Any BBEG worth his salt knows that the Wizard will have a far more difficult time replacing his bonded object than he will replacing his spell component pouch. The BBEG is going to have his minion canon fodder take out the bonded object before the party ever meets the BBEG. Are your BBEGs normally idiots?No, but it seems your wizards are.
You can have your arch-villain send his minions to go after the wizard's 10 rings and 2 amulets all you want. Maybe they'll break a staff he's carrying as well. Perhaps they'll even kill his cat while they're at it.
In all of that getting into melee with the wizard they might have been able to take him out, but instead they damaged a few magical and a few non-magical items.
But then again, those same BBEGs will be trying to sunder your sorcerer's rings, amulets and staff as well, so that's likely a wash.
-James
o_o
I dunno, the item that the wizard never leaves out of his sight, always carries/wears, never takes off even when bathing etc..
...dead give away.
Unless your wizards are sleeping in all their mystical bling..
...which is akin to the fighter sleeping in full plate. Again.
::
::
I'm pro-familiar: Not crippling if lost, cheap to replace and twice as many perception checks if setup right, typically with better bonuses than the wizard! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a rather silly and unfortunate thing that all characters of sufficient level will sleep in all their gear because if they take it off, it's another 24 hours before they have their permanent bonuses again.
.
..
...
....
.....
I think it's a rather silly and unfortunate thing that all characters of sufficient level will sleep in all their gear because if they take it off, it's another 24 hours before they have their permanent bonuses again.
Truth - tho it's also a symptom of an over reliance on generic flow-of-play/adventure pacing.
|
I have had a good time reading through most of this topic. I personally think the two classes are well balanced.
Let's take another point of view ...
After playing many years of organized play, and after many, many, many scenarios, I find that the second most feared opponent among my gaming comrades is a high-level wizard.
The first is a high-level sorcerer.
The fact that a sorcerer is the most feared opponent stems from the fact that whatever potentially game-ending spell you just barely made your save on from last round is coming at you again. Certain spells are just more than unpleasant when spammed. With a wizard, once you have seen his big play, you can usually rest assured that it won't happen again.
Another nuance to organized play is that you are often thematically "forced" into three encounters before being able to recover. The extra spell endurance a sorcerer possess gos along way.
Just my .02
The fact that a sorcerer is the most feared opponent stems from the fact that whatever potentially game-ending spell you just barely made your save on from last round is coming at you again. Certain spells are just more than unpleasant when spammed. With a wizard, once you have seen his big play, you can usually rest assured that it won't happen again.
Aye, I see your point - tho the setup works well for an enemy but less so for a character in a party. I.E a character has to be viable for more than one encounter/in more than one situation.
If I was to be on either class to take out the Sorcerer BBEG, my gold would be on the Wizard as they could choose the best spells to take advantage of any weaknesses/force the BBEG to play a game they don't excel at.
Of course, if they both bump into each other in a bar (i.e no research/intel gathered etc) then...
|
Any BBEG worth his salt knows that the Wizard will have a far more difficult time replacing his bonded object than he will replacing his spell component pouch. The BBEG is going to have his minion canon fodder take out the bonded object before the party ever meets the BBEG. Are your BBEGs normally idiots?No, but it seems your wizards are.
You can have your arch-villain send his minions to go after the wizard's 10 rings and 2 amulets all you want. Maybe they'll break a staff he's carrying as well. Perhaps they'll even kill his cat while they're at it.
In all of that getting into melee with the wizard they might have been able to take him out, but instead they damaged a few magical and a few non-magical items.
But then again, those same BBEGs will be trying to sunder your sorcerer's rings, amulets and staff as well, so that's likely a wash.
-James
Why don't two of you do a 1-20 level challenge. Both start with 1st levels, have then compete, advance them one level (including adding the difference in money by the level progression chart) and have them go at 2nd level, then 3rd...up until one side has 11 victories.
Who is taking what side.
.
..
...
....
.....
That there sorcerer is going to have a tough time versus undead, intelligent undead even more so...
o_o
..I guess if you could assume there's alway a charmed monster handy, which a smart sorcerer with that setup would hopefully attempt to ensure.
..but aye, it also highlights the problem with sorcerer's: on a one off confrontation they can be great, but any smart enemy that has time to evaluate and adapt can easily exploit holes in their spell selection/modus operandi.
..while with a wizard, you can make some assumptions about spell selection but never be quite sure.
::
Once you know the bag o' tricks the sorcerer relies on you can counter them every time.
For example, a 13th level wizard could pickup and revise Banishment solely for an encounter with this sorcerer. Yes a series of events might conspire that results in the Wizard never being able to acquire Banishment but...
However, I think the lack of a Constitution score might be more of a problem! :D
|
Why don't two of you do a 1-20 level challenge. Both start with 1st levels, have then compete, advance them one level (including adding the difference in money by the level progression chart) and have them go at 2nd level, then 3rd...up until one side has 11 victories.
The only problem with this is that it doesn't really represent a real-world character. They would both specifically build characters focused on defeating another spellcaster. Whereas real-world organic characters are made to fill holes in the party's abilities, to defeat whatever type of threats the DM seems to prefer (shock horror, not everybody uses NPC spellcasters as their ultimate BBEGs), etc.
The "Wizard is God" camp claims that one of the reasons the wizard is so much better than the sorcerer is the utility spells...something that probably won't be used in the spell duel arena much.
|
|
Not really, and in a game like LT's leaving slots open is an advantage. If the guard(too many D&D monsters IMHO) is so fanatical he can't be reasoned with charm X might work.
You get to take time-outs from the guard calling for reinforcements so that you can memorize a charm spell? No wonder you think the wizard is so great...just fill up your spellbook, then whenever something happens, call a time-out and memorize the appropriate spell.
PCs blunder into a guard.
Guard: Hey! You aren't supposed to be here!
Guard raises alert horn to his lips.
PC Wizard: Hey! Wait a minute. Gimme just 15 minutes to read this book, then you can call the rest of the guard on us.
Guard: Er...ok!
PC Wizard memorizes Charm Moron and then gets a pet stupid guy.
One thing I notice is the massive dependence on planar binding. Are we assuming the DM does not adjudicate this spell at all? The bound creatures are living, thinking beings. They're not going to be bound constantly, so when they return to their home planes they're going to report this to their allies.
This sorcerer can force a lot of temporary allies but seems likely to make a whole lot of very powerful enemies. And those coming to take vengeance on the sorcerer will be ready for enchantments, something extremely easy to protect against if you know it's coming.
I don't think planar binding is meant to be abused without risk of consequences.
I play a pacifist sorcerer and quite enjoy an enchantment specialisation. But I don't play alone with myself. I play with a DM that can have the world and its inhabitants respond appropriately.
I have had a good time reading through most of this topic. I personally think the two classes are well balanced.
Let's take another point of view ...
After playing many years of organized play, and after many, many, many scenarios, I find that the second most feared opponent among my gaming comrades is a high-level wizard.
The first is a high-level sorcerer.
The fact that a sorcerer is the most feared opponent stems from the fact that whatever potentially game-ending spell you just barely made your save on from last round is coming at you again. Certain spells are just more than unpleasant when spammed. With a wizard, once you have seen his big play, you can usually rest assured that it won't happen again.
Another nuance to organized play is that you are often thematically "forced" into three encounters before being able to recover. The extra spell endurance a sorcerer possess gos along way.
Just my .02
1.A spell worth prepping once, is worth prepping twice.
2.How do you know that was the big play spell.3.You just saw what the sorcerer/wizard can do. Just put up a defense against it.
4.After a certain level the thought of running low on spells is not a real threat.
It does not have to be all that highLevel 13+3(2 from character generation mod and +1 from headband).
Level 11 heroes are considered to be legends= +2
cohort died=216+2-2=14
14=10th level cohort.
You're sacrificing your familiar and putting your cohort at great risk while making the unsupportable assertion that he'll never die - particularly when you want to use him as a free quickened spell. I can only assume that your GM is -very- generous and loves taking it easy on you.
LT I don't even like familiars so I hardly call it a sacrifice. Even if I were not taking leadership I would take the bond.
I put one death in there. If they are dying constantly I am doing something wrong as a player, and in that case it does not matter if I use a sorc or a wizard as the deaths will eventually negate the any bonuses I have.You are assuming he is attacking the cohort when the main party members are the ones causing all the trouble. We play realistically.
Example: I had a druid with an animal companion. The tiger pinned the boss, and eventually killed him, but the tiger was then jump by 5 or 6 minions, since we could not hold all of them off and he died. If the tiger had been less useful he would not have died. We don't do the "attack random person" thing. The squeaky wheel gets the sword(other death dealing device), and I think it is safe to assume PC's can make more noise than an NPC.
While I certainly don't play a "knock down door, kill stuff, repeat" game, I don't think it's accurate to say that most gamers do.
That is not what I said. I am saying you put a lot more effort into solving things socially than many groups do therefore the social skills matter more. In my game knowledge checks matter a lot, but some DM's ignore them or downplay them.
Not really, and in a game like LT's leaving slots open is an advantage. If the guard(too many D&D monsters IMHO) is so fanatical he can't be reasoned with charm X might work.You get to take time-outs from the guard calling for reinforcements so that you can memorize a charm spell? No wonder you think the wizard is so great...just fill up your spellbook, then whenever something happens, call a time-out and memorize the appropriate spell.
PCs blunder into a guard.
Guard: Hey! You aren't supposed to be here!
Guard raises alert horn to his lips.
PC Wizard: Hey! Wait a minute. Gimme just 15 minutes to read this book, then you can call the rest of the guard on us.
Guard: Er...ok!
PC Wizard memorizes Charm Moron and then gets a pet stupid guy.
Wrong.
Through gather info you can find out the basic loyalty of the guards. Are they random mercenaries or people that actually beleive in the BBEG?From there you can determine the liklihood of paying them off/bargain in some other way.
Don't assume. Try to think of how you would handle it and then post.
The only problem with this is that it doesn't really represent a real-world character.Exactly. And I think that's one of the reasons the 'Wizard as God' crowd believes what they do - because their comparisons are all based on the idea of a character duel (which assumes the Wizard can be built to specifically defeat the other character).
At the same time, the Sorcerer is dependent on a lot of factors that such duels don't even consider (such as the ability to have a meat shield ready, foreknowledge via prying eyes to give him time to get illusions up, etc.)
This is not a wizard as god argument Mr.K. It is far from it. I can not vouch for other threads.
I am using LT's post because I dont feel like going back, and looking for his post
.
..
...
....
.....
Mr Liliths Thrall, are you aware Nondetection provides no defense against Legend Lore and Vision?
Any caster with those spells can easily learn infomation about another character. Of course, the exact nature and level of detail is left to the GM.
Even discounting magical means of information gathering, there are mundane methods.
::
Any character with a dependence on that many minions is very susceptable to infiltration/espionage/research regardless of class.
However since we're focusing on Wizard vs Sorcerer:
For the sake/fun of exploring the concept:
-- Planar Allies have friends to. Now, this is iffy but potentially viable: Summon misc.entity, ask them about the Sorcerer - this is GM territory but it would seem likely that any character that makes frequent use of 'hired help' is going to make an impression. Chances are someone knows something and someone will talk.
..however, yes, this is GM territory and very campaign dependent so..
::
Essentially, as I hope we all know, the larger an organisation becomes the more susceptible it is to infiltration/espionage or even mundane research.
Yes a smart character can instigate all manners of protocol and checks to attempt to ensure security but really, total control is practically impossible, at least without adversely effecting operational viability.
However, when we start creating organisations/large groups of followers operating within a regulated hierarchy to create a complex system then we're no longer comparing Wizards to Sorcerers - the system becomes larger than one person/agent/element - the class of the character responsible for founding the organisation/system quickly becomes irrelevant. We now have Faction A versus Faction B.
Which is, honestly, a damn fine game to be playing!
Now, obviously large organisations/complex systems have their advantages, otherwise we wouldn't set them up. Unfortunately, ensuring secrecy of operations is not one of them.
::
So yes, it's perfectly possible to find out that the Sorcerer relies on enchantments, followers and planar allies even with '24/7 non-detection' in place - and then to react/adapt accordingly.
While a Sorcerer can use the same tactics on the Wizard the Wizard can change their setup every day rather than one spell every other level.
Note: The Wizard doesn't need to know every spell to be more adaptable than the Sorcerer.
Of course, if both characters are relying on their organisation to respond/react then we're back to 'class doesn't really matter with a sufficiently developed organisation.'
Especially since Faction A and Faction B will have, assuming a modicum of sense, both Sorcerous and Wizardly agents.
.
..
...
.....
.......
*interesting stuff*
He has Bluff...
..Major Image
..and Nondetection
..a mighty Charisma
..and an Intelligence of 14.
O_o How is that a 'Master of Misinformation?'
Now, if his Intelligence 29 then I'd agree.
He really doesn't have the spell/skill setup to trick all of the people all of the time. While he could certainly setup some disinformation a smart researcher can take steps to verify and collaborate any information gained.
Personally I'd expect to see more Knowledges, Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
I'd also be wary of playing a character smarter than their stats suggest.
..and tricking Legend Lore? In person the Sorcerer is great at deception but remember, we can all choose to disbelieve someone out of principal: It doesn't matter what the Evil Demon's Charisma score is, the (smart) Paladin isn't going to believe a word it says.
Likewise a wily Wizard, who's prime stat is Intelligence, is going to be suspicious of any information and combine the steps I touched upon earlier (or new/other ones) to verify said information.
...but we're now playing our own text-based adventure. It can go either way - for every trick the Sorcerer plays the Wizard finds a counter and so the Sorcerer finds a new trick and the Wizard must now find a counter and so on.
This is more an issue of individual character rather than class ability - for example, the wily Wizard could just as easily be a naive Wizard even with the same spell selection, skill setup and items.
Regardless, I'm still not sold on Int 14 'Master of Deceptions' - my personal take on deception is that agencies like the CIA have an I in them for a reason. I would say that within the organisation Charisma is certainly a valued asset but Intelligence wins/makes/is the day.
(We can discuss the roles of primary/secondary sources of intel and how they can effect a targets susceptability to manipulation in another thread.)
::
For the record: Nearly every Sorcerer I've ever made has been like the one you posted. I love/d playing Sorcerer's like that! ..but they do have their limits - their dependence on a very high intelligence score being the most obvious.
Not for mechanical reasons but for character reasons - such as being a 'Master of Deception' which I propose requires a very intelligent character.
Keeping track of all the stories and lies and tricks, knowing what to say, when to say it, who to say it to and remembering what you said to who and when takes a mighty mind!
Note tho that I don't believe a Wizard is better contender for the title of 'Master of Deception' either - well, at least not your typical 'optimised' wizard.
Their wisdom is too low!
::
Personally I'd like to see this thread returning to addressing the mechanical pros/cons the Wizard and Sorcerer class.
I think over all if a sorcerer and wizard both have foresight into a problem and know what to expect, assuming both have put plenty of thought into their repective spell lists and gear, the wizard will ever so slightly outshine a sorcerer. That said I think in a surprising situation or one that neither character class has any prior knowledge of, the sorcerer will likely be more apt to dealing with the situation and excell. This referes to both combat and non-combat encounters. However, neither seems to me that it will completely blow the other out of the water in either situation and each should still be effective and productive, thus making arguing over which is "superior" through arbitary and subjective guidelines completely unneccessary.
Skill wise I think the wizard possesses the edge by generally having more skill ranks. The loss of social skill and UMD proficencies can be annoying but a wizard with a solid amount of ranks in those skills shouldn't have too much trouble with success. While it is true that if both a wizard and sorcerer put max ranks into a social skill the sorcerer will likely have a better bonus, in most cases the difference is negliable as each can succeed. Both classes also have ready access to suggestion, charms, dominates, fascinations, disguising, and holding spells, thus lowering the level of relience on social skills. By the same token of sorcerers being superior at social skills one could say that a wizard is superior at knowledge skills. I don't find much merit in the argument that bards are better than wizards at knowledge being a good reason to say that sorcerers are superior any more than I find that bards being at least on equal footing with sorcerers for social interaction a reason for wizard superiority.
Spells per day is another recurring theme I see in this thread. While a sorcerer can continually cast his favorite spells again and again in combat, which I really love, especially at low levels, he doesn't have what I would consider substantially more spells than a wizard, especially if the wizard is using a divine bond (though I prefer the cute animal personally). And the level behind in spell progression can be a kick in the teeth.
The bloodlines in most situations to me look to be of higher power than the wizard schools and are very cool with a variety of options. I'm not saying the school powers aren't very solid in their own right, many are better than compariable bloodlines in my opinion, but overall you get a lot more clout out of a bloodline than a school. The combat ability at first level and AoE you get at mid levels if very nice, allowing you to take more utility spells over combat spells than sorcerers could in 3.X, giving them more freedom and versitility when it comes to spell selections.
Both classes should have a handy library of scrolls and a forest of wands and an ocean of potions so a sorcerer's limited spells known isn't always the hindrence it appears to be, but neither is the wizard as completely reliant on a small subset of spells as he appears to be.
I don't understand what the emphasis on Leadership score is in this thread. Any class considering on taking leadership will likely have a decent enough score to make solid use of the feat. I find it to be a lot of extra annoying adjucation of gear and combat matters that I don't care to do so I avoid the feat, but that is personal preference.
So what if the wizard's spellbook eats into his character wealth. How is the extra spell known not worth the cost? If the wizard didn't think it warrented paying for he likely wouldn't have gone out of his way to learn it. Just like any other item that adds potential spells (staffs, scrolls, potions, wands, wonderous trinkets of one-off spells, et cetera) you should have to pay for them. If you didn't and could load up on an encyclopedia of spells at no cost, what downside would their be to a wizard?
But not reducing the reliance on charisma. As you know, to actually order your charmed target to do anything, you have to succeed on a charisma contest. You can get around that by using dominate instead, but at the cost of a spell four levels higher and at an increased risk that someone will notice you dominated your target.
True, but someone under the effects of a charm still treats you as friendly I believe. And suicidal commands are still ignored. In most cases when I've used charms the things I was asking for never really went directly against the charmed person's nature. These spells lessen the need and relience on social skills, but obviously don't negate the need for them entirely. A sorceror excells at charms, but using a charmed creature in a combat situation should still yeild the PC's less XP as they are splitting it another way. I perfer Suggestion at any rate.
It IS rather nice, though, that the Sorcerer isn't going to get royally screwed over by having a bonded object stolen/broken/etc.
I prefer the familiar over the bonded object, and although I concede that there is the risk of losing an object, should that be your choice of bond, the risk is relatively minimal. Without researching or spying on the group it may not be immediately clear which possession is the mage's bond, as well enemies who focus on sundering may have their hands tied up with the warrior types, and there is always the difficulty of getting into and striking a caster within melee range.
Of course, the Sorcerer's library of scrolls/wands/etc. will include spells the Wizard will struggle with (ie. UMD) if not be completely beyond the Wizard's reach.
I suppose that is a matter of playstyle though. If I plan on using UMD I usually take either magical apptitude or skill focus since many of the DC's are difficult, and I usually don't have too much trouble. However many of the baser scrolls of non-wizard spells aren't too hard and those are likely the ones you will use the most often as they are more affordable. And I think wands are a flat DC 20, not hard at all even by a low charisma classes standard. For heavier divine spells I would just as soon let my groups divine caster handle them, unless he is in a bind or if my group contains a bard allow him to use those items while I still provide powerful arcane support.
If you ignore the penalties to the score you'll be taking, then yes.
As I said, each character planning on taking the feat has to weigh their personal pros and cons for it. A high charisma class has a slight advantage over others, but isn't definitively superior with it in all circumstances. I avoid the hornets nest that is Leadership myself. I don't think of leadership to be powerful or important enough to sway my decision of one class over another, not that I'm denying its usefullness. The monetary and combat adjucations have proven in the groups I've played with to be more of a headache than they are worth, especially with our general group size.
Nobody's saying that the Wizard won't see benefit from digging into his WBL to buy spells. The only thing being said is that it is a cost the Sorcerer doesn't have to pay.
Except he kind of does. At least to keep up in versitility. Where as the spells a wizard buys may be going into his book and can't always be used on the fly, unless he has a bonded object or retains extra scrolls, overall he his buying himself more option for the future, the same as a sorcerer or bard buying disposible items.
I think you have to concede that you aren't using the spell to it's full effect. The ability to have the creature do things it wouldn't ordinarily do (my example was to act as a meat shield) is very useful.
I will not concede that I'm not using the spell to its full effect if I don't use a charmed thing as a meat shield. I utilize it primarily out of combat. If I wanted a blocker there are plenty of other ways to get the same effect. Summons for example, which can also do things you mentioned earlier, like setting off straps, as well as having a ton of varying special abilities to suit most situations. Somehow it seems that you have the logic that only a sorcerer is likely to succeed on a charm opposed charisma check. I've rarely had difficulty successfully charming and commanding others as a wizard.
There's nothing in the rule which support your position. Having a charmed enemy join the fight isn't the same as having an NPC ally join of his own volition.
As a DM I have and do rule that if you use a charmed creature in combat from start to end it shares XP. The handful of DM's I've played with do likewise. They took an active role in combat, and had risked their lives, and contributed to victory. You aren't forcing them to do something they would consider suicidal otherwise the command would fail. That is a houserule we have, which may not work for everyone.
I always assume that a BBEG is researching and learning all he can about the people who are actively trying to kill him - unless the BBEG is known for being stupid.
There is always the matter of the resources, time, and capabilities the BBEG has available and the defenses and precautions the PC's erect. Also, try not to fall into the trap of assuming you will only ever battle the BBEG, there will likely be numerous encounters along the way, both combat and otherwise which will have their own understanding and tactics regarding a situation.
Many of the DCs are difficult even with skill focus/magical aptitude - unless you focus on having a high Cha. It'll require a signficant investment for your wizard to use UMD.
I don't think I'd call one feat IF I have a poor Charisma a "significant investment".
Wands are limited to 4th level spells. Consider, there are no healing spells of 4th level or lower worth casting in combat.
That is entirely a matter of opinion. I even consider Cure Mod to have practical combat applications through mid levels. It depends on the encounters you are facing and group dynamics.
This kind of waffling doesn't add anything to the discussion. I mean, a wizard could melee. He'd have to weigh his personal pros and cons in doing so, but he could do it. I wouldn't advise it, though.
Don't assume that everyone plays their characters like yours. I've used several melee wizards without levels of other classes and have done more than okay.
Like I said, leave the cohort at home. Summon something via Planer Binding to protect the cohort while he's there. All your headaches regarding monetary and combat adjudications go away. Well, of course, you've got to be playing a Sorcerer to pull that off.
Yet again, a slightly improved charisma for a slightly improved leadership score is hardly a viable argument for sorcerer outclassing wizard. Why is it that you HAVE to be a SORCERER to bind. Yet again, something I've had realitively little difficulty doing as a wizard. Also, what makes you think that every arcane caster wants to bind all the time? There are other spells.
The thing about disposable items is that they are -disposable-. They don't lock in your WBL into a specific set of expenditures. That means that they add flexibility to the character's tactics.
Define what you mean by "specific set of expenditures". I don't follow. If you are refering to the breakdown of 25% wealth on offense, et cetera, I believe those specifically state that they are general guidlines and that individual character may vary a great deals. Otherwise I don't understand what you are refering to.
LilithsThrall, the greater majority of your arguments (leadership score, easier time with charms and bindings, bonus to social skills) all seem to me to support an argument about Cha being a very important statistic, but not neccessarily sorcerer being superior to wizard. After all I could play a wizard (POSSIBLY an enchanter) with a fairly high charisma, MAYBE purchase a circulet of persausion, should their be one available, PERHAPS cast Eagle's Splender, be on par, at least, with a sorcerer, should I choose to walk down the road that include Charisma (charming, binding, leadership, et cetera). However in my experience a Charisma in the upper twenties is very rarely needed to accomplish these things, and wizards without a negative could adjucate their skill points and spells in that manner and succeed a good amount of the time. Sorcerers being ideal for Cha based optimization is no more valid an argument than Wizards being ideal for Int based optimization.
Both classes have their merits and their pitfalls. Both classes are fun to play and excell in different areas. Both classes have exploitable weaknesses. Both classes are powerful. They are well balanced between one another.
I posted a Sorcerer already in this thread. If you post an example of this hypothetical Wizard with this high charisma, we'll have something to compare. Elsewise, you're just turning this into a "Wizard is God" thread where you are talking about all the things a Wizard could hypothetically do to try to do what a Sorcerer can do easily - but without identifying what you are minimizing in order to get there.LilithsThrall, the greater majority of your arguments (leadership score, easier time with charms and bindings, bonus to social skills) all seem to me to support an argument about Cha being a very important statistic, but not neccessarily sorcerer being superior to wizard. After all I could play a wizard (POSSIBLY an enchanter) with a fairly high charisma, MAYBE purchase a circulet of persausion, should their be one available, PERHAPS cast Eagle's Splender, be on par, at least, with a sorcerer, should I choose to walk down the road that include Charisma (charming, binding, leadership, et cetera). However in my experience a Charisma in the upper twenties is very rarely needed to accomplish these things, and wizards without a negative could adjucate their skill points and spells in that manner and succeed a good amount of the time. Sorcerers being ideal for Cha based optimization is no more valid an argument than Wizards being ideal for Int based optimization.
Both classes have their merits and their pitfalls. Both classes are fun to play and excell in different areas. Both classes have exploitable weaknesses. Both classes are powerful. They are well balanced between one another.
Do not put words in my mouth.
I'm in no way claiming "wizard is god". It annoys the hell out of me when someone tries to twist my words. In fact in my last post I specifically stated that they are well balanced.
If you want me to build a Cha focused wizard and post it I will. But ultimately it would be a waste of time. Not every sorcerer is played exactly like yours. Not every sorcerer takes charms and bindings. Not every sorcerer takes leadership. If they did they'd be redundant. Every character is different.
Thank you for ignoring the argument completely that you don't need an ungodly high Cha to charm or bind successfully.
Thus far it appears that you focus on charisma based skills and abilities, and then claim the wizard is inferior because not only does it not appear to excell at Cha based skills and abilities, with little regard to the wizards strengths.
LilithsThrall, the greater majority of your arguments (leadership score, easier time with charms and bindings, bonus to social skills) all seem to me to support an argument about Cha being a very important statistic, but not neccessarily sorcerer being superior to wizard. After all I could play a wizard (POSSIBLY an enchanter) with a fairly high charisma, MAYBE purchase a circulet of persausion, should their be one available, PERHAPS cast Eagle's Splender, be on par, at least, with a sorcerer, should I choose to walk down the road that include Charisma (charming, binding, leadership, et cetera). However in my experience a Charisma in the upper twenties is very rarely needed to accomplish these things, and wizards without a negative could adjucate their skill points and spells in that manner and succeed a good amount of the time. Sorcerers being ideal for Cha based optimization is no more valid an argument than Wizards being ideal for Int based optimization.
Both classes have their merits and their pitfalls. Both classes are fun to play and excell in different areas. Both classes have exploitable weaknesses. Both classes are powerful. They are well balanced between one another.
I posted a Sorcerer already in this thread. If you post an example of this hypothetical Wizard with this high charisma, we'll have something to compare. Elsewise, you're just turning this into a "Wizard is God" thread where you are talking about all the things a Wizard could hypothetically do to try to do what a Sorcerer can do easily - but without identifying what you are minimizing in order to get there.
Honestly, at this point, you're just pulling random stuff out of your back side to try to support whatever claim you're trying to make. In order for the discussion to advance, we need you to post an actual Wizard to compare to. It'll help if you make it 13th level (the same level as the Sorcerer I already posted).
You put too much focus on Leadership and UMD. They don't provide nearly the boost you think they do, nor are they that hard to use. Your arguments only works if UMD is used almost all the time, and that should not happen unless someone decided to not play a divine character. The party cleric/druid might go down, but that is might, not will.
As for leadership you assume the DM will be killing the NPC. I have already addressed that. With 1 or not deaths the NPC is high enough so that he can contribute. Posting a build only matters if you the rest of the party members are also posted and statted out. The power of a class is measured in how much it brings to the party, which goes back to group playstyle.Constantly planar binding creatures gets you bad press. That outsider probably works for someone/something way about the party's pay grade.
Once again this is not a "wizard is god" thread. Nobody is saying the wizard is always ready. It is a fallacy, just like it is a fallacy to assume that just because the wizard cast less spells per day that he will run out of spells, and the he won't have a useful spell ready.
Once again: Most situations do have a spell that works best, but are not "only one spell works" situations. This allows a sorcerer who can't change his spells everyday, and a wizard who did not have the "best" spell to still contribute. If the situation can only be solved by spell X then it most likely does not matter which class you are using.
Those Prying Eyes only get a +16 on stealth checks which is not really high at level 13. You should not be getting the drop as often as you say you do. You also keep mention being invisible and level 13 together. Flying and invisibility are two things that should not be hard to counter at that level. I am not saying nerf it to uselessness, ,but it should not be as effective as it is in your games.
It seems to me your sorcerer would be less effective in my group. That does not mean it is badly made, but you have to build for the group.
PS:I think we need a neutral setting(set of assumptions) to negate group playstyle. I can only suggest certain AP chapters. If we can't negate that LT will see her playstyle as the most logical, and those of us that are not in her group won't.
In any event since I guess I have decided this is a playstyle thing, and I will delegate myself to watching from the sidelines. No point in me continuing if I am not convinced of the power of UMD or Leadership.
At any rate. I'm at work. The police are here. And my boyfriend is melting down. So I have far too much to deal with right now than argue over charisma based casters. This thread was supposed to find out what people thought of the balance between sorcerer and wizard as prime arcane casters and it has devolved down into circular arguments about specifics that really don't matter.
I've gave my opinion that both classes are more or less evenly powered and my reasons for believing so. I even played devil's advocate at certain points offering up points for both sides.
If you want to openly debate more on the matter of a specific sorcerer and a specific wizard in a list of specific situations, or specific spells and their likelihood of success and interactions resulting from, then make a thread and post the link. I'd like to stop hyjacking this one now.
I like sorcerer, I enjoy the hell out of playing it and feel that it is very viable with a signifcant power boost from 3.5. I'm not saying it is weaker than the wizard. All I'm saying is that it is by no means clearly superior. Nor is the wizard clearly better than the sorcerer.
~Ringtail
|
|
I have had a good time reading through most of this topic. I personally think the two classes are well balanced.
Let's take another point of view ...
After playing many years of organized play, and after many, many, many scenarios, I find that the second most feared opponent among my gaming comrades is a high-level wizard.
The first is a high-level sorcerer.
The fact that a sorcerer is the most feared opponent stems from the fact that whatever potentially game-ending spell you just barely made your save on from last round is coming at you again. Certain spells are just more than unpleasant when spammed. With a wizard, once you have seen his big play, you can usually rest assured that it won't happen again.
Another nuance to organized play is that you are often thematically "forced" into three encounters before being able to recover. The extra spell endurance a sorcerer possess gos along way.
Just my .02
1.A spell worth prepping once, is worth prepping twice.
2.How do you know that was the big play spell.
3.You just saw what the sorcerer/wizard can do. Just put up a defense against it.
4.After a certain level the thought of running low on spells is not a real threat.
1. True, but I have rarely seen either PC or NPC do this, probably because they want to spread their spell selection to meet the widest variety of threat rather than focus on one solution, even if that one solution is a killer.
2. See answer to 1. Again, hundreds of scenarios have provided the empirical evidence.
3. Sounds easy in forums, but proves more difficult when in rounds.
4. Maybe not on total spells, but top tier spells can be depleted quite easily.
Again, the majority of my experience is in organized play, where resources and time are limited. i.e. you cannot usually go back, rest up, reconnaissance and return without failing the scenario.
Again, the majority of my experience is in organized play, where resources and time are limited. i.e. you cannot usually go back, rest up, reconnaissance and return without failing the scenario.
That is an entirely different beast than a home game. I would probably have to watch a few games, and readjust my play style to be good in one.
Take a minute and read over Bluff. It is the Bluff skill which is most tightly connected to misinformation. Intelligence has nothing to do with it (game wise, in real life, charisma is a form of intelligence, but we're not talking about real life here).
Knowing who to bluff has everything to do with Intelligence.
Knowing when to bluff has everything to do with Wisdom.
..and you need to know what to say if you are to convince your target that it is true.
He doesn't have to fool all of the people all of the time. He just has to fool the right people at the right time. The people he fooled are the people who are going to be spreading the legends.
My reading of Legend Lore would result in information about the characters legendary deeds - in this case, as you have stated numerous times, he is a legendary liar and trickster.
So, a casting would reveal the Sorcerer's legendary acts of lies and trickery.
Why would it not
Personally I'd expect to see more Knowledges, Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
Why?
Can you honestly not understand how Knowledges, Diplomacy and Sense Motive are vital for a trickster character wishing to maintain numerous facades and deceptions?
Likewise a wily Wizard, who's prime stat is Intelligence, is going to be suspicious of any information and combine the steps I touched upon earlier (or new/other ones) to verify said information.
Verify it with what?
More information. Or is the Sorcerer fooling everyone? All of the time?
...but we're now playing our own text-based adventure. It can go either way - for every trick the Sorcerer plays the Wizard finds a counter
So, I have absolutely no idea on what you think your argument is sitting upon.
Lol, yes, so it would seem! :)
::
LilithsThrall, the greater majority of your arguments (leadership score, easier time with charms and bindings, bonus to social skills) all seem to me to support an argument about Cha being a very important statistic, but not neccessarily sorcerer being superior to wizard.
This.
..and your GM is being very generous when adjudicating your characters mental capabilities.
Take a minute and read over Bluff. It is the Bluff skill which is most tightly connected to misinformation. Intelligence has nothing to do with it (game wise, in real life, charisma is a form of intelligence, but we're not talking about real life here).
Knowing who to bluff has everything to do with Intelligence.
Knowing when to bluff has everything to do with Wisdom.
..and you need to know what to say if you are to convince your target that it is true.
He doesn't have to fool all of the people all of the time. He just has to fool the right people at the right time. The people he fooled are the people who are going to be spreading the legends.
My reading of Legend Lore would result in information about the character's legendary deeds - in this case, as you have stated numerous times, he is a legendary liar and trickster.
So, a casting would reveal the Sorcerer's legendary acts of lies and trickery.
Personally I'd expect to see more Knowledges, Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
Why?
Can you honestly not understand how Knowledges, Diplomacy and Sense Motive are vital for a trickster character wishing to maintain numerous facades and deceptions?
Likewise a wily Wizard, who's prime stat is Intelligence, is going to be suspicious of any information and combine the steps I touched upon earlier (or new/other ones) to verify said information.
Verify it with what?
More information. Or is the Sorcerer fooling everyone? All of the time?
...but we're now playing our own text-based adventure. It can go either way - for every trick the Sorcerer plays the Wizard finds a counter
So, I have absolutely no idea on what you think your argument is sitting upon.
Lol, yes, so it would seem! :)
::
LilithsThrall, the greater majority of your arguments (leadership score, easier time with charms and bindings, bonus to social skills) all seem to me to support an argument about Cha being a very important statistic, but not neccessarily sorcerer being superior to wizard.
This.
..LilithsThrall, your GM is being very generous when adjudicating your character's mental capabilities. If this works for your campaign and everyone is having fun then so be it.
However, as we have clearly demonstrated, many of the skills and powers you are associating with the Sorcerer are dependent on GM/campaign style - i.e highly subjective.
::
Perhaps we would all be better served if we focused on Wizard vs Sorcerer within the constraints of Pathfinder Society?
While there is still a certain amount of GM'ing style variation it might help to generate a more focused, structured discussion.
.
..
...
....
.....
You attribute too much solely to charisma.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Where is it stated that charisma governs the intelligence or wisdom of a leader?
Just because you can convince others to follow your plans doesn't mean your plans are any good/worth following.
Simply having social skills does not a good leader make.
::
Legend Lore: It would seem it's in the hands of the GM. If it really is based on the claims of a character and not their actual deeds then seemingly any character can prevent an accurate reading from the spell by simply claiming any number of heroic deeds, regardless of the validity.
::
More information: Yes, it's called detective work. You yourself stated that your sorcerer isn't fooling everyone all of the time. So, like any good detective, you attempt to collaborate, rationalise and verify any and all information you obtain.
Simply having social skills does not a good leader make.
Yes, it does. I think the point you are trying to make is that while a person can be a good leader, that doesn't mean he's leading in the right direction.
No, I mean a 'good' leader.
For a given value of good.
What/which values do you assign to 'good' regarding leadership?
If it's simply 'getting people to do what you say' then I would regard that as an 'effective' leader.
Once again, for a given value of effective.
::
So, are you still claiming that charisma governs the intelligence and wisdom of a leader?
Or are there perhaps other stats that do so?
If it's simply 'getting people to do what you say' then I would regard that as an 'effective' leader.
One could argue that a good leader (one able to organize and move a group of people towards a goal) isn't very effective if that goal hasn't been well chosen. Then again, a good leader can lead somebody whose job it is to figure out what the goal should be.
They could. Hopefully the goal would be selected intelligently and wisely.
Perhaps by someone with good intelligence and wisdom scores.
Regarding your Sorcerer: Is he leading somebody who's job it is to figure out who to trick and when?
So, are you still claiming that charisma governs the intelligence and wisdom of a leader?
Or are their perhaps other stats that do so?
Are you still claiming that it doesn't?
That should be obvious. Can you prove otherwise?