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.
The flipside is, with the rules as they stand now, none of the top-tier wizard players I've met will play a sorcerer as anything but a "can I make something less good seem good" challenge character.
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.
It might be a negative for you; it's not to me. It's just different:
The sorcerer is more fun to play in the sense that it's often a good idea for you to cast a spell almost every round. The wizard is more fun to play in the sense that when you do pull that key obscure spell out like a rabbit from your hat, it can crack a problem right open or turn an imminent TPK into a cakewalk. The wizard's also more fun in that when it does decide to shoot the wad it's been carefully hoarding, there's more wad to shoot, so to speak.
Both of these things are fun in different ways.
To quantify the "more wad to shoot" with a very simplified example, if you're about to intentionally do something stupid/dangerous, it's typically better to go in with Blur, Mirror Image, and False Life up than to be able to cast Mirror Image 4 times.
The RIng of Sustenance question has been answered.
THe one hour to regain spells is a non-issue...the sorceror requires it, too.
The maximum amount of time you can spend making an item is 8 hours a day. The ring gives 6 for free. the extra 2 is just resting in the evening.
You need to be comfortable and fairly quiet. Leomund's Tiny Hut, Rope Trick and a Tent around a crackling fire are all qualifying, and light is a non-issue (Continual Lights last forever). A nice chair in a Portable Hole with a workbench of your own is another. If not, use a Floating Disk as a bench, and keep tools in a Bag of Holding.
Furthermore, the days spent on a magic item are NOT required to be consecutive, and an item doesn't need to get done in one day. Thus, every day, the wizard could be working on a magic item that the sorceror cannot make at all, because he lacks the feat. Thus, he could be continually upgrading the party's gear while the sorc kibutzes with his bound hirelings (which will likely cost him funds, too). Furthermore, the sorceror is going to be paying a bound creature whether he uses him or not, and the creature could die, resulting in the need for another binding. The wizard can just keep churning out items. Upgrades don't go away.
Kindly also note that alignment determines what you can bind. If you have an Imp familiar, there's no way that you're going to bind a couatl. Also, pseudodragons are dragons, and have 'thumbs' and can use wands.
Also, there's a sorceror equivalent of Pearls of Power in 3.5, the momento magica from the Draconomicon...restores casting slots for spontaneous casters. Same price as a Pearl of the Same level.
The staves that basically sub for Spells Known in the MIC are another easy way to increase number of spells available for a sorceror, and that's if you don't use Knowstones, which give another specific Spell Known. And then on top of that, the whole Favored Class mechanic for human giving you basically another +2 spells Known/level for sorcs is pretty powerful. Combined with bloodline, a Sorceror Human basically is averaging 7-8 Spells Known/level, which generally overmatches any spec wizard with a Int under 30.
A spec wizard has the same base Spells Known as a sorceror...but doesn't have the bonus spells known from class.
His Int bonus isn't as powerful as +1 Spell Known by level from the APG for a racial benefit, either.
I consider the whole charm/bind argument a complete wash. A wizard who wants to use such tactics is going to be proficient at them (and indeed, most God Wizards happily employ such tactics). I'll point out that the Charisma check is mostly a non-issue if you just wait a few days, as the creature gets cumulative penalties, and will eventually agree to serve any competent caster. If you need it now, you can just agree to terms more in its favor...which is role-playing away a charisma advantage, and yet perfectly suitable.
==Aelryinth
The momento's are Draconomicon, not MIC, but point taken :)
Knowstones are even worse, from Dragon magazine (but Dragon under Paizo, hehehe).
==Aelryinth
.
Planar Binding wrote:..... This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.
My reading is:
- The creature can be repeatedly forced to promise to serve.
- Promising to serve does not prevent it from attempting to escape each day.
- While bound and under a promise it must continue to keep it's promise.
I think the 3 methods are ways to stop the creature from breaking free.
If it breaks free it is no longer trying to break free. If it is released it is no longer to break free. If it agrees to perform the service it no longer tries to break free. I think once the parties have an accord the monster just has to abide by the task. Now having the monster risk its life should make the check a lot harder, and not the auto-succeed LT thinks it is.PRD:The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service
I think dying should get a 6 if it is an evil outsider that has not been promised a reward. If the outsider is good or neutral that does not mean it will automatically join your quest either. It should still at least be a 5 barring a very convincing argument. Good does not mean "I will risk my life for an cause that pops up".
.
Where applicable we can warn of advantages/disadvantages that are:
- mechanically dependent
- character dependent
- DM/campaign dependent
- build dependentNote: The idea is to make a list, add to the list, tweak the list and ultimately provide a reference that is 'clean'.
If you are not aware of the concept of Clean Language, here is a brief summary:
Clean Language. Clean Language questions are designed to reduce to a minimum any influence from the facilitator's 'map of the world' via his/her metaphors, interpretations or unwarranted assumptions.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
This is a good idea. I think I will bookmark it. There are too many campaign/DM based ideas used in these debates, not just this one, but many of them.
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...
I was wrong with that one. I had never had a player who know how to use them effectively, and I had never used them myself at that point.
Let this be a lesson to you all. Be careful what you post. I am ashamed to have written that now, even though it does sound good. :)
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.
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.
The number of starting languages is based off intelligence so the wizard should still be ahead, but not by much, assuming the sorcerer took that skill.
I don't see how keeping players from abusing rules qualifies as arbitrary decisions as a DM.
I'm not a fan of a player having their character walk up to a guard and say "I bluff him to get him to let me by".
I don't think it is that simple. She probably makes a generic statement that gets the point across and rolls the dice at worst. Some people are not good RP'ers(myself when I started). That does not mean I should suffer penalties as long as a make a real attempt and I don't say something stupid.
I still don't know where you got the idea that a guy who is significantly more charismatic than anyone has ever been in the history of the real world is going to have trouble keeping an academic in the library/researching/tinkering.
So, no, I don't think it's likely that a cohort is going to get upset by the fact that he's got a cushy job which keeps him from getting into danger.I'd argue that that really depends on the personality of your cohort and what his motivation for throwing his lot in with you was. That's something that is very GM dependent.
I don't remember what level you said your cohort is, but it looks like he should probably be about 11th level. So you've got a Wizard back at the keep who is able to cast level 6 spells, whose intelligence dwarfs yours, that knows you depend on him for a certain amount of your power. He's also probably busy slaving away making your scrolls instead of expanding his personal power, being guarded by an extra-dimensional entity who hates you ( who also has an intellect that dwarfs yours ).
I would be very careful how you word instructions to your bound entity. Any command to "take care of", "look out for", etc. your scroll-monkey maybe interpreted by your bound critter as looking out for his interests. Which easily translates into a knife in the back.
Even those guys you mentioned could not control everyone, and it is a fallacy to assume the cohort is a puppet just because your charisma is high without regard to his personal opinions. Now if the wizard(cohort) is the bookworm type he may not mind staying home.
Having the creature risk its life might make the check a lot harder. It really depends on the creature. If the Sorcerer who is about to invade a temple to a good god calls up a demon and says, "come with me, for I am going to invade this temple where there are likely to be many Paladins you can kill", the roll may not be all that much harder. If the Sorcerer calls up a fire elemental and tells him, "I wish to have this city and it's residents burnt to the ground, will you do this for me?" the roll might not be that much harder. It has everything to do with what kind of creature the Sorcerer is....
Planar Binding wrote:..... This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.
My reading is:
- The creature can be repeatedly forced to promise to serve.
- Promising to serve does not prevent it from attempting to escape each day.
- While bound and under a promise it must continue to keep it's promise.
I think the 3 methods are ways to stop the creature from breaking free.
If it breaks free it is no longer trying to break free. If it is released it is no longer to break free. If it agrees to perform the service it no longer tries to break free. I think once the parties have an accord the monster just has to abide by the task. Now having the monster risk its life should make the check a lot harder, and not the auto-succeed LT thinks it is.PRD:he check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service
I think dying should get a 6 if it is an evil outsider that has not been promised a reward. If the outsider is good or neutral that does not mean it will automatically join your quest either. It should still at least be a 5 barring a very convincing argument. Good does not mean "I will risk my life for an cause that pops up".
Do you know how hard paladins beat down evil outsiders? The word paladin might be a word you don't want to use.
The cohort has already been self-selected to be loyal and supportive of the character and somebody the character wants on his team.
Having said that, I certainly never said that the cohort is a puppet. I'm just pointing out that it's very reasonable for a person who wants a homebody book worm as a cohort to find a homebody book worm to make his cohort.
Worded that way, I can agree.
So with those thoughts in mind, I'd say given most parties without an arcane the wizard integrates better than the sorcerer. For a fixed PC this holds even more. Take LT's sorcerer for example and change the party and the campaign style. What we are told is a successful sorcerer would be horribly out of place in a different setting and party to the point that they would likely flounder horribly.
-James
Well said.
It's perfectly possible to play by the rules while playing a totally different game to others.
This is why it is important to be aware of campaign/DM bias when presenting our experiences of a class/'The Game' in general.
While there are many rules, there are not rules to govern every facet of The Game nor how a game should be run.
This is why we have DMs.
What's more, there shouldn't *be* a rule for every facet of the game.
There is no standardised way of running a campaign.
This is the beauty of a pen and paper RPG - and it's overwhelming advantage over a computer game - we have 'grey' areas - areas of the game, typically that are subject to individual interpretation and style.
We have a rule set that defines *The Game*. How we adjudicate how these rules effect the campaing, how the 'grey areas' are interpreted and any other element requiring personal creativity help to make *The Game* into *Our Game*.
DM's and players alike, working together, are free to create their own 'flavour' of game - however they wish.
The problem is when people discuss aspects of the game while referencing only one flavour as a benchmark for their experiences.
Even then, it's not the end of the world - as long as we're sure to provide a context when stating our views so that others can judge for themselves if the context applies to them and their game.
::
An Example - LilthThralls Sorcerer: It would seem that we all agree the character orignates from a very favourable campaign style. If a player has a similair campaign/style of game then they can adopt similair builds and tactics. For any other game they should be way of relying on such builds and tactics and automatically assuming they will be viable.
::
I'll update The List after work.
Remember, this is an attempt to produce a 'clean' reference:
Clean Language: Clean Language is
Making the attempt is what matters. Having some sort of plausible rationale as to why you should get to make the skill check is what I'm looking for. Whether it's given in first or third person doesn't make a difference to me. Based on what the player describes that they are doing I'll set the difficulty of what they are attempting."I bluff the guard so he let's us pass" - doesn't fly.
"I tell the guard that we were supposed to meet with the court physician (whose name was learned earlier and gets dropped in the conversation) near the rose garden but that we can't seem to find it and were wondering if he could give directions" - roll away.
The second one didn't take a lot of roleplaying skill but gets the job done.
This is an example of how different campaigns/groups can use the same rule set to play a different game.
Another example: In our group we allow often allow an NPC to make a Sense Motive check when first approached by a stranger - before any verbal exchange has taken place.
Well you want to remember to factor in pearls of power here as well.
Incorrect. It clearly states on table 15-29 pg. 550 of the PFRPG that a bonus spell item costs 1000 x Level Squared and gives Pearl of Power as an example. It doesn't say that it's only bonus spells for wizards so the assumption is that any caster who could craft wondrous items could make an item that gave them bonus spells.
Besides that's a piece of gear not a class feature. A wand that casts 1st Level Spells as a CL1 caster costs 750 GP, a Pearl of Power which you can only use once a day costs 1000 GP.
As to planar binding, again as others have said this should be a two-edged sword. If its never cutting back on you then chalk this up to the DM. From the sound of LTs campaign I would have Paladins crusading against the party.
You're talking to the wrong guy. I never use the spell. If I really felt like I needed it. I'd rather use Limited Wish spend the 1500 GP for that as a Planar Ally spell and pay the 12,000 GP it takes to secure it's services with no repercussions. It's expensive help but what do you want from a 12 HD outsider that isn't going to get a split of the treasure.
Well you want to remember to factor in pearls of power here as well.
Incorrect. It clearly states on table 15-29 pg. 550 of the PFRPG that a bonus spell item costs 1000 x Level Squared and gives Pearl of Power as an example. It doesn't say that it's only bonus spells for wizards so the assumption is that any caster who could craft wondrous items could make an item that gave them bonus spells.
If it not a pearl of power then it is a custom item. Since these items have to be priced by the DM(the book only gives guidelines), such nonexistent items really should not be entered into discussions. The pearl as power, as written, only works for prepared casters.
It's expensive help but what do you want from a 12 HD outsider that isn't going to get a split of the treasure.
..or coordinate with its fellow Plane Shifting capable companions to strategically annihilate your setup by eliminating your minions, allies and associates.
O_O!!!!
If it not a pearl of power then it is a custom item. Since these items have to be priced by the DM(the book only gives guidelines), such nonexistent items really should not be entered into discussions. The pearl as power, as written, only works for prepared casters.
I think if you are going to bring gear into a discussion of class features it is perfectly valid to mention custom gear.
Besides are you honestly telling me that you think a druid, cleric, or sorcerer shouldn't be allowed to make a bonus spell item for their class just because its not one of the ones listed in the PFRPG, or that they should cost more because they aren't "pearls of power".
Regardless of the player's skill (whether they be highly charming or Al Gore style charismatic), it is the skills of the character which determine success.Player skill and involvement should be important. I'm not interested in playing Spreadsheets & Statistics where the formulas and rules dictate everything that happens. I don't need other people to play that game.
I don't care how high their stats are or how many ranks in something a character has, if a player can't describe what the character is doing or explain why they should be allowed to use a skill/power to get something done they haven't gotten to the point that we even need to bother getting dice out.
A player with a good and creative idea should be rewarded out of combat as well as during combat. A player that gives a description of a stunt or manuever that they are attempting in combat they should get some sort of an edge from it.
I disagree with "should". The players are only entitled to what the rules provide them really. Anything beyond that is just playstyle. I do give players things if they enrich the game, but it is never viewed as something they should have. It is just my way of saying thanks for adding to the game.
PS: I also like consistency, and maybe the games I played where DM's just made things up because they can, normally with it not in my favor, is skewing my position on the issue.
Julius Ceaser, Mohammod, Jesus Christ, and Hellen of Troy - I think those four are good examples of human maximum charisma.
..just noticed this:
Apart from Ceaser, who was by some accounts a military genius, master diplomat and politcal monster (Knowldege:History, Knowldge:Warfare, Knowledge:Politics)..
...all the rest*?
Yes, highly charismatic - but none of them founded any of the legacies we accredit them with. Muhammad and Jesus were used as iconic figures by organised parties consisting of many people working towards a common goal to establish the legacies we associate them with.
That is to say - they're not famous for their ability to coordinate but rather to inspire.
Yes they had followers and yes we can assume these followers loved them and were loyal - this is the classic benefit of high charisma.
..but it was the followers themselves who established the organised systems, not the the the person being followed.
::
Now, I'm not saying you can't get a lot of people to do things if you have high charisma - you can..
...but you still need the other mental facuilties to make the best use of them - to plan and execute strategies, to establish developed organisations.
Actually, to be honest, you don't even need Charisma - all you need is the belief of others in your Charisma.
For example: A high intelligence wizard takes a bard cohort who has a great charisma but isn't very intelligent nor wise. With clever use of propoganda, public relation techniques and clever planning, the Bard quickly becomes the iconic figure in a ruling regime..
...a regime all the while controlled by the super-genius Wizard from behind the scenes.
Or the Wizard never even opens their mouth - they simply have bard followers telling tales of mighty deeds, each accredited to the Wizard.
..or the Wizard publishes a well written book that appeals to the mindset of the nation at the time and promises the potential of change for the better, change that can offer salvation from their desperate economic crisis..
..and so on..
Yes, all of these scenarios are, once again, campaign specific.
::
..but yes, perhaps another thread to discuss Charisma? Maybe named Charisma versus Intelligence?
*
.
..
...
.....
......
The idea is to make a list, add to the list, tweak the list and ultimately provide a reference that is 'clean'.
If you are not aware of the concept of Clean Language, here is a brief summary:
Clean Language. Clean Language questions are designed to reduce to a minimum any influence from the facilitator's 'map of the world' via his/her metaphors, interpretations or unwarranted assumptions.
::
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
::
::
Clarification needed: Familiars:
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.''
*good stuff*
..good call, great input once more. I'll trim when I get time though it would be nice to be able to post The List for copying/pasting so others can tweak/form their own.
Regarding Spoilers/Clarification: If you write them, I'll add them and accredit them to the authors. I hope that in this way, if anyone wants to discuss the point/s, they know who to ask for clarification and can reference a clear point/aspect of the class they wish to discuss.
I don't believe one list will give a completely accurate representation of the pros/cons of the two classes but I hope it will provide an index for reference/discussion points should the reader want clarification.
I think if you are going to bring gear into a discussion of class features it is perfectly valid to mention custom gear.Besides are you honestly telling me that you think a druid, cleric, or sorcerer shouldn't be allowed to make a bonus spell item for their class just because its not one of the ones listed in the PFRPG, or that they should cost more because they aren't "pearls of power".
Umm a few things here.
First I disagree that gear that works for the wizard but not the sorcerer isn't a factor. If sorcerers had to buy spell completion items at a higher caster level (which they mercifully don't) it would be a disadvantage to the class. That pearls of power, for whatever reason, do not work on spell slots for spontaneous casters is a comparative disadvantage which is germane to this discussion where it relates to number of spells per day. Especially when the wizard has an advantage in making gear over the sorcerer.
Secondly druids and clerics are prepared casters and can use pearls of power. It really was the poor bard that has suffered the most for pearls working the way that they do. When the momento magica came out it was the greatest boon for them in 3.5 as they were a full spell/level down from what they are in Pathfinder.
Thirdly DM-made items, like DM-made spells are completely and entirely DM dependent. The 'formula' you take from is not hard and fast pricing rules or carte blanche from which to make items. It is a guideline for pricing items that you've already decided to include in the campaign. You can note that when such a spontaneous version did come out it was priced at 150% rather than just by that guideline.
If the last bit comes off a bit harsh I apologize, but its misuse of that table (that's even titled 'guideline') which happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Sign me up for the use activated sword of true striking while we're there though if you don't mind!
-James
You are absolutely right.
Not sure what greater specialization options really means here.
Where I was going with my version of that is: sorcerer gives you more options to specialize your character to a particular niche. If you want to make the king of charm spells guy, that's a sorcerer. Compulsions? Sorcerer. Touch spells? Sorcerer. Etc.
Being a diviner I don't see as that kind of character schtick specialization (although it's a school specialization, obviously) -- it's just a set of bonuses that's ridiculously good for every kind of character. 1 level of diviner might be one of the few legitimate too-good class dips for all kinds of non-mage-build characters.
|
I wasn't talking about whether a character should be able to use UMD for creating magic items. I never made the argument that one should be able to use UMD to create magic items (I don't know if the rules allow it or not and don't have time right now to look, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with you). I'm talking about all arguments which have been made in this thread which nerf the Sorcerer.
Before someone who is in a bad mood about this thread can do it, may I ask that you provide a link to at least two such nerfs?
I'm actually a fairly good roleplayer. I've won a couple of prizes for it.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say something like that?
.
handing out credit and asking me for inclusion.
I brought up a couple points so you can put me in there.
:)
Actually I'm pretty sure you can't cheese magic item crafting through Use Magic Device.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.
It has recently been discovered in another thread that for spell completion and spell trigger items the caster(creator of the item) must be able to cast the spell. In other words a wizard would have to have the spell prepared or the sorcerer would have to know the spell. If someone has already brought this up then I stand ninja'd
I wasn't talking about whether a character should be able to use UMD for creating magic items. I never made the argument that one should be able to use UMD to create magic items (I don't know if the rules allow it or not and don't have time right now to look, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with you). I'm talking about all arguments which have been made in this thread which nerf the Sorcerer.Before someone who is in a bad mood about this thread can do it, may I ask that you provide a link to at least two such nerfs?
I think they were nerfs(disagreements) with her playstyle. It is against my sense of immersion to keep pimping powerful outsiders with no reaction from any of them, as an example. That is one reason why I never used the spell, and if I did it would be sparingly. It would bite me in the arse at some point.
I think 3.5 Wizards were far superior to sorcerers in anything except "magic missile battery" type of role.
I pathfinder, they are about equals.
I think they were nerfs(disagreements) with her playstyle. It is against my sense of immersion to keep pimping powerful outsiders with no reaction from any of them, as an example. That is one reason why I never used the spell, and if I did it would be sparingly. It would bite me in the arse at some point.I wasn't talking about whether a character should be able to use UMD for creating magic items. I never made the argument that one should be able to use UMD to create magic items (I don't know if the rules allow it or not and don't have time right now to look, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with you). I'm talking about all arguments which have been made in this thread which nerf the Sorcerer.Before someone who is in a bad mood about this thread can do it, may I ask that you provide a link to at least two such nerfs?
To be fair we haven't heard too much about the specific situations that this particular sorcerer is in - unless I missed something. All we know is that it relies on charming and binding tactics and is lawful neutral. While I'd personally feel that continually binding creatures with divine and/or interdimensional clout and not offering them a fair reward would eventually at some point result in a backlash it may not be the case.
As a DM, if one of my players tried to have a coutal bodyguard bound for 2 weeks at a time with no pay, and they were neutral, I might have the coutal not neccessarily much angrier than mildly annoyed and possibly seeing the situation as a chance to redeem/rectify/alter behavior and subtly push the sorcerer it is guarding toward a good alignment, especially if it is aiding in generally good causes.
That all said, I think the value of constant use of binding is overrated. While a good spell, able to add a good deal of versitility to any caster's spell list, and one that a sorcerer's prime stat allows him to excell at (although I don't PERSONALLY find that excelling is really all that important for charms and bindings, considering the relatively low Cha of what I'd be checking against the majority of the time; barring demons/devils who'd I'd just as soon not have watching my back). Without foresight as to what situation you will be going into you just have another body on the field whose particular set of abilties may or may not always help, and saving yourself a round of casting a summon spell (which may net a creature who is better suited to the situation), while POSSIBLY pestering an other planar entity or needing to pay for it based on your groups interpretation of the spell.
All in all binding is a great spell if tailored to a specific situation, but not just as pulling in another henchmen for traveling, especially for a class that can dominate/charm/suggestion, ect.
Also I'm back and it looks as though someone has already made an enchanter and that conversation has passed, along with a whole bunch of other things.
I did notice that on the "list" some things that were a bit redundant. On the wizard side there is the pro along the lines of better skill points, and fewer skill points were listed as a downside to sorcerer, but unless I overlooked it, which is possible, there is more feats under a positive for wizard, but not fewer feats listed as a negetive for sorcerers. The list could be cleaned up and shortened by removing the doubles. Fewer skill points doesn't need to be under sorcerers if more points is under wizard, and the like.