Let me ask you this then. Would the sorcerer become unbalanced if its spell progession was brought in line with the other primary casters?If the answer to that is, no upgrading the spell progression would not unbalance the class, then the old progression must be underpowered and is deserving of fixing.
Not necessarily. And likewise I don't think it would be unbalanced if the wizard's spell progression was changed to be identical to the sorcerer's; that doesn't necessarily mean that the wizard's progression is overpowered, though.
Personally, I think giving the sorcerer get some interesting class abilities (from level 1-20) is much more important than giving him better spellcasting at odd levels.
Indeed, this is frustrating. If the casting isn't fixed then the prereqs should be restated so the classes get things at the same level.That's an awesome idea. Now we just have to convince WOTC to reprint the entire Complete series, the entire Races series, and the other theme splatbooks, all updated to Pathfinder!
OH WAIT.
Meh... I could care less what WotC does with their bucketloads of mediocre books.
|
Meh... I could care less what WotC does with their bucketloads of mediocre books.Indeed, this is frustrating. If the casting isn't fixed then the prereqs should be restated so the classes get things at the same level.That's an awesome idea. Now we just have to convince WOTC to reprint the entire Complete series, the entire Races series, and the other theme splatbooks, all updated to Pathfinder!
OH WAIT.
Yes, well, many of us are attracted to Pathfinder because of the promise that it won't invalidate our gaming library. Which mostly means WOTC's bucketloads of mediocre books.
[
I'll state it again, if upping the spellcasting progression...
yaddda yadda yadda...sorry it cut you off...long post sigh. Anyhow that statement is very open and very loose.
Thats like saying lets up the rogue to full bab if it works better then med BAB was broken.
Unstaging the sorcerer is unneeded and not really called for.
Lets just agree to disagree here. You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I will never convince you it is not.
In the end jason will make his own mind up on it and we'll live with it.
Lets spend time on sorcerer features discussion that does need improved and jason wants us to look at such as the bloodlines.
Yes, well, many of us are attracted to Pathfinder because of the promise that it won't invalidate our gaming library. Which mostly means WOTC's bucketloads of mediocre books.
up to this point so far I can use any book I have with little or no change. Is there any book or thing that your having trouble with? I have yet to run into an issue so just wondering.
|
|
up to this point so far I can use any book I have with little or no change. Is there any book or thing that your having trouble with? I have yet to run into an issue so just wondering.
Yes, well, many of us are attracted to Pathfinder because of the promise that it won't invalidate our gaming library. Which mostly means WOTC's bucketloads of mediocre books.
You kind of have to follow the whole conversation, but Dennis was suggesting changing the prerequisites of feats and prestige classes, rather than unstaggering the sorcerer, as an alternative solution to the prerequisite problem that staggering creates.
I pointed out that it wasn't a realistic solution since the material in question was published by WOTC. He responded by dismissing that material as rubbish, I pointed out that what he calls rubbish many of us call "a significant reason to favor Pathfinder over 4E or some other new system."
I mean, if Pathfinder ends up doing to my 3.5 collection what 4E did to it (i.e. dismisses it to the closet to live with my massive and useless 2E collection), then I'll just say screw it and finally switch over to Fantasy HERO like I've been threatening (my players) to do for years.
|
|
Unstaging the sorcerer is unneeded and not really called for.
Lets just agree to disagree here. You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I will never convince you it is not.
Not to insult you dude, but in this thread you've come off a lot more like "You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I won't make the effort to try convince you it is not." You're kind of making it sound like everyone is close-minded, when in reality it's mostly just you.
In the end jason will make his own mind up on it and we'll live with it. Lets spend time on sorcerer features discussion that does need improved and jason wants us to look at such as the bloodlines.
There's a whole rest of the forum out there. Refusing to consider our arguments and then asking us to just shut up about it isn't going to win anyone over to your side. If the topic isn't important to you, then don't read the thread. If you actually want the sorcerer to remain staggered, then say so and present arguments why.
Unstaging the sorcerer is unneeded and not really called for.
Lets just agree to disagree here. You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I will never convince you it is not.
Not to insult you dude, but in this thread you've come off a lot more like "You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I won't make the effort to try convince you it is not." You're kind of making it sound like everyone is close-minded, when in reality it's mostly just you.
In the end jason will make his own mind up on it and we'll live with it. Lets spend time on sorcerer features discussion that does need improved and jason wants us to look at such as the bloodlines.There's a whole rest of the forum out there. Refusing to consider our arguments and then asking us to just shut up about it isn't going to win anyone over to your side. If the topic isn't important to you, then don't read the thread. If you actually want the sorcerer to remain staggered, then say so and present arguments why.
Nah it's cool man I dont get insulted easy. I was just making sure this didnt sprout into flames ya know.
Let me say again I have not seen anything that makes it 100% this needs to be done. I just don't know who I can make that any clearer
No one has shown not one thing that says it has to be done. Alot of folks have shown a lot of we want it done
There has been made a few arguments for why it should be done but none of them really come off as broken.
And really all I am doing is saying I dont think it needs changed .
All your doing is saying you do think it needs changed
Give me a good reason and ya I would be fine with it
Lacking behind 2 levels for PRC's is not a good resone I stated why above.
You kind of have to follow the whole conversation, but Dennis was suggesting changing the prerequisites of feats and prestige classes, rather than unstaggering the sorcerer, as an alternative solution to the prerequisite problem that staggering creates.
Eh I would go with option 3 leave it how it is. worked in 3.5 so it works now
|
|
Eh I would go with option 3 leave it how it is. worked in 3.5 so it works now
That's kind of the point. It doesn't work in 3.5. I've been playing 3.5 since it came out, gone through more than a dozen players and 100+ characters, and no one has played a sorcerer.
Why not? Two reasons: Nerfed caster progression, lack of class abilities.
So far Pathfinder has fixed one half of the problem. Why not fix the other half? Why not make the Sorcerer an actual full caster will a full caster spell progression and a host of preselected abilities based on bloodline?
Then the Sorcerer isn't a nerfed Wizard who trades spell variety for castings per day and a bloodline rather than a speciality.
Eh I would go with option 3 leave it how it is. worked in 3.5 so it works nowThat's kind of the point. It doesn't work in 3.5. I've been playing 3.5 since it came out, gone through more than a dozen players and 100+ characters, and no one has played a sorcerer.
Why not? Two reasons: Nerfed caster progression, lack of class abilities.
So far Pathfinder has fixed one half of the problem. Why not fix the other half? Why not make the Sorcerer an actual full caster will a full caster spell progression and a host of preselected abilities based on bloodline?
Then the Sorcerer isn't a nerfed Wizard who trades spell variety for castings per day and a bloodline rather than a speciality.
On the flip side Gail: ...
My group (12 years+ time together) almost always uses sorcerers over wizards in 3.5. The greater spells/day appeal to them and they take their known spells to get their flavor/concept down. The bloodline feats got a lot of 'ooohs and ahhs' and made them even more common of a choice. This includes games with starting at low or mid levels, even with the 1 level delay for new spell level access. It doesn't seem to be crippling spell progression wise from my experience. The characters still feel very different and distinct. Each one has appeared(and played) very different to me as a DM.
|
|
My group (12 years+ time together) almost always uses sorcerers over wizards in 3.5. The greater spells/day appeal to them and they take their known spells to get their flavor/concept down. The bloodline feats got a lot of 'ooohs and ahhs' and made them even more common of a choice. This includes games with starting at low or mid levels, even with the 1 level delay for new spell level access. It doesn't seem to be crippling spell progression wise from my experience. The characters still feel very different and distinct. Each one has appeared(and played) very different to me as a DM.
Do you use any of the non-core classes? Because when my players want more spells or more simplicity, they pick either the WarMage or the Beguiler.
Those are classes where the nerfed progression is actually balancing. The sorcerer, even with bloodlines, still doesn't stack up to those choices.
That's kind of the point. It doesn't work in 3.5. I've been playing 3.5 since it came out, gone through more than a dozen players and 100+ characters, and no one has played a sorcerer.Why not? Two reasons: Nerfed caster progression, lack of class abilities.
So far Pathfinder has fixed one half of the problem. Why not fix the other half? Why not make the Sorcerer an actual full caster will a full caster spell progression and a host of preselected abilities based on bloodline?
Then the Sorcerer isn't a nerfed Wizard who trades spell variety for castings per day and a bloodline rather than a speciality.
you missed the point its not staged casting but lack of any class ability that was the issue
I humbly suggest that the point is moot, and that we ought to move on. Mr. Bulmahn has already said, repeatedly, that Pathfinder isn't going to mess with the spell progression for sorcerers.
heh I suggested that a few posts back...got called close minded for it :D
[
I'll state it again, if upping the spellcasting progression...Thats like saying lets up the rogue to full bab if it works better then med BAB was broken.
Unstaging the sorcerer is unneeded and not really called for.
Lets just agree to disagree here. You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I will never convince you it is not.
In the end jason will make his own mind up on it and we'll live with it.
Lets spend time on sorcerer features discussion that does need improved and jason wants us to look at such as the bloodlines.
No.
It's like saying that if the rogue were balanced at a full BAB then it was unbalanced at a medium BAB. Obviously a full BAB is always going to be better than a medium BAB regardless of whether it's balanced or not. You've fundementally mistated the arguement which makes me wonder if you've understood it at all.
I do suppose we will have to agree to disagree, because you're right you won't be able to bring me to your point of view.
This topic does however warrant a closer look and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as you would like to. This thread is the largest one in the Sorcerer and Wizard forum, that ought to say something.
eh I didnt dismiss it jason did. And more then just me agreed with him in this very thread
That's kind of the point. It doesn't work in 3.5. I've been playing 3.5 since it came out, gone through more than a dozen players and 100+ characters, and no one has played a sorcerer.
I've seen the opposite, I'm the only one in the two groups I play in who plays wizards. This is the really odd thing, most of them really like playing sorcerers... and when I've played them I enjoy it too. Here is something stranger, Jason's changes have made the class even more appealing and fun.
|
Here is something stranger, Jason's changes have made the class even more appealing and fun.
I hope that's sarcasm, I've found that most of Jason's changes appear to make the classes more appealing and fun, and that there's nothing 'strange' about it...
I've never seen one of our gaming group play a Sorcerer, but most of us are old fogeys who see no reason to play a Wizard with a tiny little pool of spells and the ability to cast a few more a day, at the cost of not getting them as soon, not getting any class abilities, and feeling like it has less Spells Known *in his lifetime* than an equal level Specialist Wizard has spells prepared *during a given day.*
But hey, as long as other people like the class, I'll just continue to ignore those pages, since it's obvious that any thought of making it fun for anyone outside of the clique who already finds it fun would be unacceptable.
I think Laithoron was referring to the fact that the main purpose of fighters & barbarians is based on having a full BAB, while the main purpose of sorcerers & wizards is based on arcane spellcasting.I knew what he meant that's why the smilys in there.
I misread your smiley then. Thought it was in relation to your comparing the different BAB's (good & good vs poor & poor).
But it is flawed the fighter and the barb are nothing alike and the 3.5 sorc is just like a wizard mostly, Its a sad little clone. That was what I was saying. The BAB is a function of a melee class where spellcasting is spellcaster no matter if you get your spells 1 level later or not it is still spellcasting.
Drop one of the melee based clases down one BAB rank and it no longer is a melee class, same can not be said for casters.
It's a clone (or it was) because the nonspellcasting abilities were either the same or just nonexistent. Now, with bloodline abilities, sorcerers do take on their own schtick, but they are still at a loss when it comes to spellcasting.
Here's another way to phrase it:
Fighter & barbarian acquire iterative attacks (by way of their BAB) at the same rate, have but different class abilities.
Cleric & druid acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but have different special abilities.
Sorcerer & wizard don't acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but (now) have different special abilities.
Sorcerer & wizard don't acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but (now) have different special abilities.
Eh I am ok with that and still dont see why its an issue.
I do think they need more bloodline powers and not just the 4 they have
|
|
eh I didnt dismiss it jason did. And more then just me agreed with him in this very thread
Actually, Jason said he was open to hearing arguments, which implies it's not the closed issue you'd like it to be. Since you're not proving any arguments against the changes other than "I don't like it." or you're rather strange rebuttal of J.Cayne's argument (like J., I think you didn't really understand the argument, because your rebuttal makes no sense), and since you're very rudely attempting to silence everyone else by misrepresenting what Jason has said, maybe you should either a) admit you have a dog in this race but can't defend it, or b) excuse yourself from the thread.
|
|
Here's another way to phrase it:
Fighter & barbarian acquire iterative attacks (by way of their BAB) at the same rate, have but different class abilities.
Cleric & druid acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but have different special abilities.
Sorcerer & wizard don't acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but (now) have different special abilities.
This is the best way of putting it yet.
Sorcerer & wizard don't acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but (now) have different special abilities.Eh I am ok with that and still dont see why its an issue.
I do think they need more bloodline powers and not just the 4 they have
It's a discrepancy between two supposedly equal classes. :shrugs:
Don't know if more bloodline powers are needed, but equality between them needs to be worked on a bit.
My group (12 years+ time together) almost always uses sorcerers over wizards in 3.5. The greater spells/day appeal to them and they take their known spells to get their flavor/concept down. The bloodline feats got a lot of 'ooohs and ahhs' and made them even more common of a choice. This includes games with starting at low or mid levels, even with the 1 level delay for new spell level access. It doesn't seem to be crippling spell progression wise from my experience. The characters still feel very different and distinct. Each one has appeared(and played) very different to me as a DM.Do you use any of the non-core classes? Because when my players want more spells or more simplicity, they pick either the WarMage or the Beguiler.
Those are classes where the nerfed progression is actually balancing. The sorcerer, even with bloodlines, still doesn't stack up to those choices.
Yeah, we have/do use them. (non-core). I've had players use both warmage and beguiler specifically as examples, but i have seen far more characters using sorcerer.
As far as the feats-and-classes prereqs, well, either you're worried about using closed WotC material as designed and written or not.
If you aren't worried, then that material doesn't make unstaggering a better idea than adjusting prereqs.
If you are, well, then you still aren't making an argument for un-staggering, because the WotC design and writing of those feats and classes was done with the knowledge and expectation that the sorcerer was delayed a level behind the wizard. If you think WotC made a mistake in designing those feats and classes that way . . . well, why are you worried about using the material as written, instead of Rule Zero-ing the mistake?
|
|
If you are, well, then you still aren't making an argument for un-staggering, because the WotC design and writing of those feats and classes was done with the knowledge and expectation that the sorcerer was delayed a level behind the wizard. If you think WotC made a mistake in designing those feats and classes that way . . . well, why are you worried about using the material as written, instead of Rule Zero-ing the mistake?
Honestly, I think the concept of balance is an illusion, and that when you say something like "because the WotC design and writing of those feats and classes was done with the knowledge and expectation that" that you are giving WOTC (and, frankly, game designers in general) way too much credit. They simply don't have the time or resources to do enough playtesting to truly call anything balanced, and I honestly believe most of the stuff in supplements never gets playtested before seeing print.
I mean consider the Ascetic Mage feat. It allows a sorcerer (and only a sorcerer) to combine levels with a monk. The prereqs are Improved Unarmed Strike and Spontaneous 2nd Level Spells. In 3.5, there is absolutely no way for the would be Ascetic Monk to get this feat before 6th level. More obnoxiously, the character can't keep their levels even, and ends up being a Monk 1/Sorcerer 5 or Monk 2/Sorcerer 4 at 6th level. So they incur XP penalties on the way up. And having played this character, I can tell you it really sucks having to go through five levels of useless before you start seeing your concept come together.
If the Sorcerer was unstaggered, then the character could go Monk 3/Sorcerer 3.
So I think we can safely assume that everyone feels the changes to the sorcerer thus far fall short of bringing the sorcerer up to where he needs to be?
I agree with that statement dennis.
So I think we can safely assume that everyone feels the changes to the sorcerer thus far fall short of bringing the sorcerer up to where he needs to be?
Completely agree.
I was going to say.. it seems the one thing we are all agreeing on is that there still needs to be more change.
No, because that would require someone to actually be dumb enough to play a sorceror...
:)
Okay - I snipped your serious point, but I think you're being a bit harsh on the sorceror class. I'm not sure if they would make it as a single class all the way up, but what they do offer is a non-bookish way to make an arcane caster. That appeals to a lot of people on a role-playing level, so to heck with the game mechanics issues. You play with what you get, in the majority of cases.
I'd play a sorceror if it fitted (I almost considered Fayne would need to be part sorceror for a time before I found the Shadowblade prestige class). Just don't except the power to ramp like a wizard. Horses for courses...
Actually, Jason said he was open to hearing arguments, which implies it's not the closed issue you'd like it to be. Since you're not proving any arguments against the changes other than "I don't like it." or you're rather strange rebuttal of J.Cayne's argument (like J., I think you didn't really understand the argument, because your rebuttal makes no sense), and since you're very rudely attempting to silence everyone else by misrepresenting what Jason has said, maybe you should either a) admit you have a dog in this race but can't defend it, or b) excuse yourself from the thread.
Ya know I have yet to be rude to anyone here. I even subjested that we agree to disagree. And you tell me to leave the thread and I am being rude?
Your jumping on with with the you dont like it stuff yet that's why {b]you [/b] Demand ti be changed. YOU don't like it.
The arguments have been made and you add nothing new to them , yet you want me to shut up sorry man I don't get it.
I am not trying to silence anyone I gave counter point to his kinda random point.
Look dude at this point I am walking away from your posts. Sigh
Reply if ya want I will not be replying to you. carry on
It's a discrepancy between two supposedly equal classes. :shrugs:
Don't know if more bloodline powers are needed, but equality between them needs to be worked on a bit.
Eh that is one of the issues. I am not sure if they should be equality like that.
Ok here what I am getting at. The sorcerer needs to step up and be his own class. It's time for him to stop being the wizard clone. I have seen alot of them played and never once has the staged casting been the issue.
The issue has always been why should I keep going in this class? I can just take a PRC gain cool knew things and level my casting.
Now some here have said 3rd level is the real issue and not staged as a whole. Not sure on that but we can all agree that the sorcerer still needs a bit of work.
So I think we can safely assume that everyone feels the changes to the sorcerer thus far fall short of bringing the sorcerer up to where he needs to be?
Sort of -- I would actually say that the sorcerer is more or less about right (a couple more/better abilities wouldn't be out of the question), but the universalist wizard needs some saltpeter in his oatmeal, pronto.
Sort of -- I would actually say that the sorcerer is more or less about right (a couple more/better abilities wouldn't be out of the question), but the universalist wizard needs some saltpeter in his oatmeal, pronto.
Damn right they do not need and should not gain the extra spells
I think it might be more useful to think about what can be done to make the Sorcerer more appealing in this thread, and save the Universalist commentary for a thread entitled something like 'Universalist, WTH!' :)
Sure, but the whole argument behind this thread is "Wizard > Sorcerer". So obviously the wizard's power level enters into the equation somewhere...
My vote for changing the spellcasting isn't so much a balance thing (the staggered spellcasting with more spells may or may not be balanced).
Honestly, it's more about giving the sorcerer the same amount of spell choices at the same levels as the wizard. Yeah, you can give him Bloodline abilities that cover them, but if they are more like the claws and such from the current bloodlines, then it's moving too far away from "arcane spellcaster" and more "gish hybrid".
If we are going to make a gish, let's make a proper gish (like we have a proper Fighter/Divine gish out of the Paladin, and Fighter/Divine/Rogue Ranger or Arcane/Rogue Bard).
I'd like to see the Sorcerer compliment the Wizard in the way that the Druid compliments the Cleric. Take one aspect of the original design (Arcane spellcasting) and go a different direction with it (no vancian memorization, bloodlines instead of schools, etc).
Plus, there's an aesthetic thing to it. Just like HD and BAB were made more universal, I'd like to see the same for the spellcasting progression.
Now... I'd be more inclined to see the Sorcerer with a different spellcasting progression (with abilities to shore up the magical lag), if there were other classes that also had this.
Perhaps this is where the Druid's casting should be looked at?
If we r-imaged the Druid as a "natural caster, getting his magical power through nature itself" as opposed to praying for them from a divine source, and then give the Druid the current Sorcerer casting progression... then, perhaps there'd be a "precedence" set for this kind of progression.
Spell slot lag ---> greater compliment of spell-oriented class abilities (which the Druid would then have to gain).
I could see this working as an alternative.
Plus, there's an aesthetic thing to it. Just like HD and BAB were made more universal, I'd like to see the same for the spellcasting progression.
I dont see a need but codifying it something I guess
Now... I'd be more inclined to see the Sorcerer with a different spellcasting progression (with abilities to shore up the magical lag), if there were other classes that also had this.
Perhaps this is where the Druid's casting should be looked at?If we r-imaged the Druid as a "natural caster, getting his magical power through nature itself" as opposed to praying for them from a divine source, and then give the Druid the current Sorcerer casting progression... then, perhaps there'd be a "precedence" set for this kind of progression.
Spell slot lag ---> greater compliment of spell-oriented class abilities (which the Druid would then have to gain).
I could see this working as an alternative.
That to me is not a bad ideal, folks will not like it but not a bad ideal.
|
[rant] I have looked at fighter threads and seen posted: ‘fighters aren’t as good as Lord Voldemort. Fighters need more power.’
I have looked at a bard thread and seen posted: ‘bards aren’t as good as Lord Voldemort. Bards need more power.’
And now I am looking at a sorcerer thread and seeing posted: ‘sorcerers aren’t as good as Lord Voldemort. Sorcerers need more power.’
I would like to propose ‘Evans' Law’, that anyone who uses the sheer game-breaking potential of Lord Voldemort (the big bad wizard) as a reason that another class needs a boost automatically loses the argument. Lord Voldemort is an out of control maniac, and the solution is to take him down (or at least contain him), not create more like him… [/rant]Having got that out of my system, down to business…
What about "Fighters aren't as good as Ron Weasely"?
:)
... -- I would actually say that the sorcerer is more or less about right (a couple more/better abilities wouldn't be out of the question), but the universalist wizard needs some saltpeter in his oatmeal, pronto.
Tha dhaa! QFT!
So I think we can safely assume that everyone feels the changes to the sorcerer thus far fall short of bringing the sorcerer up to where he needs to be?
Pretty much.
I'm also concerned though that the designers are moving away from shoring up the strengths of the class which are its simplicity and alternative casting method. I don't think the concept of bloodlines is a bad idea, but I'm not fond of their have to be used nature. I'm not sure that feats wouldn't be a better approach to customization as it straight jackets the flavor of the class a little less and allows a little more diversity to the player in terms of making the sorcerer what they envision.
My suggestion: allow sorcerers to trade in multiple low-level spell slots to cast a high-level spell. There's a third-party feat that does this (Versatile Spellcaster from Races of the Dragon) and I find it's a great advantage. It lets the sorcerer smugly gleefully cast his highest level spell sometimes twice as often as a comparable wizard. And it gives the sorcerer a more spontaneous feel.
Just my two cents.
[rant] I have looked at fighter threads and seen posted: ‘fighters aren’t as good as Lord Voldemort. Fighters need more power.’ I have looked at a bard thread and seen posted: ‘bards aren’t as good as Lord Voldemort. Bards need more power.’ And now I am looking at a sorcerer thread and seeing posted: ‘sorcerers aren’t as good as Lord Voldemort. Sorcerers need more power.’ I would like to propose ‘Evans' Law’, that anyone who uses the sheer game-breaking potential of Lord Voldemort (the big bad wizard) as a reason that another class needs a boost automatically loses the argument. Lord Voldemort is an out of control maniac, and the solution is to take him down (or at least contain him), not create more like him… [/rant]
If Jason seriously indicates that he's going to nerf the wizard and cleric all to hell, then people will stop trying to prop everyone else up (the resulting game would be playable at all levels, although it wouldn't really be D&D anymore, and all the monsters would have to be down-powered or given higher CRs).
The other option is to boost everyone up except for the cleric, druid, and wizard. Not everything needs to be "perfectly balanced," but I very strongly feel that character level should, in most cases, be a better indication of character viability than class -- otherwise, why have all classes go from 1st to 20th? Use 1st to 20th for wizards, and make fighters go 1st-7th, then level 8a and 8b instead of 8th-9th, etc. -- it would be more honest. A level 14a fighter (the current 20th level fighter) and a 14th level wizard are about on a par with one another, so that works out pretty well.
But if any 10th level wizard can easily outmatch any 15th level fighter, then there is a serious, serious problem with the character level paradigm.
|
|
No, because that would require someone to actually be dumb enough to play a sorceror...
:)
Okay - I snipped your serious point, but I think you're being a bit harsh on the sorceror class. I'm not sure if they would make it as a single class all the way up, but what they do offer is a non-bookish way to make an arcane caster. That appeals to a lot of people on a role-playing level, so to heck with the game mechanics issues. You play with what you get, in the majority of cases.
I agree that some people don't want the bookkeeping hassle of playing a wizard, and prefer to pick as they go from a shorter list, but that doesn't justify the sorceror being castrated by waiting an extra level to gain a new level of spells, or their slower casting time for Metamagic.
All the supposed benefits of sorcery, being celebrated here, are equalled or outdone by the wizard.
Flexibility:
Potentially knowing every spell on the list, vs knowing a few.
Ability to stockpile scrolls for every occasion, vs only being able to create scrolls of the few spells you know (if you spend a feat).
Opening up a new level of spells every odd level, vs one level later.
Ability to cast Metamagic spells as standard actions, vs full round actions.
Ability to get feel of opponent, then come back with better spells, vs stuck with same selection.
Power:
Bonus Metamagic and Creation feats, vs zero class abilities, in 3.5 (Pathfinder sorceror abilities not always relevant to casting/crafting).
Higher-level (ie more powerful) spells gained earlier, vs later.
Ability to Quicken spells, vs inability to Quicken spells.
Ability to cast twice in one round via Quicken Spell, vs once per round (see 'inability to Quicken').
High-level wizards no longer use all spells slots in a day, so extra sorceror slots irrelevant.
No, because that would require someone to actually be dumb enough to play a sorceror...
How can you comment on the effectiveness of the changes Jason made if you have discarded their usefulness out of hand and are too 'clever' to actually playtest them?
Ability to Quicken spells, vs inability to Quicken spells.
Ability to cast twice in one round via Quicken Spell, vs once per round (see 'inability to Quicken').
Perhaps you should recheck your facts.
Dennis I think he's talking about in 3.5, realizing that it's different in pathfinder.