcerer the ability to change any spell/day into an offensive spell that does damage: something like 1d8 damage per spell level against one target, 1d6 damage per spell level in a line (10 ft. x spell level), or 1d4 damage per spell level in a cone (15 ft. + 5 ft. per spell level).

Then again, I might be crazy. What I think, though, is that sorcerers and wizards should be vastly different.


Yeah, read Bonded Item again, Greyhorse, and you'll see how powerful it is.

I really think that Paizo should make Sorcerors use Spell Point casting as core.
It fits with spontaneous casting the most, and since Barbarians and Monks are both getting "Point Pools", it's no longer such an alien sub-system within the game.

I also think it would make sense with the Sorceror's "intuitive control of magic", to give them much better Metamagic usage (since magic is an extension of their being, not just a field of study, like for Wizards), especially as it's so easy to use with the Spell Point system, similar to how Rage Powers work...
Each Bloodline's Feat Choices now include a Metamagic Feat, so perhaps they would receive that Metamagic Feat automatically, and could choose others at higher levels... That would give each Bloodline a distinctive usage of MAGIC in a way parallel to the Wizard Schools. (Draconic Bloodline: Quicken, Fae: Highten?, Demonic: Contingency?)

And I agree, David, going in the direction of the Beguiler, but for each Bloodline, wouldn't be a bad design option (just alot of work to make a spell list for each Bloodline, though it'd be cool to grab them from ALL sources (+Druid/Cleric/Psionic?)) I don't even see the worry about 'Evokers'. Evokers already exist as Specialist Wizards... The Bloodlines most relevent would be the Elemental ones, but if you choose that, you're even more constrained than an Evoker, since you'd also be constrained to whatever Element your Bloodline is
(and Evoker Specialist Wizards still have a full Wizard spellbook, going this Beguiler route is way more constraining. you're also much more predictable/ counterable.)


First, Grayhorse your post isn't very coherent. I'm not trying to be rude but it appears your understanding of the rules is tenuous and you don't make a very good case. Read what Hogarth said about the rules.

My initial impression with the Wiz and Sorc from Alpha 3 was that the sorcerer won big versus the wizard. But then looking into it a little more this wasn't really the case. As several people have pointed out specialist benefits now come with no sacrifice. Further, the generalist gets more powers also and again without sacrifice. There is a small loss in power because specialists don't continue getting new specialist powers when the PrC.

There are also some broken specialist abilities (for example free Metamagic, wish with no GP material component) I'm hoping these things are addressed in the beta.

A shrewd player will generally do a little better playing a wizard and a more casual gamer will come out better with the sorcerer... as far as I'm concerned that's how things should be. There is definitely some fine tuning in the specialist powers and the bloodline powers but things are closer than they have ever been.


One thought that has come to mind for a Pathfinder Wizard, is that instead of having to learn again his spell listing once every day or so -- how about the Wizard can keep his spell selection consistent until he decides that he would want a new spell in that spell selection and removes one known spell for that additional slot?

One could then take away the Wizards Spell-book, but he has a already set group is spells in his memory already (in both single and multipliable uses like, 2 fireballs a day)? It would then be a change he can make if he gets his hand on his or another's spell-book?


Dennis da Ogre wrote:

First, Grayhorse your post isn't very coherent. I'm not trying to be rude but it appears your understanding of the rules is tenuous and you don't make a very good case. Read what Hogarth said about the rules.

My initial impression with the Wiz and Sorc from Alpha 3 was that the sorcerer won big versus the wizard. But then looking into it a little more this wasn't really the case. As several people have pointed out specialist benefits now come with no sacrifice. Further, the generalist gets more powers also and again without sacrifice. There is a small loss in power because specialists don't continue getting new specialist powers when the PrC.

There are also some broken specialist abilities (for example free Metamagic, wish with no GP material component) I'm hoping these things are addressed in the beta.

A shrewd player will generally do a little better playing a wizard and a more casual gamer will come out better with the sorcerer... as far as I'm concerned that's how things should be. There is definitely some fine tuning in the specialist powers and the bloodline powers but things are closer than they have ever been.

You were in no way rude mate. However, my knowledge of the rules is fairly well when it comes to 3.5. Everyone here keeps assuming that specialist wizards or even wizards in general were somehow more powerful than sorc's in 3.5 just because they could know more spells. While having access to spells its nice, it isnt that over powering because they are still limited by the number per day they can cast. Sorc allthough limited by the total spells they could learn, where on par because they were capable of 2 additional spells at 20th level ending. The only benefit was that wizard got bonus feats to allow them to get meta magic feats easier. Now, you look at pathfinder sorc's. They are gaining bonus feats(just like a mage, just different styles of them), and insane powers from bloodlines(some anyway). The specialist mages(while they do gain spells at certain levels, are limited now by pathfinders definition of what they can have(allthough possible changes in beta coming for this). Now, I do understand that pathfinder allows them to cast out of prohibited schools, but at a cost of the specials gained from that school. My point, is there is a cost, while the sorc doesnt have a cost association with their new found additions. Also, with the specialist mages, they are just a repackaging of 3.5 rules(which they were not all that great to begin with). I have no issues with pathfinder changing the sorc, I really do like the changes, just they need to do some revamping of the wizards to give similar love(again just my opinion).

As far as the bonded items, I took a few hours yesterday and re-read what was proposed. I dont particularly like bonded items. To me it seems like they are now making it to where wizards are more item driven for extra power(if im reading it right). By adding spells to bonded items it allows them to cast these spells daily once added to bonded(am i right in reading it this way?). Even with the 1/2 costs and such, No one item can control this much magic. IT will allow for pseudo artifacts to be made for just one person to use(the mage who created it) if they get enough energy/spells built into the thing. What mage is gonna want a familiar?


I think I must be a simpleton or something, but I came here to this forum specifically because looking at the Pathfinder Sorcerer vs the Pathfinder Wizard, I wanted to know why they Boosted the Sorcerer, and why they nerfed the Wizard. And yet there are posts filled with how overpowered the 3.5 Wizard is and how weak the Sorcerer is in 3.5 and how the Paizo version of the Wizard is uber or something, and I just dont see it.

Frankly I feel that in 3.5 D&D all arcane spellcasters are weak when compared to other classes, in particular for the types of games most groups really play: ones with combat. So, I totally see boosting the Sorcerer, and I LOVE the Sorcerer changes. Just the aberrant d6 per 2 levels acid ray at will is a GODSEND. Or the ones that get the same thing as a claw attack. AMAZING and the other flavor and all the cool special powers are fantastic. The new Sorcerer is great.

The Wizard though .... woof.

First let me return to the 3.5 Wizard. I dont know about you guys, but I have never, ever played in a game where a Wizard was not over-shadowed by every other party member (except maybe Bards). On paper they are great, and are in my opinion even with the Sorcerer in 3.5. However, they have 3 very practical reasons why they are less desirable:

1) Down Time Issues
2) Money Issues
3) Out of Character Social Mechanics Issues

1) First, our games NEVER have down time unless everyone is almost dead for some reason. This is especially true in our games which have lots of plots going on. The Wizard's power is in learning new spells, and in being able to make magic items, and in being able to scribe new spells, work on projects, etc. Lots of these have to be done without interruption. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. As the Wizard in our group, I'm constantly bombarded. There are always 7 plot threads going on, only half of them are the GMs plot threads. Some player has some elaborate scheme and they need the Wizard. Some other player's scheme got him in jail and I can blow off the party and try to finish scribing my spells into my spellbook, or I can save my friend. Undead kobolds attack the city? They dont wait for your down time to be done. I played a Wizard from level 2 to level 9 once, and I didnt have any spells in my spellbook other than my free 2 per character level and one 3rd level spell I managed to learn once when we had a few days of down time. This is true for every person in our group who played a Wizard. I guess you could argue the GM needs to make allowances or the other players do, but it doesnt work like that. Unless everyone is willing to suspend all their plots (especially bad in a city game) and NOT have their character go out that night and do something in the middle of some plot where they've already pissed someone off and have a duel scheduled or etc .... anyway. You get the point. Down Time does not exist.

2)Money. Usually, our games are moderately low cash. Not extremely low cash, but low cash none-the-less. The money and time cost to learn new spells is pretty high. If you arent giving at least the amount of money "expected" for a certain level, and our GMs never do because they dont like the monty-haul money/magic item balance of 3.5, then you can forget being able to afford to scribe new spells. And having a backup spellbook in case something happens to you like what happened to me when I lost my spellbook at my characters home during an ambush because of some tedious player-created subplot retaliation .... well I didnt have the money to rebuild my old one, much less make a backup. It was at that time I just started playing sorcerers. No muss, no fuss. You can be very flexible as a Sorcerer with a good spell selection. OH but of course, with no Down Time, no amount of Money will help.

3) Social Mechanics Pressure .... a Wizard can keep a balanced "all purpose" spell list for when he doesnt know what he is up against, but then only a certain percentage of your spells will apply if you spread out. However, the true power of the Wizard is that given time he can handle anything. You can retreat and re-prepare to handle the new challenge (assuming you have had down time and money in the past). EXCEPT FOR SOCIAL PRESSURE. Nobody wants to back off and let the Wizard return home and prepare the perfect spells. God forbid you dont have a copy of your spellbook and so you have to risk keeping your only copy on your person. Even if you have it on you, no character OR player wants to take the time to back off and retreat and let you get your spell list JUST SO for the encounter. Oh if you gripe enough, but then you get real resentment. If you play a Sorcerer or a Warmage though .... BAM! Its off to the races. The pressure to "stop screwing around and lets just keep going" is huge, even in games where we try to make allowances for each other.

SO AFTER ALL THAT ... I felt the 3.5 Wizard was balanced on paper, but less desirable in complex social games where lots is going on thread-wise and also in action-heavy and/or fast-paced games.

Again, I felt sorcerers were kinda limited too compared to other classes .... the crazy melee class damage / weapon / crit stuff gets a little intense. So the Sorcerer needed something. They gave him more than I ever dreamed of you. Let me tell you I'll be pitching this new Sorcerer at my GM.

But the Pathfinder Wizard? I hate it.

Maybe I need to re-read it. I saw in the comments some stuff about ignoring material components or something, and saw some people talking about how cheap it could be to enchant a powerful bonded item. I'll tell you right now that in a game with no down time, and no money, and social pressure to not waste in or out of game time with all the tedium of being a Wizard, I glossed RIGHT OVER that bonded item stuff. Thats maybe my fault. All I know is, the one thing I DID see was a nerf. because I'd never be able to enchant it in a fast paced game.

I only get the limit: without it, I have to make a spellcraft check to cast ALL SPELLS. NO WAY. I already am MAD at the Wizard having to cast on the Defensive all the time anyway if I cant take a 5 foot step; meanwhile every stupid D&D hybrid magic ninja ranger melee prestige class with a stupid limited set of buff spells all get new speed categories created for them for casting so they dont have to cast on the defensive to be COOL!!LOLZ! But NOW, if I dont like being limited to carrying around something ... if I just want the magic to be IN ME and I dont want to enchant a stupid crutch, I have to cast on the defensive AND make a spellcraft roll? NO THANKS.

I dont like Familiars either. Never did. I just want the magic to be all me, and all about skill.

Believe me, I had great hopes when reading the Sorcerer that I was about to turn the page on to some new Miracle Wizard that made all the stuff about him that was frustrating no longer frustrating or at least tolerable, but nope. I get a nerf balanced by a buff I dont care about (enchanting the arcane bond) and that in our games I couldnt leverage anyway.

I DID like the d6 hit points. Thank my lucky stars, I do!

Also, I hate the schools. I never liked specialist Wizards, and the universal one is just kinda weak. Also, the Evoker blasting at will thing is WAY more practically useful than most of the others. The Illusion blindness one was pretty good, and the Necro claws were OK. The universal one is awful. It would be nice to be able to pick any ONE of the school powers if you didnt go universalist. I never think of my Wizards as evokers, always generalists, but I ALWAYS personally associate my "default" from a magical guy perspective is that I should be able to blast stuff and maybe magically detect stuff. So, it would be cool if a universalist could just say "you know what, I want the evoker ray."

Really, having some kind of at will ray for damage should be an option without having to be an evoker. I also consider the free school spell extras to be no big deal whatsoever. Its nice but nothing exceptional.

FINALLY I have one last gripe. I have always viewed Wizards as MASTERS of KNOWLEDGE. Now, I know that Wizards pump Int and so they get extra skill points inherently from INT but I am still irritated every time I look down and see that stupid 2 points per level for Wizards. I'm not sure any class deserves to have 2 points per level, not even fighters. Heck, especially not fighters. I dont view my fighters as simpletons. But 2 skills for the Wizard is an INSULT. I was secretly hoping to look down and see that the Wizard would have 4 or even 6 skill points per levels. Sure, that would give most Human wizards 8 to 10 skill points a level, but that is AS IT SHOULD BE. It isnt like they have combat useful stuff as skills. But that Knowledge (all) should be something you'd expect a good Wizard to be able to max out on 5-7 of those dudes and still have the points you have to sink from a mechanics perspective.

OK. So, help? A little help here? Educate me? Scold me? I'm ready.

Lewis


Grayhorse wrote:
You were in no way rude mate. However, my knowledge of the rules is fairly well when it comes to 3.5. Everyone here keeps assuming that specialist wizards or even wizards in general were somehow more powerful than sorc's in 3.5 just because they could know more spells.

Wizards under 3.5 were more powerful than sorcerers for 2 reasons.

#1, every other level they have a more powerful spell than the sorcerer.
#2 they could learn new spells to suit a given situation or just memorize 5 different spells in a day.

You suggest that sorcerers have more spells and are therefore more power is sort of meaningless. Take a few examples. Each caster has an 18 in it's primary attribute. (This is all from SRD not pathfinder)

5th level conjurer
5 1st level spells/ day (any spell)
4 2nd level spells/ day (any spell)
3 3rd level spells/ day (any spell)

5th level sorcerer
7 1st level spells/ day (4 known)
5 2nd level spells/ day (2 known)

So at 5th level they have the same number of spells per day but the 3 of the specialist wizards spells are 3rd level... that's a no brainer which one wins at 5th level. So 6th level must benefit the sorcerer right?
5th level conjurer
5 1st level spells/ day (any spell)
5 2nd level spells/ day (any spell)
4 3rd level spells/ day (any spell)

5th level sorcerer
7 1st level spells/ day (4 known)
5 2nd level spells/ day (2 known)
2 3rd level spells/ day (1 known)

So the number of spells/ day stays the same AND the wizard has 2 more 3rd level spells.

Now granted as you go up in level the sorcerer gets more and more low level spells/ day but the specialist wizard always has a significant advantage in the number of higher level spells per day.

Originally this imbalance meant something because the wizard had whole subsets of spells they had to forgo. As the number of spells increased in the game certain schools of magic (Conjuration) completely eliminated the need for other schools of magic (Evocation in particular).

At 20th level and at 1st level maybe the sorcerer has a slight advantage in power but between 3rd and 18th level the Wizard has more of the highest level spells and 1/2 the time has spells 1 level higher than the sorcerer. The highest level spells are where the power is. Having 7 magic missiles is nice but when you are giving up 2 fireballs to get it then it's not so nice.


Animation wrote:
Frankly I feel that in 3.5 D&D all arcane spellcasters are weak when compared to other classes

You are in the minority here. Most people find the arcane classes are some of the strongest in the game. Wizard has always been the class that is preparation heavy but extremely powerful.

Animation wrote:
1) First, our games NEVER have down time unless everyone is almost dead for some reason.

This is the case for our games too. When people who talk about their wizards creating a ton of magic items I just shake my head. Even so, this has not slowed my wizard down too much. Even if you just go with the items you find in the dungeon and the spells you gain as part of the class progression the wizard is still plenty potent. Most DMs will let you buy a few spells occasionally or pick some up from enemy casters, if yours doesn't then he is particularly stingy.

Money
Again money is not an issue, in fact money is more important to martial characters who need magic weapons and armor to maintain their effectiveness. Obviously having money helps but it's not nearly as important as it is for the guys in tin cans in front of you.

Out of Character Social Mechanics Issues
I think we've all been in situations where our wizard prepared a bunch of spells that are ineffective against an enemy. There are enough spells which work in any given situation though that you should never be worthless in an encounter. If nothing else memorize a few summoning spells and you can have some flank buddies out there for the rogue to help boost damage. My wizard was particularly ineffective against undead and ooze type critters but then the cleric would really shine there so I didn't stress over it. There are a few spells which every wizard can use that will be effective. Haste being the most general purpose useful in nearly any situation spell in the wizard's book.

With regards to your comments about the Paizo wizard.
Arcane Bond
Even if you don't enchant the item beyond the arcane bond you can still use it once per day to cast any spell in your book which is quite nice. You can also enchant it as a ring with means it's nearly impossible to separate from you. In any case the absolute worst the arcane bond thing can be is a wash since you can always keep the familiar.

Also, I hate the schools. I never liked specialist Wizards, and the universal one is just kinda weak.
Umm... the universalist is significantly more powerful than in core, I'm not sure how you can complain about it. They gain a fistful of universalist powers. They lose... nothing.

Wizards as MASTERS of KNOWLEDGE
Why can't they be the masters of knowledge? With 4-10 (INT 14-20) skill ranks at first level, only one non-knowledge skill requirement (Spellcraft), a class skill bonus on all knowledge skills, plus their INT bonus on all knowledge skills. I don't see how any other class can compete with them on knowledge skills.


I still view the Arcane Bond as a nerf. I always traded in my familiar for a feat, because I hate familiars. I also hate being tied into specific items. Being weaker at spellcasting without my crutch ring is NOT acceptable to me.

Also, I still feel that money limits Wizard power. It takes a LOT of cash (and time is the worst part) to get the flexibility that you claim is the Wizard's forte. It isnt about the GM being stingy ... it is about the rule of the down time and money required to have to BUY your flexibility. Let me tell you that when you start with 3 + int bonus spells and only get 2 every time you level up because you dont have the cost per page much less the down time to expand your spell list, the Wizards known spells are a lot closer in size to the Sorcerer spell list.

Also, I said I didnt like the universalist compared to the pathfinder specialists. Compared to the 3.5 universalist, sure, its a bonus ... aside from that whole "lose your bonded ring and suffer" nonsense.

Finally, frankly, you can call me crazy, but I dont feel the Wizard gets enough skill points. He should get (4 + int) x 4 at level 1, and 4 + int thereafter.

Two. Bah Humbug! :)

Lewis


Animation wrote:
I still view the Arcane Bond as a nerf. I always traded in my familiar for a feat, because I hate familiars. I also hate being tied into specific items. Being weaker at spellcasting without my crutch ring is NOT acceptable to me.

Umm??? How is that a nerf, you still have the option of doing exactly what you did before.

Animation wrote:
Also, I still feel that money limits Wizard power. It takes a LOT of cash (and time is the worst part) to get the flexibility that you claim is the Wizard's forte. It isnt about the GM being stingy ... it is about the rule of the down time and money required to have to BUY your flexibility. Let me tell you that when you start with 3 + int bonus spells and only get 2 every time you level up because you dont have the cost per page much less the down time to expand your spell list, the Wizards known spells are a lot closer in size to the Sorcerer spell list.

Money limits the power of every character in the game. In the wizards case less so than most. Even with just the core books and spells learned on level up the wizard can do just fine.

Animation wrote:
Finally, frankly, you can call me crazy, but I dont feel the Wizard gets enough skill points. He should get (4 + int) x 4 at level 1, and 4 + int thereafter.

You are not the only one to say this but I really think the wizard is the one class in the game that has more skill points than it needs. In particular when it reaches higher levels and has an INT of 24 and 9 skills with max ranks. Most wizards will have more skill ranks than a rogue by 12th level. Many will pass the rogue much earlier than that.

If you want to talk about someone in need of skill points how about the sorcerer who has 2/ level and is likely to only have 2 for the entire game?


Well, I agree with you about the Sorcerer. I personally dont think ANY class should get less than 4 + Int.

I also usually play high int Rogues, so Wizards never get me. Believe me, if Knowledge (all) was available to Rogues, I'd just play a high Int rogue "loremaster". If I could stand Bards, I'd do that.

Actually the new Paizo Bard looks pretty cool. Maybe I'll ask my GM to let me play one of them in the Ptolus game is is about to kick off.

Lewis


You might notice the Half-Cost enchanting Without Craft Feats seems to do quite alot to help the Wizard's bank account.

And as for the Bonded Item being taken away somehow, 1) A ring means it can't be disarmed 2)If your ring is taken away, your spellbook can certainly be taken away, which was already the case with the Wizard, and is a much greater hindrance than the Bonded Item, since that just forces Spellcraft checks to cast spells, while no spellbook = no more spell memorization.

...Agreed, here's hoping the Sorceror finally gets 4+ skills in Beta...

Edit: I'd also like to see the Item Slot:Enchantment Type association rigorously enforced on the Bonded Item, so that you can't just pay the "off-slot penalty" (at half-cost) to bypass the restriction, unless you completely forgo the Bonded Item bonuses (half-cost & free Item Creation Feats) when adding that Enchantment. It makes the choice of item more meaningful & flavorful, and otherwise I don't see why 99% of Wizards WOULDN'T choose a ring or other item which can't be disarmed (vs. a staff, etc.)


Quandary wrote:
You might notice the Half-Cost enchanting Without Craft Feats seems to do quite alot to help the Wizard's bank account.

Not really. Not for games that dont have any significant down time at all. I dont usually have the time to enchant, or the luxiry of the cash, and I certainly never enchant anyway because I resent having to dump my personal experience points into items I make in order to be effective. The time it would take is still a big hindrance. I think locking a core class into an item is a bad idea.

I'll just go the familiar route and have it be a tapeworm. That way I can ignore it. :)

Quote:
And as for the Bonded Item being taken away somehow, 1) A ring means it can't be disarmed 2)If your ring is taken away, your spellbook can certainly be taken away, which was already the case with the Wizard, and is a much greater hindrance than the Bonded Item, since that just forces Spellcraft checks to cast spells, while no spellbook = no more spell memorization.

Of course being locked into a bonded item means that you now have TWO vulnerabilities. I dont think the tradeoff is worth it.

Quote:
...Agreed, here's hoping the Sorceror finally gets 4+ skills in Beta...

And the Wizard? Hello? Is this thing on?! :)

No class should get less than 4 in my opinion, but the Wizard should certainly have 4 if anyone gets upgraded.

Lewis


Dennis da Ogre wrote:


Wizards under 3.5 were more powerful than sorcerers for 2 reasons.

#1, every other level they have a more powerful spell than the sorcerer.
#2 they could learn new spells to suit a given situation or just memorize 5 different spells in a day.

There's also that part where the wizard compensates for his need for preparation and lesser spells in a day by having bags of scrolls, either homemade (even overnight, if your group doesn't rest much) or bought relatively cheaply (for magic items). You don't memorize utility spells every day, you just keep two scrolls of comp lang, fly, scry, etc. Then you prep your most versitile combat/encounter spells.

Oh, and there's that other part where wizards get bonus spells per day for high attribute (reducing the inherent penalty for wiz vs. sorc) but sorcerors do not get bonus spells known per day for high attribute scores (not reducing the inherent penalty for sorc. vs. wiz.).

And there's that third part where you can only really have a reasonable chance of beating the save of an equal level CR if you use your highest level spells, meaning your lower spells are relegated to direct damage (Save for half) or utility spells. So if you're a sorc, you'd better have made intelligent choices for your low level spells, or most are going to be borderline useless at higher levels.

And people have already mentioned the inherent skill bonus for being a wizard (with Int as a prime req).

Dark Archive

The Mailman wrote:
Oh, and there's that other part where wizards get bonus spells per day for high attribute (reducing the inherent penalty for wiz vs. sorc) but sorcerors do not get bonus spells known per day for high attribute scores (not reducing the inherent penalty for sorc. vs. wiz.).

Huh. My 3.5 PHB says they do get bonus spells for a high Charisma. The SRD says they *don't* get bonus spells for a high Charisma.

Whacky.


Animation wrote:
Not really. Not for games that dont have any significant down time at all. I dont usually have the time to enchant, or the luxiry of the cash, and I certainly never enchant anyway because I resent having to dump my personal experience points into items I make in order to be effective. The time it would take is still a big hindrance. I think locking a core class into an item is a bad idea.

I beleive XP cost for Item Creation has been taken away in Pathfinder.

There's no "locking" though, since the Familiar, or even your Feat option are just as available. There's just another really powerful option.

Animation wrote:
I'll just go the familiar route and have it be a tapeworm. That way I can ignore it. :)

Sure, and I hope the Familiar will be as useful an option as the Bonded Item.

I personally think the Bonded Item is superior even if you never once take advantage of the enchanting, just by liu of being able to spontaneously cast anything from your entire spellbook.
(Which if you somehow keep your Bonded Item (swallow it?) while your Spellbook is taken away, would be an interesting situation.)

Animation wrote:
And the Wizard? Hello? Is this thing on?! :)

I really don't expect any change in Wizard skills/level: They seem to do fine since they typically have 4 or 5 (at 1st level) bonus points from Int. Sorcerors have the same base Skill Points (2+), yet Int is a secondary or even tertiary stat for them (since CON now determines their Bloodline SLA saves) thus they are "More" penalized by having "2+Int" skills than the Wizard. Giving Sorcerors 4+Int skills only makes up _Half_ the difference assuming 18 Int Wizard and average Int Sorceror (increase of 2 vs. +4 Int bonus) which still leaves the Wizard with more Skill Points. If it's easy for every Wizard to Max every single Knowledge Skill (while still having Spellcraft, Perception, & other useful skills), it takes away any knowledge differentiation between Wizards: boring.

I should say that I see Sorcerors having more Skill points not so much to spend on Knowledge Skills, but because they are more of a 'regular person' who just has magical powers come to them, thus, they are more like a Rogue, and would tend to have more experience Climbing, Swimming, Bluffing, Riding Horses, etc... than a bookworm Wizard.


Shisumo wrote:
I've found that level 5 tends to be truly painful for the sorcerer, since the wizard is getting to play with their shiny new 3rd level spells, all of which are noticably more powerful than the 2nd level ones (in a way that 2nd level ones aren't better than 1st level), while the sorcerer is still struggling with having just two 2nd level spells known...

I don't know exactly why, but I've often found level 5 painful for all of the characters I've played... its a bland level, kind of like an unhappy birthday if you know what I mean.


The Mailman wrote:
Oh, and there's that other part where wizards get bonus spells per day for high attribute (reducing the inherent penalty for wiz vs. sorc) but sorcerors do not get bonus spells known per day for high attribute scores (not reducing the inherent penalty for sorc. vs. wiz.).

Sorcerers don't get bonus spells known based on CHA they do get additional spells per day.


hallucitor wrote:
I don't know exactly why, but I've often found level 5 painful for all of the characters I've played... its a bland level, kind of like an unhappy birthday if you know what I mean.

Umm? Wizards get fireball, haste, stinking cloud... level 5 is where wizards come into their own. Druids historically got Wild Share at level 5 which was kind of a landmark level for them.

Overall a pretty decent level for some classes.


Animation wrote:

Well, I agree with you about the Sorcerer. I personally dont think ANY class should get less than 4 + Int.

I also usually play high int Rogues, so Wizards never get me. Believe me, if Knowledge (all) was available to Rogues, I'd just play a high Int rogue "loremaster". If I could stand Bards, I'd do that.

Actually the new Paizo Bard looks pretty cool. Maybe I'll ask my GM to let me play one of them in the Ptolus game is is about to kick off.

Lewis

Take the Educated feat with your Rogue it makes all knowledge skills class skills.


CastleMike wrote:
Take the Educated feat with your Rogue it makes all knowledge skills class skills.

I'm not sure I would allow this feat in a Pathfinder campaign. This gives you +3 ranks to all knowledge skills you have ranks in.

Makes me glad I don't have a lot of splat books so I don't have to make decisions like this on tons of stuff.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
The Mailman wrote:
Oh, and there's that other part where wizards get bonus spells per day for high attribute (reducing the inherent penalty for wiz vs. sorc) but sorcerors do not get bonus spells known per day for high attribute scores (not reducing the inherent penalty for sorc. vs. wiz.).

Sorcerers don't get bonus spells known based on CHA they do get additional spells per day.

Right, which is really the problem. The balance between sorcs and wizards is supposed to be: sorcerors get more spells per day, but few spells known; wizards get fewer spells per day, but infinite spells known. Wizards can mitigate their 'negative' with a good prime attribute, but Sorcerors can't mitigate their 'negative' with a good prime attribute.


The Mailman wrote:
Right, which is really the problem. The balance between sorcs and wizards is supposed to be: sorcerors get more spells per day, but few spells known; wizards get fewer spells per day, but infinite spells known. Wizards can mitigate their 'negative' with a good prime attribute, but Sorcerors can't mitigate their 'negative' with a good prime attribute.

Ahh, I see where you are going. Well personally I don't really think of the wizard as mitigating their negative, they need to maximize their INT regardless. I just compare the two based on maximizing their prime req at all times.

I think specialization under 3.5 really took away some of the sorcerer's thunder by effectively removing 1/2 of the advantage the sorcerer has at little cost. Later in the game the advantage is scrubbed even more with the introduction of the master specialist and tons of new spells that helped specialists deal without specific schools of magic.

Alpha 3 bolsters the Sorcerer's weakness by adding bonus spells and the special abilities which really helps. The other thing that really helps is UMD which give the sorcerer access to cleric items also.


Quandary wrote:

I really think that Paizo should make Sorcerors use Spell Point casting as core.

It fits with spontaneous casting the most, and since Barbarians and Monks are both getting "Point Pools", it's no longer such an alien sub-system within the game.

I also think it would make sense with the Sorceror's "intuitive control of magic", to give them much better Metamagic usage (since magic is an extension of their being, not just a field of study, like for Wizards), especially as it's so easy to use with the Spell Point system, similar to how Rage Powers work...
Each Bloodline's Feat Choices now include a Metamagic Feat, so perhaps they would receive that Metamagic Feat automatically, and could choose others at higher levels... That would give each Bloodline a distinctive usage of MAGIC in a way parallel to the Wizard Schools. (Draconic Bloodline: Quicken, Fae: Highten?, Demonic: Contingency?)

And I agree, David, going in the direction of the Beguiler, but for each Bloodline, wouldn't be a bad design option (just alot of work to make a spell list for each Bloodline, though it'd be cool to grab them from ALL sources (+Druid/Cleric/Psionic?))

THIS.

I'm not familiar with the Pathfinder point pools, but I've played Champions, and I've been begging my DM to let my sorc use a variable point power pool. It makes complete sense to me that if the magic is somehow integral to ME, then I should be able to run out of magic casting only the high level stuff, or only the low-level stuff, instead of "five of these and six of those".

{edited for grammar}


Quandary wrote:

I really think that Paizo should make Sorcerors use Spell Point casting as core.

It fits with spontaneous casting the most, and since Barbarians and Monks are both getting "Point Pools", it's no longer such an alien sub-system within the game.

I agree, unfortunately some people are really hung up on spell points or power points. They start raving about psionics and such.

From another post:

Quandary wrote:
I should say that I see Sorcerers having more Skill points not so much to spend on Knowledge Skills, but because they are more of a 'regular person' who just has magical powers come to them, thus, they are more like a Rogue, and would tend to have more experience Climbing, Swimming, Bluffing, Riding Horses, etc... than a bookworm Wizard.

I would love to see the battle sorcerer with 4 Skill Points per level and more class skills become the core sorcerer. The wizard would be the bookwork spellcaster and the sorcerer would be the practical out-and-about wizard who lives on the rougher edge of life.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Ahh, I see where you are going. Well personally I don't really think of the wizard as mitigating their negative, they need to maximize their INT regardless. I just compare the two based on maximizing their prime req at all times.

I think I'm still not being clear. I don't think wizards necessarily max their prime req just to mitigate their negative as opposed to the sorc, I agree that they're always going to max it, just like a sorc maxxes CHA. But by doing that, instead of each class getting equal benefits from doing so, the wizard gets the additional benefit of mitigating its negative of fewer spells per day, while the sorc, maxxing its prime req., doesn't get the same additional benefit of mitigating its negative of fewer spells known.

In making this argument over the last several years, I've never heard a single design-based argument that explains this lack of symmetry. My sense is that because everyone was so used to vancian spellcasting, the idea of lots more spells per day was controvertial, and so it was thought that extra negatives were needed to the sorceror class to keep wizards relevant. Of course, this was back at 3.0, long before warlocks and at-will spell like abilities were accepted as balanced. I think PF represents a new opportunity to remove this needless nerf.

As for the new bloodlines, yes they do add more spells per day. Unfortunately you can't really choose them. Additionally, since wizards get extra spells per day for specializing, essentially all the bloodlines do is to balance the wizard's specialization bonuses. It doesn't address the underlying imbalance in the bonus spells for high attributes.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
hallucitor wrote:
I don't know exactly why, but I've often found level 5 painful for all of the characters I've played... its a bland level, kind of like an unhappy birthday if you know what I mean.

Umm? Wizards get fireball, haste, stinking cloud... level 5 is where wizards come into their own. Druids historically got Wild Share at level 5 which was kind of a landmark level for them.

Overall a pretty decent level for some classes.

I think its more of where the characters are now on the edge of being a bit too strong for most lesser encounters but way too weak to take on the greater threats... but, you do have a greater handling of trolls and so forth at this level.


The Mailman wrote:
As for the new bloodlines, yes they do add more spells per day. Unfortunately you can't really choose them. Additionally, since wizards get extra spells per day for specializing, essentially all the bloodlines do is to balance the wizard's specialization bonuses. It doesn't address the underlying imbalance in the bonus spells for high attributes.

I'm assuming you mean spells known? The bloodlines do 2 things. They give powers roughly in line with Wizards Specialist Powers and they give the sorcerer a bonus spell known at 3rd level and every other level after that. You don't pick the bonus spell but most of them seem pretty decent.

Strangely I think even though the wizard showed up first the sorcerer is closer to being finished in Alpha 3 than the wizard is. It's hard to say where the Beta is going to go with the wiz. Hopefully a slight nerf from Alpha 3. Jason said the wizard would be able to pick his at least some specialist spells though.

Dark Archive

kijeren wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Pathfinder point pools, but I've played Champions, and I've been begging my DM to let my sorc use a variable point power pool. It makes complete sense to me that if the magic is somehow integral to ME, then I should be able to run out of magic casting only the high level stuff, or only the low-level stuff, instead of "five of these and six of those".

Depending on how you read the spellcasting chapter in the PH, sorcerers can already use their high level slots for low level spells, although not the other way round.

(It depends on whether you treat the bit about preparing low level spells in high level slots as being exclusive to wizards or whether spontaneous casters can effectively do the same thing.)

EDIT - per the SRD, but the section heading is "Preparing Wizard Spells"

SRD wrote:
Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level.

Otherwise, you can always take the heighten spell feat and use that to use up higher level slots.


I find the OP complaints funny.
Sorcerers get spells at one level higher then wizards. That is a huge penalty if you play from lvl 1 or any other low level. Of course if you play from lvl 20 it is not. But who plays like that?

In any slow or medium leveling P&P game I will always play wizards due to the upper statement. Just playing 2-3 sessions without those higher level spells is really irritating. Spellcasters are all about new spells to play with. And lose all that fun with sorcerers.

And in D&D cRPG I always play the Sorcerer because this penalty is not felt since you level every hour or two of playing. And you do not need to rest as often.

And about the Bonded Item: a poster here has been claiming that you can enchant any items without Item Creating feats and for the lower cost (at least that is how I understood his posts) and I wanted to say that is not true. That only works for the Bonded Item itself.

Last but not least, campaigns where the DM makes problems for the wizards are not the problem of the system or the class but that DM. I once played in 2e a wizard that was not allowed to take new spells of choice but each needed to get approved by the DM. And he would not approve Fireball even if the world was coming to the end. I did not blame the system for such stupidity.

As for skill points per level, I would also give Sorcerers more then the wizard. Sorcerers cannot affort to put points into Int same as Wizards cannot do that with Cha. So Sorcerers need more skill points per level. Putting Concentration with Spellcraft helped a bit at least.


-Archangel- wrote:
And about the Bonded Item: a poster here has been claiming that you can enchant any items without Item Creating feats and for the lower cost (at least that is how I understood his posts) and I wanted to say that is not true. That only works for the Bonded Item itself.

Oh, was that me? :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear (I beleive I didn't write "any", just didn't specify enough),
(Some of those posts were long enough already, without quoting the entire rule verbatim).

I'm aware of how it works. All the points I made apply to the Bonded Item.

The thing is, that since the Bonded Item Enchantments Costs are so low, there's no incentive NOT to just load Enchantments on your Bonded Item - It's cheaper than making separate non-Bonded items (of course, your Bonded Item COULD be taken away, but so could your shorts).

If you want to make items for your companions, etc, of course that isn't a Bonded Item, but for yourself, why not put as many effects as possible on the Bonded Item? I suggested before to ONLY apply the Bonded Item benefits (1/2 cost, free Feats) to appropriate-slot enchantments (i.e. you can't just pay the fine and still get the benefits), but going back and checking the Alpha, the only Bonded Item those apply to is the Amulet. I'm not sure if weapons and rings, etc, are supposed to be limited to just the Magic Item types from the DMG, or are able to 'take' any enchantment... Hopefully Beta clears that up as well. In any case, I think if there ARE some item-slot restrictions for the rings, weapons, and so on, that it would be good to enforce them more strongly by not allowing the Bonded Item "freebies" to apply to 'off-slot' Enchantments.

Apparently, Jason did make clear in another thread, that the level 'requirements' for the Item Creation Feats still apply, so no Ring Enchanting at 3rd level (you could still Bond to one, just not be able to Craft/ Enchant one). Hopefully Beta adds the Item Feats to the level-progression matrix, so it's clearer when they are gained.


Quandary wrote:
Hopefully Beta breaks out some serious nerf on this potentially game breaking ability.

Fixed ;)


Quandary wrote:
-Archangel- wrote:
And about the Bonded Item: a poster here has been claiming that you can enchant any items without Item Creating feats and for the lower cost (at least that is how I understood his posts) and I wanted to say that is not true. That only works for the Bonded Item itself.

Oh, was that me? :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear (I beleive I didn't write "any", just didn't specify enough),
(Some of those posts were long enough already, without quoting the entire rule verbatim).

I'm aware of how it works. All the points I made apply to the Bonded Item.

The thing is, that since the Bonded Item Enchantments Costs are so low, there's no incentive NOT to just load Enchantments on your Bonded Item - It's cheaper than making separate non-Bonded items (of course, your Bonded Item COULD be taken away, but so could your shorts).

If you want to make items for your companions, etc, of course that isn't a Bonded Item, but for yourself, why not put as many effects as possible on the Bonded Item? I suggested before to ONLY apply the Bonded Item benefits (1/2 cost, free Feats) to appropriate-slot enchantments (i.e. you can't just pay the fine and still get the benefits), but going back and checking the Alpha, the only Bonded Item those apply to is the Amulet. I'm not sure if weapons and rings, etc, are supposed to be limited to just the Magic Item types from the DMG, or are able to 'take' any enchantment... Hopefully Beta clears that up as well. In any case, I think if there ARE some item-slot restrictions for the rings, weapons, and so on, that it would be good to enforce them more strongly by not allowing the Bonded Item "freebies" to apply to 'off-slot' Enchantments.

Apparently, Jason did make clear in another thread, that the level 'requirements' for the Item Creation Feats still apply, so no Ring Enchanting at 3rd level (you could still Bond to one, just not be able to Craft/ Enchant one). Hopefully Beta adds the Item Feats to the level-progression matrix, so it's clearer when...

As far as I know, you can only put weapon type enchantments on weapons and armor type enchantments on armors.

These other types go to wondrous items. If you can put more then one then that might be a bit unbalancing. I would implement a limit of 1 until lvl 10 and 2 from lvl 11 to 20 and three after lvl 21 onwards.
But again we see Gandalf practically wielding his staff only for some magic. So putting lots of enchantments into one item could be similar :)


Dennis da Ogre wrote:


I'm assuming you mean spells known? The bloodlines do 2 things. They give powers roughly in line with Wizards Specialist Powers and they give the sorcerer a bonus spell known at 3rd level and every other level after that. You don't pick the bonus spell but most of them seem pretty decent.

Strangely I think even though the wizard showed up first the sorcerer is closer to being finished in Alpha 3 than the wizard is. It's hard to say where the Beta is going to go with the wiz. Hopefully a slight nerf from Alpha 3. Jason said the wizard would be able to pick his at least some specialist spells though.

Yeah, I meant spells known. My point was really that wizard specialist powers essentially balance against sorceror bloodline powers, so you can't really count the bloodline powers as a way to balance the fact that wizards get bonus spell slots for high attribute and sorcerors don't get bonus spells known for the same.

I agree, though, that any extra spells known, I think, work an improvement and make individual spell choices less critical. Also, since wizards specialize more often that cuts down on their spell selection too, so it narrows the gap.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Races & Classes / Sorcerer vs the Wizard All Messageboards
Recent threads in Races & Classes