I don't need or really want to make a defense against every random assertion that someone posts. Why don't you make an actual argument in support of your position and then I'll have something to respond to?
This is what we call a 'cop out'. You either engage with the issue or you don't. Please note I have not made nor do I feel I am involved in an argument - I have attempted to clarify my points and interpretations while attempting to clarify and understand your thoughts regarding charisma and the relation of intelligence and wisdom regarding the capabilities of a leader.
You have repeatedly failed to respond to any direct calls for clarification of your assertions. Instead you insist on providing more of your own unsupported assertions and/or single line statements that do not attempt to clarify your points in anyway.
All you've done is make an assertion. You've given no support for that assertion - simply repeated it over and over again.
Interesting..
I've attempted to explain, illustrate and clarify my thoughts on what constitutes a master of deception, the importance of intelligence, wisdom and charisma regarding deception, the subjective nature of Legend Lore and related spells and your misconception of what charisma represents..
..I've even attempted to help you understand the very point you repeated unwittingly:
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.
..please read the post where I explain that within complex systems/developed organisations the leader's class is irrelevant as any such complex system/organisation relies on multiple characters from multiple classes.
In other words, a leader who lacks skills, intelligence and wisdom can rely on others within the system to compensate. However, they are now part of the system, who's collective actions can not be fairly attributed solely to the single leader.
Now, it would seem that as you acknowledge that a leader can rely on others to compensate for their lack of skills, intelligence and/or wisdom that skills, intelligence and wisdom are important facets of any single character wishing to be a skillful, intelligent, wise leader.
::
Stop avoiding the issue.
You seem to believe that a character with Intelligence 12 Wisdom 10 and a Charisma of 30 would be able be able to produce the same effective levels coordinated subterfuge and the same quality of leadership as a character with Intelligence 20 Wisdom 16 Charisma 20
Your Sorcerer has no ranks in Diplomacy, Knowledges relating to any of the issues likely to be involved regarding his subterfuge and as well as an inability to sense when someone is lying.
Once again:
::
I'm still not sure how this relates directly to Wizards versus Sorcerers....
.
..
...
....
.....
What really amazes me is that some people still don't get that discussing Sorcerers with LT is something like the Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object problem. Somewhat.
What can I say? I enjoy watching him wiggle!
..but seriously, when he bothers to clarify his statements with examples and anecdotes he does provide a good, interesting things to read.
Every time you cast legend lore it seems you get better results. Even assuming Legend Lore gives false info, which I am sure is not the intent of the spell, you can use other divination spells and mundane methods of investigation to weed out the false info. Cast Legend Lore again, repeat the process. Now in most people's games Legend Lore may give incomplete information, but still claims to be truthful.
If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks, and the resulting lore is vague and incomplete (though it often directs you to more detailed information, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time)
That snippet was the worst possible starting scenario, and even it often leads you to be able to get better information. There is nothing in the spell that indicates false information. So if the subject is 11th level at worst you get vague information.
With that said finding info on the all a leadership using character would not be that hard.
|
Only one class can match the wizard in terms of the bank of knowledges that he brings to the table. And that class tends to knock social skills out of the ballpark, while only to some degree electing to handle knowledges.
Playing Devil's advocate, Inquisitors knowledge of monster weaknesses is even better. But your point is well taken.
The key for me in the whole discussion is how different the two have become in purpose in Pathfinder vs. 3.5. Each fills a different role, and each has a place and time where they are significantly more useful than the other.
In known combats, Wizards can plan spells. In unknown, Sorcerers can re-use the useful spells over and over again...if they know what it is weaknesses are...which is something Wizards are better at determining...assuming they don't lose their spellbook and/or Arcane bonded weapon...
Wizards are more expensive (you have to buy all those scrolls everyone says you know, and those pearls of power aren't free kids...) and sorcerers are less skilled.
I say it's a wash, but that is no fun in these types of discussions. I still wish someone would do the 20 level challenge.
|
What really amazes me is that some people still don't get that discussing Sorcerers with LT is something like the Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object problem. Somewhat.
Whereas, with some people, trying to discuss the fact that wizards:
*don't automatically gain divine ranks at level three*don't get to pause the game while they memorize an appropriate spell
*become really freaking useless if they blow all 40-something daily spells making themselves immune to any conceivable situation
*are not automatically immune to everything as soon as the character puts "wizard" on his character sheet
*etc...
is like trying to talking to a rock.
Every time you cast legend lore it seems you get better results. Even assuming Legend Lore gives false info, which I am sure is not the intent of the spell, you can use other divination spells and mundane methods of investigation to weed out the false info. Cast Legend Lore again, repeat the process. Now in most people's games Legend Lore may give incomplete information, but still claims to be truthful.
If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks, and the resulting lore is vague and incomplete (though it often directs you to more detailed information, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time)That snippet was the worst possible starting scenario, and even it often leads you to be able to get better information. There is nothing in the spell that indicates false information. So if the subject is 11th level at worst you get vague information.
With that said finding info on the all a leadership using character would not be that hard.
The spell says it reveals legends. We all know that legends aren't always true. I can list a couple of hundred legends which are false in the real world.
It is worth noting that if Legend Lore is reliable, it's a whole lot easier to find out what the Wizard's bonded object is this way then to find out what the Sorcerer's spell list is.
...and once again you fail to engage with the point being made, instead focusing on a single element within the explanation/clarification and then making an unsupported assertion.
Their is a process for ascertaining information. There is a process for analysing and verifying the quality of information.
There is a process for uncovering your Intelligence 14, Wisdom 10 character's master plans.
In the interest of communciation:
Regarding skill sets for a Master of Deception..
Knowledge: So your Sorcerer has information to bluff with.
Diplomacy: To maintain relations with those bluffed.
Sense Motive: To know how your target is reacting without relying on them telling you. To prevent another Sorcerer of a similar build doing the same to you.
::
Regarding skill sets for a 'good' Leader..
Knowledge: So you know what you're talking about without having to rely on someone else feeding you the information which in turn leaves you vulnerable to disinformation and trickery.
Diplomacy: To maintain relations, keep alliances healthy and manage difficult social situations when they arise.
Sense Motive: To know how your target is reacting without relying on them telling you. To help ascertain the motives of others. To reduce the chance you yourself will be deceived.
Once again:
What really amazes me is that some people still don't get that discussing Sorcerers with LT is something like the Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object problem. Somewhat.Whereas, with some people, trying to discuss the fact that wizards:
*don't automatically gain divine ranks at level three
*don't get to pause the game while they memorize an appropriate spell
*become really freaking useless if they blow all 40-something daily spells making themselves immune to any conceivable situation
*are not automatically immune to everything as soon as the character puts "wizard" on his character sheet
*etc...
is like trying to talking to a rock.
Mr.K do you have reading comprehension skills. <----Only said to get your attention.
Now that I have it, not one "wizard is god" argument has come up*, and I took care of all those points earlier in the thread so why are you repeating them. Now you will probably say you don't remember, but I can repeat them again if you wish, but only if you promise to pay attention this time.*This has been mentioned more than once. Either you are assuming, which you have to be because you definitely are not reading anything anyone is saying or you are trolling. If you disagree then counter the specific arguments instead of arguing points that were never made.
Divine rank--Nobody said that
Pause game-nobody said that
blow all spells-really who does that unless you are a noob or below level 4? Actually even noobs don't do it, and I have played below level 4 and not wasted all my spells for many classes.
Immune to everything-nobody said that
Now you can reply with a real post, thanks.
Every time you cast legend lore it seems you get better results. Even assuming Legend Lore gives false info, which I am sure is not the intent of the spell, you can use other divination spells and mundane methods of investigation to weed out the false info. Cast Legend Lore again, repeat the process. Now in most people's games Legend Lore may give incomplete information, but still claims to be truthful.
If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks, and the resulting lore is vague and incomplete (though it often directs you to more detailed information, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time)That snippet was the worst possible starting scenario, and even it often leads you to be able to get better information. There is nothing in the spell that indicates false information. So if the subject is 11th level at worst you get vague information.
With that said finding info on the all a leadership using character would not be that hard.
The spell says it reveals legends. We all know that legends aren't always true. I can list a couple of hundred legends which are false in the real world.
It is worth noting that if Legend Lore is reliable, it's a whole lot easier to find out what the Wizard's bonded object is this way then to find out what the Sorcerer's spell list is.
I do believe you can use it to find the wizard's bonded object, but like I said if you can get to the object you can get to the wizard, and if you can get to the wizard he has more to worry about than his object. It is easier and cheaper to get another object than it is to get another life.
LT the game is not in the real world, and the spell assumes the info is true. If it didn't then it would not help you to get a better use of the spell with the next casting. The other spells that might give false info specifically say so.
|
|
I do believe you can use it to find the wizard's bonded object, but like I said if you can get to the object you can get to the wizard, and if you can get to the wizard he has more to worry about than his object. It is easier and cheaper to get another object than it is to get another life.LT the game is not in the real world, and the spell assumes the info is true. If it didn't then it would not help you to get a better use of the spell with the next casting. The other spells that might give false info specifically say so.
I think we have gone a bit off on this one. IMHO an arcane bonded item should be able to be identified in the same way you would identify the properties of any magic item.
I mean, why wouldn't you be able to do that?
|
|
Note that wood (which is what the typical staff bonded object would be made of) has 5 hit points per ten inches of thickness.
To put that another way, cannon fodder minions could easily sunder a staff bonded object whereas they might have more difficulty killing the wizard even if they got into melee range.
Again, why over complicate. Just disarm.
Again, beside the point as I'm arguing the moderate "both sides are about equal" side. Possibly because I'm still sunburned from the Stewart/Colbert Rally yesterday.
There are many subjects in the liberal arts where we still don't know (even with having many experts studying the subject) whether the legends are...
You seem to be confusing concepts with events.
I understand the idea that reality is subjective. However, there is also the matter of consensus. You seem to believe that your Sorcerer is personally effecting consensus on a massive scale.
Which, sure some Sorcerer's could certainly attempt to do.
However, it'd require intelligence and wisdom along with charisma.
If they don't personally have the intelligence or wisdom then they are reliant on others to compensate.
Which means they are no longer a Master of Deception but rather part of a group that execute deceitful acts.
::
..and I'm still quite not sure how you fool Legend Lore.
It's a spell. It's not a person.
A person's perspective of the events surrounding a legend may be subjective but magic isn't susceptible to the same limitations, generally speaking and certainly not in this case.
Using your own method of inquriy:
School divination; Level bard 4, sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time see text
Components V, S, M (incense worth 250 gp), F (four pieces of ivory worth 50 gp each)
Range personal
Target you
Duration see text
Legend lore brings to your mind legends about an important person, place, or thing. If the person or thing is at hand, or if you are in the place in question, the casting time is only 1d4 x 10 minutes. If you have only detailed information on the person, place, or thing, the casting time is 1d10 days, and the resulting lore is less complete and specific (though it often provides enough information to help you find the person, place, or thing, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time). If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks, and the resulting lore is vague and incomplete (though it often directs you to more detailed information, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time).
During the casting, you cannot engage in other than routine activities: eating, sleeping, and so forth. When completed, the divination brings legends (if any) about the person, place, or things to your mind. These may be legends that are still current, legends that have been forgotten, or If the person, place, or thing is not of legendary importance, you gain no information. As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are "legendary," as are the sorts of creatures they contend with, the major magic items they wield, and the places where they perform their key deeds.
As to my own interpretation: I believe casting Legend Lore to reveal the legendary deeds of a legendary trickster would reveal their legendary tricks.
the point as I'm arguing the moderate "both sides are about equal" side.I agree. The two classes are about equal. There's an awful lot of misinformation regarding what the wizard can actually do. I've seen Wraithstrike argue that when the Wizard figures his WBL he only has to count half the cost of items he makes himself. I've seen him say that he doesn't count spell books as part of WBL. He, and others, break the rules all the time for the Wizard - which is why I think so many people think the Wizard is more powerful.
I'm only arguing that, if we take the rules for what they actually do -say-, then the Sorcerer and the Wizard are equal.
..and we've all seen you attribute mental capabilities required for an effective leader, such as planning and judgement, to a character whose attribute that govern the former is barely above the norm and certainly not exceptional whose attribute that governs the latter is only average.
..and then you claim that charisma and bluff compensate for a lack in these critical areas.
..and then accredit such subjective interpretations as a strength of the Sorcerer class.
the spell assumes the info is true..I've got the Legend Lore spell in front of me right now and -nowhere- in the description does it say that.
It does not say the info is false either. By logic the other spells say the info may be false while this one does not.
Even with you real world analogy most legends are based on some truth even if not all of it is true. Either way it leads to info on the sorcerer.There is no way to completely hide info about yourself in this game if someone wants to know things about you.
I do believe you can use it to find the wizard's bonded object, but like I said if you can get to the object you can get to the wizard, and if you can get to the wizard he has more to worry about than his object. It is easier and cheaper to get another object than it is to get another life.LT the game is not in the real world, and the spell assumes the info is true. If it didn't then it would not help you to get a better use of the spell with the next casting. The other spells that might give false info specifically say so.
I think we have gone a bit off on this one. IMHO an arcane bonded item should be able to be identified in the same way you would identify the properties of any magic item.
I mean, why wouldn't you be able to do that?
The bonded item is EX, not SU. The familiar is magical, and even if the item was magical there is no to look at it and know it is different than any other item. The item only becomes magical when enhanced, and even then you would only know it's magical properties.
Note that wood (which is what the typical staff bonded object would be made of) has 5 hit points per ten inches of thickness.
To put that another way, cannon fodder minions could easily sunder a staff bonded object whereas they might have more difficulty killing the wizard even if they got into melee range.
There is no typical bonded item. That is an assumption. It is most likely that it is the last one to be chosen since most wizards avoid melee, and staffs even used as spell delivering devices are expensive.
It should also be mentioned that the concentration check is 20+spell level to cast without the item. At level 13 which is the level I am assuming we are still working at the the has a modifier of13(level)+7attribute)=20. the highest DC is 29, and only last for 8 hours since that is how long it takes to replace the item. Having to beat a 7 is pretty good odds. It is not really more than an inconvenience.
16+2race+4 magic item+3 levels=25
|
|
The bonded item is EX, not SU. The familiar is magical, and even if the item was magical there is no to look at it and know it is different than any other item. The item only becomes magical when enhanced, and even then you would only know it's magical properties.
Citation needed.
There is no reason you should not be able to identify an arcane bonded object using detect magic and making a spellcraft check. It is an object that by it's nature enhances magical capabilities and contains a held spell.
Yes this is subject to all of the limits of detect magic, but it is still very doable.
We can do a FAQ ruling if you like, but there is nothing the wording indicating that it was intended to be "secret". To the contrary, you have to wear or wield it to use it. The intent is clearly to give a bonus with a vulnerability.
the point as I'm arguing the moderate "both sides are about equal" side.I agree. The two classes are about equal. There's an awful lot of misinformation regarding what the wizard can actually do. I've seen Wraithstrike argue that when the Wizard figures his WBL he only has to count half the cost of items he makes himself. I've seen him say that he doesn't count spell books as part of WBL. He, and others, break the rules all the time for the Wizard - which is why I think so many people think the Wizard is more powerful.
I'm only arguing that, if we take the rules for what they actually do -say-, then the Sorcerer and the Wizard are equal.
That is a blatant lie. I said I did not notice it until you pointed it out that the wizard counted the spellbook. In other words I agreed with out. I also never said anything about counting half the items. Anyone who has seen me argue against others that try to jump over the WBL guidelines know that.
PS:Maybe you got me mixed up with someone else so the lie part may be out of hand, but either way it is wrong.
edit:
I have never counted spellbooks as part of the WBL because they are a class feature so I guess the arcane bond item, and the book start the wizard off in the hole.
I agree with you by the way, but I never really thought it about for some reason.
followed by
Also, a spell book is no more a class feature for a wizard than a sword is a class feature for a fighter.
I realize you agree with me, I'm just saying..
ute mental capabilities required for an effective leader, such as planning and judgement,You're lying about what I've said.
I don't appreciate it.
Am I now? When reading your posts you make claims of the deeds your Sorcerer is capable of. These deeds you solely attribute to charisma.
Of course, you are free to clarify the intent of your claims - this is why I have repeatedly asked you to clarify your stance on issues such as...
...so as to avoid any misunderstanding of your intent.
Or are we going to play the 'Point to where I said X' game?
|
|
Let me compare these two classes in my own way:
A group of pesky adventurers break into your tower and start towards your room.1. Sorcerer breaks out the defensive spells and goes to stop them hoping that choices of spells he did through his whole life is going to be enough (and that those pesky adventurers didn't research that sorcerer's abilities).
2. Wizard is interrupted in the middle of his experiments. As he is was not ready to defend himself he sends some magical spies to see the power of his opposition while teleporting himself to safety. After finding out all he can of his opponents, he prepares the right combination of spells and comes back to kill them with minimal danger.
After the Wizard abandons his tower for a day, he comes back to find it looted...
Fail scenario, sir.
ute mental capabilities required for an effective leader, such as planning and judgement,You're lying about what I've said.
I don't appreciate it.Am I now? When reading your posts you make claims of the deeds your Sorcerer is capable of. These deeds you solely attribute to charisma.
Of course, you are free to clarify the intent of your claims - this is why I have repeatedly asked you to clarify your stance on issues such as...
Are you still claiming that charisma governs the intelligence and wisdom of a leader? Is your Sorcerer leading others that are thinking and judging for him or is he doing it himself? ...so as to avoid any misunderstanding of your intent.
Or are we going to play the 'Point to where I said X' game?
It is time to play the game. That is the impression I got also.
|
|
Am I now? When reading your posts you make claims of the deeds your Sorcerer is capable of. These deeds you solely attribute to charisma.I've repeatedly asked you why you believe that knowledge skills, sense motive, and diplomacy are needed for a master of misinformation. You've repeatedly dodged answering that question.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to groundless assertions and until you actually make a point based on logic that's all you are offering.
All of this is a red herring.
Sorcerers are prettier, Wizards are smarter. Both can accomplish similar things in different ways.
Can we get back on topic as to real comparisons of the two?
the spell assumes the info is true..I've got the Legend Lore spell in front of me right now and -nowhere- in the description does it say that.It does not say the info is false either. By logic the other spells say the info may be false while this one does not.
Even with you real world analogy most legends are based on some truth even if not all of it is true. Either way it leads to info on the sorcerer.There is no way to completely hide info about yourself in this game if someone wants to know things about you.
The spell says it reports legends.
It doesn't say that the legends are true. Many legends aren't.
I believe the intent of the spell is obvious. Who spends 2d6 weeks casting a spell to not learn anything true? We may gave to agree to disagree.
After the Wizard abandons his tower for a day, he comes back to find it looted...
..but the dragon was well fed!
::
I've repeatedly asked you why you believe that knowledge skills, sense motive, and diplomacy are needed for a master of misinformation. You've repeatedly dodged answering that question.
...I responded several posts ago.
o_o
Edit: 4 to be exact.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The bonded item is EX, not SU. The familiar is magical, and even if the item was magical there is no to look at it and know it is different than any other item. The item only becomes magical when enhanced, and even then you would only know it's magical properties.Citation needed.
There is no reason you should not be able to identify an arcane bonded object using detect magic and making a spellcraft check. It is an object that by it's nature enhances magical capabilities and contains a held spell.
Yes this is subject to all of the limits of detect magic, but it is still very doable.
We can do a FAQ ruling if you like, but there is nothing the wording indicating that it was intended to be "secret". To the contrary, you have to wear or wield it to use it. The intent is clearly to give a bonus with a vulnerability.
The object only has to be worn, not used as a component like a cleric's holy symbol. I don't think it is all that obvious. Now if they said it had to be used as a focus then I would agree.
Am I now? When reading your posts you make claims of the deeds your Sorcerer is capable of. These deeds you solely attribute to charisma.I've repeatedly asked you why you believe that knowledge skills, sense motive, and diplomacy are needed for a master of misinformation. You've repeatedly dodged answering that question.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to groundless assertions and until you actually make a point based on logic that's all you are offering.
All of this is a red herring.
Sorcerers are prettier, Wizards are smarter. Both can accomplish similar things in different ways.
Can we get back on topic as to real comparisons of the two?
Such as?
|
|
The object only has to be worn, not used as a component like a cleric's holy symbol. I don't think it is all that obvious. Now if they said it had to be used as a focus then I would agree.
The bonded item is EX, not SU. The familiar is magical, and even if the item was magical there is no to look at it and know it is different than any other item. The item only becomes magical when enhanced, and even then you would only know it's magical properties.Citation needed.
There is no reason you should not be able to identify an arcane bonded object using detect magic and making a spellcraft check. It is an object that by it's nature enhances magical capabilities and contains a held spell.
Yes this is subject to all of the limits of detect magic, but it is still very doable.
We can do a FAQ ruling if you like, but there is nothing the wording indicating that it was intended to be "secret". To the contrary, you have to wear or wield it to use it. The intent is clearly to give a bonus with a vulnerability.
FAQ'ed then.
I think it is very clear that the developers want the object to be vulnerable, which is the trade off for the bonuses you get from having it. But we'll see.
I think it is very clear that the developers want the object to be vulnerable, which is the trade off for the bonuses you get from having it. But we'll see.
..personally I've always thought it was meant to be worn/brandished/held or the like.
Which is why I've favoured familiars: Cheap to replace when targeted.
..and they provide extra skill checks and have various other uses.
However, if a wizard can simply have his Bonded Object stuffed in pocket or down a sock then..
|
|
Such as?
Am I now? When reading your posts you make claims of the deeds your Sorcerer is capable of. These deeds you solely attribute to charisma.I've repeatedly asked you why you believe that knowledge skills, sense motive, and diplomacy are needed for a master of misinformation. You've repeatedly dodged answering that question.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to groundless assertions and until you actually make a point based on logic that's all you are offering.
All of this is a red herring.
Sorcerers are prettier, Wizards are smarter. Both can accomplish similar things in different ways.
Can we get back on topic as to real comparisons of the two?
You lay out the benefits and weaknesses of each honestly.
Wizards get spells a level early and can get access to more spell options. Sorcerers get more per spells per day, and can cast spells they know repeatedly without occupying multiple spell slots.
Is this allocation of spells equal or is one better?
Charisma vs Intelligence. Are these equal or is one more useful to have as your primary beyond any discussion of spells.
Arcane Bond/Familiar vs Bloodlines.
These seem to be the big differences. My personal take is the first one is a wash, the second is advantage Wizard, but the third is advantage Sorcerer.
Meaning on the whole, wash.
I think it is very clear that the developers want the object to be vulnerable, which is the trade off for the bonuses you get from having it. But we'll see...personally I've always thought it was meant to be worn/brandished/held or the like.
Which is why I've favoured familiars: Cheap to replace when targeted.
..and they provide extra skill checks and have various other uses.
However, if a wizard can simply have his Bonded Object stuffed in pocket or down a sock then..
The item does have to be worn or held so it is out in the open, but you still have to determine which one is the bonded item.
|
|
The item does have to be worn or held so it is out in the open, but you still have to determine which one is the bonded item.
I think it is very clear that the developers want the object to be vulnerable, which is the trade off for the bonuses you get from having it. But we'll see...personally I've always thought it was meant to be worn/brandished/held or the like.
Which is why I've favoured familiars: Cheap to replace when targeted.
..and they provide extra skill checks and have various other uses.
However, if a wizard can simply have his Bonded Object stuffed in pocket or down a sock then..
And our disagreement comes as to if you should be able to discern this using a skill such as spellcraft.
I say yes, you say no. We await the FAQ.
The item does have to be worn or held so it is out in the open, but you still have to determine which one is the bonded item.
Ah yes, that makes more sense.
I.E: The item that he focuses on the most, takes the most care of, is seemingly most concerned.
Granted the wizard could act utterly blasé regarding his Bonded Object but it would seem unlikely that they'd be able to maintain the facade under pressure - especially as the loss of the Bonded Object imposes such stiff penalties upon the wizard.
Such as?
Am I now? When reading your posts you make claims of the deeds your Sorcerer is capable of. These deeds you solely attribute to charisma.I've repeatedly asked you why you believe that knowledge skills, sense motive, and diplomacy are needed for a master of misinformation. You've repeatedly dodged answering that question.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to groundless assertions and until you actually make a point based on logic that's all you are offering.
All of this is a red herring.
Sorcerers are prettier, Wizards are smarter. Both can accomplish similar things in different ways.
Can we get back on topic as to real comparisons of the two?
You lay out the benefits and weaknesses of each honestly.
Wizards get spells a level early and can get access to more spell options. Sorcerers get more per spells per day, and can cast spells they know repeatedly without occupying multiple spell slots.
Is this allocation of spells equal or is one better?
Charisma vs Intelligence. Are these equal or is one more useful to have as your primary beyond any discussion of spells.
Arcane Bond/Familiar vs Bloodlines.
These seem to be the big differences. My personal take is the first one is a wash, the second is advantage Wizard, but the third is advantage Sorcerer.
Meaning on the whole, wash.
I think they are close enough that it does not matter a whole lot, but it is really more dependent on playstyle and what a DM allows. The problem is that the side that argues for each class normally plays in such a manner that gives their side an advantage.
I play sorcerers more than I play wizards because it is less book keeping, but I think a wizard would be better in my group.
That is a playstyle thing. IIRC your group thinks something went wrong if they have to fight, and they prefer to use sneak and use espionage. It sounds intersting, but most groups don't go through all that trouble(not saying that it is trouble). The sorc might be better a social skils, but the wizard is good at so many other skills that it more than makes up for, especially since the rogue, or cleric can handle social things. A wizard brings more to the a party than a sorcerer does. I like sorcerers better, but I know which class is really running the show, most of the time.
That logic is fundamentally flawed. A Wizard's power isn't measured by how many spells he can cast or how often he can change the spells he can cast. A Wizard's power is measured by how well he can manipulate the PCs and NPCs around him as well as the environment.
.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. And, at this time, -every- single argument you've made claiming that the wizard is more powerful simply doesn't hold water.
Honestly, this discussion might be more helpful if we compared actual characters.Here's mine
Sorcerer level 13, Human, Arcane Bloodline
Str 10
Dex 12
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 29
AC 11 (+4 for Mage Armor)
Saves
4 (+4 for cloak)
5 (+4 for cloak)
8 (+4 for cloak)
Feats
Improved Initiative
Skill Focus (Spellcraft)
Improved Familiar (Pseudodragon - grants Telepathy and can Fly)
Skill Focus (UMD)
Leadership (Leadership score 13 for level + 9 for Cha - 1 for Aloofness - 2 for Familiar = 19, I created the character at 13th level, it's reasonable that, even though he keeps his cohort back home, he's lost a cohort before and it's reasonable that he's suffered failure before, so drop that Leadership score to 16 - he has an 11th level Cohort)
Silent Spell
Still Spell
Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Combat Casting
Spell PenetrationSkills...
First let me say that I like playing Sorcerers more than Wizards, but I do think Wizards are more powerful. It is very possible to make a Wizard that can do everything you can skill-wise, as well as you can and still do a bunch of other stuff.
The gauntlet has been thrown- I accept. Just a few questions first. What is your CON, and your HP. What kind of attribute buy did you use.
The item does have to be worn or held so it is out in the open, but you still have to determine which one is the bonded item.
I think it is very clear that the developers want the object to be vulnerable, which is the trade off for the bonuses you get from having it. But we'll see...personally I've always thought it was meant to be worn/brandished/held or the like.
Which is why I've favoured familiars: Cheap to replace when targeted.
..and they provide extra skill checks and have various other uses.
However, if a wizard can simply have his Bonded Object stuffed in pocket or down a sock then..
And our disagreement comes as to if you should be able to discern this using a skill such as spellcraft.
I say yes, you say no. We await the FAQ.
FAQ not needed. If I'm wearing, say, a ring as a bonded item but have not yet used the option to enchant it, it does not glow as a magic item. NOWHERE does it say the ring would, it is a mundane item albeit of masterwork quality, that is all. Furthermore, not being a magical item, it does not take up a ring "slot". So I can be wearing two magical rings, several mundane rings, and a mundane bonded object ring. Which one are you going to try to sunder?