Meatrace, ColdNapalm, I understand, but please stop the baiting, we're finally getting some decent debating going on, don't stoke the flames again, please.
Wizards have a lot of options, but they must make those choices far in advance. Sorcerers, arguably, have fewer options**, but they can make their choices at the last possible moment.
Sorcerers make their choice when they level, much further in advance than Wizards.
*Despite what you might think a divination can do, what it actually -can- do is often very limited. The most commonly regarded divination is scrying which isn't even available to a Wizard or Sorcerer until level 7th level and is far from fool proof
True dat. And if you use one of the more versatile ones you are likely to surprise your DM and get poor info.
Sorcerers make their choice in the round that they cast their spell - assuming they selected their spells intelligently so as to have spells which are usable in the widest number of situationsOkay your sorcerer needs to do some damage... how?
Your sorcerer is facing something immune to mind effecting spells and needs to do something useful in combat.. what?
Neither of these seems to far out of line.
And that's before we get to the 79% of the time when you try to save a PC that fails as opposed to the bard always being able to activate a wand of cure light wounds.
-James
Why does the sorcerer need to do damage? Normally an Arcane caster shouldn't be doing damage, so this character wasn't designed to do it. But if he needs to, give him a wand of magic missile.
Immune to mind affecting spells? Need to do something offensive? Grease and blindness can both be spammed.
You said spells for a variety of situations. Being able to throw out a damaging spell is ONE SITUATION. You can't cover it. It comes up often. Therefore you fail hardf!&$ingcore.
Oh, you get a wand of magic missile? (which btw is crap for the price, since a CL1 wand will only do 1d4+1, its one much more effective to cast as a spell) then the wizard gets a wand of Silent Image. now he can do it 50 times a day if he needs to. My god, you keep giving horrible examples of where a sorcerer might be good EXCEPT EVERY EXAMPLE IS SOMETHING A WIZARD CAN DO!
You fail to prove any of your assertions, and you fail at your comprehension of the rules to which you claim to abide. Which you don't, because you're still working on far out assumptions and player created content. Assumptions, might I add, like having a bard in the party which completely obviate the need for your sorcerer.
Your sorcerer is an utter waste of space, and would be better replaced by a bard or a wizard or, heck, a commoner with Skill Focus (UMD) and a good charisma!
|
My current DM likes to throw hordes of much lower level enemies at us at one time, and if my character hadn't banned evocation (3.5 game, i'm a diviner), I'd be chucking fireballs like there's no tomorrow, as that would be the most efficient way of dealing with them.
However, my party is appreciating me for the fact that I can turn most of our enemies into allies. Though, when we have to deal with a horde of constructs, then my character is almost useless. And in our game, it happens often.
The only spell that i can think of, that i do use, is vampiric touch. Though, I use that for the temp hp. That's always nice =)
My point is, even in certain situations, a direct damage spell would be useful. I certainly would enjoy being able to cast a fireball or two.
|
This thread may as well be about politics or religion... or abortion so you can combine the two. No one is convincing anyone and no one will.
There are situations when you'd rather have a Sorcerer in the party. There are situations when you'd rather have a Wizard. Which situation is more common is entirely up to the game's GM so it is entirely not worth debating.
Now go out and enjoy your day.
|
|
My hope in this thread was for it to be a place where we could discuss ideas on the relative merits of the two classes and, hence, comparative strategies of running each class. To some extent, the thread has been informative and worthwhile. As is common on the Internet, there are trolls in this thread who are less interested in discussing the topic and more interested in discussing other posters, but I've been making a point of ignoring them. I think the thread would be better if we all made a point of ignoring them.
Which is why I usually just lurk. I've been here since Beta (with a different account... Hard drive failure + switching ISP's and, thus, email addys + relying on my browser to remember my password = DOH!) and I've posted less than 10 times... maybe less than 5, even.
I've picked out the trolls (which, if nothing else, made the thread useful). Even if they weren't here, I don't think anyone is making any progress convincing anyone that either class is any better or worse than they had assumed when the thread started. Everyone's opinion is based very much on what they experience in their games.
I've been DM'ing since 1978. I've had the same group of players since 1986. They know I love using undead. I, personally, find them to be the scariest, creepiest foes. My players will, as a result, have a different opinion as to what are the most useful abilities than someone who plays in a game with a DM that loves using demons or devils.
chases an animated pot and kettle through the thread
Agreed, the ability to take off the gloves and go "OH, F you buddy!" and pull a nuke out of your loincloth and throw it at the enemy can be a great tide-turner.
May I suggest, in regards to the constructs, trading in a spell or getting yourself a Rod of Boomshakalakaboomboom (CN Saurian-Wizard's Rod of Lightning Bolts), or something similar? Alternatively, Rock to Mud can be great for downing nominally 'unstoppable' enemies, either turning the ground under their feet into a instant bog to slow them down or causing the ceiling to collapse and either bury them (if medium size or bigger) or treat the terrain as difficult (if large size or bigger).
That, I think, is another 'weakness' (as such) in the Sorcerer in that a limited spell selection can make them completely ineffective against specific enemies and/or encounters. And I use the term 'weakness' with trepidation as any Player Character without access to the right spell, feat or item could be in the same boat, the Sorcerer just seems ... more so when compared to the Wizard. Again, it's a minor, niggling difference but it can grow to a big obstacle if the Sorcerer doesn't choose the right spell or have the wit to use their spells in ways that can overcome targets.
Using J.Beardsley problems, say the party is faced with an Iron Golemn, and the Sorcerer has access to Rock to Mud and Mud to Rock spells. Sorcerer can cast Rock to Mud, bury the Golemn in a few tonnes of clay and mud, then cast Mud to Rock and trap the Golemn in Sandstone, not exactly a permanent solution but by the time the Golemn makes enough Strength-Checks to break out enough mud to fill a 30-foot square prison of stone encasing it completely, the PCs can have looted the Wizard's tower, stolen all his stuff, stuck his toothbrush down the lavatory before putting it back in place and be a few miles away.
Simply 'blasting' away at the Golemn wouldn't achieve very much, and the Sorcerer might simply waste his spell-slots, although hammering it with a simple lightning spell would slow it down long enough for the Sorcerer in question to use the above tactic, but at the same point the Sorcerer would also need a Knowledge (Arcana) check to know some of the Golemn's weaknesses or she's just going to stand there screaming profanities and throwing fireballs to no affect as the Golemn just ignores nearly every spell she throws at it.
|
HalfOrc, to respond to your scenario, a weakness in the Wizard is the limited spell selection that they have when an encounter actually happens. In your scenario, you are assuming that the Wizard will both have spells to deal with the Golum in his spellbook, and have them prepared when they enter the evil Wizard's tower. If you say that he knows because of divinations, than that just shows that the evil Wizard is pretty ridiculously unprepared, to have not warded the tower against divinations.
Oh, and by the way....
Smurf
Smurf
Smurf
Smurf
Smurf
Smurf
Smurf
HalfOrc, to respond to your scenario, a weakness in the Wizard is the limited spell selection that they have when an encounter actually happens. In your scenario, you are assuming that the Wizard will both have spells to deal with the Golum in his spellbook, and have them prepared when they enter the evil Wizard's tower. If you say that he knows because of divinations, than that just shows that the evil Wizard is pretty ridiculously unprepared, to have not warded the tower against divinations.
*picks up the Smurf and tosses it into a wire-mesh-reinforced cage* Gargamel's still kicking, right?
And yes, the Wizard is just as screwed (Please note I did mention this in the post you quoted, m'kay?), if not more so by his lack of weapon proficiencies, low BAB and Hit-Points and lack of 'Spam' abilities, as any other PC in that situation, just it's more likely the Wizard will have both the Spells Known and the Knowledge Skills to overcome the challenges. That said, a Sorcerer who can think outside the box in challenging ways can stump an unwitting DM who does not do the same, and just because a Sorcerer might have only one or two ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) doesn't mean a lucky roll won't net him the results anyways, or he'll just use common sense and a smidge of strategy. Fireball not doing much against the Golemn? Disintergrate the ground from under it and watch a several hundred pounds of animated iron go crashing through the floor(s) and take falling damage, possibly crippling it if not outright killing it. They do have Nil Intelligence, after all, we're not talking some strategy genius. They're effectively 'walk up and slam you in the face until I can breath poison on your party' enemies.
A Wizard, on the other hand, is rewarded by scribing as many different scrolls as they can, so in theory and with a little investment of time and resources, the Wizard can effectively pull out any number of magic-spell combos, wherein a Sorcerer going along this route must pay full price, again, another small, niggling difference that can build up over time. As has been mentioned before, the ability to basically have just about every spell on your spell list at your fingertips is a powerful tool, and the inbuilt feat to craft your own scrolls means that a Wizard who can set aside some gold and some time when at camp can easily keep his supply of 'insurance' scrolls from depleting too quickly, and the lack of TPK because of an ill-thought Spell Selection that morning is 20,000 gold in diamonds the Party's henchman won't have to stump up to ressurect everybody.
edit: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been smurfed! Smurfetted! Noooooo! Give me back my dignity! *sobs quietly in the corner*
|
Meatrace, ColdNapalm, I understand, but please stop the baiting, we're finally getting some decent debating going on, don't stoke the flames again, please.
Oh that was mild...LT basically called all the CO of the US armed corp idiots...so I am very rightly pissed right now. Hell one of my airborne ranger buddies saw that post and I had to hold him back from ruining my monitor...that is how offesnive that message was to anyone who has gone through CO training. LT completely missed the point of that quote.
I get you, I really do, but LT has responded to each and every post, polite or otherwise, with what could basically be described as 'hostile intent' when challenged on his (her?) position.
All you'll get from beating your head against that Wall of Iron is a concussion. Stop trying, he'll (she'll?) just keep feeding off the flames. Besides, every time LT tries to make a point he (she?) simply point out another fallacy within the Sorcerer Class and helps move the thread along towards helping with balance issues and how not to build a Sorcerer.
|
|
Instead of argung over whether it's a poor build of a Sorcerer or not, show me what you think a well written Sorcerer should look like. Then, we'll have something solid on which to debate.I didn't think that we were arguing that it was a poor build.. I thought that was agreed upon by one and all.
Or do you honestly think that what you put forth was a 'kick-ass' sorcerer build? I can't imagine that's the case, is it?
-James
Oh I think LT thought his sorcerer was kick ass...note the comment about people calling it scary effective?
Your right though, building a good sorcerer needs WAY more system mastery then a wizard. Same thing with fighter. Many people say fighters are newbie friendly...that is SO wrong. Fighters need quite a bit of system mastery to make good ones as well...and the bad ones BAD...just like sorcerers :) .
And something else you mentioned was the variance in GM style and GM difficulty. That is also true. You can have the GM make wizards nigh useless. That doesn't mean the wizard is a weak class. However since we can't account for all that variance we need to use a default...and that default is a party of 4 in an AP run as written. And once again with that parameter, LT's sorcerer is increadable poorly made with shoving a lot of the needed skills to other party members...and he's not even a full on face in exhange for that shafting of the other party members.
|
|
This thread may as well be about politics or religion... or abortion so you can combine the two. No one is convincing anyone and no one will.
There are situations when you'd rather have a Sorcerer in the party. There are situations when you'd rather have a Wizard. Which situation is more common is entirely up to the game's GM so it is entirely not worth debating.
Now go out and enjoy your day.
Oh, and SMURF
|
|
However since we can't account for all that variance we need to use a default...and that default is a party of 4 in an AP run as written.A decently built sorcerer is an effective character.
Likewise is a decently built wizard.
Given either though, in general for a small party the wizard is going to be the better fit.
Most other character classes cannot bring the knowledges to the table that a wizard can. A bard can do a reasonable facsimile in pathfinder, but that's about it.
A sorcerer's moderate face ability via skills however is readily duplicated, most soundly by the aforementioned bard, but other classes handle face skills as well or better than the sorcerer.
Between the two the wizard delivers better once a day utility and buffing casting that a sorcerer simply cannot afford to do via spells known.
The modicum of flexibility that spontaneous casting allows over the breadth of prepared casting does not begin to circumvent these issues, if anything it's already a wash. Throw in things like arcane bond, leaving slots open, and then venture into feats & items outside of core and the sorcerer is left behind in the dust.
That's not to say that a sorcerer cannot be done very well and be very effective. It is to say that a wizard fills his place in the party more smoothly and in more needed areas.
-James
And I completely agree with you :) .
I offered an alternative sorcerer build to yours way back at the beginning of the thread. You dismissed it because you said it was too combat focused.
Oh, and smurf!
I offered an alternative sorcerer build to yours way back at the beginning of the thread. You dismissed it because you said it was too combat focused.
Oh, and smurf!
I didn't dismiss it. I said it's value was dependent on what type of campaign you play.
If you play a game which is all "knock down door, kill, loot corpses", your sorcerer is probably superior. I don't play in such games though.
|
|
I do note that, when asked to build an alternative sorcerer, it was argued that a better one could not be built without knowing what other characters are in the party. Yet, without knowing what other characters are in the part, the very same people who weaseled out of defending their criticism, are convinced that the sorcerer build I presented is subpar. I wouldn't call that hypocritical, per se, but certainly it has a big enough logic hole to drive a Mac truck through.
Nobody is weasling out of anything...your asking for people who disagree with you to argue your point...which is pretty dumb as they don't agree with you in the first place. So basically keep ignoring people who disagree with you...you'll just end up losing this thread as you ignore everyone one by one.
Well, this is a Sorcerer I made up with a 'tactical' build in mind - please note that although I vastly prefer 'Boomstick Sorcerers', I tried to make one that could cover many areas without being helpless toward others. The result is a 'jack-of-all-trades' Sorcerer who I believe could be interesting to play and effective in many situations.
...of course, for how much any 5th-level character could be able to face many different situations.
Human Sorcerer 5° Fey Bloodline (15 points)
Str 8
Dex 14
Con 13
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 18 (20 with Headband)
Initiative +6, Perception +0 (+10 while drinking Elixir, see below)
Feats (4 + bonus feat)
Imp. Initiative
Skill Focus (Use Magic Device)
Iron Will
Combat Casting
* Eschew Materials
Skills (20 ranks + 5 ranks Favored Class) *if using APG, (20 ranks + 3 ranks Favored Class)
Spellcraft (5) +9
Knowledge (arcana) (2) +6
Knowledge (nature) (2) +6
Bluff (5) +13
Diplomacy (3) +8
Intimidate (3) +11 *if using APG, Intimidate (1) +9
Use Magic Device (5) +16
hp 5d6 + 5 (average (6 + 3.5 x4 + Con x5) 25 )
Languages: Common, Sylvan
Fort +2 Ref +3 Will +6
BaB +2 CMB +1 CMD 13
AC 12, T 12, FF 10 (Shield and Mage Armor *and if using APG Protection from Evil not included)
Special:
Bloodline Power (+2 DC on Compulsion subschool spells, already included)
Laughing Touch (8/day, melee touch +1, no save)
Woodland Stride
Spells/day: at will/8/5
Spells Known:
0: Acid Splash, Daze (DC 17), Detect Magic, Dancing Lights, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand
1: * Entangle (DC 16), Color Spray (DC 16), Charm Person (DC 18), Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement (DC 16) *if using APG add Grease (DC 16), Prot. Evil
2: * Hideous Laughter (DC 19), Glitterdust (DC 17), Mirror Image
Possessions:
Headband Cha +2 (4000)
Cloak Protection +1 (1000)
Hat of Disguise (1800)
Wand Mage Armor (750)
Wand Cure Light Wounds (750) [roll 4+ on d20 to use]
Wand Shield (750)
Wand Obscuring Mist (750)
Elixir of Vision (250)
Potion Invisibility (300)
3 Potions Cure Light Wounds (50 x 3)
Some considerations:
1) I build the Sorcerer both with Core only and with the preview of the upcoming APG in mind; in the latter case, I switched 2 Skill points gained from Favored class with 2 extra 1st-level spells.
2) As I already said, I am not particularily fond of some spells (Illusion is not my preferred school especially the various XXX Image spells), and I vastly prefer to learn some damage spells somehow (just to 'feel the dice'), however for these Sorcerer I decided to stick on a balanced approach (some mind-affecting spells, some defence spells, some debuff spells, and the canonic Magic Missile spell). For defence, I used magic items - a Wand of Mage Armor gives +4 AC for 1 hour with a single charge; Shield is more for avoiding Magic Missile spells, since it lasts only 1 minute if cast by a Wand, but in case of a tough fight, Mirror Image and Shield on top of Mage Armor (and eventually Protection from Evil) would bump up the defence quite a bit (AC 20 or 22 plus 1d4+1 images).
3) Although splitting skill points is not always the best idea, I pumped up a couple of skills and decided to give some skill points to the basic Knowledge skills of the Sorcerer (arcana and the Bloodline nature skill) just to reflect a basic knowledge of exotic topics. I raised Spellcraft more because I believe that any full-casting class should know the tools of the trade at least above average. Obviously some people would disagree with this. Even with the minimal invest of 1 skill point (if using the APG preview rules), Intimidate can rise to a +9 thanks to the Class Skill bonus and the high Charisma. And I pumped UMD as much as I could, just to minimize the fumble effects.
I think the big difference in our builds is our different bloodlines. My big gain was the Familiar (and the enhanced Sense Motive, Perception, and other associated abilities). You chose Fey. Was that primarily for the +2 DC to Compulsion?
Fey is one of the Bloodlines I appreciate the most, for a lot of factors: the Bloodline power (+2 to compulsion is a huge boost; on top of that, if you really have to cast a Charm spell in combat - which gives a +5 to the Save of the victim - this evens it out a bit), some bonus spells (especially Hideous Laughter, Mislead, Irresistible Dance, and Shapechange), Laughing Touch (no save), Fleeting Glance (Greater Invisibility for Sorcerer level/rounds per day) and Fey Magic (being able to reroll for SR is good). However I admit that Arcane Bloodline is really potent (especially Metamagic Adept and New Arcana).
I note that you chose Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) as skills. I see little value in doing so and a huge opportunity cost for doing so, but it's a difference of opinion. At the end of the day, though, it's going to come down to who the other party members are and what kind of campaign the GM is running.
I always try to make my characters 'self-sufficient' as much as possible - being able to know the tools of the trade (albeit not in a scholarly way like a Wizard) is always useful. Spellcraft for identifying magic items (via Detect Magic or higher spells) and spells being cast (to formulate better tactics on the fly). However, I recently noticed that the Knowledge Arcana skill has become more important in Pathfinder, especially to identify lingering effects of spells being already cast and whose effects are already in place (in 3.5 this was folded in the Spellcraft skill). So maybe I should spread the skill points among those two skills a little.
You took Diplomacy. In my opinion, that's double dipping (I see little value in taking both Intimidate and Diplomacy) and at the expense of taking skills I consider more valuable (Perception and/or Sense Motive).
You are right, but as you can see I minimized the impact on the Intimidate skill (1 skill rank only, just to benefit from the +3 Class bonus, if taking the extra spells as Favored Class bonuses). It's true however that a character specialized in a single field can be really more effective. And yes, Sense Motive and Perception were high on my list for very long - but sadly I had to forfeit something. However, the more I think about it, the more I believe that I should remove one of this skills and give at least some ranks to Perception (just to avoid being ambushed - the Elixir lasts only 1 hour, after all). As much as I would like to build a self-sufficient character, some skills are best left to more specialized characters (Sense Motive for Divine, for example, being Wis based). I bluff the enemy, my partners determine if the enemy is trying to bluff me.
The action economy of the Shield spell has never really impressed me.
Shield is better as a known spell, since the duration is higher, on this I agree with you. On the other hand, once known, its usefulness stays for the whole career (Mage Armor can be bested by Bracers of Armor, at higher levels - a Shield bonus however is always good, AND the spell also absorbs Magic Missiles).
Wraith, I like your sorcerer.
Minor points:
1) you get +2 to activate wands you have used before. That means you only need to roll a 2 , not a 4, once you've blown a charge.
I would actually take the shield spell rather than a wand. Shield in a wand isn't that useful; it only lasts a minute at level 1 and you have to retrieve the wand, so you blown a whole round getting a bonus that only lasts 10 rounds. Pluse, it will be super easy to dispel.
Ken
I think the +2 you are referring to is only for Activating Blindly - the UMD skill doesn't mention any +2 on Wands used more than once, but it says 'You get a +2 bonus on your UMD check if you've activated the item in question at least once before' referring to Activate Blindly (which has normally a higher DC, 25 instead of 20 for Wands).
Shield would be definitely the last 1st-level spell this Sorcerer would take at 7th-level - sadly, as a Sorcerer, I had to renounce to something (well, 'last' if we don't consider the mysterious feat Jason Bulmahn mentioned here speaking of the APG...).
And for people who say that the Sorcerer favored class bonus is equivalent to 20 feats (Extra spell), I would like to point out that the feat was not 3.5 Core but from a splatbook. Some people could know it, some people would allow it, but for those without the book (or with a GM who would not allow it), the ability is not worth 20 feats - since there are NO such feats.Unless I put a similar feat into this book.. one that was better than the relatively poor Extra Spell feat. Not saying anything.. just moving along...
...action to attack someone if they cast a spell, and I cannot perceive that they are casting a spell, then I will continue waiting.+1
Thiiisssss
-1. I already handled a situation like this on the previous page from an example LT gave.
PS: I have not had internet access for a few days.
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying.This is a circular arguement.
By RAW, no tangible evidence that a condition has been met is required for a readied action to go off.
Therefore, by RAW, you can ready an attack for when a person lies or when the person thinks something evil - just like you can, by RAW, attack someone who does something else which you have no tangible evidence for (such as casting a spell which you can't see, hear, sense any material components of, and aren't being targetted by).Realistically, though, using a readied action to detect lies, detect evil, or detect spell casting isn't going to be acceptable by most GMs.
How is it a circular argument? If this has been brought up in my absence feel free to ignore this question.
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying.This is a circular arguement.
By RAW, no tangible evidence that a condition has been met is required for a readied action to go off.
Therefore, by RAW, you can ready an attack for when a person lies or when the person thinks something evil - just like you can, by RAW, attack someone who does something else which you have no tangible evidence for (such as casting a spell which you can't see, hear, sense any material components of, and aren't being targetted by).Realistically, though, using a readied action to detect lies, detect evil, or detect spell casting isn't going to be acceptable by most GMs.
Again, please point to the rule, as written saying that a stilled silenced spell does not set off the readied action of "He's casting a spell." I can find no such rule, but I can site the 3.5 ruling that actions can be readied against psionic powers which by default are stilled and silenced.
Anything else, is RAMT.
I was just about to point that out, thanks.
Regardless, as I said, it's not even core.
The FAQ which I quoted earlier(and you agreed with) list SLA's, psionics abilities, and stilled silenced spells all as purely mental actions. If you can ready against psionics by the rules then you can ready against the other two. Psionics not being core does not discredit that fact that it is an official rule, and fits hand in hand with the argument. There is also no rule against readying against SLA's which there would be if mental actions were an exception to the rule.
Why should you get an additional benefit because you took both feats? Maybe the designers thought it was not balanced to have them give you an extra benefit?
For the record, as per the SRD,
"Identify Spell Being Cast: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
Note that the wording is "must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast", -not- "must be able to clearly see the spell caster as the spell is being cast".
It raises the question as to whether a spell which has nothing to see (still), nothing to hear (silent), and no components (eschewed), can be seen at all.
Identifying a spell, and knowing one is being cast are not the same thing.