The group I game with is starting a Pathfinder society campaign and no one else wanted to be arcane (we have a Bard but nothing else arcane). I cannot decide between the 2, Sorcerers while not as versatile are much better socialy as opposed to the Wizard who has so much more versatility couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag (at low levels). I'm torn between a Gnome Sorcerer or an Elven Wizard, any help out there?
well, what would you prefer in terms of play style? the versatility of the wizard or the bloodlined charasmatic sorcerer?
well, what would you prefer in terms of play style? the versatility of the wizard or the bloodlined charasmatic sorcerer?
Well thats part of the problem with those faction quests it is hard to complete w/o some social skills, I suppose charm would help that, but seeing the sorcerer wouldn't need a spell just a wink. Perhaps charm may work better, the DM's dice seem to hate me.
Well thats part of the problem with those faction quests it is hard to complete w/o some social skills, I suppose charm would help that, but seeing the sorcerer wouldn't need a spell just a wink. Perhaps charm may work better, the DM's dice seem to hate me.
If you have a bard, can't you let that character be the charming one?
Well thats part of the problem with those faction quests it is hard to complete w/o some social skills, I suppose charm would help that, but seeing the sorcerer wouldn't need a spell just a wink. Perhaps charm may work better, the DM's dice seem to hate me.If you have a bard, can't you let that character be the charming one?
Well yes, however doing these "faction quests" has a few problems one of which is that I have to do this interaction w/o the "face" since we will probably be different factions, and another bigger problem is the group is so secretive that he could flat out lie to me (bluff which is a class skill) and my ability to decern that (sense motive, tied to a dump stat and not a class skill) wouldn't equal out as well. I guess what I am looking for is a way to have a wizard not be inept at social interactions.
Well yes, however doing these "faction quests" has a few problems one of which is that I have to do this interaction w/o the "face" since we will probably be different factions, and another bigger problem is the group is so secretive that he could flat out lie to me (bluff which is a class skill) and my ability to decern that (sense motive, tied to a dump stat and not a class skill) wouldn't equal out as well. I guess what I am looking for is a way to have a wizard not be inept at social interactions.
I see. Go ahead and max out your int, and give yourself at least an average wis score, and, through the miracle of PF skill rules, you could conceivably have a pretty good sense motive check, instead of an awful one, like in 3.5.
Not as good as the naturally charming classes can bluff, but you wouldn't suck at it.If it's all filled with devious intrigues, take skill focus. It's not fun to burn a feat for 3 points (later 6) to one skill, but you wouldn't lose much ground to all the bluffmeisters.
Not ideal, but, hey, the guy's a wizard. Using detect thoughts and other divinations can help once in a while, too.
and not a class skill) wouldn't equal out as well. I guess what I am looking for is a way to have a wizard not be inept at social interactions.
Take ranks of Diplomacy and Sense Motive. A wizard has the INT for bonus skills and all you really need to take is Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana, so you have buckets of other potential, especially if you go Human and turn favored class to skill points.
The lack of class skill bonus isn't killer. You don't even need a super awesome CHA bonus. Will you be uber-Diplomacy man? No. But you'll be competent, and certainly not inept.
For the record, my Wiz8 has 8 ranks of Diplomacy, Cha12 and the Leadership feat. I'm the party face, and I do all right.
Would a Sorcerer do it better? Hell yes, of course, high Cha + Class Skill bonus = WIN, but...will you have the skill points to support it? The Wizard can thanks to high INT...so your Sorcerer comes out very focused, while the Wizard can be 'fairly good' at several things, skill-wise.
I'd say play whichever one you'd rather play for reasons other than social dynamic potential. Sorcerers are _cooler_ than Wizards, but I like the versatility Wizards get (especially the extra skill points).
I see. Go ahead and max out your int, and give yourself at least an average wis score, and, through the miracle of PF skill rules, you could conceivably have a pretty good sense motive check, instead of an awful one, like in 3.5.
Not as good as the naturally charming classes can bluff, but you wouldn't suck at it.If it's all filled with devious intrigues, take skill focus. It's not fun to burn a feat for 3 points (later 6) to one skill, but you wouldn't lose much ground to all the bluffmeisters.
Not ideal, but, hey, the guy's a wizard. Using detect thoughts and other divinations can help once in a while, too.
Well another way I could go is get the trait that adds diplomacy to my class skills, cheaper then a feat and +3 for class skill with one skill point, so which social skill would you recommend?
Take ranks of Diplomacy and Sense Motive. A wizard has the INT for bonus skills and all you really need to take is Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana, so you have buckets of other potential, especially if you go Human and turn favored class to skill points.
The lack of class skill bonus isn't killer. You don't even need a super awesome CHA bonus. Will you be uber-Diplomacy man? No. But you'll be competent, and certainly not inept.
For the record, my Wiz8 has 8 ranks of Diplomacy, Cha12 and the Leadership feat. I'm the party face, and I do all right.
Would a Sorcerer do it better? Hell yes, of course, high Cha + Class Skill bonus = WIN, but...will you have the skill points to support it? The Wizard can thanks to high INT...so your Sorcerer comes out very focused, while the Wizard can be 'fairly good' at several things, skill-wise.
I'd say play whichever one you'd rather play for reasons other than social dynamic potential. Sorcerers are _cooler_ than Wizards, but I like the versatility Wizards get (especially the extra skill points).
So I could go something like this:
St 7Dex 16
Con 12
Int 20
Wis 7
Cha 11
Grab a Trait for a Socail skill and I wouldnt be too bad off, I like the detect thoughts idea as well, if you wont tell me I will take it from you!
Diplomacy isn't a class skill for Sorcerers.
If you're looking to make the most out of Charm Person, you'd do better with the Sorc due to the opposed Cha check to give the subject orders to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.
I love the Sorcerer class, but really miss those Int skill points and knowledge class skill bonuses.
Really going to come down to play style, my friend.
And why not a specialist Wizard (Enchanter) the bonusses they get are good enough to put them on par with a sorcerer.
This Enchanter Wizard would still need to "pump" their Charisma almost as high as their Intelligence to get the most out of their "Charm" series of spells.
Counterwise, a Sorcerer would need to "pump" their Intelligence almost as high as their Charisma to get as many skill points as possible to make the most of their Charisma stat.
To the OPs original question:
It really depends on what you are looking for. I know I personally would feel limited playing a Sorcerer, but my RL wife much prefers the class.
As far as I can tell, here are the advantages.
Sorcerer:
Wizard:
Add to Sorc: Spontaneous metamagic.
Add to Sorc: Spontaneous metamagic.
And "Arcane Bond" to the wizard.
[editing previous post.]
Add to Sorc: Spontaneous metamagic.And "Arcane Bond" to the wizard.
[editing previous post.]
I think I like the idea of wizard at this point and just have a social spell list and an encounter spell list and of course hybrid as well, so what social skill would you say is best diplomacy, bluff or intimidate?
I think I like the idea of wizard at this point and just have a social spell list and an encounter spell list and of course hybrid as well, so what social skill would you say is best diplomacy, bluff or intimidate?Add to Sorc: Spontaneous metamagic.And "Arcane Bond" to the wizard.
[editing previous post.]
Diplomacy is more broadly useful. (Remember, Gather Information got folded into it.)
I think I like the idea of wizard at this point and just have a social spell list and an encounter spell list and of course hybrid as well, so what social skill would you say is best diplomacy, bluff or intimidate?
Diplomacy > Bluff > Intimidate, in my experience, although Diplomacy and Bluff can be close in value. Intimidate is always a distant third for social situations. It has some in-combat applications, but they don't generally work too well for a wizard, and almost all of it's roleplay uses can be better performed by Diplomacy, or failing that Charm Person.
The average wizard can max out 6 skills starting at level 1. You'll want Spellcraft and Arcana to be a wizard, and you'll want Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive to be passable at social situations. That leaves one skill left, which should probably go into Perception, because everyone wants perception, especially arcane casters. If you have skill points left over after that, throw in a craft skill for bonus monies.
All imo, of course.
I cannot decide between the 2, Sorcerers while not as versatile are much better socially as opposed to the Wizard who has so much more versatility couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag (at low levels).
I think you're pretty much sold on sorcerer, but the enchanter wizard isn't a horrible option. The daze touch is nice getaway device.
Think about it this way. How often are you going to make serious diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks? Not very often -- or at least, let's assume a minority of the time. Is it a good idea to optimize yourself around something that will occur a minority of the time? Probably not.
That said, I like the infernal sorcerer. I think it's very possible to build a charm-focused character, especially if your DM is liberal in his interpretation of what the limits of charm are. Beware though -- some DMs make charm spells effectively worthless.
I think you're pretty much sold on sorcerer, but the enchanter wizard isn't a horrible option. The daze touch is nice getaway device.
Think about it this way. How often are you going to make serious diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks? Not very often -- or at least, let's assume a minority of the time. Is it a good idea to optimize yourself around something that will occur a minority of the time? Probably not.
That said, I like the infernal sorcerer. I think it's very possible to build a charm-focused character, especially if your DM is liberal in his interpretation of what the limits of charm are. Beware though -- some DMs make charm spells effectively worthless.
I agree, the diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks are usually a less frequent use of a character ability. A Sorcerer isn't overrun with skill ranks, so putting a significant amount of those ranks in these skills may hurt you in the long run compared with UMD and Fly and even Linguistics (not to mention Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana). Perhaps a single rank to take advantage of the class skill bonus might be sufficient (especially at lower levels). The Charm/Suggestion spells are going to pay bigger dividends by comparison due to their multi-use nature.
I love the opposed Cha check in the rules for DM's that think that Charm spells should be mostly ineffectual.
Remember, the Wizard isn't more versatile than the Sorcerer - he just has a different kind of versatility. The Wizard has more spells to choose from. The Sorcerer has the ability to spontaneously apply metamagic feats and UMD. The Sorcerer also has a higher CHA which wlll translate into likely having more minions (charm person/monster, planar ally, etc.)
Wizards are more versatile in that they support more character concepts due to greater number of skill points. They get this thanks to automatic high INT - the sorcerer can take high INT, but it will hurt them in other ways (DEX, CON). So making stealthy wizard or crafty wizard or knowledge wizard or athletic wizard is a lot more feasible than a similar sorcerer. Now, spells can often do these things better, but if you have the skills, you can take other spells in addition, further highlighting wizard versatility.
Oh, and UMD wizard is possible too. Higher CHA for 'more minions'? You _might_ get more, but opposed CHA checks on a D20 is a crapshoot even if you have +5 more bonuses. As for Planar Binding (not Planar Ally), this is a lengthy, dangerous and generally expensive option...I don't see many Sorcerers taking this spell.
Sorcerer spontaneous metamagic CAN be good, though in practice Extend Spell is the only truly worthwhile one until mid-high levels (then Quickened Spell, and sometimes Heightened Spell), and metamagic rods exist for use by all classes.
Don't get me wrong - sorcerer's don't suck. But their strength is endurance and independence from memorization. A sorcerer always has all his tools in his bag, so to speak. A wizard might have his tool in his bag, he might not, and even then he might only have one use of it.
when was this established?How often are you going to make serious diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks? Not very often -- or at least, let's assume a minority of the time.
When the player picked sorcerer or wizard? (:
If skills are the focus of the game, then there's no reason to play anything other than a bard or rogue. It's assumed if other classes are being played, then there are other required roles -- particularly involving combat. Combat typically has very few diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate checks (unless you're doing something with some external mechanic, like Dazzling Display, optimizing demoralize, etc.).
Sorcerer spontaneous metamagic CAN be good, though in practice Extend Spell is the only truly worthwhile one until mid-high levels (then Quickened Spell, and sometimes Heightened Spell), and metamagic rods exist for use by all classes.
I agree, spontaneous metamagic is of limited utility until mid to high levels. The problem I see with Extend, which is good at low levels, is that it loses efficiency at higher levels. Given that Sorcerers have so many spell slots and can cast that same spell a second time, and that combat spells rarely need extended durations to last the combat, I'd rather not use a higher level spell slot than 2 lower level spell slots. Metamagic rods are pure gold, and Extend is one of the cheapest!
Sorcerers have every class skill of the Wizard, plus more.
That saves skill points. They also have CHA as their major stat - CHA being the attribute on which UMD is based.
While opposed CHA checks on a d20 is a crapshoot, the odds are heavily in the Sorcerer's favor over the Wizard.
Planar Binding is lengthy, but its affects last a very long time. In many cases, you can cast it before you even go adventuring. It's got a one-time cost which isn't all that expensive.Extend spell is -not- the only truly worthwhile metamagic feat. Spontaneous still and spontaneous silent are both very useful. And where spontaneous still and spontaneous silent are useful, metamagic rods aren't.
Check that, Sorcerers don't have all of those Knowledge skills as class skills.
Planar Binding can be problematic for games where Sorcerers are comfortable with its use. By the time a Sorcerer can cast it at 12th level, he can have a dozen or so Glabrezus bound in about a week. Yikes!
Silent spell is tremendous, but what are the advantages of Still spell if you aren't pinned?
You're using an all-or-nothing pov here. Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate can be used often without making the game completely skill-focused.
True. In most games, a wizard can afford to leave those skill areas to his more charming allies.
In this game, scheming and intrigue play a bigger role to the individual character. The wizard has enough skill points available to be a good, if not awesome diplomat/bluffer/motive sensor. In the right situation, he can use spells like detect thoughts, clairaudience, scrying, etc. to get the real scoop on what those dastardly backstabbers are really up to!
He's more likely to have those spells in his book and use them when he knows they'll give him an edge. Sorcerers and bards aren't likely to have those spells known (unless the whole campaign is about intrigue), so they'll have to spend some cash to use them with UMD.
Wizards are more versatile in that they support more character concepts due to greater number of skill points.Sorcerers have every class skill of the Wizard, plus more.
That saves skill points. They also have CHA as their major stat - CHA being the attribute on which UMD is based.
Yes, sorcerers will be better at UMD than Wizards. By +3 points. If wizards don't take the trait that gives them UMD as a class skill. This 'makes them better at X', it does not save them skill points. Max ranks = Character level for both. It's when these classes go off the beaten trail, skill wise, that the Wizard wins hands down. Want a Wizard who can Climb and Jump and Stealth and Disable Device? Or Survival, Knowledge: Nature, Handle Animal and Ride?
While opposed CHA checks on a d20 is a crapshoot, the odds are heavily in the Sorcerer's favor over the Wizard.
Yes, BUT it's a unreliable option to begin with. Being better at something that doesn't work a lot of the time isn't much better at all. Dragging a charmed ally into combat pretty much threatens them, which ends the spell. You CAN manipulate circumstances to get around this (i.e. if the enemy attacks first), but it's tricky. I don't want to get into an argument of the usefulness/uselessness of Charm Person, but it's a 1st level spell - it shouldn't be creating combat slaves.
Planar Binding is lengthy, but its affects last a very long time. In many cases, you can cast it before you even go adventuring. It's got a one-time cost which isn't all that expensive.
First, it requires you to have Magic Circle vs. X spell. This is competing with a sorcerer's limited selection of 3rd level spells. Second, the best and most logical choice for Magic Circle vs. X is vs. Evil. So you're stuck binding EVIL creatures. So if the whole thing goes wrong on you, you've got a demon/devil on your hands. You could go around binding good creatures, but Magic Circle vs. Good isn't terribly useful in 'most' campaigns. You might take Magic Circle vs Law/Chaos, which would let you swing the Evil/Good axis, but is otherwise less useful.
Third, if the creature can escape via extradimensional travel, you need Dimensional Anchor to pull this off. So far we're at a spell tax of 3 spells 3rd,4th and 5th, and that's to pull off LESSER Planar Binding. You can trade up this spell as you level up, of course.
Fourth, if your die rolls are unlucky, it can take DAYS to make this work. If you offer no compensation (the 'cheap' route), it's more likely to take more and more time, increasing the chances of escape.
So basically this is risky and involves heavy spell investment and probably several days prep to make it work.
Extend spell is -not- the only truly worthwhile metamagic feat. Spontaneous still and spontaneous silent are both very useful. And where spontaneous still and spontaneous silent are useful, metamagic rods aren't.
Being grappled (Still) or captured (bound/gagged) is about it. Choice of the right spells (Verbal only) can help with the first, the second can be sidestepped with the right powers (Conjuration Wizard). My point is, both Sorcerers and Wizards get so few feats, you want ones that are useful as often as possible. Silent/Still Spell are not useful often enough to be worth the investment except in very specific campaign styles (like a thief's guild scenario).
You're using an all-or-nothing pov here. Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate can be used often without making the game completely skill-focused.
I just have a different definition of "often" (:
If "often" means that most of the character's actions are influenced by diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, then yes, that is often. I'm treating "most" -- or the majority of the time -- as "often". However, that's not necessarily true in this game. "Often" can mean a minority or less than 50% of the game time.
My point is, given that your use of "often" means a minority, why pick a character/optimize a character/focus a character on something that won't be considered most of the game? D&D offers the flexibility to do that if you wish. I just don't see the benefit of making a choice that is bad the majority of the time.
It's just my point of view. I don't know all the details, so this could very well be bad advice.
There's a difference between "completely" and "most". In fact, there's several shades of difference between the two. Even if these social skills were applicable 51% of the time, that'd still be enough to warrant their use and optimization. Actually, it'd be enough to warrant their use and optimization if they were applicable only 25% of the time.
I agree that's perfectly reasonable if that 25% involves a required role -- like for instance, if no one in the party was capable of being a party face. In that case, you're a team player by optimizing face skills. But in this case, there's already a party face. His optimization on face skills is due to faction-relevant quests. I'm not sure how prolific these are, but I'm guessing (blindly) these are a fraction of a fraction of time -- like 25% of 25% of the time. I'm not sure I'd be particularly interested in playing the whole game around that 6%. . . but like I said I don't know the details of the game. Maybe that 6% nets you *huge* bonuses if you have face skills.
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it but Enchanters get a +2 to Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate at 1st level and you get an additional +1 on them for every 5 Wizard levels you have but I'm not sure what type of Wizard you're playing.
Regarding opposed Cha checks. A Sorcerer with a +5 Cha modifier succeeds against a +0 Cha modifier opponent 73.75% of the time. Not a horrible chance of success.
I find Silent Spell more useful due to its synergy with Invisibility. Still Spell leaves me cold as to its benefits. It doesn't alleviate casting while grappled (the Concentration check is the killer, not the spell component). And Silent allows a getaway attempt (Dimension Door, Teleport) even if you're paralyzed.
I'd like to remind you that the OP stated, when talking about the fact that there already is a face man in the crowd, "Well yes, however doing these "faction quests" has a few problems one of which is that I have to do this interaction w/o the "face" since we will probably be different factions, and another bigger problem is the group is so secretive that he could flat out lie to me (bluff which is a class skill) and my ability to decern that (sense motive, tied to a dump stat and not a class skill) wouldn't equal out as well. I guess what I am looking for is a way to have a wizard not be inept at social interactions."
I didn't address that because I think it's ridiculous to play that way -- but that's my personal opinion (: I was focusing on the "faction quests" he mentions. I've never played in a game where players work against other players. I'm not sure what I'd do. . . other than wish I was back in a team game q:
I take that back, I did play in an evil campaign once. I ate a teammate who opposed me (:
In a team game where there's already another face man, I think there's still something to be said for a high CHA caster who has access to calling spells, but I can see a much stronger argument for your point that it's mostly redundant.
Maybe instead of focusing on doing the job of said bard, how about focusing on keeping the bard in line?
In that case, I'd go all-out fey sorcerer with focus on enchantment.
"I suggest you tell me the truth about X."
Yeah we play with the same people +/- 1-2 people, as for the 2nd question I dont think I understand what you mean.
You're using an all-or-nothing pov here. Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate can be used often without making the game completely skill-focused.I just have a different definition of "often" (:
If "often" means that most of the character's actions are influenced by diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, then yes, that is often. I'm treating "most" -- or the majority of the time -- as "often". However, that's not necessarily true in this game. "Often" can mean a minority or less than 50% of the game time.
My point is, given that your use of "often" means a minority, why pick a character/optimize a character/focus a character on something that won't be considered most of the game? D&D offers the flexibility to do that if you wish. I just don't see the benefit of making a choice that is bad the majority of the time.
It's just my point of view. I don't know all the details, so this could very well be bad advice.
Well our last game I made roughly 10 diplomacy checks and proboably 5 bluff checks (different campaign but similar) our DM's are pretty heavy into the whole social skill thing, that and the other characters like to give false or useless info, I think its fun I just dont wanna be the butt of the jokes.
Summoner, witch, oracle?
Nah I dont want to do those until they are official printed cause if they make a change I dont like I dont want to be stuck with it.
There's a difference between "completely" and "most". In fact, there's several shades of difference between the two. Even if these social skills were applicable 51% of the time, that'd still be enough to warrant their use and optimization. Actually, it'd be enough to warrant their use and optimization if they were applicable only 25% of the time.I agree that's perfectly reasonable if that 25% involves a required role -- like for instance, if no one in the party was capable of being a party face. In that case, you're a team player by optimizing face skills. But in this case, there's already a party face. His optimization on face skills is due to faction-relevant quests. I'm not sure how prolific these are, but I'm guessing (blindly) these are a fraction of a fraction of time -- like 25% of 25% of the time. I'm not sure I'd be particularly interested in playing the whole game around that 6%. . . but like I said I don't know the details of the game. Maybe that 6% nets you *huge* bonuses if you have face skills.
The problem is that they are related to what kinds of things you can buy and how much money you can spend, also it nets you favors from your faction.
In a team game where there's already another face man, I think there's still something to be said for a high CHA caster who has access to calling spells, but I can see a much stronger argument for your point that it's mostly redundant.Maybe instead of focusing on doing the job of said bard, how about focusing on keeping the bard in line?
In that case, I'd go all-out fey sorcerer with focus on enchantment.
"I suggest you tell me the truth about X."
Yeah I was looking at a fey gnome sorcerer or an elven conjurer wizard, the reason I want to lean to wizard is because I have not played one since 2nd ed, just sorcerers, wanted something different.