I love that sorcerers get the bonus feat "Eschew Materials" in Pathfinder, but this to me is just the tip of the iceberg in dealing with the differences between sorcerers and wizards. As it stands, the only practical spellcasting difference between wizards and sorcerers is how many spells they can learn and cast, yet they supposedly go about magic in a very different way. Wizards study musty tomes and learn the "proper" way to control and shape magic - sorcerers just *do* it. And yet, sorcerers can still cast spells like magic weapon, planar binding, permenancy, even identify - to me, these don't fit the idea of "you have this inate power to manifest magic", but are instead fairly complex rituals or effects that one wouldn't just "discover" they know how to do without at least some training.
I guess I think of sorcerers as more primal, using magic in a raw way, and wizards as being more controlled and therefor able to do complex things. (I realize this is a bias that others may not share, but bear with me. I also realize that maybe psionics were meant to model this, with sorcerers being a middle ground, but I don't use psionics in my games.)
Scrolls and wands pretty much let any reasonably-well-off character get around not "knowing" too many spells, so from day to day the wizard just has more spell choicess to split amongst their fewer spell slots than the sorcerer does. I think one of the benefits of a wizard's training would include the ability to learn and cast any spells includnig complicated ones, not just the raw, primal (and often desctrutvie) ones that sorcerers could manage.
So here's the question: has anyone experimented with different spell lists for wizards and sorcerers, and what effect has it had on game balance? I've thought about it for a while, but before try it I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences with this idea.
Well, about the only thing you can do really using core is mix in some divine spells.. and sure it has been done. Even some of the sorcerer bloodlines have some divine spells mixed in, you could make a feat that expands on the bloodlines to be sure the spells remain in a certain theme that fits snugly.
I do not see reason to empower a wizard any more compared to sorcerer, I thought you actually meant expanding the sorcerers spells.. my bad.
Please note these are just my experiences, not the 'Word of God' that some people like to put their post as. A lot of people also have a lot more experience with these classes than I do, so, again, take it as the ramblings of just one Gamer.
Sorcerers tend to provide longer use in combat than Wizard, with a larger pool of spells per day and their bloodline powers making them a grab-bag of blasting, controlling and/or battlefield mastery, plus they lack the achilies heel of the familiar/bonded item.
Furthermore, a Sorcerer has high charisma and can easily take a few ranks in conversation skills to become the party 'Face' or at least be able to use their Bluff skill to make a good 1/2 of the enemies they face extremely nervous as the unnaturally attractive woman covered in tattoos shrieks that she's going to curse them all and turn them into piles of molten flesh (before summoning some Lemures and again bluffing that they are her previous 'victims'.).
Sorcerers as a whole are best served by taking a variety of spells of one type, nominally either blasting/summoning spells from the Evocation and Conjuration schools, Control/Defensive spells from the Enchantment, Illusion and Abjuration schools, or Battlefield/Status spells from the Enchantment, Necromancy and Transmutation schools. Of course, the Sorcerer must also spend some precious spell-choices on spells outside of these choices to ensure she keeps herself useful outside of her chosen field of expertise, but with a limited spell selection and numerous uses per day of her spells, a Sorcerer can get away with repeated uses of potent spells, something the Wizard cannot.
Sorcerers tend to outperform Wizards in terms of sheer blasting power and their ability to continually cast spells at a rate most Wizards can quite simply not match. A Wizard can be lucky if he can cast Scorching Ray two or three times per day. A Sorcerer can cast this spell several times per day if need be, and depending upon their Bloodline, can alter the effects of the spell to deal different elemental damages.
Wizards, on the other hand, can learn to cast everything. Given enough time, a Wizard can research just about every g$&@+%n spell on their list, has a range of bonus feats allowing them specialise in crafting, making them the Party's go-to people for repairing damaged items, being able to alter their spells to provide greater damage, increased duration or the ability to cast two spells in a single round or even the ability to litterally conjure forth endless armies of Celestial or Infernal minions to plague their enemies with.
Furthermore, each School of Magic offers a variety of abilities that can support a Wizard much as the Sorcerer's Bloodline powers do, albeit the Wizard gains much less in regards to 'power' that a Sorcerer can wield, but depending upon the School they choose to focus upon, a Wizard can perform feats that nominally only other classes, or powerful monsters, can duplicate. An Enchanter can create an aura that can completely ruin the morale of an enemy army by flying overhead and stun opponents that come too close for comfort, Evokers can unleash waves of destruction upon their enemies and block off choke-points and Diviners act with foresight in all things, and can even pass this ability on to their allies.
Furthermore, Wizards can learn any number of spells, and with access to the right creation feats, can easily slot any number of spells into Scrolls or Wands for utility, something a Sorcerer finds difficult with their slower feat accumulation and lack of variety in spells. A Wizard can also learn spells from nearly any arcane source, enabling a suitably wealthy Wizard to be able create a number of wands with utility spells in them, such as Comprehend Languages, Floating Disk, Mount, Disguise Self, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enlarge Person, Feather Fall and so on, and those are just 1st level spells.
Furthermore, a Wizard has the Feat selection to be able to craft Golems as soon as possible, as opposed to Clerics and Sorcerers. The Wizard lacks the Sorcerer's sheer volume of spells, but with his ability to specialise, have access to a broader skill selection and ability to change his spells on a day-to-day basis, the Wizard can out-perform a Sorcerer in terms of utility and still be able to assist the party afterwards as a scholar.
I love that sorcerers get the bonus feat "Eschew Materials" in Pathfinder, but this to me is just the tip of the iceberg in dealing with the differences between sorcerers and wizards.
It is rumoured that the bloodlines were introduced for that very reason.
And yet, sorcerers can still cast spells like magic weapon, planar binding, permenancy, even identify - to me, these don't fit the idea of "you have this inate power to manifest magic", but are instead fairly complex rituals or effects that one wouldn't just "discover" they know how to do without at least some training.
They don't have to be complex rituals. A wizard will learn identify out of a tome, doing it the logical way and understanding why he can now better ascertain the mystical properties of magic items.
The sorcerer will just focus himself for a moment, do some gestures and say some stuff that for him is the intuitive way to access his powers, and all of a sudden, it seems so clear that that sword is Frostbrand.
So here's the question: has anyone experimented with different spell lists for wizards and sorcerers, and what effect has it had on game balance? I've thought about it for a while, but before try it I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences with this idea.
It's a lot of work, and all it ends in the end is that the sorcerer is more boring, because you deny them everything you deem "complex". So in addition to only knowing a certain number of spells, the spell selection sucks.
Take a look at the warmage from 3.5e. They know their whole spell list. Still, they're boring as spellcasters go, because they can only blast this, blast that, "I only kill enemies". *Yawn*
|
Here is what i have found from playing both a wizard and sorcerer to high levels (about 12th).
Sorcerer's spontaneous casting makes them masters of combat compared to any other caster. Even at low-levels, the seem to outshine the fighters, barbarians, and rangers for damage.
Wizards have the interesting and useful ability to PERMANENTLY learn any spell ever.
Party "man this spell would sure be useful about now"
Wizard "give me a day and a scroll"
or
Party "oh look, we found a bunch of random scrolls"
Wizards "oh look, i can now cast them forever into the future"
Sorcerers "i could use them once each..."
again...just my two cents.
I don't let Sorc's write/read scrolls in my world, at least I had not in the 3.5 games. We are starting up a Pathfinder game tomorrow and might need to revisit this.
My take had always been that a Sorc just "has" their magic. They do not need any of the tomes or trappings that a Wizard might need. It's just an inate ability. I guess you could say a Sorc functions as a channel as much as anything so it's never made sense to me they could focus their magic in a way to capture it on a scroll.
On the flip side, I also don't require sorc's to use spell components. Yup, if a sorc wants to learn identify they can ID without the pearl, etc...
Just my take on the situation.
The only hang up my group and I had with the Wiz / Sor issue was the fact that a Wiz has so few spells to cast each day. So I basically kept scaling the Spells per day of the Mage up till they had 6 spells available as well per level. Now some may say that this makes a Wiz over powered but, when your wizard has to be ready for everything they might meet and want to overcome, this seems to help my group out and they love the rule.
The Sorcerer in the group has no issues with the rule as he lost nothing in the deal and the group feels more rounded out with the change.
The wizard likes the ruling because from his point of view: He has learned how to study, memorize and harness this power for years and he sees no reason why he's limited in his spells per day as written.
So far, not a game breaker but it increases the longevity of your group in the dungeon or field.
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
Using your analogy, I'd say Wizards are Engineers, Sorcerers are Poets.
I agree - to the wizard magic is a science, to the sorcerer it's an art.
That said, if I want the 'no magic rituals' style of magic, I use psionics. It's what it is, at the end of the day.
Wizards have 1 less spell per day per spell level on the even levels and on the odd levels have more spells per day than the sorcerer will have -- of higher level too -- with more versatility.
OOTS has a great view of how Wizards look at Sorcerers as lazy, dumbed down wanna-be Wizards. I've had a Wizard or two of mine have a similar attitude. Great fun.
Myself I will take Sorcerers over Wizards any day. It may pigeon-hole your purpose in the group but I would rather be a specialist than a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
So long as sorcerers are a level behind wizards in casting, there is no catching up. Then you add specialist wizards who now cast almost as many spells per day as sorcerer does - minus one at times[/i] - but does it better, at higher levels, and has more spells to choose from, you see the meat of the issue.
As for the power disparity, it comes down to what I call Ease of Power.
One class may be more powerful then another, but that only reflects in the hands of a skilled player - keep in mind, both wizards and sorcerers are significantly more "complex" then other classes. As such, class one might in fact be weaker then class 2 if NOT in the hands of a more skilled player.
In other words, on a scale of 1 to 10, one being a low amount of "how awesome the class is," 10 being a high amount:
Seasoned player, wizard: 10
Seasoned player, sorcerer: 8
New player, wizard: 4
New player, sorcerer: 6
Mind you, these numbers are purely arbitrary, and are being used to describe the existence of the disparity, not the length of it.
The Sorcerer, due to his higher cha, has a much easier chance with planer binding and charms, plus he makes much better use of leadership and UMD. Give him a day and he'll bring a small army down on your head.Myself I will take Sorcerers over Wizards any day. It may pigeon-hole your purpose in the group but I would rather be a specialist than a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.Except that's not true at all. The wizard is the jack of all trades who can go from one day to the next putting on a master's cap for a different trade.
On a general day sure he's your everyday 'handyman' the guy who's a decent plumber, carpenter, who can do some basic electrician work without frying himself, BUT
Given a day to prepare *cough*divination*cough*, or even just 15 minutes a Wizard can step out of 'handyman' and become pretty much whatever specialist contractor you need.
Meanwhile the Sorcerer is either a very good handyman all the time, or a single specialist all the time.
Cloudkill.
Welp, there goes that ;p
The Sorcerer, due to his higher cha, has a much easier chance with planer binding and charms, plus he makes much better use of leadership and UMD. Give him a day and he'll bring a small army down on your head.Myself I will take Sorcerers over Wizards any day. It may pigeon-hole your purpose in the group but I would rather be a specialist than a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.Except that's not true at all. The wizard is the jack of all trades who can go from one day to the next putting on a master's cap for a different trade.
On a general day sure he's your everyday 'handyman' the guy who's a decent plumber, carpenter, who can do some basic electrician work without frying himself, BUT
Given a day to prepare *cough*divination*cough*, or even just 15 minutes a Wizard can step out of 'handyman' and become pretty much whatever specialist contractor you need.
Meanwhile the Sorcerer is either a very good handyman all the time, or a single specialist all the time.
The wizard won't need UMD, and anyone can take leadership. If leadership makes a class that much better the power is in the feat not the class. What is stopping a wizard from getting a decent charisma?
Commoners with a high charisma can get a PC class as a cohort. If it gets a full caster as a cohort does it make the commoner better than rogue or any other PC class that can't deal with the particular caster?
|
Sure, the Wizard won't need UMD - if they don't want access to Cleric spells (such as the majority of bluffs and divinations). Oh wait, didn't you all say that the Wizard gets his most power after casting divinations?
Anyone can take leadership and most every class will suck at it - including the Wizard. Arguing that the class can take a feat that they'll suck at seems unconvincing.
"What is stopping the Wizard from getting a high charisma?". How many points do you think a Wizard should take from Int...
Who says the point have to come from int?!? You know there are like 4 other stats that can be sacrificed for charisma that isn't int.
|
|
Who says the point have to come from int?!? You know there are like 4 other stats that can be sacrificed for charisma that isn't int.
Sure, the Wizard won't need UMD - if they don't want access to Cleric spells (such as the majority of bluffs and divinations). Oh wait, didn't you all say that the Wizard gets his most power after casting divinations?
Anyone can take leadership and most every class will suck at it - including the Wizard. Arguing that the class can take a feat that they'll suck at seems unconvincing.
"What is stopping the Wizard from getting a high charisma?". How many points do you think a Wizard should take from Int...Okay, let's assume point buy. Which stars are you going to take from that the Sorcerer can't likewise take from?
Go ahead and show me this attribute spread you want to use (and the point buy cost) and I'll show you a more effective attribute spread for the sorcerer at the same cost - simply because the sorcerer won't have to deal with MAD.
The point isn't that the sorcerer can't dump stats too, the point is that you don't have to take one iota from int to raise charisma.
The Sorcerer, due to his higher cha, has a much easier chance with planer binding and charms, plus he makes much better use of leadership and UMD. Give him a day and he'll bring a small army down on your head.Myself I will take Sorcerers over Wizards any day. It may pigeon-hole your purpose in the group but I would rather be a specialist than a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.Except that's not true at all. The wizard is the jack of all trades who can go from one day to the next putting on a master's cap for a different trade.
On a general day sure he's your everyday 'handyman' the guy who's a decent plumber, carpenter, who can do some basic electrician work without frying himself, BUT
Given a day to prepare *cough*divination*cough*, or even just 15 minutes a Wizard can step out of 'handyman' and become pretty much whatever specialist contractor you need.
Meanwhile the Sorcerer is either a very good handyman all the time, or a single specialist all the time.
The wizard won't need UMD, and anyone can take leadership. If leadership makes a class that much better the power is in the feat not the class. What is stopping a wizard from getting a decent charisma?
Commoners with a high charisma can get a PC class as a cohort. If it gets a full caster as a cohort does it make the commoner better than rogue or any other PC class that can't deal with the particular caster?
Sure, the Wizard won't need UMD - if they don't want access to Cleric spells (such as the majority of bluffs and divinations). Oh wait, didn't you all say that the Wizard gets his most power after casting divinations?
Anyone can take leadership and most every class will suck at it - including the Wizard. Arguing that the class can take a feat that they'll suck at seems unconvincing.
"What is stopping the Wizard from getting a high charisma?". How many points do you think a Wizard should take from Int...
He only needs a +2 cha modifier to get a cohort that matters at level 10(aka 8th level cohort). See no sucking, and no dumping int, problem solved.
The wizard will need more than a +2 to their charisma because they are taking a -2 for their familiar.
ok, so he get a headband of charisma( i know that is not the real name). I am convinced the wizard can not buy a magic item to boost int and still be better than the sorcerer.
The sorcerer is hard pressed to have a spell for every situation. The wizard is not limited by spells known. The sorcerer might be able to handle a lot of situations, but it will cost more money. The sorcerer does not get to buy a scroll once and keep it forever, and they(as far as price) do add up.
|
Whereas the Sorcerer who takes the arcane bloodline can take the familiar and -still- have a higher leadership score than the Wizard. The Sorcerer could take the Improved familiar feat and get a familiar with thumbs, max out UMD, and get a cohort who'll stay home cranking out wands/scrolls (thus, no downtime needed to create these items). The sorcerer can give those wands/scrolls to the familiar to cast while the sorcerer cast other spells.
Because a "follower" of the Sorcerer is going to stay behind and play "Bob the Magical Builder". As an Apprentice, I might buy it, but I think he'd much rather be out with his Teacher/Mentor/Master learning at his side.
That's just me though, so maybe some GM's would let that slide as the player dips his cohort in the metaphorical "cheese pot".
Whereas the Sorcerer who takes the arcane bloodline can take the familiar and -still- have a higher leadership score than the Wizard. The Sorcerer could take the Improved familiar feat and get a familiar with thumbs, max out UMD, and get a cohort who'll stay home cranking out wands/scrolls (thus, no downtime needed to create these items). The sorcerer can give those wands/scrolls to the familiar to cast while the sorcerer cast other spells.The wizard will need more than a +2 to their charisma because they are taking a -2 for their familiar.If they didn't decide to take a staff or ring as their Arcane Bond. Not as fun as a Familiar, but still, some people do choose the item.
You still keep basing the power around leadership which has been shown to give the sorcerer no advantage at level 10. Remember the score only needs to be a 12 to get an 8th level cohort. Now the wizard's cohort is making items, the wizard is making item, and he still has feats for other stuff.
edit: UMD is a good skill, but if it rarely comes up then its wasted. I guess we now need to decide who will be in the party with the wizard or sorcerer. I normally only take it when we don't have a divine or arcane caster. You cant assume that because its a good skill it will be useful for that campaign, and if it is then the wizard takes a cohort with a good charisma and he gets to focus in it.
Whereas the Sorcerer who takes the arcane bloodline can take the familiar and -still- have a higher leadership score than the Wizard. The Sorcerer could take the Improved familiar feat and get a familiar with thumbs, max out UMD, and get a cohort who'll stay home cranking out wands/scrolls (thus, no downtime needed to create these items). The sorcerer can give those wands/scrolls to the familiar to cast while the sorcerer cast other spells.Because a "follower" of the Sorcerer is going to stay behind and play "Bob the Magical Builder". As an Apprentice, I might buy it, but I think he'd much rather be out with his Teacher/Mentor/Master learning at his side.
That's just me though, so maybe some GM's would let that slide as the player dips his cohort in the metaphorical "cheese pot".
I was about to get to that. He can stay home, but he might not be safe. Allowing cohorts to die drops leadership scores, and from an enemy point of viewing he is supplying you guys(the PC's) so he needs to die.
|
|
I was about to get to that. He can stay home, but he might not be safe. Allowing cohorts to die drops leadership scores, and from an enemy point of viewing he is supplying you guys(the PC's) so he needs to die.
Now imagine the sidequest that could be born from this if the Cohort somehow finds out about his impending assassination, gets a message to teh Sorcerer, and then goes into hiding until the Sorcer can either find him or kill the assassin looking for him!
The wizard will need more than a +2 to their charisma because they are taking a -2 for their familiar.ok, so he get a headband of charisma( i know that is not the real name). I am convinced the wizard can not buy a magic item to boost int and still be better than the sorcerer.
The sorcerer is hard pressed to have a spell for every situation. The wizard is not limited by spells known. The sorcerer might be able to handle a lot of situations, but it will cost more money. The sorcerer does not get to buy a scroll once and keep it forever, and they(as far as price) do add up.
So, he spends his money on a headband of charisma +2 insead of a headband of intellect +2. I don't consider that a good trade off for a wizard, but if you do..
The point remains that the opportunity cost for the headband of charisma +2 isn't as great for the sorcerer as it is for the wizard (who is giving up everything from increased spell DCs to a familiar (and potential improved familiar)).Congratulations, to even come close to making your point, you had to make your wizard suck.
Not taking a +2 to int does not make the wizard suck. The fact that I can ignore the +2 to my primary stat and still keep up, at worst, with the sorcerer shows which class is really ahead.
LT I have seen you post, and while we don't always agree I think your are pretty smart. The only reason I think you can't have the wizard have a "good enough" cohort is because you are not trying.
Since the wizard is already better than the sorcerer his backup could be worse and he can still be as affective.
Certainly the Sorcerer should keep his cohort safe. It's far safer to keep the cohort in the city rather than trudging through dragon caves. Not every cohort will want to be trudging through dungeons. The relationship between the PC and cohort could be similar to 007 and. QI was about to get to that. He can stay home, but he might not be safe. Allowing cohorts to die drops leadership scores, and from an enemy point of viewing he is supplying you guys(the PC's) so he needs to die.Whereas the Sorcerer who takes the arcane bloodline can take the familiar and -still- have a higher leadership score than the Wizard. The Sorcerer could take the Improved familiar feat and get a familiar with thumbs, max out UMD, and get a cohort who'll stay home cranking out wands/scrolls (thus, no downtime needed to create these items). The sorcerer can give those wands/scrolls to the familiar to cast while the sorcerer cast other spells.Because a "follower" of the Sorcerer is going to stay behind and play "Bob the Magical Builder". As an Apprentice, I might buy it, but I think he'd much rather be out with his Teacher/Mentor/Master learning at his side.
That's just me though, so maybe some GM's would let that slide as the player dips his cohort in the metaphorical "cheese pot".
I think being with a bodyguard is safer than being alone, at least in D&D/Pathfinder anyway.
Headband of Mental Superiority.
Wizards and sorcerers can both easily afford it do to how few other magic items they need.
Your entire argument seems to be based on "Well, sorcerers have +3 to UMD."
+3 UMD doesn't beat "having a full level of spells higher," much less all the other benefits wizards get.
|
|
Then your point is irrelevant because what we were discussing is the fact that leadership is a bad feat choice for a wizard, but not a sorcerer. Your argument that you can make leadership be at least minimally acceptable for a wizard. (though not anywhere near as good a feat choice as it is for a sorcerer) if you make every other stat suck just supports my point.[
The point isn't that the sorcerer can't dump stats too, the point is that you don't have to take one iota from int to raise charisma.
How is having a wizard that starts with 18 int and say 16 charisma make leadership a bad feat? At the HIGEST level, the difference in leadership score due to charisma will be a grand total of +6 for the sorcerer (+5 level up stats and +5 tomes...the wizard can get tomes too, but that is REALLY expensive so you generally only tome up one stat, which gives +5...and +1 difference at the start = +6). At lower levels, the difference is gonna be 1-3 points. So no, you can take leadership with a wizard JUST fine. In fact you can take leadership with ANYONE just fine as long as you don't need your charisma as a dump stat (like say a fighter/wizard using 15-20 point buy...monk at 15-20 point buy...you get the idea).
Headband of Mental Superiority.
Wizards and sorcerers can both easily afford it do to how few other magic items they need.
Your entire argument seems to be based on "Well, sorcerers have +3 to UMD."
+3 UMD doesn't beat "having a full level of spells higher," much less all the other benefits wizards get.
You forgot about the leadership argument. ;)
A wizard has the feats and spell versatility to easily compensate for the extra level 1-3 followers and higher level cohort a sorcerer is gaining from having a higher charisma.
Yes it's nice that a Sorcerer's prime stat compliments the Leadership feat, but the feat's synergy with the class isn't really going to make-or-break any direct comparison of power.
The Sorcerer can have a cohort one or two levels higher (remember that the maximum level of a cohort is your character level -2) and easily two or three times as many 1st - 3rd level followers. That's enough manpower to establish an adventuring guild, trading company etc
..but really, any half-respectable campaign rival is going to turn those followers and the cohort into mulch very quickly.
The wizard, while lacking the numbers of followers and suffering from a slightly lower level cohort, has the extra feats to spend on golem and magical item creation as well as the spell versatility to properly fortify any defenses/base of operations, creating a place of safety for his followers.