This reply is to a very old post, let me quote the relevant parts:
If you are summoning monsters you probably already lost the game. That is one of the most useless series of spells ever. DR does not save the summons from energy attacks and when you invite you new friends to the party I will AoE them back to where they came from, assuming they are worth the time. If I see you taking a full round to cast a spell all it takes is one good spell to force a high concentration check, but then again if you're summoning something I may just assume you wasted your action. Basically don't expect much from summons.
I've played a Sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline specializing in Summon Monster (Conjuration) spells now for 7 months, in the Rise of the Runelords AP, to level 6. I'm planning on bringing in a cohort with the Leadership feat who is a Wizard with the Conjuration school at level 5 when the time comes.
Summoning monsters makes my GM cringe. It's not just about adding a new creature from the back every round until I dominate the battlefield with bodies. If you're not following the Augment Summoning buff to your monsters along with the Celestial template if your PC is "good", then you are really missing out. 85% of your enemies in the Adventure Paths will be "evil" (with the rest "neutral"), giving an automatic advantage called Smite Evil to your summoned creatures. Can't find that Invisible creature? Bring out the Celestial Dog and tell them to sniff out the bad guy and Smite 'em. Oh, you're fighting ghouls with a paralyzing touch? Switch to small Fire Elementals. The monster is hiding in the water and attacking you when it feels like it? Summon Water Elementals and go to town on the creature. Attacked by a flock of evil crows? Flip a coin to summon the Celestial Eagles or small Air Elementals. Need to keep a heal-bot near the fighter, but only have one Cleric in the party? Summon a Lantern Archon and give it orders to hover near the fighter. Summon another one for the Rogue who bleeds easily in a battle.
My Celestial bloodline Sorcerer can use the cleric's Wand of CLW with his awesome Use Magic Device roll (+14), or use his Heal skill and a healing kit to bind the cleric's wounds in an antimagic zone. Having the Celestial bloodline Sorcerer cast Bless (at level 3, +1 to hit) before your cleric can cast Prayer (3rd, 5th level) several times a day also puts the Sorcerer into the "Most Valuable Player" category.
But it's all about how you play the character, really. I've toyed with bringing in a Wizard with the Necromancy school to help out the cleric with Turning Undead. You didn't get that choice with 3.5E. There are now Character Traits in the Advanced Players' Guide to allow your Wizard to heal (stabilize) with a touch, or get a buff to learning new spells, add Knowledge skills or get a bonus to them, or reduce crafting costs by 5%, etc.
Pathfinder makes the "well-rounded" concept a freakin' smorgasboard, with you able to pick-and-choose your min/max'ed Sorcerer or Wizard. The Core book clearly tilts item creation towards the Wizard (less expensive in gold pieces), so that's one "reason" to have a crafting Wizard in your party as opposed to the crafting Sorcerer. You don't like the full-round Summon Monster? Craft a Wand or buy it. Stuck in a dungeon for several weeks? The Sorcerer with Eschew Materials for free is going to keep casting while the Wizard grits his teeth when his spell component pouch runs empty. Unless he takes the feat, of course, which he is allowed to do. The Sorcerer made a bad decision at level 1 picking his spells? Well, at level 6 he can swap out that useless spell with a better choice, and at every even level thereafter.
The Wizard is designed to be the scroll-making machine in the party, the same as the Sorcerer is the Magic Missile machine. Give the Wizard two or three rounds to dig that specific scroll out of their scroll case and read it, and usually the Monster of the Day is toast. The rest of the party (meatshield, flanker, debuffer) should be designed to allow your Wizard or Sorcerer to do their job. I've played both in 3.5E, liked the Sorcerer better, and I prefer the Sorcerer in Pathfinder. But I'm bringing in a Wizard to round out the party and give us access to spells on scrolls that we would not have otherwise, as well as have a character to dump the spellbooks onto.
.
..
...
....
.....
Wizard
::
Sorcerer
::
As far as clarification:
We can provide through posts. For example, if you wish to clarify exactly how UMD and a familiar synergise, simply state it clearly in a post.
.
..
...
....
.....
*interesting detailed account of game play experience*
I think those that believe summoning monsters in combat is always a bad idea are the minority. The sheer value of fire-and-forget assets should never be understated.
[quote-jhpace1"]Stuck in a dungeon for several weeks? The Sorcerer with Eschew Materials for free is going to keep casting while the Wizard grits his teeth when his spell component pouch runs empty.
This is what I refer to when listing 'Greater Independence' as an advantage of the Sorcerer class.
It also takes into consideration:
- Not having to worry about a spell book is another facet of this idea.
- Being captured. A Sorcerer can still cast most of their spells the next day even if their spell component pouch is taken.
I think you missed "Better use of Binding" and "Better synery between illusions and the Sorcerer's skill set" also, if you're going to list "Slower metamagic spell casting" as a disad, you should add the ability to add metamagic feats as needed to spells as a benefit
Better chance of Binding would be more accurate - better use implies the Sorcerer has an innate ability to use a bound creature more tactically/strategically, which would seem to be virtues better determined by intelligence.
Now, with a Wizard we can state 'better use' but only if we note that it's character dependent. Although this could simply come under the ''+ Prime stat favours complex strategic planning. (Rp)'' advantage.
My justification for it being character dependent is that the character may have a high intelligence score but the player may be playing them as a crazy sage/mad scientist/free thinker/misc type who has no want or talent for planning, complex or otherwise.
::
Adding 'Flexibile metamagic use' in a moment.
::
Also, after your comment about UD/Familiar, I realised that a Wizard who has a familiar which in turn has opposable thumbs could have said familiar craft mundane items or create forgeries.
.
..
...
....
.....
Wizard vs Sorcerer:
:. :: :.
Mechanical: Dependent on the mechanics of the class.
Roleplay: Dependent on your roleplaying style/character concept.
DM Dependant: Dependent on your DM/Campain.
Build Dependant: Dependent on the build of the character.
::
Key:
(M)Mechanical (Rp)Roleplay (Dm)DM Dependant (Bd)Build Dependant
Wizard
::
Sorcerer
A lot of the arguments in this thread seem to imply that unlimited item creation is avaialable. what if item creation is not an option for PCs or thier cohorts?
Then you cross off 'Better at crafting' from and continue to make your choice based on your personal evaluation on the proposed pros/cons of each class! :D
Uh. Lilith's Thrall, I hate to break it to you, but a Ring of Sustenance does NOT shrink the time required to rest and get back spell energy. All it removes is the need for sleep. Just like elves, you still have to have 8 hours of rest...you're just awake while resting (probably reading a book, playing with cantrips, or practicinig come-on lines).
I'm suprised you didn't know that. I thought they specifically addressed it in the Ring description, because that was an issue in 3.5 for a LONG time.
==Aelryinth
Is this true? Under the Ring of Sustenance entry:
This ring continually provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment. The ring also refreshes the body and mind, so that its wearer needs only sleep 2 hours per day to gain the benefit of 8 hours of sleep. This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day.
Emphasis mine. The above indicates to me that it does in fact mean he only needs the 2 hours of rest, then use a 3rd hour to prepare his spells for the day. Then he has 5 hours remaining.
Or was this already discussed and I just missed the post?
Sorcerer is 'Better At Crafting' since with UMD, they can craft wands of other classes, like Druid or Cleric wands through the assistance of a scroll or another wand of that type. A wizard would need the assistance of that class to cast, read a scroll, or use a wand to make a new wand of that class.
The Wizard is designed to be the scroll-making machine in the party, the same as the Sorcerer is the Magic Missile machine. Give the Wizard two or three rounds to dig that specific scroll out of their scroll case and read it, and usually the Monster of the Day is toast. The rest of the party (meatshield, flanker, debuffer) should be designed to allow your Wizard or Sorcerer to do their job. I've played both in 3.5E, liked the Sorcerer better, and I prefer the Sorcerer in Pathfinder. But I'm bringing in a Wizard to round out the party and give us access to spells on scrolls that we would not have otherwise, as well as have a character to dump the spellbooks onto.That depends on the campaign. Given that PFS forbids all item creation including scrolls, that whacks the evaluation to a whole nother ball park.
A lot of the arguments in this thread seem to imply that unlimited item creation is avaialable. what if item creation is not an option for PCs or thier cohorts?
(post attempt aborted by web, trying again)
Then basically you're screwed as you have to use gold pieces to buy what you can in each major city you come across. I've played in Living Greyhawk where taking item creation feats was a point in futility. When you find yourself in a Living Campaign, you skip the item creation feats and go instead for the General feats and Spell feats, like Dodge for AC, Empower Spell and Heighten Spell for damage, etc. Your Wizard takes Spell Mastery to reduce his need upon his targetable spellbook.
I've played in low-magic or no-magic worlds before. They stink. I usually end up playing a fighter or paladin in those worlds. Nothing says "your GM hates magic" like starting the game with everyone in a prison cell gagged and strung up by their thumbs. That's when your spellcasters take Still Spell and Silent Spell at 1st level. And if everyone in the party has the Diehard feat, then that's a hint about the GM or the campaign you're in.
If you're just going to fill feat slots continue your optimization, as stated elsewhere in this thread. Become as self-dependent as possible.
Sorcerer is 'Better At Crafting' since with UMD, they can craft wands of other classes, like Druid or Cleric wands through the assistance of a scroll or another wand of that type. A wizard would need the assistance of that class to cast, read a scroll, or use a wand to make a new wand of that class.
..I'm not so sure about that:
The Wizard could take the DC hit on the craft check for each spell/element not known (+5). Craft is an Intelligence based check so we can assume the Wizard has a higher base chance compared to the Sorcerer. Also Wizards have more skill points and are more likely to have a higher total Craft check.
...and they're less dependent on finding items: A sorcerer typically has to rely on scrolls/wands to supplement their limited spells known.
So, yes, the Sorcerer has an option to help with crafting and, yes, the same option, if used by a Wizard is less effective. However, the Wizard has a more complete crafting 'package' - better craft skill, better base attribute governing said skill, better variety of spell choice - allowing for, generally speaking, easier crafting.
.
..
...
....
......
*good stuff*
This is a matter of DM/campaign style - I've attempted to incorporate the concepts taken from LilithsThrall's campaign style into The List while ensuring the reader is aware that such elements are DM/campaign dependent so they can judge for themselves, incorporating their knowledge of the campaign they are play in/creating the character for.
Note: I agree with the intent of the points your raise, in our campaign these would be major issues - however, in other campaigns they would receive less attention.
You can't skip the spell requirement for spell trigger/completion items, can you?
You can't skip the spell requirement for spell trigger/completion items, can you?
Seemingly no, but.. why would a Sorcerer create an item that they must continuously make UMD checks to operate?
Hmmm.. not really my area.
Would a Sorcerer be able to create Divine Scrolls?
Seemingly, the Sorcerer has some extra options when it comes to crafting but the Wizard has better general success with crafting.
Seemingly...
If we can get some more information I can update The List.
.
Wizard vs Sorcerer:
Less spells per day for the wizard, honestly, is variable -- for specialist wizards especially it will not always be true given equivalent casting stats. I'd probably soften that to 'Often has less spells per day' or something less absolute.
I'd probably broaden the Permanency item to something like, more viable use of spells that are needed only every few days or less, such as contingency or permanency.
I'd add:
Wizard:
- Can use pearls of power. (Some magic items give an edge to one or the other, but IMHO this is a really big one in the Wizard column.)
- Better knowledge skills.
- Better at Spellcraft. (Heavily impacts crafting, but also useful in its own right.)
- More complex/pivotal decisions each day (spell choices)
- Arcane Bond.
- Better use of some spells that always key off Intelligence, such as Contact Other Plane
- Plays well with a more conservative (of spell resources) style.
Sorcerer:
- More complex/pivotal decisions when building (spell choices)
- Bloodlines allow for some more specialized builds -- in general I think it's arguable whether bloodlines or wizard specializations are better, but sorcerers really feel to me able to have more focused/potent builds in some specific narrow areas, such as compulsions or touch spells.
- Plays well with a more aggressive (with use of spell resources) style.
*good input*
Good stuff Mr Dire Mongoose - I'll get on it in when I wake up.
I'll be sure to add a credits section as well.
I removed some posts. Please be civil, and do not use offensive language.
I'm actually in favor of the Wizard being better at dealing with Charmed/Summoned things. The Wizard will (mostly, based on build) be able to speak way more languages than the Sorcerer.
But whatever. This conversation is pretty stupid.
It really depends on -why- magic item creation is not an option in the campaign. For example, if it is due to lack of down time, the Sorcerer gains the advantage via a cohort crafter.
Due to many other factors in the wizard besides item creation, a wizard is only better than the sorcerer if the GM allows him to be. If you take the random treasure allotment in the core rules as a baseline, you still need to contend with how time is managed in the campaign.
In armchair arguments where proponents get to argue that their camp has the optimal situation, the Wizard will win. In reality, this depends as much on the GM and the Campaign as it does on the listed class features, and some campaigns could easily (and fairly) favor the sorcerer.
Once this is understood, competition between the classes is moot. They differ in exactly the way they should — one derives its advantages from sedentary study and preparation, the other thrives in unpredictable situations, running on instinct. Beyond this, who cares? What more do you need to decide what you feel like playing in the next campaign?
.
Sorcerer
+ Greater potential for familiar power (M)(Bd)
I think this one should be removed. Only one of the Sorcerer bloodlines even gets a familiar, and although a familiar can use your skill ranks in UMD, it has to use it's own Stat bonus, so the Arcane bloodline Sorcerer has no advantage here.
I'm actually in favor of the Wizard being better at dealing with Charmed/Summoned things. The Wizard will (mostly, based on build) be able to speak way more languages than the Sorcerer.
But whatever. This conversation is pretty stupid.
If you think it's stupid why bother participating?
You only gain an extra language for each rank you put into the skill. Bonuses to skills like the +3 for being a class skill or the bonus from the base attribute aren't ranks.
In other words, a Sorcerer can know just as many languages as a Wizard of the same level. In fact, mine does.
The only exception is if a character takes the Cosmopolitan feat from the APG.
Wrong, you gain bonus languages based on your starting Intelligence bonus, which will (pretty much always) be higher as a Wizard.
And yeah, the sorcerer can spend points to learn more, but so can the Wizard. The Wizard in my current campaign speaks 12 languages (Common and elvish base for being an elf, 5 more for a 20 intelligence, and 5 more for ranks in Linguistics).
No you can make a scroll with a cost of 250g or less in 2 hours. I personally have never played in a game where 22 hours out of the day is taken up by adventuring, usually more like 6-8, rest meals downtime, etc taking up the remainder. It is very easy to find a couple hours of downtime in a day. It means at best 2nd level spells on a scroll, but low level spells still provide great utility to later levels.That's a second level spell. And you can only do it if you have a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. The side of the road during adventuring isn't comfortable. So, you'd have to teleport home each night.
Nobody said "permanent". All that's ever been said is that the spell could have been cast a week before the combat. The spell itself, says, "If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through it's own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level". So, if you consider sticking to the spell description to be "extremely liberal", I don't know how to respond.
I do think your DM is extremely liberal with planar bindings btw. I've never had it where they were a permanent pet. At best I get them to do one task for me ("Finish this dungeon").
I think that my rope trick with a light spell is rather comfortable and well lit myself.
Also, yeah. Very liberal. A maximum of 1 day per level is barring any unforseen things like it teleporting away or you forcing it to do something against its nature or just sheer boredom. And that's maximum. It doesn't say "this creature will stay around and be your slave for NO LESS THAN one day per level" that timeframe is a hypothetical maximum, not a guarantee.
Other thing about meatshields-they don't guarantee that someone will just bypass them. Okay you have an ogre standing next to you. I just suck up an AoO and bum rush you. You die in a hit.
|
Due to many other factors in the wizard besides item creation, a wizard is only better than the sorcerer if the GM allows him to be. If you take the random treasure allotment in the core rules as a baseline, you still need to contend with how time is managed in the campaign.
In armchair arguments where proponents get to argue that their camp has the optimal situation, the Wizard will win. In reality, this depends as much on the GM and the Campaign as it does on the listed class features, and some campaigns could easily (and fairly) favor the sorcerer.
Once this is understood, competition between the classes is moot. They differ in exactly the way they should — one derives its advantages from sedentary study and preparation, the other thrives in unpredictable situations, running on instinct. Beyond this, who cares? What more do you need to decide what you feel like playing in the next campaign?
Thank you.
First I'd like to say that by and large you made some really good points, but I have to disagree with you on a couple of them.
Less spells per day for the wizard, honestly, is variable -- for specialist wizards especially it will not always be true given equivalent casting stats. I'd probably soften that to 'Often has less spells per day' or something less absolute.
Even compared to a specialist wizard a sorcerer gets on the average gets 1 additional spell per level. That's big. It's such an advantage that hardly no one ever plays universalist school wizards because specialist get one extra spell per level.
- Plays well with a more conservative (of spell resources) style.
I think actually this is a negative, because wizards require more conservative spell resource management. If you like to play conservatively either class works, if you like to play aggressively sorcerer is the better option.
Once this is understood, competition between the classes is moot. They differ in exactly the way they should — one derives its advantages from sedentary study and preparation, the other thrives in unpredictable situations, running on instinct. Beyond this, who cares?
From a player standpoint, I think you have a valid argument. From a DM perspective you want the classes to be balanced so that people who like playing one or the other don't feel cheated.
I played in a game where I played a sorcerer and one of the other players played a wizard. It was one of the most frustrating experiences I ever had in a RPG. We started at 3rd level, and for 4 levels he could do anything I could only better. He used crafted items to compensate for my greater number of spells, and I was pretty much the 2nd string caster until I hit 8th level and could spam Polymorph- this was in 3.5 BTW, and I do think PF made the sorcerer and wizard much closer in power level.
As a DM I'm just wondering, do I need to give the Sorcerer an extra feat, or a cookie to even things out, or did the game designers already do that with the bloodlines and allowing sorcerers to change out obsolete spells later.
Even compared to a specialist wizard a sorcerer gets on the average gets 1 additional spell per level. That's big. It's such an advantage that hardly no one ever plays universalist school wizards because specialist get one extra spell per level.
But, factor in:
1) Bonded Object, and
2) The half-a-spell-level-ahead advantage in that.
So, sure, the level 5 sorcerer has more 1st and 2nds than even a specialist wizard, but 3rd level spells are zero to 2 + 1 (bonded object) + bonus spells from casting stat. So there the wizard not only has some higher level spells available, but he also may well actually just flat out have more spells to cast each day.
For most levels, absolutely, the sorcerer ends up with more spells per day -- but there's enough where that's not the case (or can be not the case) that I think it deserves mention.
I think actually this is a negative, because wizards require more conservative spell resource management. If you like to play conservatively either class works, if you like to play aggressively sorcerer is the better option.
I disagree somewhat here -- because the sorcerer's working with a limited selection of spells, it's (mostly, or relative to the wizard) smart for him to use those spells as fast as there are situations in which they're of even decent use -- because it's possible that, later on, a situation will arise in which none of his spells is very helpful. In other words, he often best conserves the resources of the rest of the party by being aggressive/proactive.
As a DM I'm just wondering, do I need to give the Sorcerer an extra feat, or a cookie to even things out, or did the game designers already do that with the bloodlines and allowing sorcerers to change out obsolete spells later.
My gut feeling is, sorcerers still really need a spell progression that isn't a level behind. It's amazing all the little things that it throws a monkey wrench in -- for example, any of the spells that a monster with HD = X are immune to.
I love the bloodlines; not only are they a big boost to sorcerers, they also make sorcerers so much more interesting and it's hard to put a price on that.
But weighing against that in the "Did PF make sorcerers as good as wizards?" race are:
1) I know not everyone thinks so, but I think bonded object is crazy good. I feel confident that by the time we get around to the next edition of the game, whenever that is, it's going to be one of those generally accepted "why did we ever think this was balanced?" kind of things.
2) Wizard specialization benefits, while pretty uneven, are in some cases really, really good. Unsurprisingly, all of the wizards I've seen in play in PF pick one of the really good ones.
3) Barred schools are a lot less of a drawback in PF, and
4) Because the spells are overall balanced better, it's harder to pick out (for example) one single 4th level spell that's so universally solid you can make it good enough to be your only 4th level spell in every situation for all of level 8.
I think that my rope trick with a light spell is rather comfortable and well lit myself.
A bit of rabbit-trailing: have you been able to use Rope Trick with a rope that has Invisibility on it, to get around the PF version? What about a Wondrous Item invisible rope? Or go full-bore and make a Wondrous Item 18-hour Extended Rope Trick rope with command-word Invisibility?
Inquiring minds want to know before they hit 7th level and take Rope Trick and 9th level with Invisibility.
But, factor in:
1) Bonded Object, and
2) The half-a-spell-level-ahead advantage in that.
So, sure, the level 5 sorcerer has more 1st and 2nds than even a specialist wizard, but 3rd level spells are zero to 2 + 1 (bonded object) + bonus spells from casting stat. So there the wizard not only has some higher level spells available, but he also may well actually just flat out have more spells to cast each day.
For most levels, absolutely, the sorcerer ends up with more spells per day -- but there's enough where that's not the case (or can be not the case) that I think it deserves mention.
1) You make some valid points, but Bonded Objects do have a drawback which would keep some players from selecting that option.
2) You're comparing them at an odd level, if you go one level up, the wizard w/ a bonded object has one extra 3rd level spell and the sorcerer has 3 more 1sts and 2 more 2nds.
So in the category of spells per day I still think you have to give it to the sorcerer.
I disagree somewhat here -- because the sorcerer's working with a limited selection of spells, it's (mostly, or relative to the wizard) smart for him to use those spells as fast as there are situations in which they're of even decent use -- because it's possible that, later on, a situation will arise in which none of his spells is very helpful. In other words, he often best conserves the resources of the rest of the party by being aggressive/proactive.
I think you are right in that it is to the sorcerer's advantage to use spells when he sees a need for them rather than conserving them. But it's not an advantage of the wizard that it:
Plays well with a more conservative (of spell resources) style.
It's actually negative. The wizard has to be conservative with spell use, because using a choice spell early in the adventuring day means that the wizard probably will not have that option later.
My gut feeling is, sorcerers still really need a spell progression that isn't a level behind.
I think that would be a huge mistake, and make them far and away better than wizards. If that was a house rule in someone's game I would never play a wizard. The extra skill points and spells known couldn't possibly make up for the spell versatility and repetitive spell combination that the sorcerer has.
They're balanced as is.
You might be right, but I still think the scales of play balance are tipping ever so slightly towards wizard.
Rather than worrying about them, spend more time trying to figure out how to balance non-casters to casters.
It's way easier to adjust the balance between two classes that very similar, than it is to adjust the balance between classes that are widely different like casters and non-casters.
I think that the balance between casters and non-casters is a bigger issue that requires a lot more thought (and a different thread).
For sheer enjoyment of playing the class, though, I'd give Sorcerers a few more skill points and I'd make it a point to give Wizards plenty of time to craft.
I would be hesitant to give any caster more skill points, because that is one area that non-casters have in there favor.
Largely because some GMs are trying pretty aggressively to screw the Sorcerer over even by breaking the rules.
It sounds more like the DM is breaking the rules to let your sorcerer be better than he should be. And just about everyone else in the thread agrees.
If you were in my game, I'd tell you to stop, once. If you didn't, you'd be gone.