To be fair, it does go on to say that "some skills may be beyond the familiar's ability to use", but it doesn't say which skills those may be. Given that familiars can get up to 15 intelligence and can speak in at least a limited sense, it's at least fuzzy whether UMD is one of those skills.
I'd forgotten about the UMD stunt, though I never was a fan of Burning Wallet Style. For a familiar to be able to use UMD, however, it has to be physically able to use whatever magic device. That means being able to hold it, and usually being able to speak a command word. I don't recall the rules on familiar talk in PF, but in 3.5, a raven could speak common and could arguably hold a wand in its talons. If that doesn't fly, take Improved Familiar for an imp or a mephit or something else with opposable thumbs.
God forbid they write a book that assumes the GM has a brain!!
Your head is stuck in 3.5 and you should read the relevant rules before shouting people down.
I was not shouting, and to say that I was is putting words in my mouth every bit as much as you accuse me of.
I am looking at the rules for learning spells for both Pathfinder and 3.5 at this very moment. They're one clause different, with some minor price shifts. The fact remains, the Wizard's power is limited by scroll access (meaning more cities result in more markets results in more power) and DM whim.
And it's not a matter of the DM having a brain. When the rules cannot be followed because your game has a lot of cities and a lot of markets, and the Wizard would explode just by fair and equal access to goods as everyone else? That's a bad thing. When you cannot treat your players fairly, and have to actively persecute one player and deny them equal use of the rules just to keep a level playing field, that's a game failing. Not a matter of the DM having a brain.
Simmer down, quit misquoting rules (and people), and quit cramming your play style down other folks throats.
Edit: I reread and you are again putting words in my mouth, please stop doing that.
I am quite calm, and I am not putting words in your mouth, and I am not cramming my playstyle down anyone's throat. I am contributing to a conversation on an open forum where civil discourse (and I am being quite civil here, despite those who treat me otherwise) is supposedly encouraged.
With a friendly GM and enough ranks in "Cheese Rules" anything is possible.
A being with opposable thumbs, human level intelligence, and a lifetime's experience at the side of a highly skilled arcanist putting to use said opposable thumbs, human level intelligence, and lifetime's experience at the side of said highly skilled arcanist to use a wand is entirely appropriate and logical. Balance issues aside, it makes perfect sense and is hardly cheesing the rules.
Only if you make them so. You can create a wand of any caster level in the range [minimum required to cast the spell ~ current caster level for that spell].
And don't forget, not all spells really care what caster level they're at. A CL1 Grease isn't very different from a CL20 Grease, since you're not liable to need it for too much more than a minute.
I am looking at the rules for learning spells for both Pathfinder and 3.5 at this very moment. They're one clause different, with some minor price shifts. The fact remains, the Wizard's power is limited by scroll access (meaning more cities result in more markets results in more power) and DM whim.
I'm waiting for the page number where it says players can add spells whenever they want... Let me know when you find that one.
As for wandering from city to city to find spells... really? Is your party going to travel from city to city so you can look for spells? Most of the groups I play in are more about adventuring than chasing the wizards spells.
And it's not a matter of the DM having a brain. When the rules cannot be followed because your game has a lot of cities and a lot of markets, and the Wizard would explode just by fair and equal access to goods as everyone else? That's a bad thing. When you cannot treat your players fairly, and have to actively persecute one player and deny them equal use of the rules just to keep a level playing field, that's a game failing. Not a matter of the DM having a brain.
Who said anything about persecuting one player? I said the GM should have a brain... it's kind of a requirement to GM properly anyhow. If the GM wants to give you the shaft there is no rule that is going to protect you.
Maybe Paizo is 'persecuting' wizards when they have the party spend 6 levels of adventuring without access to a market in (spoiler below)? Wizards of the Coast is 'persecuting' wizards in Red Hand of Doom when they seriously limit access to new spells for pretty much the whole adventure?
Simmer down, quit misquoting rules (and people), and quit cramming your play style down...
I am quite calm, and I am not putting words in your mouth, and I am not cramming my playstyle down anyone's throat. I am contributing to a conversation on an open forum where civil discourse (and I am being quite civil here, despite those who treat me otherwise) is supposedly encouraged.
Let me make this perfectly clear, I'm cool with open access to magic, I've played in games where the GM says "any book, any spell". It's a lot of fun. But there are a lot of other campaign styles and it's obnoxious to assume that everyone needs to adopt your groups play style.
So as far as I'm concerned your assertion that your play style is somehow The Rules IS cramming your play style down my throat.
Paizo AP Spoilers
Legacy of fire has the characters spend 6 levels from 7th - 12th where they cannot stop to shop for stuff a single time.
Red Hand of Doom has extremely limited access to purchase magic items or spells.
Second Darkness has multiple sections where the characters spend 1-2 levels without access to spells.
And barred schools still limit versatility. Even barring evocation, I can't tell how many times I wished I had that Fireball or Polay Ray. Instead, I cast an illusion and hoped for the best.Or you can just craft a wand of fireball, or keep it on a scroll, or use your bonded item to whip it out on the fly, all at no penalty despite specialization.
Bolded part is a no-go, FYI. Check the last sentence of the third paragraph of the arcane bond ability [url]description[/url]. :)
I'm with Dennis on item availability. The idea that you can just go scroll shopping is downright ludicrous.
Off Topic:
Hi Viletta,
I've noticed you've JUST recently joined the boards here, yet seem to have a supernatural talent at helping move threads into non-productive directions where everybody is long-since aware of each other's opinions/knowledge, yet the 'debate' rolls ceaselessly on in extremely verbose manners with people seeming to speak past each other. This kind of dynamic has certainly been present to some degree or another on these boards for at least as long as I'VE been a member, but I can't help but notice that you've seemed to pop out of the blue with 110% of your 'energy' tuned to one practically laser-sharp frequency, so to speak - I've hardly seen any posts from you OUTSIDE of this dynamic in other words (like getting excited about the content of an upcoming AP installment, or a question on Golarion cannon, or ANY question whatsoever)
What's up with that?
After reading all this, I'm still of the opinion that it's a wash.
First, a large part of these discussions are apples to oranges, this power is good, this power is bad. They do not take into account all the powers that accumulate and their costs.
Second, it very much seems to me that the wizard is PRC bait.
Third, The access to a new level of spells early is a huge bonus for about 40% of the game over the course of it's lifespan. And it about equals up for the advantages the sorcerer gets.
Fourth, many many many people play in campaigns where the sorcerers strengths are eliminated. They A) Allow wizards free access to scrolls, B) do not exhaust the wizards spell reserves and prevent the wizard from resting due to wandering monsters and C) Do not track material components (since eschew materials is the free feat vs. scribe scroll)
A) Gives the wizard a *much* larger spell collection, B) Removes the advantage of the additional spells per day (you're resting so much you don't every use anything but your highest level spells) and C) let's the wizard use spells that they should not be able to.
The main point I seem to be coming back to, is that the advantage of one or the other is too campaign dependent.
Am I wrong in this, or is one strictly, numerically, quantitatively better than the other? (Hell, we got the pally numbers to show *they* were statistically equal. I can hope, right?)
I'm with Dennis on item availability. The idea that you can just go scroll shopping is downright ludicrous.
I'm ok if a group wants to play that way. The only thing I find ludicrous is this attitude that it's somehow built into the rules and that somehow the wizard is 'balanced' based on it.
The main point I seem to be coming back to, is that the advantage of one or the other is too campaign dependent.
Totally... although in general there are almost very few situations in which the wizard is weaker.
Wide open game with unlimited crafting time - Wizards have a huge advantage.
Conservative game with limited crafting time and limited access to magic - Wizards still have an edge but it's a much slimmer one.
I'm waiting for the page number where it says players can add spells whenever they want... Let me know when you find that one.
If they have the time, the money, and the scroll, they can scribe it. Period.
If they have market access, they can buy a lot of scrolls, albeit randomly selected. How many markets, and of what size, determines their spell access.
If you have to explicitly deny the Wizard time, money, or market access to prevent them from having fair use of their class abilities just to maintain game balance, there is a problem.
As for wandering from city to city to find spells... really? Is your party going to travel from city to city so you can look for spells? Most of the groups I play in are more about adventuring than chasing the wizards spells.
I said, "has a lot of cities." Nothing more, nothing less. You can have easily have a campaign that takes you through half a dozen major ports, the capitols of five different nations, and multiple trade towns of varying sizes besides, all in the normal life of a pack of vagabond adventurers. And those travels include shopping.
It's also equally valid that the party may be a band of mercenary-type adventurers who decide, "The money may be good in town A, but money's no good if you can't spend it and the selection in town A sucks and we can find work anywhere in these generically troubled times, so let's go to town B."
Who said anything about persecuting one player? I said the GM should have a brain... it's kind of a requirement to GM properly anyhow. If the GM wants to give you the shaft there is no rule that is going to protect you.
Maybe Paizo is 'persecuting' wizards when they have the party spend 6 levels of adventuring without access to a market in (spoiler below)? Wizards of the Coast is 'persecuting' wizards in Red Hand of Doom when they seriously limit access to new spells for pretty much the whole adventure?
No. It isn't. However, the decision to keep players away from cities doesn't have anything to do with Wizards.
If you have a campaign that naturally goes through a lot of cities, however, the wilderness counterbalance means nothing.
Let me make this perfectly clear, I'm cool with open access to magic, I've played in games where the GM says "any book, any spell". It's a lot of fun. But there are a lot of other campaign styles and it's obnoxious to assume that everyone needs to adopt your groups play style.
So as far as I'm concerned your assertion that your play style is somehow The Rules IS cramming your play style down my throat.
We are having a failure to communicate, and you are attributing it to malice on my part.
I am not cramming my playstyle down anyone's throat. I am not declaring my playstyle to be The Rules. In fact, I am discussing The Rules themselves, playstyle aside.
Here are The Rules. Within the confines of the rules (page 460), Wizards are, on average, allowed to buy scrolls if they find a market. Within the confines of the rules, in any large town, there is a 75% chance of any given spell scroll being available. Any spell scroll at all in a small city. Advance to small city and large city respectively for low magic. Yes, they are guidelines, not anything hard and fast, but if these are, in fact, the guidelines, then abiding by them is the defined default. Play style is not relevant, as it's a discussion of the system, and the fact that the DM can change it doesn't resolve the issues with the system, as that would just be invoking Oberoni.
These are the default rules governing magic item availability, and if a mage has access to two or three good-sized markets, they have the ability to buy the vast majority of spells in the game. Yes, there are games without much market access at all, but the system is designed for much higher urban frequencies as well, and must service both scenarios.
If markets, then scrolls. If scrolls, then spells. If spells, then power. By extension, if lots of markets, then lots of scrolls, then lots of power. Quite possibly too much power. If the DM then decides, in this multi-market-inclusive game, that it is overpowering for the mage to have equal access to those markets for the purpose of buying scrolls, and denies the mage said access while allowing other players to continue their shopping unimpeded? Or declare that 100k weapon-and-armor suits are available for purchase, but not 4k scrolls? That is, by definition, unfair. Connotations are irrelevant. It is also outside of the rules; usurping the rules in place of DM fiat.
I never said being unfair made for a bad DM. Yes, unfairness is a bad thing in the game, but in this case? It's a problem inherent in the system is not allowing the DM to treat the players and their characters fairly, lest the game breaks. That's a system error. That doesn't change the fact that the DM is not treating the players fairly, it's just that in this case she cannot treat the players fairly. And that scenario is bad. The point is not that you're a bad DM if you don't treat your players fairly, but that the system shouldn't force you to treat the players unfairly in the first place. You should be able to present a natural adventure that happens to go through several sizable cities while still complying with the written, default marketplace rules without the game breaking because the Wizard did what Wizards are expected and designed to do.
What's up with that?
Why ask questions when listening answers them without a word?
Why back down when there is yet ground to be covered?
Why stay on the sidelines when a point needs to be made?
Why muddle a point rather than say it straight?
I'm ok if a group wants to play that way. The only thing I find ludicrous is this attitude that it's somehow built into the rules and that somehow the wizard is 'balanced' based on it.
Who ever called the Wizard balanced?
I'm with Dennis on item availability. The idea that you can just go scroll shopping is downright ludicrous.I'm ok if a group wants to play that way. The only thing I find ludicrous is this attitude that it's somehow built into the rules and that somehow the wizard is 'balanced' based on it.
The problem is partly that its not assumed how much of the party's stuff is found, and how much is bought in the average adventure. The topic of how easy it is to find specific items is not covered either. I guess in a world where adventurers are common magic-marts would make sense, but if adventurers are rare then finding that +1 giant bane flaming long sword might be a bit harder. It may not be able to be found at all. The only option may be to go on a quest for some caster, and in exchange he will make one for you.
I run mostly magic-mart for ease of play, but if I were to set up my own world I would allow spells 6th level and below to be purchased, but anything above that would have to be found or gained as part of a bargain. Well I guess purchasing one would be possible, but you would get price gouged.
PS: The idea for spells above 6th level to be hard to purchase is not my idea, but I cant remember where I got it from.
I completly back your position on this. Sor vs Wiz is just too campaign dependant to actually have a meaningful conversation on. Now, if we got Jason to run the game, all played in it, then discussed the merits/flaws, perhaps there would be some reasonable discourse. Of course, that is called "playtesting" and has resulted in the current rules...
I just had a conversation with my brother who played a sorcerer in the last game we played together. This was 3.5 (or possibly pathfinder beta).
"Why did you play a sorcerer?"
"I didn't know what [DM NAME] was going to throw at us, I didn't want to mess with preparing spells since I didn't know what we were going to face. I didn't want to end up with a bunch of useless spells."
"Wouldn't you be pissed if you were playing in a game where the wizard got more spells earlier than you?"
"No, why would I feel that way? If I were in a group big enough to support 2 cloths we'd just play to each other's strengths. He wouldn't ever need to memorize anything I could do."
Now there's gaming wisdom.
The key thing with wizards is that people give them unlimited spell access and no component cost by default when making these comparisons. In actuality, Wizards gain only a few spells per level, as they level, and the rest of the spells they want so badly take two things that ALSO are ignored...time, and money.
If a special situation comes up that only a specific spell can handle, guess what? A sorceror can buy a wand or scroll of it, same as a wizard can. He won't stick it in his spellbook, but it will always be on hand.
IF he really wants to up his spell selection, all he has to do is buy staves. DC as spell cast, level as spell caster, etc.
Or, he could use Runestaves from the MIC. 3 t/day/spell in the staff, uses his own spell slots. Effectively increases his spell repertoire out by swapping in staves.
And that's not even bringing in Knowstones.
Fact of the matter is, the money and time the mage spends on his spells and scrolls the sorc can spend on wands, staves and scrolls of his own, and come up with darn near the same spell selection and versatility overall.
Tailormade is what you make of it.
I do, however, love the simple logic...if there's a sorc and wiz, they just coordinate spell selection, and the process takes care of itself. The sorc will always have something useful to do, and if you give the wizard time (hah!), they might be able to come up with the perfect tool.
YMMV.
===Aelryinth
Now there's gaming wisdom.
The key thing with wizards is that people give them unlimited spell access and no component cost by default when making these comparisons. In actuality, Wizards gain only a few spells per level, as they level, and the rest of the spells they want so badly take two things that ALSO are ignored...time, and money.
If a special situation comes up that only a specific spell can handle, guess what? A sorceror can buy a wand or scroll of it, same as a wizard can. He won't stick it in his spellbook, but it will always be on hand.
IF he really wants to up his spell selection, all he has to do is buy staves. DC as spell cast, level as spell caster, etc.
Or, he could use Runestaves from the MIC. 3 t/day/spell in the staff, uses his own spell slots. Effectively increases his spell repertoire out by swapping in staves.
And that's not even bringing in Knowstones.
Fact of the matter is, the money and time the mage spends on his spells and scrolls the sorc can spend on wands, staves and scrolls of his own, and come up with darn near the same spell selection and versatility overall.
Tailormade is what you make of it.
I do, however, love the simple logic...if there's a sorc and wiz, they just coordinate spell selection, and the process takes care of itself. The sorc will always have something useful to do, and if you give the wizard time (hah!), they might be able to come up with the perfect tool.
YMMV.
===Aelryinth
The last sentence was a big assumption. I have seen sorcerers with no useful spells, but when I had double casters they just worked different areas.
I find it pretty hard to give any real credence to an argument for Sorcerer supremacy in normal situations; it'd take a real niche to tip the scales. After all, as as the Sorc's spells known are, it very nearly amounts to spell prep that can't be redone, and a well-made Wizard does pretty much have open access by the rules, so long as there are a couple good-sized markets, and a canny player can put that flexibility to tremendous use.
The thing is, the Sorcerer is so strong already that... who really cares? The Wizard ultimately wields more raw power in the hands of a canny player, possibly even far more, but the Sorcerer's still a powerhouse anyways, and functions differently enough that even right next to a Wizard, she can retain her usefulness.
Like I said, the biggest 'problem' with the Sorcerer is that it was printed next to the vast cosmic force that is the Wizard. It's still one of the game's stronger classes.
I find it pretty hard to give any real credence to an argument for Sorcerer supremacy in normal situations; it'd take a real niche to tip the scales. After all, as as the Sorc's spells known are, it very nearly amounts to spell prep that can't be redone, and a well-made Wizard does pretty much have open access by the rules, so long as there are a couple good-sized markets, and a canny player can put that flexibility to tremendous use.
The thing is, the Sorcerer is so strong already that... who really cares? The Wizard ultimately wields more raw power in the hands of a canny player, possibly even far more, but the Sorcerer's still a powerhouse anyways, and functions differently enough that even right next to a Wizard, she can retain her usefulness.
Like I said, the biggest 'problem' with the Sorcerer is that it was printed next to the vast cosmic force that is the Wizard. It's still one of the game's stronger classes.
If wizards had not lost so many threads I would just post a link so Nexus could read those, but many posts, even recent ones were lost.
The problem is partly that its not assumed how much of the party's stuff is found, and how much is bought in the average adventure. The topic of how easy it is to find specific items is not covered either. I guess in a world where adventurers are common magic-marts would make sense, but if adventurers are rare then finding that +1 giant bane flaming long sword might be a bit harder. It may not be able to be found at all. The only option may be to go on a quest for some caster, and in exchange he will make one for you.
I run mostly magic-mart for ease of play, but if I were to set up my own world I would allow spells 6th level and below to be purchased, but anything above that would have to be found or gained as part of a bargain. Well I guess purchasing one would be possible, but you would get price gouged.
PS: The idea for spells above 6th level to be hard to purchase is not my idea, but I cant remember where I got it from.
One of GMs has more fun digging through old 2e magic item books and digging out obscure stuff. I think he would kill me if I suggested trading in some of the stuff he's given my character. The other campaign I play in is so roleplay intensive the idea of a magic mart would be a jarring anachronism.
I have played in games where there is a magic mart type setup but that's actually been the exception not the rule. The games I run the characters role play everything and are fairly limited in what they can get.
If they have the time, the money, and the scroll, they can scribe it. Period.
If they have market access, they can buy a lot of scrolls, albeit randomly selected. How many markets, and of what size, determines their spell access.
If you have to explicitly deny the Wizard time, money, or market access to prevent them from having fair use of their class abilities just to maintain game balance, there is a problem.
Who said anything about explicitly denying anything? There you go putting words into my mouth again. Maybe you should review what I said you keep getting it mixed up.
If they have the time, the money, and the scroll, they can scribe it. Period.
Incorrect. You keep over looking the line "left up to GM discretion " It is the GM not the player who decides how long and how much it cost to gain new spell. All you are EVER in-titled to is 2 per level. Thats it.
People seem to think all wizards have every spell in the book. I have never gamed with a wizard that even had half.
People seem to think all wizards have every spell in the book. I have never gamed with a wizard that even had half.
If they have the time, the money, and the scroll, they can scribe it. Period.
that has always been a theoretical assessment.
IMHO these arguments miss a very valid point.
The fact that both the wizard and the sorcerer have such devoted partisans indicates that Paizo has struck a pretty good balance between the two classes.
So, it is more of a case of "what are you looking for as a player."
Who said anything about explicitly denying anything? There you go putting words into my mouth again. Maybe you should review what I said you keep getting it mixed up.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was sending words from mine. Maybe you should review what I say before deciding it's an attack. You're choosing to see slights where there are none. Stop it.
Incorrect. You keep over looking the line "left up to GM discretion " It is the GM not the player who decides how long and how much it cost to gain new spell. All you are EVER in-titled to is 2 per level. Thats it.
Oberoni.
Just because the DM can override the rules does not mean there is not an issue with the rules. The fact that the DM can override it changes nothing. The default rules are that it takes access costs plus a pittance to scribe a spell, and anything below a certain cost has a 75% chance of being available at any given market. Period. The fact that the DM can override anything and everything on a whim does not change the rule or the issues with it. And any case of the DM overriding the rules has no bearing on the rules, as they're not actually using the rules.
People seem to think all wizards have every spell in the book. I have never gamed with a wizard that even had half.
"All the spells that matter," is still not a whole lot of spells, compared to all the spells that're out there. Not having Hold Portal, Mount, and Jump in your book is not a big deal once you've got your Grease, Color Spray, and Silent Image.
Incorrect. You keep over looking the line "left up to GM discretion."
If the game is playable only by having the DM override the written rules, then those written rules are at their basis problematic and should be changed. Which is EXACTLY what VV is pointing out. Pathfinder had a chance to fix that, and didn't. The fact that 2/3 of people apparently houserule in the correction just to come out even speaks volumes about the need for it.
If the game is playable only by having the DM override the written rules, then those written rules are at problematic and should be changed. Which is EXACTLY what VV is pointing out. Pathfinder had a chance to fix that, and didn't. The fact that 2/3 of people apparently houserule in the correction just to come out even speaks volumes about the need for it.
Thank you.
Still not understanding what you mean. Given unlimited gold and unlimited time and with say so of the GM I can make a clockwork dragon golem out of adamitit that sings randy orc love songs. No where in the core rules does it say I can not do that. Does not mean I have the given right to do so
Still not understanding what you mean. Given unlimited gold and unlimited time and with say so of the GM I can make a clockwork dragon golem out of adamitit that sings randy orc love songs. No where in the core rules does it say I can not do that. Does not mean I have the given right to do so
The rules for that are in the Craft Construct feat; if you meet the prerequisites, go for it. If a particular DM wishes to houserule additional restrictions, that's his prerogative, but in the name of good sportsmanship he really ought to let you know of those houserules in advance, rather than spring them on you as a surprise.
|
So do you have a scroll of grease?
dice roll
Nope sorry fresh out
Hmm how bout dispel magic?
dice roll
Just sold my last one to a hot redhead...
Hmm Lightning Bolt?
dice roll
Naw your friend bought em all...
How bout Stoneskin?
Yeap I got that and I even sell Diamond dust and I assume you want the ink to scribe it?
Or my other favorite...
So you find a stack of scrolls and a spellbook...
Yes!!!
I'll cast read magic lets see what I got...
You open up the first scroll and begin to read the runes change and shift glowing red as it explodes in your face....
What the hell....
Fine lets check out the spell book...
"If you are reading this you are so very screwed..."
Boom
"Hey whats the deal..."
"What you think the guy wouldn't trap his stash of scrolls and spell books..."
The villains you kill are people who have brains they are going to trap thier spellbooks, render them unusable to others and otherwise protect thier ability to cast spells just like a player should...
Honestly a Sorc can use Wands, scrolls and magic items to make up for thier blind spots just as easily (Actually more since UMD is a class skill for them and charisma based)
That leads to things like...
Damn it the healer is down...
Hey np I'll just pop out my wand of cure moderate....
Sorcs know less spells, but can use them more effectively...
Oh a red dragon np let me buff the entire party with resist energy.
Damn it these guys have insane buffs on them, time for a bunch of dispel magics.
Crap they are going after our cleric a displacement will slow em down.
Wizards can learn every spell and not be able to handle every situation in a game.
Sorcs are all about using less to do more. They are better on the spot casters for things the party is not expecting then Wizards who either have to carry a crapload of expensive magic items or prep only one of each spell...
The following is part of a similar discussion I'm having elsewhere, but it seems relevant to the topic at hand, so I thought I'd share (with some paraphrasing here and there):
Both classes are enjoyable, and neither is entirely overwhelmingly better, but that's not what concerns me.
What concerns me is that while both classes are usually fun to play, and effective in their roles, a well constructed wizard can be substantially more effective enough of the time and to a degree that it becomes damaging to the appeal of playing a sorcerer for a large subset of players.
My issues with the design of Sorcerers and Wizards, and the balance between the two, are as follows:
1.) The degree to which wizards can steal the limelight from sorcerers, for a variety of reasons, the most prevalent of which is a relative ease with which a wizard can gain access to items and abilities that negate their disadvantages or allow them to match what should be some of the Sorcerer's biggest advantages and defining abilities. Of equal concern is the frustration at always being just a step behind the wizard in gaining new spells, abilities, bonus feats, everything.
2.) The objective difference in combat potential at odd levels, due to the uneven progression in spell levels.
3.) The disparity in non-combat related skills and abilities, which limits many sorcerers to a niche role (and leaves them sitting bored and useless at the table when that niche role isn't useful). To be fair, sorcerer definitely isn't the only class with this particular problem.
I've seen it argued that Sorcerers make great "theme" casters, and these issues may not matter for players that are interested in constructing an odd variant or theme build, but those characters/players would remain equally unaffected were the sorcerer rebalanced in a way that alleviated these issues, and are neither a justification for a lack of mechanical balance nor a valid argument for maintaining the status quo. (And honestly, that's always in the back of my mind when looking at this argument, "How could this be improved to make both fun to play without either stealing the others thunder?")
Both classes seem to have been designed with certain strengths and weaknesses in mind. In my opinion though, the Wizard's weaknesses are too easily overcome, and the Sorcerer's advantages are too easily duplicated. The sorcerer seems to have been intended originally to have a significant advantage in spells per day and flexibility in the moment, in exchange for their limited selection of effects. The wizard, by contrast, had long term flexibility due to their large number of spells known, but were limited by their need to make many of their choices each day in advance.
In order to overcome their respective weaknesses (limited spells known vs. inflexibility due to memorization), the sorcerer must repeatedly purchase single or limited use items at full price, and may, at any point, lose access to the specific effect they desire if a supply of those items becomes unavailable, while the wizard need only once find a scroll, spellbook, or wizard with the spell they wish to scribe, and from then on they will be able to produce the item themselves at half cost.
To duplicate (or nearly duplicate) the most iconic strengths of the other class (the large number of effective spells per day vs. long term flexibility from a vast array of known spells) the wizard need merely specialize and choose a bonded item, something they're likely to do anyways for other reasons, or be at an odd experience level (something that they're guaranteed to be roughly half the time), while a sorcerer that needs access to the same variety of spells as a wizard on a consistent basis will have to spend a large sum of money on a wide array of wands, scrolls, staves and potions.
The Use Magic Device tactic is nice, I hadn't previously considered just how quickly a sorcerer could get their use magic device to a useful level. This definitely makes Sorcerer and Bard a bit more interesting to me, and sparks some interest in ideas for other quirky characters (a Paladin with Skill Focus: Use Magic Device, for example, creating an extremely hardened character with high AC, high HP, high saves, and access to the full list of Sorcerer/Wizard, Druid, and Cleric wands and scrolls).
UMD goes somewhat towards alleviating my first concern, since it gives the Sorcerer something unique and interesting to do, but it peters out between 8th and 10th level, when every caster starts being able to pull the same trick. (It's still a perk, just not a huge one, 7 to 10 skill ranks the sorcerer doesn't have to invest in UMD pales in comparison to the 48-60 extra skill ranks the wizard has likely gained over the sorcerer at that point.)
If all you're interested in is the balance as it stands, you can ignore the rest of this, which discusses some minimal changes that I feel would help bring both classes into balance.
There's not much that can be done to alleviate the difference in costs to craft items, but giving the sorcerer 0 spells per day of the next higher spell level at odd levels (giving them the ability to cast spells of that level, should they have a bonus spell based on their charisma modifier)would prevent the frustrating dips in relative power every other level, and keep the sorcerer a consistent number of spell slots ahead of the wizard (instead of falling to very nearly dead even every other level).
Increasing the sorcerer's base skill points per level to 4 + Int (and possibly letting UMD DCs scale a bit more based on the items caster level) would help with my other concern, the disparity in useful out of combat skills and abilities.
[
Oberoni.Just because the DM can override the rules does not mean there is not an issue with the rules. The fact that the DM can override it changes nothing. The default rules are that it takes access costs plus a pittance to scribe a spell, and anything below a certain cost has a 75% chance of being available at any given market. Period. The fact that the DM can override anything and everything on a whim does not change the rule or the issues with it. And any case of the DM overriding the rules has no bearing on the rules, as they're not actually using the rules.
I'm not sure you understand what a default is - a default is not "these are the rules period. If the DM tries to change anything, it is oberoni or bad game design or DM fiat/whim, or DM could be lying to the players (frankly, this should probably never have been brought up - it presumes a lot, and I think you'll agree that you've been frequently misunderstood in this regard)."
A default is something that is subject to change under specific circumstances, which must be defined by the DM. This is not DM fiat, but simply what a DM must do to define their game world/campaign setting/specific circumstances that the players find themselves in.
RULE 0 gives the DM the means to adjust the GUIDELINES elsewhere, and to provide specific circumstances that over-ride defaults (whether default rules or guidelines).
I absolutely would expect that the DM and players maintain clear communication, both at the outset and throughout the game, but since it is impossible to foresee every contingency, and discuss every logical alternative at the outset, some decisions need to be made on the fly.
If a player came to a game that I was DMing, and said "the rules state that I can buy whatever I want (at 75% chance of availability), and you have to allow that" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say: "No. The rules say that I determine availability - the printed guidelines are a convenience."
The approach that you're advocating may be fine in some games, but to me it is far too player-dominant. I don't want to presume too much, but it seems to stem from either an expectation of a lack of communication with the DM, or a fear that without complete control over the PC (with no DM interference), that the character will be nerfed and unable to function in the game. I think in a game with a more cooperative style between DM and players these really won't be serious issues.
If a player came to a game that I was DMing, and said "the rules state that I can buy whatever I want (at 75% chance of availability), and you have to allow that" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say: "No. The rules say that I determine availability - the printed guidelines are a convenience."
Like I said, it's nice to agree beforehand. A balance is needed, because the following is equally outrageous:
Paladin (at the height of climactic encounter): "OK, that's 16 damage plus 2 x level is 20 more, for 36 total! The head vampire has got to be down by now!"
DM: "No, because I just decided that smite evil doesn't work anymore."
Player: "But, it's in the rules..."
DM: "Too bad. Those are GUIDELINES that I can overrule at whim."
That type of deal is needlessly adversarial and just plain bad DMing. I try to adhere to this self-imposed guideline: if I'm going to houserule something or interpret something on the fly, it's OK unless it blatantly screws the player. In the latter case, I MUST announce it beforehand, or else hold off until between sessions, when it can be discussed and some agreement reached.
We'll start with point 2... which is really nothing more than a repeat of the end of point 1 which is repeated mostly again in Point 3.
Actually point 2 was an argument about objective balance in combat based on the number of available max level spell slots, where point 1 was an argument about player perception based on the relative ease a wizard has in crafting items that allow him to duplicate the sorcerers versatility. Point 3, on the other hand, was addressing the effect of having intelligence as a casting stat on skill points, but hey, these are clearly all exactly the same problem, right?
Point 1. Limelight stealing is more of a player thing than class.
Fair enough, my point was just that wizards have a remarkably easy time doing so, and can damn near do it by accident, while sorcerers that want to match the wizard in his specialty have to put in a fairly massive amount of gold and effort. My preferred solution would be to slightly tweak one class or the other so that neither can easily surpass the other in their specialty, giving both a place to shine.
Sorcerers do have advantages they'll be more adept at using magic outside of their sphere thanks to natural mastery of UMD, given that most wizards will be using Charisma as a dump stat,
Which I addressed in my post, that's definitely an advantage, but one that fades over time as the wizard can catch up with a fairly minor investment in some cross class skill ranks.
which also brings up another point. Sorcerers are inherently better than Wizards in social situations and interaction,
Only if they have the skill points to put into those social skills, which was sort of my point.
which should be a part of every campaign that's more than targets on a rollodex.
Agreed.
Yes Sorcerer's can be very "niche" characters but the Wizard himself is not that much less of one in most cases.
Except the new cross class rules let a wizard put his surplus of skill points to good use spreading out wherever he wants, Stealth, Perception, Bluff, whatever you want, giving you plenty of options for great roleplay moments out of combat. The sorcerer meanwhile is stuck unless the adventure happens to cater to the 2-3 specific skills he chose to put his ranks in.
It really does come down to player vs player rather than wizard vs sorcerer, the ones with the more flexible outlook and foresight will outshine those that are lacking.
It's some of both in my opinion, and somewhat tilted in the Wizards favor.
|
|
Sorcerors are not behind in terms of feats.
Wizards get 5 + 3 school abilities (2 if Universal)
Sorcerors get 4 + Bloodline Arcana + 5 Bloodline powers
Some of those Bloodline Arcana are nasty.
The Undead treating Humanoid undead as if they were humanoid for what spells affect them is the equivalent of the Ossirian feat only better.
The Celestial giving DR 1/2 sorc level/evil DR to summoned creatures.
The Elemental giving Free elemental Subsitution+++ (Hey all my spells can be Lightning or cold or fire or acid and it is not treated like a metamagic feat)
Sorcs technically come out ahead.
It really does come down to the player.
Metamagic Feats are also a lot easier for Sorcerors to use then Wizards...
While Item creation feats are a lot easier for Wizards then Sorcerors...
If you want someone who can pop off Quickened spells like candy, not have to say I need to rest to prep spells so I'm actually useful against the next encounter. Bluff thier way out of a fight using cantrips. Play a Sorc.
If you need every single spell in existence and the ability to make magic items easily make a wizard.
In one game we have an Arcane Sorc and a Transmuter. The Transmuter covers areas that the Sorc lacks while the Sorc is literally a counter spelling, dispelling, dps machine.
In the other game we have a Necromancer who leads an army of undead and makes efficient use of debuffs/buffs over damage spells while the Elemental LightningMancer provides the area effect constant dps and covers the necromancers total lack of divination spells...
Sorcerors are not behind in terms of feats.
Wizards get 5 + 3 school abilities (2 if Universal)
Sorcerors get 4 + Bloodline Arcana + 5 Bloodline powers
You can't just start counting class abilities as if they were feats, and if you are going to try counting them, you're going to have to include Arcane Bond on that list, and change it to 4 school abilities (the 20th level capstone might be tucked away at the end of the 1st level ability, but it deserves a place as it's own ability).
But then you would have to take into account that not all class abilities are created equal. Long arms don't stack up against the Arcane Bond. And not all the Sorcerer bonus feat lists are particularly good.
Still not understanding what you mean. Given unlimited gold and unlimited time and with say so of the GM I can make a clockwork dragon golem out of adamitit that sings randy orc love songs. No where in the core rules does it say I can not do that. Does not mean I have the given right to do so
With standard wealth by level, access to two or three market towns, free will, and default rules, a Wizard can have every spell they actually care about across all but the earliest levels.
It doesn't require infinite resources. It doesn't require anything weird. Just a Wizard with a normal supply of cash, and a spot of freedom. It doesn't take particularly long, either. A day and an easy skill check.
I'm not sure you understand what a default is - a default is not "these are the rules period. If the DM tries to change anything, it is oberoni or bad game design or DM fiat/whim, or DM could be lying to the players (frankly, this should probably never have been brought up - it presumes a lot, and I think you'll agree that you've been frequently misunderstood in this regard)."
A default is something that is subject to change under specific circumstances, which must be defined by the DM. This is not DM fiat, but simply what a DM must do to define their game world/campaign setting/specific circumstances that the players find themselves in.
RULE 0 gives the DM the means to adjust the GUIDELINES elsewhere, and to provide specific circumstances that over-ride defaults (whether default rules or guidelines).
If there were three market structures laid out and detailed to choose from, perhaps with guidelines for inventing your own economic system, you'd have a case. However, there's one, and only one, market type presented, with minor clauses for fluffing places and the world up or down a category. The only other option is DM discretion.
The one and only market structure is the rules period. It is the only kind of market provided in the rules in any capacity. It is the only market structure that's actually a part of the system, and any other market structure is not, and thus holds no bearing on the system itself.
Yes, the DM can and will change things. Many things. In many ways. Those changes are not a part of the system, and the fact that the DM can change things does not mean design flaws do not exist.
That is what Oberoni means. Not that you can't use Rule 0, but that Rule 0 has nothing to do with the system itself, and does not remove faults with the game. A fault you're overruling is still a fault. And just because you're overriding the only market system presented within the rules does not change the way the only market system presented within the rules works.
If a player came to a game that I was DMing, and said "the rules state that I can buy whatever I want (at 75% chance of availability), and you have to allow that" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say: "No. The rules say that I determine availability - the printed guidelines are a convenience."
The only thing the rules actually lay out in any detail as a system is the 75%. There's nothing wrong in the least with your overriding that, but said override has nothing to do with the system itself.
In a discussion of a system, you have to assume that it is played near defined defaults, before it reaches individual groups' social constructs. As such, a highly open market system with few restrictions is the defined default under which the game is made to operate. Doing a 180 and restricting markets to the point where they hardly exist is fine for your game, but it is so far from stated game parameters that it is not relevant to the system.
Also of great importance is that individual decree on what is and is not available can make for a blatantly unfair comparison, such as cases where the Wizard is scrounging for 4k gold scrolls while the Fighter's tripping over 100k+ weapon and armor suits on the market, due to an individual decision that scrolls are extremely rare and magic weapons are not.
The approach that you're advocating may be fine in some games, but to me it is far too player-dominant. I don't want to presume too much, but it seems to stem from either an expectation of a lack of communication with the DM, or a fear that without complete control over the PC (with no DM interference), that the character will be nerfed and unable to function in the game. I think in a game with a more cooperative style between DM and players these really won't be serious issues.
You misunderstand. I'm not advocating an approach, in any capacity. I'm analyzing a system. I am looking at the defined parameters of the game and assessing how things work within defined parameters. My play style does not (in theory) factor in.
If a player came to a game that I was DMing, and said "the rules state that I can buy whatever I want (at 75% chance of availability), and you have to allow that" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say: "No. The rules say that I determine availability - the printed guidelines are a convenience."Like I said, it's nice to agree beforehand. A balance is needed, because the following is equally outrageous:
Paladin (at the height of climactic encounter): "OK, that's 16 damage plus 2 x level is 20 more, for 36 total! The head vampire has got to be down by now!"
DM: "No, because I just decided that smite evil doesn't work anymore."
Player: "But, it's in the rules..."
DM: "Too bad. Those are GUIDELINES that I can overrule at whim."That type of deal is needlessly adversarial and just plain bad DMing. I try to adhere to this self-imposed guideline: if I'm going to houserule something or interpret something on the fly, it's OK unless it blatantly screws the player. In the latter case, I MUST announce it beforehand, or else hold off until between sessions, when it can be discussed and some agreement reached.
I totally agree with you - that would be bad DMing. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that doing something that egregious is ok.
And in terms of free access to spells or not, ideally expectations for a player with a wizard character should be worked out in advance of play. I don't think anyone is arguing this point. If everyone agrees that spells might not always be available for purchase, then there is no problem.
I also don't think that anyone is arguing that a DM should be able to mislead the players, or should actively work to keep the wizard down. This is not how most people read Rule 0. "Whim" is the wrong term if it implies that players have no control, and the DM can do anything at any time for no reason. DMs define the circumstances that players find themselves in, and rule 0 is essential for this.
If the DM decides that a particular spell at a particular time is not appropriate for the situation, then the players should abide by it (with out of game discussion as necessary to maintain trust). Note that I agree that it would be bad DMing to use this to disallow good/smart tactics by the players, but it would not be bad DMing to use this to disallow tactics that are *too* good.
[
Oberoni.Just because the DM can override the rules does not mean there is not an issue with the rules. The fact that the DM can override it changes nothing. The default rules are that it takes access costs plus a pittance to scribe a spell, and anything below a certain cost has a 75% chance of being available at any given market. Period. The fact that the DM can override anything and everything on a whim does not change the rule or the issues with it. And any case of the DM overriding the rules has no bearing on the rules, as they're not actually using the rules.
I'm not sure you understand what a default is - a default is not "these are the rules period. If the DM tries to change anything, it is oberoni or bad game design or DM fiat/whim, or DM could be lying to the players (frankly, this should probably never have been brought up - it presumes a lot, and I think you'll agree that you've been frequently misunderstood in this regard)."
A default is something that is subject to change under specific circumstances, which must be defined by the DM. This is not DM fiat, but simply what a DM must do to define their game world/campaign setting/specific circumstances that the players find themselves in.
RULE 0 gives the DM the means to adjust the GUIDELINES elsewhere, and to provide specific circumstances that over-ride defaults (whether default rules or guidelines).
I absolutely would expect that the DM and players maintain clear communication, both at the outset and throughout the game, but since it is impossible to foresee every contingency, and discuss every logical alternative at the outset, some decisions need to be made on the fly.
If a player came to a game that I was DMing, and said "the rules state that I can buy whatever I want (at 75% chance of availability), and you have to allow that" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say: "No. The rules say that I determine availability - the printed guidelines are a convenience."
The...
While I agree that everything shouldn't be available all the time, When a DM starts making things your character needs unavailable the game starts to break down.
Example, Let's say you have a character who's a level 10 druid and has severe item restrictions. You would like some dragonhide armor or ironwood breastplate to make your character able to last better in a fight. You are adventuring and the DM says you can't because there's noplace to buy it. Your level 10 character is stuck with the same +1 leather armor he had at level 5 because the enemies keep dropping metal armor and you can't use it or you become a level 10 commoner. How is that fun for the player?
The solution is find out what your players want, and let them earn it. Then they don't just automatically have everything they want, but they can get it. That's part of the adventure. If your character wants to get a staff of the Magi and it's too powerful for their level, let them start researching it and drop them clues where one has been spotted or reported to be burried with a wizard(who happens to be a lich, but the player doesn't know that). Maybe the lich will give it to the player in return for something else that may be useful to him. Maybe it will eat his brains with a straw. But that is a lot more fun than, "it's not available."
If there were three market structures laid out and detailed to choose from, perhaps with guidelines for inventing your own economic system, you'd have a case. However, there's one, and only one, market type presented, with minor clauses forfluffing places and the world up or down a category. The only other option is DM discretion.
The one and only market structure is the rules period. It is the only kind of market provided in the rules in any capacity. It is the only market structure that's actually a part of the system, and any other market structure is not, and thus holds no bearing on the system itself.
Yes, the DM can and will change things. Many things. In many ways. Those changes are not a part of the system, and the fact that the DM can change things does not mean design flaws do not exist.
That is what Oberoni means. Not that you can't use Rule 0, but that Rule 0 has nothing to do with the system itself, and does not remove faults with the game. A fault you're overruling is still a fault. And just because you're overriding the only market system presented within the rules does not change the way the only market system presented within the rules works.
The only thing the rules actually lay out in any detail as a system is the 75%. There's nothing wrong in the least with your overriding that, but said override has nothing to do with the system itself.
In a discussion of a system, you have to assume that it is played near defined defaults, before it reaches individual groups' social constructs. As such, a highly open market system with few restrictions is the defined default under which the game is made to operate. Doing a 180 and restricting markets to the point where they hardly exist is fine for your game, but it is so far from stated game parameters that it is not relevant to the system.
Also of great importance is that individual decree on what is and is not available can make for a blatantly unfair comparison, such as cases where the Wizard is scrounging for 4k gold scrolls while the Fighter's tripping over 100k+ weapon and armor suits on the market, due to an individual decision that scrolls are extremely rare and magic weapons are not.
You misunderstand. I'm not advocating an approach, in any capacity. I'm analyzing a system. I am looking at the defined parameters of the game and assessing how things work within defined parameters. My play style does not (in theory) factor in.
(I'm not perfectly fluent with these messageboards, so I squashed all your text together - somehow "reply" wouldn't quote everything, and my pasting removed some formatting, so I tried to clarify by just keeping your text - I hope it's not confusing for anyone to read).
I'm not sure we'll come to a consensus. Maybe I misunderstand you, but it really feels that you are advocating an approach based on your analysis of the system. You've analyzed the system, drawn a conclusion, and are now advocating that conclusion - that's normal, and that's all I meant. (I also did not mean to refer to your particular play style, which, of course, does not need to factor in).
But your analysis makes a number of assumptions that do not need to be made for a reasonable approach to the game. Game designers do not need to provide 3 alternative market systems,and it may not be practical for them to do so.
"the rules period" reflects an extremely rigid approach to the game, particularly for something like access to spells, for which I think a compromise needs to be reached between player and DM. The mechanism for such a compromise is built into the system, and is a feature, not a flaw.
The default system may not work well for all possible situations, this is why mechanisms for adjusting it (e.g., rule 0) are built into the game. This is also not a flaw, this is reality. Game designers can't foresee all possible situations, so present a reasonable guideline. This is not "the rules period" (and I don't believe it was ever intended to be).
I don't have to assume that a system is played near defined defaults, though it is easier, and less work, if it is played that way.
I totally agree with you that unfair comparisons are possible - the situation you present would be horrible, and an example of bad DMing. No one is advocating that. But, it is patently wrong to assume that DM fiat necessarily leads to such an abuse. That the system allows the potential for abuse is not necessarily a flaw in the system, if the same system also allows for great flexibility to cover a wide range of different game situations/styles. I don't think it's possible to design such a flexible game with no ways to abuse it. It is up to players and DMs to avoid such abuses.
While I agree that everything shouldn't be available all the time, When a DM starts making things your character needs unavailable the game starts to break down.
Example, Let's say you have a character who's a level 10 druid and has severe item restrictions. You would like some dragonhide armor or ironwood breastplate to make your character able to last better in a fight. You are adventuring and the DM says you can't because there's noplace to buy it. Your level 10 character is stuck with the same +1 leather armor he had at level 5 because the enemies keep dropping metal armor and you can't use it or you become a level 10 commoner. How is that fun for the player?
The solution is find out what your players want, and let them earn it. Then they don't just automatically have everything they want, but they can get it. That's part of the adventure. If your character wants to get a staff of the Magi and it's too powerful for their level, let them start researching it and drop them clues where one has been spotted or reported to be burried with a wizard(who happens to be a lich, but the player doesn't know that). Maybe the lich will give it to the player in return for something else that may be useful to him. Maybe it will eat his brains with a straw. But that is a lot more fun than, "it's not available."
I totally agree with mostly all of this. That's good DMing (unless dragons don't exist in the campaign world, etc. but those may just be fluff issues that can be worked out).
But, it's also being a good player to not make unreasonable demands. If a staff of the magi is too powerful at any level for the particular campaign, then a different solution may need to be found.
But I totally agree with the spirit of how you are approaching things.
While I agree that everything shouldn't be available all the time, When a DM starts making things your character needs unavailable the game starts to break down.
Example, Let's say you have a character who's a level 10 druid and has severe item restrictions. You would like some dragonhide armor or ironwood breastplate to make your character able to last better in a fight. You are adventuring and the DM says you can't because there's noplace to buy it. Your level 10 character is stuck with the same +1 leather armor he had at level 5 because the enemies keep dropping metal armor and you can't use it or you become a level 10 commoner. How is that fun for the player?
The solution is find out what your players want, and let them earn it. Then they don't just automatically have everything they want, but they can get it. That's part of the adventure. If your character wants to get a staff of the Magi and it's too powerful for their level, let them start researching it and drop them clues where one has been spotted or reported to be burried with a wizard(who happens to be a lich, but the player doesn't know that). Maybe the lich will give it to the player in return for something else that may be useful to him. Maybe it will eat his brains with a straw. But that is a lot more fun than, "it's not available."
I totally agree with mostly all of this. That's good DMing (unless dragons don't exist in the campaign world, etc. but those may just be fluff issues that can be worked out).
But, it's also being a good player to not make unreasonable demands. If a staff of the magi is too powerful at any level for the particular campaign, then a different solution may need to be found.
But I totally agree with the spirit of how you are approaching things.
Yup, simple solution is you find a druid enemy in your AP that has no stores, or someone else with a reason to have ironwood/dragonhide, and you convert their item to what the player wants. If it's a big jump in wealth, you remove it somewhere else.
Staff of the Magi as you say may be outlandish in any campaign, but if you're getting into high levels, it could make for a nice sidequest for the PC. It was meant as just an example however. The same could be said for the character who took exotic weapon:bastard sword, and the DM only gives them longswords and no chance to improve his masterwork bastard sword. It's powergaming on the opposite side of the table.
|
Nobody played a Sorcerer in our group, the entire time 3.0/3.5 was out. We all *loathe* Vancian magic, but the nonsensical restrictions on the Sorcerer were just too much to take.
The only way I would use a Sorcerer is if all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Adept, Paladin, Ranger, Bard) had prepared and spontaneous options, with the same feats and skills, etc.
The 'Sorcerer' wouldn't even exist. It would be a Wizard, with Wizard bonus feats, but getting a few more castings a day, flexible casting, and a tiny fixed spell list. Just like a prepared-casting Wizard, a 'spontaneous' Wizard would get 3rd level spells at 5th level. Metamagic feats would not require extra time to use (just higher level slots, same as for prepared casters).
Ditto for Clerics, Druids, etc. Pick prepared, and use the same casting progression already in existence, but use a prayer book to prepare spells from a selection that you've gained at 2 spells / level or by purchase / aquisition, or pick spontaneous and have a tiny fixed spell list, and more castings / day with flexibility. The spontaneous Cleric would have Domains and Turn/Rebuke, just like a prepared Cleric (no Favored Soul need apply). The spontaneous Druid would have Wild Shape and Animal Companion, just like the prepared Druid (no Spirit Shaman need apply). The prepared Bard has a few less castings a day, has to prepare his spells each day from a sheaf of notes and pages and scrolls he's collected in his diverse travels, and access to every single spell on his list, potentially, if he can only find and collect them all. Spontaneous Paladins and Rangers? Whoo-hoo. There's no reason at all for a spontaneous caster and a prepared caster to require entirely different core classes devoted to them, when they use the same basic class chassis and the same spell-list!
The designers of 3rd edition, it seems, were *terrified* of spontaneous casting somehow wrecking the game, and built disadvantages into the Sorcerer class that were, IMO, completely unwarranted (no bonus feats, no class abilities, slower aquisition of spell levels, reduced metamagic utility). And now it's many years later, and Clerics, Druids and Wizards are considered the 'tier 1 classes' or 'Batman' or 'CoDzilla,' while the Sorcerer is the only full casting core class that is considered crap on a stick for Character Optimization purposes.
With Pathfinder, the bonuses that come with a Sorcerer Bloodline at least make a Sorcerer a not-sucky choice, but still not one I'd pick over a Wizard, and, Asmodeus forbid!, over a Cleric or Druid.
But Character Optimization isn't everything. If your role-playing idea works better as a Sorcerer than a Wizard, play what you want.
Just bear in mind that some of the design criteria for the Sorcerer, based on the developers commentary were;
1) Include a class based on Charisma (apparently the Bard wasn't a lock to be included at that point), which was too often a 'dump stat.'
2) Another class that used the Wizard spell list, because it ate up like 30% of the darn PHB, which felt ridiculous for something that only a single class could use.
3) A class that would allow monster arcanists to exist without handing Wizard PCs a never ending supply of low level spellbooks as 'free treasure.' (Similar to those goblin 'witch doctors' of 1st edition.)
Nobody played a Sorcerer in our group, the entire time 3.0/3.5 was out. We all *loathe* Vancian magic, but the nonsensical restrictions on the Sorcerer were just too much to take.
The only way I would use a Sorcerer is if all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Adept, Paladin, Ranger, Bard) had prepared and spontaneous options, with the same feats and skills, etc.
The 'Sorcerer' wouldn't even exist. It would be a Wizard, with Wizard bonus feats, but getting a few more castings a day, flexible casting, and a tiny fixed spell list. Just like a prepared-casting Wizard, a 'spontaneous' Wizard would get 3rd level spells at 5th level. Metamagic feats would not require extra time to use (just higher level slots, same as for prepared casters).
Ditto for Clerics, Druids, etc. Pick prepared, and use the same casting progression already in existence, but use a prayer book to prepare spells from a selection that you've gained at 2 spells / level or by purchase / aquisition, or pick spontaneous and have a tiny fixed spell list, and more castings / day with flexibility. The spontaneous Cleric would have Domains and Turn/Rebuke, just like a prepared Cleric (no Favored Soul need apply). The spontaneous Druid would have Wild Shape and Animal Companion, just like the prepared Druid (no Spirit Shaman need apply). The prepared Bard has a few less castings a day, has to prepare his spells each day from a sheaf of notes and pages and scrolls he's collected in his diverse travels, and access to every single spell on his list, potentially, if he can only find and collect them all. Spontaneous Paladins and Rangers? Whoo-hoo. There's no reason at all for a spontaneous caster and a prepared caster to require entirely different core classes devoted to them, when they use the same basic class chassis and the same spell-list!
The designers of 3rd edition, it seems, were *terrified* of spontaneous casting somehow wrecking the game, and built disadvantages into the Sorcerer class that were, IMO, completely...
One ignored part of the sorcerer is that high Charisma can be nice for getting those pesky little devils *pun intended* that you summoned to do what you want. Typically wizards dump charisma. Also, the sorcerer always gets the girl, while the wizards go home alone and study their book wanting to beat the sorcerer to fireball.
If the game is playable only by having the DM override the written rules, then those written rules are at their basis problematic and should be changed.
It may just be me... but DM discretion has never stood for "over-riding". As the DM running the game IS the rules how can he over ride them?
As long as the DM states before the game starts that "this is how it'll be" you are playing the game as designed when you agreed to join that game.
It also may only be my experience, but often times a campaign arc revolves around one... maybe two cities at most. If the main city is big enough... then rarely will you have more than one city.
Access to even one market can give you quite a few spells (depending on the luck of your dice), but you are often limited in how much money you have to spend at any time as you only get a share of the loot that often comprises of ready made items.
Most adventures with an actual story arc often run on a timeline. The world is not static, and often you do not HAVE time to sit around for a month scribing scrolls to a spellbook. The BBEG or that evil world ending cult does not stand still just because the group is worn out from chasing them down.
Again... just my view on how many home-brew AND published adventures are run.
On the other side of the coin, there are those games that are just one long Dungeon Crawl. There is one HUGE market nearby... and no world ending catastrophe or party killing BBEG is limiting the group to a time-line. Given time and money you can find nearly anything. Often times you can hole up in this or that fortified room in the dungeon as often as you need until you are ready to delve further down.
Neither side of the coin is wrong. Neither style of play is wrong. I've played and DM'd both styles equal amounts and both are VERY fun as long as you are in a group that games well together and agrees ahead of time how the game is going to be.
Edit: Didn't quite get all the way through the thread... but felt I needed to post my view on this. I beg forgiveness if any of this has been already said.
[
Oberoni.Just because the DM can override the rules does not mean there is not an issue with the rules. The fact that the DM can override it changes nothing. The default rules are that it takes access costs plus a pittance to scribe a spell, and anything below a certain cost has a 75% chance of being available at any given market. Period. The fact that the DM can override anything and everything on a whim does not change the rule or the issues with it. And any case of the DM overriding the rules has no bearing on the rules, as they're not actually using the rules.
I'm not sure you understand what a default is - a default is not "these are the rules period. If the DM tries to change anything, it is oberoni or bad game design or DM fiat/whim, or DM could be lying to the players (frankly, this should probably never have been brought up - it presumes a lot, and I think you'll agree that you've been frequently misunderstood in this regard)."
A default is something that is subject to change under specific circumstances, which must be defined by the DM. This is not DM fiat, but simply what a DM must do to define their game world/campaign setting/specific circumstances that the players find themselves in.
RULE 0 gives the DM the means to adjust the GUIDELINES elsewhere, and to provide specific circumstances that over-ride defaults (whether default rules or guidelines).
I absolutely would expect that the DM and players maintain clear communication, both at the outset and throughout the game, but since it is impossible to foresee every contingency, and discuss every logical alternative at the outset, some decisions need to be made on the fly.
If a player came to a game that I was DMing, and said "the rules state that I can buy whatever I want (at 75% chance of availability), and you have to allow that" I think it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say: "No. The rules say that I determine availability - the printed guidelines are a convenience."
The...
The default is the designers of the game built the game based on certain assumptions. As an example the 4 fights per day spring to mind. That is what VV was saying. He is not saying you have to let the caster have any spell, but there is a greater than 50% chance that a wizard will get the spell he wants.
Because everyone plays differently it only makes sense to use the guidelines(assumed default play) when comparing classes because other than that nobody would ever agree on anything.
But your analysis makes a number of assumptions that do not need to be made for a reasonable approach to the game. Game designers do not need to provide 3 alternative market systems,and it may not be practical for them to do so.
"the rules period" reflects an extremely rigid approach to the game, particularly for something like access to spells, for which I think a compromise needs to be reached between player and DM. The mechanism for such a compromise is built into the system, and is a feature, not a flaw.
The default system may not work well for all possible situations, this is why mechanisms for adjusting it (e.g., rule 0) are built into the game. This is also not a flaw, this is reality. Game designers can't foresee all possible situations, so present a reasonable guideline. This is not "the rules period" (and I don't believe it was ever intended to be).
However, here's the thing. Rule 0 is not built at all. It's not even a rule or a mechanic. It's an absence of rules, a clause that rules can change. However, it does not in any way alter the presented rules and mechanics. Rule 0 holds no weight in a discussion of a system in any capacity.
The sole defined parameter defined for the marketplace is 75% access to anything below value X in any given market, depending on the size of the market. This holds some major assumptions.
1) Gold is valuable. Magic items have a market value, and they can be purchased. In effect, Ye Olde Magick Shoppe is an institution, in some form, even if it's commissions from the hermit five miles out of town or hiring The Master Smith to make a sword. [[Note that Ye Olde Magick Shoppe does not mean huge numbers of expensive magic items are sitting around collecting dust.]]
2) You can buy things you want. There is the 25% chance that the item won't be in that city (if it's under Number X), but there will be another 75% chance to find the item you're looking for when you head to another city, so if you have some freedom over a fairly civilized area, you are going to find what you want, if its cost is below Number X. But 75% means you probably found what you wanted in the first place.
3) Rarity is proportional to price. More expensive items require you to find a bigger town. Very expensive items are hard to find at all. Inexpensive items are subject to the, "probably there," scenario. That means within the default rules, scrolls of ninth-level spells are more common than +2 swords, as +2 swords cost twice as much as ninth-level scrolls.
Yes the DM is liable to change the system in some way or another. However, if, rather than gold being very useful for buying items that you want, particularly ones of low cost, the DM instead creates a world where gold is rarely capable of acquiring anything more than a slim selection of prescreened items and scrolls are inordinately rare despite their low cost (which is admittedly within the DM's rights, though such a ruling should be discussed with the players beforehand), then you've deviated so far from the basic assumptions presented in the default market system that you're no longer talking about the system anymore. And until you go far, far away from the assumptions inherent to the system (or you're just physically removed from markets in general), scrolls are going to be pretty highly accessible.
I don't have to assume that a system is played near defined defaults, though it is easier, and less work, if it is played that way.
Except when you start presenting a game with a market system heavily influenced by rule 0, you're no longer discussing the system. You're discussing your specific group's social constructs. Your social constructs hold no bearing on the system.
But, it's also being a good player to not make unreasonable demands. If a staff of the magi is too powerful at any level for the particular campaign, then a different solution may need to be found.
Thing is, lots of scrolls aren't an unreasonable demand, as they're as basic to the Wizard as a sword is to the Fighter. Wizards are expected to spend a large amount of their wealth, even most of it, acquiring lots and lots of spells. Which can unbalance the game just by having the Wizard behave in the manner most logical and appropriate for a normal Wizard.
The designers of 3rd edition, it seems, were *terrified* of spontaneous casting somehow wrecking the game, and built disadvantages into the Sorcerer class that were, IMO, completely unwarranted (no bonus feats, no class abilities, slower aquisition of spell levels, reduced metamagic utility). And now it's many years later, and Clerics, Druids and Wizards are considered the 'tier 1 classes' or 'Batman' or 'CoDzilla,' while the Sorcerer is the only full casting core class that is considered crap on a stick for Character Optimization purposes.
Actually, Sorcerers are still acknowledged as one of the most powerful classes in the game. They are a strong tier 2, and even have some unique options that can be extremely and uniquely powerful.
The only reason they catch flak is that they're printed next to the Wizard, and the Wizard is pretty much God.
Also, the sorcerer always gets the girl, while the wizards go home alone and study their book wanting to beat the sorcerer to fireball.
Who needs charisma when you get Dominate Person first?
He is not saying you have to let the caster have any spell, but there is a greater than 50% chance that a wizard will get the spell he wants.
Still a she, Wraith.