|
I think the bloodlines were a fantastic idea.
It really helped give the sorcerer some flavor.I'd actually like to see a greater focus on unique bloodline abilities.
It would be cool if the bloodlines dictated what spells a sorcerer could and couldn't learn.
I agree 100% Before I picked up the PFRPG I never had any interest in either wizards or sorcerers. Let alone specialist wizards with their barred schools. They were both pretty bland in 3.X Now I can't flip past their sections without thinking of another sweet character concept.
I too agree that the sorc in pathfinder is way too powerful.
Nowadays there's really close to no reason to pick a wizard instead of a sorc unless your campaign world has "scroll/magic shops" everywhere and every major villain drops a few scrolls/ grimoire (all the bad guys carry all their treasure all the time, right ?).
In our campaign our human sorc player has asked for a nerf in his character. He said that he doesn't feel challenged in picking his spells and refuses to use the APG human (sorcerer) favored class option (which I'm very glad for). He also said that the class feels more like an x-men than a magic user.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard this stance taken in regards to the Sorc.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard this stance taken in regards to the Sorc.
No kidding.
It's not a weak class by any stretch of the imagination -- it's among the best in the game -- but being half a spell level behind the wizard is a lot to surmount, and I feel like it takes almost every bit of creativity and cleverness you can wring out of the class to do it.
I'm playing a sorcerer seriously for the first time now, and it definitely has its advantages, but...
I would in no way say that the Sorcerer is more powerful than the Wizard, but he's become less crappy than he was in 3.5
The only thing I'll agree with Ral on is that human favored class option. That thing undermines the fundamental drawback in choosing sorcerer... spell selection. I think that's kind of silly.
I too agree that the sorc in pathfinder is way too powerful.
Nowadays there's really close to no reason to pick a wizard instead of a sorc unless your campaign world has "scroll/magic shops" everywhere and every major villain drops a few scrolls/ grimoire (all the bad guys carry all their treasure all the time, right ?).In our campaign our human sorc player has asked for a nerf in his character. He said that he doesn't feel challenged in picking his spells and refuses to use the APG human (sorcerer) favored class option (which I'm very glad for). He also said that the class feels more like an x-men than a magic user.
I am not seeing it. All the bad guys do carry their treasure all the time in most games. Why would they not have them unless they were in their personal quarters. Most items are readily available. It is not exactly magic-mart, but not much has changed. The only people who feel challenged picking spells are normally new people or those trying to choose flavor, or power*. If he is good player, and I am assuming he is, knowing what spells to pick is not an issue. The problem is which ones do you want the most*. You don't need every villain to drop scrolls. If a wizard never finds a spell book he should still have enough spells to do his job and more within the rules.
While much of the theorycraft on the boards assumes the wizard has every spell it is from reality, and far from needed.I did limit that extra spell thing for all the casting classes though.
*I like disintegrate even though I know it is far from the best spell for its level. Most players also tailor the build to the DM. My players know I like to grapple so they try to avoid it now.
The only thing I'll agree with Ral on is that human favored class option. That thing undermines the fundamental drawback in choosing sorcerer... spell selection. I think that's kind of silly.
I don't think it's all that bad -- but that might be because I think sorcerer with it is more where it should be, power-wise, than sorcerer without it. Knowing only three spells of each of the higher levels unless you burn a feat to learn 1-2 more just seems too limiting to me. Being able to have 5 of each of those levels, eventually, at the cost of some HP doesn't feel crazy good to me.
I too agree that the sorc in pathfinder is way too powerful.
Compared to the fighter? Yes, yes he is. Compared to the cleric, druid, oracle, wizard, etc.? Not a chance. In fact, I've added most of the 3.5e Warlock's class features to the sorcerer, making them into a hybrid class, and still don't find that overpowered compared to a straight wizard or cleric.
I too agree that the sorc in pathfinder is way too powerful.
Nowadays there's really close to no reason to pick a wizard instead of a sorc unless your campaign world has "scroll/magic shops" everywhere and every major villain drops a few scrolls/ grimoire (all the bad guys carry all their treasure all the time, right ?).In our campaign our human sorc player has asked for a nerf in his character. He said that he doesn't feel challenged in picking his spells and refuses to use the APG human (sorcerer) favored class option (which I'm very glad for). He also said that the class feels more like an x-men than a magic user.
I am not seeing it. All the bad guys do carry their treasure all the time in most games. Why would they not have them unless they were in their personal quarters. Most items are readily available. It is not exactly magic-mart, but not much has changed. The only people who feel challenged picking spells are normally new people or those trying to choose flavor, or power*. If he is good player, and I am assuming he is, knowing what spells to pick is not an issue. The problem is which ones do you want the most*. You don't need every villain to drop scrolls. If a wizard never finds a spell book he should still have enough spells to do his job and more within the rules.
While much of the theorycraft on the boards assumes the wizard has every spell it is from reality, and far from needed.
I did limit that extra spell thing for all the casting classes though.*I like disintegrate even though I know it is far from the best spell for its level. Most players also tailor the build to the DM. My players know I like to grapple so they try to avoid it now.
What I meant is that some baddies won't be carrying around all their stuff. There's no need for the evil necromancer to carry his spellbook into combat, if he can teleport away. Better leave it at home protected by his wards. Also why would the hobgoblin chief have 4 scrolls? Why would the evil high priest be carrying arcane scrolls and not divine scrolls? and so on.
What I dislike is the fact that you have to add scrolls/spellbooks as loot in order to make the wizard work. The wizard can only compare to the sorcerer in power if his repertoire is large enough.
Let´s assume that in a campaign where no scrolls or spellbooks are available (an hyperbole to illustrate a point, I'm not actually defending this)and a wizard might want to optimize his spell selection (acquiring the most powerful spells as soon as possible). He will then have 4 spells /level in his spellbooks (except 1st level, and after the 18th level 9th level) against a sorcerer who will have 4-5 spells per level (of all levels except 9th). How is that fair? It's not. You have as a dm to add scrolls as loot. The less scrolls available the weakest the wizard is despite o what LazarX claims.
Again, it is is the obligation to add this specific loot that bothers me (in our campaign we house rule that the wizard receives 4 spells per level rather than 2)
This player is not new to the game. We're childhood friends and we share a game once a week for the last 13 years. He favors playing spellcasters and is familiar with all the traditional ones (cleric, druid, and specially the generalist wizard). He says that you can pretty much do a "generalist" arcanist with the sorcerer due to all the options you have (feat+bloodline+favored class) and the natural overlapping of spells with same functionality (windwall/protection from arrows, cone of cold/freezing sphere, trap the soul/binding, shadowwalk/teleport, seeming/veil, Mage's sword/summon monster, etc).
Just to clarify I was just trying to show the OP that he is not the only one that thinks the sorcerer power level is a bit off comparing specifically to the wizard. I'm not trying to flame or anything. In my group we solved this by rewriting the first class to our taste, and we like it our way.
@ Kirth Gersen- I'm glad you're having fun with that certainly sounds cool, just not very balanced at all IMHO.
What I dislike is the fact that you have to add scrolls/spellbooks as loot in order to make the wizard work.
I don't think this is a very good argument -- along the same lines, if you never add magic weapons as loot, the melee classes are really terrible.
I don't think you have to go out of your way to add spellbooks and scrolls as loot -- you just shouldn't go out of your way to not add them. If you fight the necromancer far from his home and have no idea where that home is, sure, he may not be carrying his spellbook. (Although, I challenge you to find a PC wizard who doesn't carry a spellbook everywhere. I've literally never seen one in 20+ years of playing the game.) But if he's in his lair, why wouldn't it be with him or around?
All that being said, even a wizard with only the RAW 2 spells per level genuinely is not that bad. At every odd level past 1 he has an extra spell level over the sorcerer, and that's a big, big thing.
Also consider that a sorcerer using the bloodline trait can have 5 spells of each level.... eventually. He also goes through a full level of only having one spell of his new level. When you factor in that a caster's highest level spells frequently do the most heavy lifting, the wizard getting so many more of them out so much faster isn't a joke.
Bloodline powers are good, but so are some of the specialist wizard powers.
What I meant is that some baddies won't be carrying around all their stuff. There's no need for the evil necromancer to carry his spellbook into combat, if he can teleport away. Better leave it at home protected by his wards. Also why would the hobgoblin chief have 4 scrolls? Why would the evil high priest be carrying arcane scrolls and not divine scrolls? and so on.
If they are out and about I agree, but most fight take place at enemy HQ. Most groups are not wily enough to try to lure the bad guys out.
What I dislike is the fact that you have to add scrolls/spellbooks as
loot in order to make the wizard work. The wizard can only compare to the sorcerer in power if his repertoire is large enough.
Let´s assume that in a campaign where no scrolls or spellbooks are available (an hyperbole to illustrate a point, I'm not actually defending this)and a wizard might want to optimize his spell selection (acquiring the most powerful spells as soon as possible). He will then have 4 spells /level in his spellbooks (except 1st level, and after the 18th level 9th level) against a sorcerer who will have 4-5 spells per level (of all levels except 9th). How is that fair? It's not. You have as a dm to add scrolls as loot. The less scrolls available the weakest the wizard is despite o what LazarX claims.
Adding scrolls is no different than adding weapons or armor for the melee types. I also don't think add scrolls is necessary. When the player gets his loot share he can buy scrolls. This won't happen in a world without scrolls, but in a normal game I think it is the wizard's responsibility to make his spell book better. If he refuses to make efforts to improve the list it is up to him. I sometimes use wizards instead of sorcerers in my fights, but I have never done so just to give wizard spells. The player just happens to benefit from it.
This player is not new to the game. We're childhood friends and we share a game once a week for the last 13 years. He favors playing spellcasters and is familiar with all the traditional ones (cleric, druid, and specially the generalist wizard). He says that you can pretty much do a "generalist" arcanist with the sorcerer due to all the options you have (feat+bloodline+favored class) and the natural overlapping of spells with same functionality (windwall/protection from arrows, cone of cold/freezing sphere, trap the soul/binding, shadowwalk/teleport, seeming/veil, Mage's sword/summon monster, etc).Just to clarify I was just trying to show the OP that he is not the only one that thinks the sorcerer power level is a bit off comparing specifically to the wizard. I'm not trying to flame or anything. In my group we solved this by rewriting the first class to our taste, and we like it our way.
No flaming was detected, and I do think a sorcerer can be a good all around caster. I actually like them better even if I don't think they are on par with wizards. I do think the player has more influence on things than the class does though. I am sure your player could run a wizard pretty well also.
What I dislike is the fact that you have to add scrolls/spellbooks as loot in order to make the wizard work.I don't think this is a very good argument -- along the same lines, if you never add magic weapons as loot, the melee classes are really terrible.
I don't think you have to go out of your way to add spellbooks and scrolls as loot -- you just shouldn't go out of your way to not add them. If you fight the necromancer far from his home and have no idea where that home is, sure, he may not be carrying his spellbook. (Although, I challenge you to find a PC wizard who doesn't carry a spellbook everywhere. I've literally never seen one in 20+ years of playing the game.) But if he's in his lair, why wouldn't it be with him or around?
All that being said, even a wizard with only the RAW 2 spells per level genuinely is not that bad. At every odd level past 1 he has an extra spell level over the sorcerer, and that's a big, big thing.
Also consider that a sorcerer using the bloodline trait can have 5 spells of each level.... eventually. He also goes through a full level of only having one spell of his new level. When you factor in that a caster's highest level spells frequently do the most heavy lifting, the wizard getting so many more of them out so much faster isn't a joke.
Bloodline powers are good, but so are some of the specialist wizard powers.
I understand that having to add scrolls is similar to having to add weapons. That's totally true. I don't like it either but I find it trickier to go around this than with the scrolls.
Also I'm not saying that no enemies will carry scrolls (though many won't). Just saying that some adventures will favor this type of loot better than others, and this might hurt the wizard. I alway try to warn my players first if that's the case, but sometimes even the dm screws up.
Note that I do think that the sorcerer from 3.x was sort of weak and needed a buff. The bloodlines were a very good idea and in general I'm happy with it. The other options are the ones that I have a problem with (I mean sort of, but nothing I can't fix myself).
For every scroll you add to your game that the Wizard adds to his spell book, he is increasing the percentage of his WBL which goes to his spell book.
The utility to Wizards of adding scrolls to your campaign is a parabola. There comes a time at which it is no longer useful to increase the percentage of your WBL going to your spell book.
For a Sorcerer, however, adding scrolls to your campaign has a steadily increasing utility curve. He'll just keep casting off those scrolls for as long as you keep feeding them to him.Incidentally, limited spell options are -not- the fundamental weakness of Sorcerers. Any competent Sorcerer player has fairly easy ways around that. Many Sorcerer players play the class like a variant Wizard which makes it look like the greatest weakness is limited spell choices. But, in fact, the fundamental weakness of Sorcerers is their limited skill points. There are ways around that, too, but they are campaign specific and require more set-up. (That's right, not even the fact that they are a level behind Wizards in gaining new spells is such a big issue - though it's certainly an issue.)
The human bonus for favored classes for Sorcerers nerfs Sorcerers because it further aggravates their greatest weakness - lack of skill points.
I know you don't play this way, since you don't care for roles, but most parties have 1 or 2 people that handle skills so using the points for spells is really a bonus. Not having to choose between what spell you want to pick up is a great option
|
Maybe it comes from playing 1st edition on up, but i dont see the issue with finding scrolls as loot or not. If your wiard has any downtime he can research "new" spells and add them to his book,no scoll required.They dont have an equation anymore to explain how this is done, but it shouldnt be too hard if the wiz has spellcraft and knowledge(arcana). Cant remember which edition had this rule, but i do remember that most peeps used it to create new spells instead of as a way to learn previously unknown spells, but it was a viable way to get more spells known for your wizard.
Maybe it comes from playing 1st edition on up, but i dont see the issue with finding scrolls as loot or not. If your wiard has any downtime he can research "new" spells and add them to his book,no scoll required.They dont have an equation anymore to explain how this is done, but it shouldnt be too hard if the wiz has spellcraft and knowledge(arcana). Cant remember which edition had this rule, but i do remember that most peeps used it to create new spells instead of as a way to learn previously unknown spells, but it was a viable way to get more spells known for your wizard.
3.5 had it. I don't know about the other editions.
I feel that the Wizard dominates in Pathfinder for the following reason: item creation feats do not cost XP to create items.
With the Scribe Scroll bonus feat at Level 1, a Wizard is able to create any of the spells he begins play knowing at 25% the Market Value cost and sell them to NPCs at 50% Market Value, for a 100% profit margin. With the gold thus generated, he is able to expand his spellbook as much as the GM will allow him access given local conditions (availability of magic in the campaign setting, proximity to arcane resources like a library, etc.) and time measured in days. It would take less than a month (which can easily be the downtime between or before adventures) for a 1st-level Wizard given limitless purview to add every 1st-level spell to his spellbook and make at least one scroll of each. This process can continue at every odd level beyond 1st. Throw the scrolls and spellbook(s) into a Handy Haversack, take the Quick Draw feat, and you have the ability to begin "spontaneously casting" any spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard list as a Full Round Action.
Wizards who find themselves in campaigns that heavily emphasize one form of play over others will likely prepare multiple scrolls of the spells appropriate to that sort of encounter, which will more or less negate the advantage of a Sorcerer's higher base-line Spells Per Day. In effect, the only advantage a Sorcerer retains is the Bloodline Powers such as extra summoning granted through the Abyssal line or minor tweaks to mechanics.
Sorcerer: hard-limited spontaneous casting with bloodline perks
Wizard: soft-limited faux-spontaneous casting without bloodline perks
1. How is he doing it at 25%?
2. Most people don't create items3. The abuse you speak of as far as selling magic items won't be tolerated by any DM I know, or too many on this board. The sell for profit is good in theory, but I don't think it works in a real game. Time is more of an inhibitor to making items than more is. You can often get money, but time is not always so easy to come by.
...but time is not always so easy to come by.
like RL? he he
1. The feat Scribe Scroll states that you require components equal to half the base cost to create a scroll. The base cost is the cost a character can sell that item, or roughly 50% of market value; therefore, creating something at one-half base cost equals 25% (half of half) of market value.
The base cost of a scroll is CL X SL X 25, I believe (or caster level times spell level times 25). So a first level scroll has a base cost of 25. So crafting one would take half, or 12.5. Selling at half the base cost would get you 12.5. So you break even. I'm at work and don't have the book on me to check, but I think you are halving one too many times. The cost of components to create the scroll should be half the base cost to buy the scroll. Spending half the cost to create to create doesn't make sense.
1. The feat Scribe Scroll states that you require components equal to half the base cost to create a scroll. The base cost is the cost a character can sell that item, or roughly 50% of market value; therefore, creating something at one-half base cost equals 25% (half of half) of market value.
2. That people choose not to use a class ability in Pathfinder, or not to use any other ability or advantage anywhere else in their lives, does not detract from the usefulness or viability of that ability. Most people also don't vote, are ill-informed about any of a million topics, do not speak more than one or two languages, do not hold advanced degrees in any field, have not trained their bodies to run a 6-minute mile, and so on; none of these facts detract from the clear and demonstrable advantage of doing so. Justifying something or detracting from it on the basis of "most people" is just silly. Hell, "most people" don't play Pen and Paper roleplaying games. "Most people" who want a bit of fantasy RPG in their lives play WOW. Your argument is spurious at best.
3. I have yet to see a campaign in which every moment of a character's time past 1st-level is accounted for by the GM. Not only is that a pain in the ass for the GM, it is also unrealistic that in the course of a few weeks a character goes from 1st-level (which took him years to attain prior to becoming a player character) to whatever level the campaign ends with him being. If your GM doesn't allow you to take advantage of the rules as they are written, then that's up to him and you to work out; but, it's not at all "abuse" of the rules to use a feat or class ability exactly as it is written. That is, at most, a broken game mechanic.
1. You misread it. It is saying you get to spend 1/2 the base price to create the item.
To create a scroll, a character needs a supply of choice writing materials, the cost of which is subsumed in the cost for scribing the scroll: 12.5 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.
A second level scroll cost 150 gp, meaning by my interpretation it cost 75 to create.
12.5 x 2(spell level) x 3(caster level)=75You can pick a spell of any level and that formula works.
2. You said do dominate, not can dominate. I guess I was being to picky with the words though.
3. I said nothing about tracking every minute, but it is a fallacy to think that you have all the down time you want. It is another to assume the feats allow you to bypass WBL. All they do is allow you to get the items you want. Many items are available by the rules, but some have to be rolled for depending on where you are. They also allow you to create custom items that can combine a ring of deflection with a ring of invisibility for example. You can be perfectly within WBL and not have a lot of things you want or need. It is actually the DM's job to make sure you don't take advantage of the rules as written and instead enforce RAI. There are several things about the game that are broken. I can't dispute that.
PS:The base cost is the price it is in the book for purchase. I can use the formula in the book for weapons and armor also to show this.
You're not selling at half base cost. You're selling at base cost, which is half of market value. You are creating at half base cost.
Example:
If I want to make a 1st-level scroll, as a Wizard with minimum CL, I require 12.5 gold in materials.
If I want to sell a 1st-level scroll, as a Wizard with minimum CL, I acquire 25 gold for the item.
If I want to buy a 1st-level scroll, as a Wizard with minimum CL, I require 50 gold for the item.
I was pretty sure the costs listed in the book were the price that you purchased them at as PC's and as a PC you generally sold said gear at half the amount listed. At least that is how things worked in 3.5. They had a pretty clear example near average character wealth by level where as in owning a +1 sword during the party split of loot counted as 1000 towards the fighters total wealth as that is what he could sell it at. I didn't think that it changed that much in PF.
I was pretty sure the costs listed in the book were the price that you purchased them at as PC's and as a PC you generally sold said gear at half the amount listed. At least that is how things worked in 3.5. They had a pretty clear example near average character wealth by level where as in owning a +1 sword during the party split of loot counted as 1000 towards the fighters total wealth as that is what he could sell it at. I didn't think that it changed that much in PF.
You are correct. If you have to buy an item at 1000 you can only sell it for 500, and since the it cost 500 to create it, if you do create the item you can not sell it for profit.
Back a little bit more on topic.
I'm pleased to see that sorcerer's have a little more teeth in Pathfinder along with a whole bunch more flavor options for chatacters (without needing to take the bloodline trees from 3.5 supplements). In particular I'm building a Destined Sorceror who focuses on buffing my attacks with a crossbrow, and using the bloodline powers to be a bit more competitive in martial combat (bonus to AC, saves, ect, save versus death with a DC20 Will at higher levels). I've set him up as a 'psychic' using spells like detect thoughts, true strike and so on. In 3.5 I always felt Wizards had a distinct advantage over Sorcerers, but in Pathfinder I feel they are much better balanced.
Although we have a copy of the APG in our group we haven't tried it yet. The human sorcerer trait where you get a ton of extra spells kind of triggered a power creep alarm for us though. The main pull of wizard over sorcerer was the sheer number of spells known along with quicker metamagic, but an Arcane sorcerer with the trait seems to clearly stand out among the crowd.
That all said, if anyone has a book at hand to check for me did they change the wording of something. In 3.5 wizards were said to draw their spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list were as it said Sorcerers drew spells "primarily" from the Sorcerer/Wizard list, which left some interpretation as too wether or not some cleric/druid/bard spells could be accessed.
Back a little bit more on topic.
I'm pleased to see that sorcerer's have a little more teeth in Pathfinder along with a whole bunch more flavor options for chatacters (without needing to take the bloodline trees from 3.5 supplements). In particular I'm building a Destined Sorceror who focuses on buffing my attacks with a crossbrow, and using the bloodline powers to be a bit more competitive in martial combat (bonus to AC, saves, ect, save versus death with a DC20 Will at higher levels). I've set him up as a 'psychic' using spells like detect thoughts, true strike and so on. In 3.5 I always felt Wizards had a distinct advantage over Sorcerers, but in Pathfinder I feel they are much better balanced.
Although we have a copy of the APG in our group we haven't tried it yet. The human sorcerer trait where you get a ton of extra spells kind of triggered a power creep alarm for us though. The main pull of wizard over sorcerer was the sheer number of spells known along with quicker metamagic, but an Arcane sorcerer with the trait seems to clearly stand out among the crowd.
That all said, if anyone has a book at hand to check for me did they change the wording of something. In 3.5 wizards were said to draw their spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list were as it said Sorcerers drew spells "primarily" from the Sorcerer/Wizard list, which left some interpretation as too wether or not some cleric/druid/bard spells could be accessed.
Nothing has changed. Both classes still use the same list. Even in 3.5 you had to use the sorc/wiz list unless you had a special ability that got around it.
Can you cite sources for this?Incorrect. Base cost is what you buy at. PC's only get to sell at half value. so there is no profit in item creation for PCs. The rules have been deliberately structured that way to keep the game Dungeons and Dragons, not Papers and Paychecks.You're not selling at half base cost. You're selling at base cost, which is half of market value. You are creating at half base cost.
PRD:
Magic supplies for items are always half of the base price in gp. For many items, the market price equals the base price.Prices presented in the magic item descriptions (the gold piece value following the item's slot) are the market value, which is generally twice what it costs the creator to make the item.
Treasure
In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.
Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.
.
..
...
....
.....
Hello Mr Selling Magical Item rules, I'd like to introduce to a little thing I like to call 'Salesmanship'.
''This here generic +1 Longsword? Lucky it is! Oh so lucky! I tell you, I sold one to a chap the other day and would you know it, he kills the goblin king! Solo! Swimming in gold he is now they say! ..and the maidens! Oh the maidens!''
''So, how much?''
''Surprisingly more than you'd think...''
''.....''
''Did I mention the maidens were mostly naked?''
''SOLD!''
.
..
...
....
.....Hello Mr Selling Magical Item rules, I'd like to introduce to a little thing I like to call 'Salesmanship'.
''This here generic +1 Longsword? Lucky it is! Oh so lucky! I tell you, a sold one to a chap the other day and would you know it, he kills the goblin king! Solo! Swimming in gold he is now they say! ..and the maidens! Oh the maidens!''
''So, how much?''
''Surprisingly more than you'd think...''
''.....''
''Did I mention the maidens were mostly naked?''
''SOLD!''
In my group we were messing around with this a bit...
Nothing has changed. Both classes still use the same list. Even in 3.5 you had to use the sorc/wiz list unless you had a special ability that got around it.
There was the odd spell in 3.5 that wizards could cast but not sorcerers or vice versa, but there weren't a whole lot of those.
Right, Wizards can choose to not 'fill up' all their spell-slots at once and prepare the rest mid-day. Once you have more spell slots than you could feasibly use in 2 encounters or so, leaving at least a COUPLE slots open is certainly a reasonable approach.
Really? Huh. I never even thought about doing that before. I'd always assumed that, after the eight hours of rest and one hour studying the spellbook, you had to immediately fill up all your spellbook slots. Interesting.
.
..
...
....
.....
Right, Wizards can choose to not 'fill up' all their spell-slots at once and prepare the rest mid-day. Once you have more spell slots than you could feasibly use in 2 encounters or so, leaving at least a COUPLE slots open is certainly a reasonable approach.Really? Huh. I never even thought about doing that before. I'd always assumed that, after the eight hours of rest and one hour studying the spellbook, you had to immediately fill up all your spellbook slots. Interesting.
Oh yes, very useful and fun too! Good times to be had taking a rest during the crawl, finding a comfy seat and thumbing through the old spell book!
Tactical and great for RPing! :)
::
IN BREAKING NEWS: Pathfinder Society Game needs 3 players within the next 3 hours! Levels 1-2, total session time: 7 hours. Scenario 51.
Oh yes, 7 hours. So, if you have too much time on your hands, head over to CHAT and speak to SirGuido!
Or head on over to the Pathfinder Society Collective and contact him there.
He's a very nice chap!
END OF BREAKING NEWS!
::
I know you don't play this way, since you don't care for roles, but most parties have 1 or 2 people that handle skills so using the points for spells is really a bonus. Not having to choose between what spell you want to pick up is a great optionFor every scroll you add to your game that the Wizard adds to his spell book, he is increasing the percentage of his WBL which goes to his spell book.
The utility to Wizards of adding scrolls to your campaign is a parabola. There comes a time at which it is no longer useful to increase the percentage of your WBL going to your spell book.
For a Sorcerer, however, adding scrolls to your campaign has a steadily increasing utility curve. He'll just keep casting off those scrolls for as long as you keep feeding them to him.Incidentally, limited spell options are -not- the fundamental weakness of Sorcerers. Any competent Sorcerer player has fairly easy ways around that. Many Sorcerer players play the class like a variant Wizard which makes it look like the greatest weakness is limited spell choices. But, in fact, the fundamental weakness of Sorcerers is their limited skill points. There are ways around that, too, but they are campaign specific and require more set-up. (That's right, not even the fact that they are a level behind Wizards in gaining new spells is such a big issue - though it's certainly an issue.)
The human bonus for favored classes for Sorcerers nerfs Sorcerers because it further aggravates their greatest weakness - lack of skill points.I never said I don't care for rules. On the other hand, having 1 or 2 people that handle skills is a vulnerability. The party can get separated or somebody can get taken out of commission. It's a good idea to have skills spread through out the party.
Perhaps your GM just likes going easy on you.
90% of the time I am the DM, and we all know you don't split the party. Most groups dont have more than 50% of the groups trying to pick skills up. I will go find your anti-roles idea later. It was during a another wiz vs sorc thread when people were saying the sorc should be taking skills X, Y, and Z since the wizard was not there, and it fell on the sorcerer to take the skills people expected a wizard to take.
Like I said, this is an advantage for the Sorcerer as he can have his cohort make the magic items and doesn't have to worry about the spell book's impact on WBL. And, again, while the Wizard can take Leadership as well, the Wizard won't be able to soak penalties to the Leadership score like the Sorcerer can.I feel that the Wizard dominates in Pathfinder for the following reason: item creation feats do not cost XP to create items.
With the Scribe Scroll bonus feat at Level 1, a Wizard is able to create any of the spells he begins play knowing at 25% the Market Value cost and sell them to NPCs at 50% Market Value, for a 100% profit margin. With the gold thus generated, he is able to expand his spellbook as much as the GM will allow him access given local conditions (availability of magic in the campaign setting, proximity to arcane resources like a library, etc.) and time measured in days. It would take less than a month (which can easily be the downtime between or before adventures) for a 1st-level Wizard given limitless purview to add every 1st-level spell to his spellbook and make at least one scroll of each. This process can continue at every odd level beyond 1st. Throw the scrolls and spellbook(s) into a Handy Haversack, take the Quick Draw feat, and you have the ability to begin "spontaneously casting" any spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard list as a Full Round Action.
Wizards who find themselves in campaigns that heavily emphasize one form of play over others will likely prepare multiple scrolls of the spells appropriate to that sort of encounter, which will more or less negate the advantage of a Sorcerer's higher base-line Spells Per Day. In effect, the only advantage a Sorcerer retains is the Bloodline Powers such as extra summoning granted through the Abyssal line or minor tweaks to mechanics.
Sorcerer: hard-limited spontaneous casting with bloodline perks
Wizard: soft-limited faux-spontaneous casting without bloodline perksIt was also discussed in the other thread that a wizard could get a decent leadership and umd modifier if it wanted to, not up to sorcerer, but more than enough to matter. The craft rules are almost on auto succeed so even if the wizard's cohort, assuming he took one, are behind the sorcerer's in levels, making the items is not that much of an issue.
Go Socerers!!! Got to love them!!! I wouldn't say one's better than the other. It's the way you play them. But, I have to say I have a soft spot for my Sorceress. I wouldn't trade her for a wizard.
And I've been in campaigns where the party is split regularly, pratically every night we played.
IMHO, this isn't great DM'ing to encourage this so much, not because splitting the party makes things "too hard" but because sitting around waiting for your character to be relevant again isn't fun.
(On the other hand, I've seen groups that ran with two co-DMs and in that case I'm all about splitting the group in two.)
Skills always detered me from playing a sorceror in 3.5.
While they had the same base line as Wizards (2+Int) it was pretty much nothing. Charisma was always a high stat, and with the D4 hit die you almost needed a decent Dex and Con to survive surprise AOE and a hit or too which always led to Int being low for me. Coupled with a realitively small skill list void of knowledges and perceptive skills I felt so very useless unless one of my spells came into play. Sure they had quite the social capacity, but that didn't always help with investigations away from civilizations. A wizard could always choose several knowledges along with spellcraft and decipher script and still have a bit of room to cross class UMD or social skills or spot/listen/search, et cetera, what with having a high Int score.
The bloodlines are really cool to me because they add a skill, in many cases a knowledge. The powers and extra feats are neat, but skills were always where it was for me; even my fighters usually had a solid bonus to Int for the cross classing of crucial skills to match the flavor of my warrior. Along with the 1 rank in a skill per level, and proficent bonus over the old level + 3 system where cross classing was half ranks, and being able to choose to get a extra skill point from your favored class each level, and having a larger hit die and thus not as dependent on Con (leaving a slightly larger number for Int), I can play a skilled full caster other than a wizard.
Since my current sorcer only has a couple of spells that force saves (which are generally directed at those likely to fail anyways, i.e. hypnotism - never underestimate it) I actually have a 17 into my Half Elf Destined Sorcerer's In and only a 16 in his Cha at level 4.
With the Half Elf getting a free Skill Focus (I took diplomacy I believe) and me taking Alertness at level 3, I'm a regular skill monkey with the way I spread my skills: Arcana, History, Diplo, Bluff, Sense Motive, Perception, Spellcraft, UMD.
I still have to give my overall edge to the wizard after careful consideration though, but mostly I think everything falls into a case by case scenario for non-optimized characters. And seeing as I prefer flavor over power, I'll happily enjoy both classes, at least as they are in the Core Rulebook.
I get iffy around supplements and add ons because, maybe it is just my experience from 2E, 3.X, and 4E, but classes always seemed to be in a realtive balance defined by their particular focus until the supplements were added on. Then certain classes seem to out pace others. Of course I should mention most people in the group I play with care more about optimization and power gaming than anything else. I becom saddened when we play a 10 or more level campaign and I'm the only one with a background story and the DM doesn't even want to see it.