|
Simply put, it's because sorcerer's don't have a spellbook to keep track of. Since I normally DM, making a sorcerer NPC is that much simpler then making a wizard NPC. I have a bad habit of stating up a wizard to use in an adventure and when I get done realizing "crap, I forgot the spellbook." If they are just a one off villian that I expect to die at the end of an encounter, it's not a big deal but it is a big deal if they are going to play an on-going role in my campaign. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent.
Simply put, it's because sorcerer's don't have a spellbook to keep track of. Since I normally DM, making a sorcerer NPC is that much simpler then making a wizard NPC. I have a bad habit of stating up a wizard to use in an adventure and when I get done realizing "crap, I forgot the spellbook." If they are just a one off villian that I expect to die at the end of an encounter, it's not a big deal but it is a big deal if they are going to play an on-going role in my campaign. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent.
Are you expecting denouncment or something? I have always preffered spontaneous casters, but for different reasons. But anyway, use whatever class you like best, thats why there are many!
I don't like spellbooks, either. I don't like the "fluff" and I don't like the "crunch". Everything else about the wizard class is copacetic with me, though.
While I can understand why as a DM you would want a sorcerer, I have more fun playing wizards. Strangely I have even MORE fun playing Psychic Warriors or Psions which is very spontaneous, but when it comes to bread and butter D&D I like having a spellbook. To each his own though, and I won't try to convince you.
However, if the NPCs/villains were Wizards and you forgot a spellbook, you're robbing any party wizard of valuable treasure. That'd be like having a big Fighter bad guy and forgetting to write up his weapon and armor to be looted.
There really isn't anything anyone can do about it. The class really is the book keeper class in concept. It gets scribe scroll feat as a bonus feat just for this reason.
I have not played a wizard very long, but I can see your distress.
|
There really isn't anything anyone can do about it. The class really is the book keeper class in concept. It gets scribe scroll feat as a bonus feat just for this reason.
I have not played a wizard very long, but I can see your distress.
I don't like bookeeping but I like arcane casting. So I tend to play sorcerers more often than wizards and let other people worry about what spell they prepare on a given day. The obvious downside to sorcerers as a player is bad decisions are magnified.
Why don't you pick up a spellbook generator? Several out there.
And people told me I was nuts for taking spell mastery 4 times...
Spell book
what spell bookWe can't find the spellbook?
NopeWhat happened to the spellbook?
Relax DM you can have no spellbook for a wide range of reasons. BBEG wizard locked his spellbook in the car, he left it at home, his familiar ate it......
I used to be so bold as to let the wizard know if the book contained any spells he did not know and wanted to attempt to learn....Process ends by burning the captured spellbook in a ritual.
One: typically spellbooks are valuable loot.
Two: wizard players get screwed when they never find spellbooks they can lift goodies out of.
|
When doing it on the fly, the simplest solution for an NPC wizard is spellbook found = spells memorized, and assume he was toting around his traveling spellbook. If you find additional spells are needed for the NPC wizard to make him interesting in subsequent encounters, just add them in! I tend to be flexible in determining what might be in an NPC wizard's spellbook. This gives them an advantage over PCs, I suppose (but note I am not advocating changing spells MEMORIZED on the fly); their reward is the additional spells in the book if they acquire it.
If you need to do something more extensive, like the personal library of a wizard who has spent many years learning spells, I take one of two approaches:
1. I prepare extensively ahead of time, including the use of magical traps, secret pages, etc.
2. I just come up with it on the fly, starting with any spells I already know about (like the ones the wizard memorized), and following up with spells chosen by me looking through the wizard spell list.
I prefer option #1 if possible, and not only when dealing with spellbooks, to make treasure hauls more interesting and fun.
It is interesting to me that you almost forgot the spellbooks, simply because when I build NPC wizards, the spellbook is the FIRST thing I consider!
With your next wizard, have him carry a book titled "spells," and make it a vacuous grimoire! If the players whine, tell 'em I put you up to it! :)
Its undeniable that they are more work but...
I like Wizards mostly for out of combat development. So many spells are really not optimal combat spells. Sorcerers tend to have really deadly spells but they're less likely to have problem solving spells.
If you want to be fair to wizards in your game you really have to give them a chance to solve some things out of combat over a couple of days. Crafting a spell that only works once or using magic to disguise and trick or create items.
To each their own though.
He feels like he's been nerfed regularly but there is still no replacement for the wizard.
Sigurd
As a player (currently playing a rogue/wizard) I LOVE spellbooks. They're rare to find, but collecting spells equals fun to me. Sure, most spells don't have many applications, but knowing that, carrying scrolls around negates the need to memorize them.
AND a captured spellbook is a great find and there's no debate who gets it when divvying up the loot! I'm pretty sure there's a web-based spellbook generator out there somewhere, and if you find you've forgotten to make one up after the PCs have killed a wizard, just hand-wave it and tell them they've got to wait until after the session/adventure to decipher it. Personally I'd rather find a spellbook I couldn't read right now than piss off the DM.
Zo
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I like sorcs better for combat encounter NPCs. They have more spells and less prep time. Spontaneous casting means they can adjust on the fly to PC tactics rather than get hosed like an unarmored commoner when they didn't have the "right" spells prepped to deal with PC shenanigans. Plus they're easy to create variation within multiples of the same critter just by tweaking the spells known.
I like wizards better as PCs because prep time isn't a factor; I can plan far ahead for anything I want to be able to do.
And not giving wizard PCs spellbooks in loot is about like not giving out magic weapons in loot. Or like not giving rogues sneak attack, fighters bonus feats, sorcs spontaneous casting, and clerics channel energy. It totally nullifies one of the major features of the class. It's a highly arbitrary F You to wizards.
As a player (currently playing a rogue/wizard) I LOVE spellbooks. They're rare to find, but collecting spells equals fun to me. Sure, most spells don't have many applications, but knowing that, carrying scrolls around negates the need to memorize them.
AND a captured spellbook is a great find and there's no debate who gets it when divvying up the loot! I'm pretty sure there's a web-based spellbook generator out there somewhere, and if you find you've forgotten to make one up after the PCs have killed a wizard, just hand-wave it and tell them they've got to wait until after the session/adventure to decipher it. Personally I'd rather find a spellbook I couldn't read right now than piss off the DM.
Zo
As someone who normally GMs, when I did play as a wizard or sorceror, I normally used them as walking cannons with some self-buffing ability. I used to prefer the sorceror because of the more spells/ day thing.
But, now that I'm GMing some new PF campaigns, I'm seeing the advantage of wizards. Our ROTR Wizard is a divination Wiz with lots of PArty buffing abilities. Give him a few wands for ranged support and hes decent in combat. (During the Sandpoint Goblin Raid, with High DX, Mage Armor, Shield Spell, and Brightflame dagger +1 from ITHW, he was nasty in combat at levels 1-2 in melee too).
But a wizard's ability to have more spell options (Verios normally leaves 1 slot open for whatever spell he needs to memorize in 15 minutes) seems much better. And he loves finding new spellbooks.
|
|
A Sorcerer who is, at least, half-way decently built is going to need more time spent on developing their spell list than a Wizard will.
You'll find "oops, I forgot I didn't have any spell on the list for mindless|buffing|divination|undead|etc." or "why did I take that spell since it is so closely similar to this spell, it's basically dead weight" will happen frequently if you aren't on top of things. Whereas with a Wizard, you can always drop a new spell in their spell book to fix these kinds of problems.
For short-term NPCs, sorcerers may be better, but for long-term NPCs, it's easier to create a Wizard.
This doesn't make sense at all for any NPC sorcerers are much easier to deal with. You have a set of things they can do, you don't have to worry about whether they can do them today or not. You don't have to worry about what spells they have when they are at home studying versus on the trail, or their undead fighting list versus their humanoid charming list.
As for not having a spell for situation XXX one of the things with a sorcerer is you pick spells which are pretty generic in terms of usefulness. Things like telekinesis and summoning which can work against most any enemy. I've seen wizard's screwed quite often because they try to specialize too much for a given situation and then then encounter something completely different.
You guys forgot another major point :
Sorceresses are generally much hotter than Wizardresses.
That must be the Charisma thing ;)
I prefer Rouges! ~grins and runs from Fakey~
I prefer Rouges!
What, on sorceresses? I prefer them au naturale, myself.
Zo
You guys forgot another major point :
Sorceresses are generally much hotter than Wizardresses.
That must be the Charisma thing ;)
Maybe easier to get along with charisma doesn't have a thing to do with looks.
|
|
I remember reading that the lack of spellbooks was actually a motivating factor for the design of the 3e Sorcerer, because they wanted a way to have NPC humanoid arcanists who didn't automatically come with a massive influx of treasure for the cost of their spellbooks, without having to resort to the kludgey 'witch doctors' of previous editions.
For NPCs, Sorcerers are way easier to deal with, but back in 2e, I did have a spellbook list that I'd just resort to when using NPC arcanists. I made three sample books for the level range I was using, and tried to make sure I didn't pick the same one multiple times (since that would be a bit lame, although there was one specific adventure in which the party were facing the three former apprentices of a specific evil wizard, and kept getting books with pretty much the exact-same spells in them, to the PC wizards great annoyance, but I was mostly yanking his chain with that).
I've never run into a DM that enforces the spellbook thing with wizards despite the fact that there are always rules about how many pages a spellbook has, and how many pages each spell uses up, and so on. Eventually your wizards is carrying around a small library of spellbooks.
Once in a blue moon its ok to deprive the PCs of their defining features to make them have to think hard for a short while, but in generally its just a sign of a sadistic and stupid DM to neuter the players by taking away their class abilities or making them do a lot of micromanagement the DM him or herself would never want to do - a fact demonstrated by how seldom enemy wizards have spellbooks kicking around as loot.
I don't know why these games don't do away with the "number of pages" crap and just attach the cost of scribing the spells into the spellbook. Make it a simple mechanic like spell components, and declare that wizards always invent their own shorthand that is incomprehensible to others such that spellbooks don't need to be juggled as treasure. Scrolls can have to be written in a standard way in order to hold the magic in them, and they can just be found as treasure on a regular basis for the wizard to snitch.
Maybe easier to get along with charisma doesn't have a thing to do with looks.
I beg to differ, Abraham.
It doesn't have to be from looks, but it can.D&D SRD : Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
Pathfinder : Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So, although it doesn't have to be just attractiveness, it can still be linked to appearance. QED.
Maybe easier to get along with charisma doesn't have a thing to do with looks.I beg to differ, Abraham.
It doesn't have to be from looks, but it can.D&D SRD : Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
Pathfinder : Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So, although it doesn't have to be just attractiveness, it can still be linked to appearance. QED.
appearance =/= attractiveness.
See the number of monsters with large Cha that are still butt ugly.
Appearance can be menancing, intimidating, etc.
It just means you present more of the image that you mean to present.
And please note thatof those 4 things only one is external.
Maybe easier to get along with charisma doesn't have a thing to do with looks.I beg to differ, Abraham.
It doesn't have to be from looks, but it can.D&D SRD : Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
Pathfinder : Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So, although it doesn't have to be just attractiveness, it can still be linked to appearance. QED.
appearance =/= attractiveness.
See the number of monsters with large Cha that are still butt ugly.
Appearance can be menancing, intimidating, etc.
It just means you present more of the image that you mean to present.
And please note thatof those 4 things only one is external.
Between the PRD and the 3.5 SRD Charisma represents BOTH attractiveness and physical appearance.
I'm really not sure what you're arguing. You say it's not attractiveness because look at all the ugly monsters with high CHA. That's YOUR opinion, not that of the monster's race, clearly. And attractiveness isn't necessarily the same thing as physical appearance either.
Regardless, as the rules go that is the only way of determining one's physical appearance/attractiveness.
Next you will tell me that you can have a low Str person who can bench press a car.
I've had characters with high CHA that were ugly but personable and another that was utterly gorgeous but horrible in personality. Charisma is any combination of those things, as you choose.
|
|
Yes, Sorcerers should have a lot of generic spells. That's true. And, yes, they can choose which spells to cast on the fly. I've written up several different sorcerrs and, based on my experience doing so, it takes effort to make sure that all your basis are covered - even if you only focus on spells which have the widest utility.
Sorcerers == Higher front end load
Wizards == Higher week to week loadI'll take the front end load over the ongoing load any time. In particular since it's easy enough to build a few sorcerer 'kits' that many of your NPCs can utilize.
I prefer wizards and I love spellbooks...I'm a grognard
I've never run into a DM that enforces the spellbook thing with wizards despite the fact that there are always rules about how many pages a spellbook has, and how many pages each spell uses up, and so on. Eventually your wizards is carrying around a small library of spellbooks.
Every wizard I've ever seen coughs up for a Blessed Book ASAP. Even if you pay full price (for the book) you save huge money on scribing costs in the long run, it holds 10 books worth of spells and weighs ONE MEASLY POUND.
Now, if only _my_ Wizard could afford one...cheap GM...<grumble>
I prefer wizards and I love spellbooks...I'm a grognard
I hate the vancian system when applied to other classes, but it feels right and good when applied to the wizard.
I love wizards. Spellbooks are easy. With the new scribing costs in Pathfinder, you can literally afford all spells at all levels with little to no fuss. Here's a table with the costs.
As you can clearly see, a wizard could learn ALL of the spells in the game for the low, low price of 64,905gp (the viewing cost of every wizard spell in the core rulebook plus the crafting costs of two blessed books needed to hold them all). At high levels, that is a fraction of a fraction of the funds you will most likely have to work with.
If my GM happens to be a prewd and won't allow me to learn all the spells in the game, than its sorcerers all the way.
I love wizards. Spellbooks are easy. With the new scribing costs in Pathfinder, you can literally afford all spells at all levels with little to no fuss. Here's a table with the costs.
As you can clearly see, a wizard could learn ALL of the spells in the game for the low, low price of 64,905gp (the viewing cost of every wizard spell in the core rulebook plus the crafting costs of two blessed books needed to hold them all). At high levels, that is a fraction of a fraction of the funds you will most likely have to work with.
If my GM happens to be a prewd and won't allow me to learn all the spells in the game, than its sorcerers all the way.
I'll trust your math because I'm lazy. Assuming that is correct, that is marginally more expensive than buying 2 scrolls of wish. With all that in your spellbook, a wizard's Bonded Item extra spell ability is basically a wish a day. WEE!
I suppose it's been said, but sorcerer BBEGs are just more likely to exist in most game worlds than wizards. Among the less civilized cultures and monstrous humanoids, it's just more likely to have some with inborn ability than bright ones who were trained by a wizard mentor, IMHO. Their CHA requirement leads to greater leadership possibilities among their kinds. Sort of a natural synergy there.
That, and they're easier to prep and play, time-wise. SO much easier for the GM.
Wizards are more time-consuming to make up when every spell in the book can be had, but they're devastating when they know the PCs are on their way.
You want to let your PC wizard taste sweet victory and capture a spell book now and then. It's only fair. Just bear in mind the value of the new spells he'll copy from it, and its value once he's done with it. Will he sell it or keep it as a backup? Decisions, decisions...
I suppose it's been said, but sorcerer BBEGs are just more likely to exist in most game worlds than wizards. Among the less civilized cultures and monstrous humanoids, it's just more likely to have some with inborn ability than bright ones who were trained by a wizard mentor, IMHO.
I use wizards for witches and witch doctors too, replacing their spellbooks with carvings on bark plates, special strings of bones and rocks and such. I tend to use more sorcerers for the indivualistic races, where personal power is promoted and a leader takes his place by pure power (orcs, for example) while I use wizards more for quasi-civilised races that have a stronger communal connection (such as lizardfolk). Wizards usually take on a more discrete roll, officially being advisors or soothsayers but secretly running the show from behind the scenes.
My wizards usually don't keep their grimoire of all spells they know with them, rather they have it stuffed away someway safe and keep a smaller spellbook with them, about one spell per spell slot they have. And i usually don't even pick all of the lower level ones - I usually pick exactly what spells they have for the 3 highest spell levels, the rest I let go "on the fly"; I figure high-level wizards are intelligent enough to most of the time have the right spell for the situation, at least when it's easy tricks that don't take too much of their power.
Wizards are more time-consuming to make up when every spell in the book can be had, but they're devastating when they know the PCs are on their way.
I prefer wizards and I love spellbooks...I'm a grognard
Ditto. I have many interesting conversations with my wife over this (she prefers sorcerers).
When it comes to DMing, I definitely prefer wizards. I can write a list of all their prepared spells, then just cross them off as they get cast. That is a lot less hassle, IMHO, than tracking slots and having a list of spells known. I usually fill out their spell books with the spells they are going to use in the encounter first, then roll up the rest, as if they were scrolls.
Peace,
tfad
|
|
When spellbooks are found I simply include the spells the caster had memorized and a few random spells the PC doesn't have. Spellbook has average value for NPC wizard of that level. That's it.
When running high level casters all I do is set the highest three spell levels of spells and adhoc all the lower level spells (assuming the caster would have what they need, being a lot more experienced casters than the non-caster-DM afterall). Saves a lot of time.