|
People do leave out the advantages in mono spell casting.
A Wizard has more spells, but can prep fewer spells.
A Sorceror can cast 6 straight teleports if he so chooses or 6 straight Dispel Magics or 7 straight Invis spells to stealth the party to bypass the army of giants. You need that protection from Fire for taking out the red dragon sure np. Need endure elements for an entire party so you don't freeze to death yeap. Add in items like rings of wizardry, Staves to add additional spells you don't have, hell UMD is a huge advantage for Sorcs over certain wizards.
I am of the opinion that Sorcs do need more spells known then they currently have to even things out more.
Currently how ever the Sorceror bloodlines are much better then the crap that was 3.5 Sorceror....
There is no official victor to this debate, but usually the weight of opinion falls in favor of the Wizard.
The biggest factor in Pathfinder is the addition of bonus spells known to the Sorcerer. This takes the largest weakness that the Sorcerer has in comparison to the Wizard, and pads it.
Does that shift the balance? In my opinion it doesn't enough to make Sorcerers the more powerful caster overall, but it does make it closer than ever before.
I tend to agree, with the caveat that all classes have a range of power from super lame played by the wrong player to super powerful played by an expert player.
An expert player playing a wizard can be pretty damned scary.
That said, most of the guys I game with don't go to the forums and learn all the ins and outs of 'being batman', the wizards they build are far from the ideal wizard and much more moderate in power. I see an amazing number of wizards who are built as straight blasters who complain that the archer is out-damaging them.
Sorcerers don't quite have the godlike powers the wizards in the hands of an expert player, but in the hands of the more typical player the gap is much closer, and in some cases maybe the sorcerer has an edge.
In regards to bloodline powers vs. specialist powers - that's all small potatoes, and nothing next to the power of base spellcasting.
The more I deal with it the more I tend to agree with you.
I agree with treantmonk too (with the caveat that the Diviner school 1st level ability is extremely handy for a prime spellcaster).
I do wish they'd given the Sorcerer on-par spell progression. I don't think this detracts from the flavour differences in the two classes to any great degree. The bloodlines especially enhance the Sorcerous flavour in Pathfinder.
I also wish (more fervently) that they hadn't just given item-creation a once- or twice-over, and sorted it out it a balanced way, presenting it clearly as a viable-but-not-nuts option. As it is, the removal of XP costs isn't balanced at all by the inclusion of a creation DC which is too low to be a real drawback.
As far as Mirror Mirror's argument goes, I think it is fair to say that a Wizard's power *is* more campaign-specific than a Sorcerer's, because spells learned will vary - and also, as said, that player ability will affect a Wizard's power substantially - it's a finickety class to play well - but these are limited and abstract truisms: in play, in most campaigns, scrolls are available to learn from, and long-term players who want more than blasting do eventually root out the Wizard's goodness.
(Realistically, if there are Wizard's around who can scribe scrolls from 1st level, there are going to be scrolls around to learn from).
I agree with treantmonk too (with the caveat that the Diviner school 1st level ability is extremely handy for a prime spellcaster).
Ugh... I'm really starting to hate the diviner specialist abilities. It's extremely useful for almost any character. An amazingly good dip for rogue :|
The Bonded Item is probably "most powerful" in the hands of Wizard, generally speaking:
Even with NO extra spells known beyond the automatic ones gained with level, spontaneously casting ANYTHING in your spellbook is a HUGE advantage for a Wizard.
For (Arcane BL) Sorceror's, they still have the same spells known and their spell slots are more numerous any ways, so it's just increasing something they're already good at. Familiars seem to synergize best with Sorcerors, for whom the UMD tactic works best given it's a Class Skill & CHA-based (and they're more likely to max it anyways, to make up for their few spells known -though Wizards will certainly get INT Headbands, so this could be a bonus Skill as well). Either option is fine for either class, though, and definitely bring different flavors.
The BL Bonus Spells really helped equalize Sorcerors alot, IMHO.
The only problem is that it rather depends on the spells themselves: Bloodlines like Arcane, Celestial, Infernal, Aberrant, and even Destined have great spells that most Casters would like to pick up anyways. Bloodlines like Elemental (4 Elemental Body Spells!), Draconic, and Abyssal seem more suited to the BL-linked PrC's like Dragon Discicple - A normal Sorceror would never have 4 different Elemental Body Spells known, they would swap some out when they gain the higher level versions, and only know 2 at most: 1 for power, 1 for low-level utility - this is wasteful EVEN FOR an "Elemental Disciple" type PrC (the Elemental Body should have been implemented thru a Class Ability, not Bonus Spell, IMHO). Likewise, spells useful for buffing yourself for melee just aren't the best thing for a full Sorceror to use, much less devote a signifigant number of their spells known towards (the best usage are the 'defensive' ones like stoneskin, etc, which can also apply to Familiar)
Overall, Sorcer/Wizard are now 'on par' power/capability-wise, and just present different play/flavor styles.
Good job, Jason! :-)
The spellcasting mechanic hasn't changed. It's spontaneity vs. versatility. This is a long held debate, which is better, being able to cast a small list of spells spontaneously, or being able to cast a long list of spells, but requiring pre-preparation.
But what HAS changed is Arcane Bond.
So it's not simply fewer/higher power memorized casting vs. more/ 1-level behind spontaneous casting, but spontaneous casting vs. prepared WITH 1 spontaneous casting of ANYTHING in their spellbook, i.e. for that ONE encounter you couldn't forsee and prepare for, but the rest of your spells are chosen to be generally useful. :-)BTW, I never said: welcome to the boards. You seem to bring a cool-headed and courteous approach with you, which is always a good thing. :-)
Sure is. Welcome likewise.
Quandary: Thank you for the welcome. I've lost count of how many friendly welcomes I've recieved. Without a doubt, these are the most welcoming boards I've ever participated in. Thanks!!
Now that I've thanked you for the welcome - time to destroy your post :P Just kidding, but...
But what HAS changed is Arcane Bond.
So it's not simply fewer/higher power memorized casting vs. more/ 1-level behind spontaneous casting, but spontaneous casting vs. prepared WITH 1 spontaneous casting of ANYTHING in their spellbook, i.e. for that ONE encounter you couldn't forsee and prepare for, but the rest of your spells are chosen to be generally useful. :-)
but...that's not new. In 3.5 Arcane Bond was duplicated with one feat called Alacritous Cogitation (CM). Did exactly what Arcane Bond does.
Dennis da Ogre: Thanks for the support, but what's all this "Being Batman" stuff for wizards? Everyone knows that guide was trumped by Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards: Being a God ;)
also:
That said, most of the guys I game with don't go to the forums and learn all the ins and outs of 'being batman', the wizards they build are far from the ideal wizard and much more moderate in power. I see an amazing number of wizards who are built as straight blasters who complain that the archer is out-damaging them.
everytime a wizard casts pure blast spells their Int score needs to drop by one. It's true, it's a little known fact, but absolutely true.
Porpentine: Thank you
(the) balance between Wizard and Sorcerer is seriously tilted toward the Sorc ... in 3.5
Ways to tell a player who has never visited a CO board no.1, lol
everytime a wizard casts pure blast spells their Int score needs to drop by one. It's true, it's a little known fact, but absolutely true.
lol, I will vouch for this :)
Dennis da Ogre: Thanks for the support, but what's all this "Being Batman" stuff for wizards? Everyone knows that guide was trumped by Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards: Being a God ;)
Actually I like your guide more than the other. I just prefer the Batman reference better than the God reference. Batman is the guy who has a tool for every job which is what I see as the strength of the wizard.
everytime a wizard casts pure blast spells their Int score needs to drop by one. It's true, it's a little known fact, but absolutely true.
I'm just calling it how I've seen it. For every person I see playing 'god' and going the battlefield control or using other effective tactics I see 1-2 (more?) that are playing blasters.
Now for the shocking conclusion: If someone enjoys playing a blaster wizard, good for them! Games are for fun, and what is fun to one person is often not for others.
For the record, I absolutely agree. If playing a pure blasting wizard is fun for the player, then by all means have fun, and it's not as if a pure blast wizard doesn't contribute either.
However, I think Dennis da Ogre summed it up nicely, I've seen this many times before as well. The player makes a wizard, and a pure blaster, then ends up dissapointed because he finds that the wizard isn't nearly as effective as he hoped, and the Ranger beside him is proving far more effective with his arrows.
It just happens to be that the strength of the wizard isn't doing damage (that's the strength of the rogue or the fighter), and way too many players don't know that, and inevitably feel dissapointed to find out during gameplay. Much better if they can find out how to make their wizard an effective contributer to the party through discussion boards like these.
slightly off topic post
pretty much any class can kick ass or suck it if built correctly/improperly. it's all up to the GM to dish out encounters that challenge the party.
First level side-by-side comparison of Aberrant Sorcerer and Conjurer Wizard:
Let's assume Eschew Materials = Scribe Scroll (I think Scribe Scroll is better, but let's give this one to the Sorcerer.)
Let's assume Acid Ray = Acid Dart (Dart actually ignores spell resistance, but let's give this one to the Sorcerer, too.)
Let's say the cantrips balance out (I'll ignore Summoner's Charm to make up for the fact that Sorcerers get one more Cantrip.)
Since we gave one more to the Sorcerer, let's balance that out with the fact that Sorcerers get Simple Weapon Proficiency.
That leaves Arcane Bond (I'm going to take Bonded Item for this example) and spells. I'm also going to assume 1 bonus 1st level for INT/CHA of 18.
Sorcerer gets 2/4 spells (know two, cast 4/day).
Wizard gets 4/4 spells (1 for 1st level, 1 for INT, 1 specialty, 1 arcane bond).
Note that one of the Wizard spells can be chosen from 7 known spells, but one is limited to conjuration. Conjurer takes Mage Armor for defense, whatever 2 spells the Sorcerer takes, and can cast any one of 7 spells in addition. The Sorcerer can have a huge impact by spamming a Charm Person in the right circumstances (4 times), while the Wizard could only manage 2.
Let's assume Acid Ray = Acid Dart (Dart actually ignores spell resistance, but let's give this one to the Sorcerer, too.)
I really wish Jason had just made Evocation bypass SR. It would instantly solve the (mostly non-Core) Conjuration out-Energy Damaging Evocation issue, and give Evocation an 'oomph' compared to the more Controlling magic schools.
Let's assume Acid Ray = Acid Dart (Dart actually ignores spell resistance, but let's give this one to the Sorcerer, too.)I really wish Jason had just made Evocation bypass SR. It would instantly solve the (mostly non-Core) Conjuration out-Energy Damaging Evocation issue, and give Evocation an 'oomph' compared to the more Controlling magic schools.
I think evocation is actually a very good school. I just don't think it's fireball and cone of cold that make it good. Instead I think of spells like the various Darkness controls, Tiny Hut, all the (formerly) Bigby's spells, walls of force, contingency, etc.
Even then, without Orbs, I don't think Conjuration out energy damaging evocation.
I wish instead that the Evocation powers had enhanced the spells from the school that make it good. Some ideas:
1) Light spells are treated as a level higher for defeating darkness spells and vice versa
2) The evoker can see in darkness he creates
3) Force effects have extra hardness
4) Ice effects have extra hardness and/or HP
For example...
...without Orbs...
I agree, the entire WotC library isn't Paizo's problem, so this isn't really a PRPG issue as long as they DON'T go down that road in further material (I guess it's an irrational hatred of mine that periodically manifests itself, cued by Conjuration being brought up)
Great!
...or can see thru it as if it were one lever lower?
These seem interesting, could be an 'upgraded' form of the basic "Intense Spells"
...Realistically, these types of ideas seem IDEAL for "School-Only Feats"
(which suggests BL Feats, Domain Feats, Ranger-Style Feats) only available to specialists.
|
everytime a wizard casts pure blast spells their Int score needs to drop by one. It's true, it's a little known fact, but absolutely true.I'm just calling it how I've seen it. For every person I see playing 'god' and going the battlefield control or using other effective tactics I see 4-5 (more?) that are playing blasters.
Stuff in the bold I fixed for you ;).
Personally I believe majority of the time it's bad roleplaying to be a blaster, as wizard with high Int should figure out that it's more effective to use battlefield control.
Right now I like a Diviner, the ability to never be effectively surprise. Acting in a surprise round is HUGE, if you win initiative you can lay down battlefield control and end the encounter before it even begins. The icing on the cake is that even get a bonus to initiative.
The other first level bonus is mediocre but it can give you something else to do if you run out of spells, tbh it's better to use aid other until level 4 (bonus wise not safety wise).
The level 8 bonus is ok depending on the GM sure you can cast scrying to learn about the enemy, however since it's just 1min per level you might just catch the target just taking a leak, eating, or don't gain enough info about where to teleport to (houserule).
Some may say divination spells are useless but here are some good core pf divine spells that could be useful in any campaign.
Lvl 1
Comprehend language: You now understand what people are talking about or wrote
Detect Secret Doors
Lvl 2
See invisibility (to see invisible people)
Detect thoughts (for interrogating or know true motive of someone during a meeting).
Lvl 3
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance Now you know what's behind that door and what sort of ambush waiting for you on the otherside of the door.
Tongues: Same but this time you can cast it on the diplomancer for s/he to communicate.
Lvl 4
Scrying: Learn some info about your enemy and see what he has prepared. Or simply do a scry and die tactic (mainly involving teleporting in and attacking him when least expected).
Detect Scrying is sort of useful for those who believe the BBEG is always spying on him or her. (Up until level 8)
Level 5
Contact other plane: Oh yes and int base save for a wizard to play 20 questions to learn what spells you should prepare, BBEG's plan etc.
Prying eyes: Congrats you have 1d4+9 (or more) scouts to search dungeon for you to learn not only the layout but also enemy location and/or type. The down side is that it can give forewarning, but who cares the alarm in the dungeon is likely set off anyway.
Telepathic bond: It's ok that you can communicate with people w/o saying a word. It's best use to discuss conversation in private.
Quicken True Strike: If you got hit the target with a ray spell (like avoiding mischance)
Level 6
True seeing can be useful tbh short duration and gp cost makes it meh at best.
Quicken See invisibility can be useful if followed by stuff like glitter dust and/or SoL (Save or Loose) spells.
Level 7
Scrying Greater: Same as scrying but it actually has a useful duration...
Lvel 8
Meh stuff at this level even quicken stuff, might prepare lower level stuff using this level. But the best I can tell (it's 3am and I rarely play level 10+ games let alone 15+) is
Moment of Prescience: Hey you don't want those deadly fort and/or will saves to get you down. But it's still meh as it's just one time use only, and must decide to use it before you make the roll (tbh as a 8th level spell it should be after you make your roll).
Level 9
Wow just meh! Just use a lower level quicken spell, foresight is no way a worth a level 9 spell. Foresight biggest thing is you're never surprise which is an ability you effectively gain at level 1 anyway.
everytime a wizard casts pure blast spells their Int score needs to drop by one. It's true, it's a little known fact, but absolutely true.I'm just calling it how I've seen it. For every person I see playing 'god' and going the battlefield control or using other effective tactics I see 4-5 (more?) that are playing blasters.Stuff in the bold I fixed for you ;).
Personally I believe majority of the time it's bad roleplaying to be a blaster, as wizard with high Int should figure out that it's more effective to use battlefield control.
I was going to say it was a 1:10 ratio but figured someone would cry shenanigans.
I don't think it has anything to do with bad roleplaying. It's impossible to roleplay someone who is vastly more intelligent than you are and frankly none of us are the super geniuses that wizards are supposed to be.
On the surface blasting appears to be a valid choice for wizards, it's not until you've been gaming for a while or seen the other choices that it really becomes an issue. Battlefield control is great but there are a lot of folks who can't seem to grasp tactics in gaming at all.
@Mirror Mirror
I don't know, basic tactics are always useful. And there are a lot of GMs who use pre-made modules or organized play.
Worse case your GM makes those tactics only as useful as blasting.
As for non-battlemat gaming, there is still an element of tactics there and a good GM is going to give you enough information to make it work.
GM: "There are 4 trolls charging you"
Player: "Can I drop a wall of force between the first 2 and the last 2?"
GM: "Yes but they could move around it."
Player: "Ok then wall of stone should be wide enough right"
GM: "Sure"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
blasters are teh suck
Maybe battlefield control is highly effective, but sheer nukage can also be highly effective. Real tactics are relevant here: you can control the battlefield all you want, but if you can't mass overwhelming firepower on the decisive point of the battle, you will lose. TM's god wizard build mostly assumes somebody else is bringing the hurt; a blasting evoker just chooses not to delegate. Please don't patronize players of blaster wizards by saying that they "can't grasp tactics" or that they've "never seen battlefield control in play."
Battlefield control becomes more important the less restricted the terrain is naturally. If PC vs. monsters takes place in an open field, battlefield control becomes critically important. In an enclosed dungeon where PCs can make more effective use of existing chokepoints, stick the meatshield in the door and lob fireballs past him until the badguys are charcoal. Sure there are more variables (# of enemy, for instance) but even so blasters always, always have something to contribute. I much prefer save for half instead of save negates.
Besides, sometimes playing the glass cannon is fun. TM rightly points out in his wizard guide that *somebody* has to bring the hurt. Tim the Enchanter/pyromantic walking artillery piece is a fun character concept and it's fun in play as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Do you know how many people I played with don't have spells or items to negate invisibility? I seen people just blindly fireball an area where the person was last at, a fighter attack the square he was attacked from.See invisibility (to see invisible people)orly.
Oh I get you there, I try to carry potions or scrolls for that kind of thing since invisibility isn't something you run into every encounter. IMO it's that kind of stuff potions and scrolls were made for: see invis, water breathing, death ward, potion of fly for noncasters, scroll of knock, etc.: all stuff that when you need it you REALLY need it, but it isn't something you're going to use every fight. I was just mocking you in a friendly way for pointing out that see invisibility lets you see invisible people. :p
Battlefield control is great but there are a lot of folks who can't seem to grasp tactics in gaming at all.
So true, and some people just find it fun to roll a large amount of dice.
Battlefield control is great but there are a lot of folks who can't seem to grasp tactics in gaming at all.So true, and some people just find it fun to roll a large amount of dice.
I said something which I really didn't intend to say. I don't hate blasters and think they can be a hoot. However they are not the strongest way to play a wizard/ sorcerer though. Ultimately it's less about rolling the dice and more about the imagery of blowing stuff up. So it's a role play call which is fine with me.
As a side note, archers and fighters get to roll more dice per game session than blasters do and generally out-damage them. In particular archers get to roll tons of dice with Rapid Shot and Many Shot. So if dice rolling is the goal... maybe steer them to archer ;)
I said something which I really didn't intend to say. I don't hate blasters and think they can be a hoot. However they are not the strongest way to play a wizard/ sorcerer though. Ultimately it's less about rolling the dice and more about the imagery of blowing stuff up. So it's a role play call which is fine with me.As a side note, archers and fighters get to roll more dice per game session than blasters do and generally out-damage them. In particular archers get to roll tons of dice with Rapid Shot and Many Shot. So if dice rolling is the goal... maybe steer them to archer ;)
I thoroughly enjoy blowing things up. :)
It's impossible to roleplay someone who is vastly more intelligent than you are and frankly none of us are the super geniuses that wizards are supposed to be.
Speak for yourself. ;)
But seriously: you might be surprised. If you go by the "chance to roll it on 3d6 vs. frequency in the general population" conversion of Intelligence to IQ, and assume that 1 in 6 humans places the +2 bump in Intelligence, 18 and 20 Int are roughly equivalent to 140 and 150 IQ. It's a fairly high bar, but certainly not unreachable, and I guarantee the denizens of this particular forum are above average to begin with.
It's impossible to roleplay someone who is vastly more intelligent than you are and frankly none of us are the super geniuses that wizards are supposed to be.Speak for yourself. ;)
But seriously: you might be surprised. If you go by the "chance to roll it on 3d6 vs. frequency in the general population" conversion of Intelligence to IQ, and assume that 1 in 6 humans places the +2 bump in Intelligence, 18 and 20 Int are roughly equivalent to 140 and 150 IQ. It's a fairly high bar, but certainly not unreachable, and I guarantee the denizens of this particular forum are above average to begin with.
I'm thinking less of this forum and more of general population. From what I've seen the folks on the forums are much more likely to be clued in on the relative effectiveness of the various options than the average player.
Battlefield control is great but there are a lot of folks who can't seem to grasp tactics in gaming at all.So true, and some people just find it fun to roll a large amount of dice.I said something which I really didn't intend to say. I don't hate blasters and think they can be a hoot. However they are not the strongest way to play a wizard/ sorcerer though. Ultimately it's less about rolling the dice and more about the imagery of blowing stuff up. So it's a role play call which is fine with me.
As a side note, archers and fighters get to roll more dice per game session than blasters do and generally out-damage them. In particular archers get to roll tons of dice with Rapid Shot and Many Shot. So if dice rolling is the goal... maybe steer them to archer ;)
I was not debating you. I was just commenting that some players dont strategize, and some people just like to roll dice. It was no more than a simple statement.
To late you have proclaimed me a genius. I shall now be referred to as The Genius.
It may be stereotypical, but most roleplayers are geeks, and in general, I think most geeks are smarter than the average person.
Therefore, we are likely all brilliant, hooray for us! If only we direct our energy from discussing role-playing to saving the Earth. Oh well.
Back on subject, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing some blasting, as long as you recognize the limitations. Personally, I like blasting when it's multi-threat.
I'll miss the "explosive spell" metamagic feat in Pathfinder. Throwing a fireball that blows everyone all over the map and knocks them prone is fun, creates a great mental visual, and actually pretty effective when used correctly.
If only we direct our energy from discussing role-playing to saving the Earth.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet...
If only we direct our energy from discussing role-playing to saving the Earth.Here I am, brain the size of a planet...
LOL. I just finished rereading Hitchikers. My boss and I were discussing books and I asked her if she had ever read the series.
"I read them when I was pregnant with my oldest son...Ford."
Duh! Didn't feel so smart after that one!
Which is why I use a house rule granting +1/die on all damaging spells in my game. Not a game breaker but defiantly makes blasting spells more viable.
No, I do not apply that to special abilities and channeling. Just spells that do hit point damage.