1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
My answers would be:
1. Sorcerer - with no time to prepare, his ability to access full repertoire of spells on the fly is vital.
I differ on this one. A diviner Wizard could prevent or mitigate the suprise. Heck given a bit of luck and a good initiative roll the encounter could end in the suprise round.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.2. Wizard - given the time to prepare, and the likelihood of overcoming magical effects, magical traps, and finally magical combat. I like the wizard's larger spell list and ability to cast higher level spells at half the PC experience levels.
Hmmm I differ here as well. I suspect I am in error but I would want a Sorcerer able to cast a whole pack of Dispel/Greater Dispel Magic spells. I see this as opposing a foes weakness rather than contending with their strength.
3-5 I see favoring neither caster, But like I said, I'm most likely wrong.
~will
Without something to compare the Wizard to, there's nothing to be gained by providing a Wizard example.
But if I do a write up of a Sorcerer to compare the Wizard to, I'm certain that LT will reply "You stacked the deck by not optimizing the Sorcerer correctly". To avoid that, it just makes sense for you to create the sorcerer to compare to.
C WUT I DID THAR...
Without something to compare the Sorcerer to, there's nothing to be gained by providing a Sorcerer example.
But if I do a write up of a Wizard to compare the Sorcerer to, I'm certain that many people in this thread will reply "You stacked the deck by not optimizing the Wizard correctly". To avoid that, it just makes sense for one of you to create the wizard to compare to.
Wizards and Sorcerers are not my stick but on THIS thread Ravingdork posted some characters. One of them is a 15th level wizard, now I dont believe he is fully optimized and built more to a theme. But it should serve are a starting point to build build your sorcerer.
I am enjoying this thread and didnt want it to end.
I have a better question.
@LilithsThrall
Are you opposed to the Sorcerer getting some kind of bump in power? Like, removing the delay in spell levels, or having the bloodline spells come early, etc?
The only reason I say that the Sorcerer is lagging behind is because I feel it deserves a boot in power, not because I want to tell people to stop playing the Sorcerer or whatever reason you might think.
Basically, are you saying the Sorcerer is strong enough that it couldn't work out having access to the same power level of magic at the same levels as all the other full casters?
1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
My answers would be:
1. Sorcerer - with no time to prepare, his ability to access full repertoire of spells on the fly is vital.
I differ on this one. A diviner Wizard could prevent or mitigate the suprise. Heck given a bit of luck and a good initiative roll the encounter could end in the suprise round.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.2. Wizard - given the time to prepare, and the likelihood of overcoming magical effects, magical traps, and finally magical combat. I like the wizard's larger spell list and ability to cast higher level spells at half the PC experience levels.
Hmmm I differ here as well. I suspect I am in error but I would want a Sorcerer able to cast a whole pack of Dispel/Greater Dispel Magic spells. I see this as opposing a foes weakness rather than contending with their strength.
3-5 I see favoring neither caster, But like I said, I'm most likely wrong.
~will
Ain't no right or wrong. Just honest differences of opinion. A couple of you have brought up the diviner specialist wizard as being able to negate surprise encounters, which I have to admit had not occurred to me. I'm going to have to look more closely at this specialist to see if I need to reexamine my basic assumptions. It's a good point that an ambush avoided or a trap sprung prematurely is likely an encounter overcome.
I haven't seen too many players who really want to go the diviner route, though, given the heavy influence of combat in the game. I don't have my rulebooks handy, but I think the schools a diviner has to give up contain a lot of the best (or at least the most obvious) combat spells. Not sure I'd want my only arcane caster to be a diviner, unless we really didn't need the combat help. In a larger group with more than one arcane caster, I can definitely see it being very powerful in the sense of making a huge contribution to the party's success.
I don't now if this has been mentioned yet, but the sorcerer has an important advantage in high levels: Quicken spell. A 14 level sorcerer can quicken any 1st-3rd level spell he knows, while a wizard has to choose which quickened spells to prepare in advance.
I really don't think that the wizards advantage is that he has prepared spells instead of spontaneous casting, but that he gets access to higher level spells quicker. So in every odd level he is more powerful than the sorcerer while in every even level their power is about the same.
That said in pathfinder the gap between the two classes has closed dramatically (and I would dare say totally disappeared).
Ain't no right or wrong. Just honest differences of opinion. A couple of you have brought up the diviner specialist wizard as being able to negate surprise encounters, which I have to admit had not occurred to me. I'm going to have to look more closely at this specialist to see if I need to reexamine my basic assumptions. It's a good point that an ambush avoided or a trap sprung prematurely is likely an encounter overcome.I haven't seen too many players who really want to go the diviner route, though, given the heavy influence of combat in the game. I don't have my rulebooks handy, but I think the schools a diviner has to give up contain a lot of the best (or at least the most obvious) combat spells. Not sure...
I'm playing a Diviner 6/ Rouge 1 at the moment. It's working pretty well. You get to choose which schools are forbidden just like any other specialist. I choose necromancy and enchantment because I hate save or die and we have an undead type sorcerer in the party who is good at necromancy.
The initiative bonus has made the difference in several fights. I generally go first and toss out something like grease/glitterdust to bolix the baddies. Mind you now that we have a Inquisitor who can ride my coattails I may just start dropping buffs and trying to avoid the flying limbs.~will
I definitely think there should be some rule changes. For example, the leadership table should be rewritten so as to more strongly favor characters with high charisma. I believe cohorts should be limited to progressing no higher than the character's effective leadership score allows (rather than up to two levels lower than the character's level) and that the effective leadership score of all characters should take something like a -4 to -6 modifier for determining the cohort's level.
I'd like to see characters with high charisma have their max magic item gold piece value be increased.
I don't think that would be a good change to the Leadership feat. Its already the most powerful feat in the game. If you tailor it to make it something only certain classes can benefit from then the power swing in those classes would upset the previous balence of the game. Bards, Paladin, Summoners, and Sorcerers would all get a huge power boost. And then they would have to rework classes again. If you think Sorcerers should get a "special" rule for cohorts, that would be different but the Leadership feat as is does not need to be changed.
Is there a reason why high charisma characters should get max magic item gold piece value increased? I can see the point if you have skills like Appraise and Diplomacy for chance of something little extra. But once again this is something you want for a certain stat, I don't think just cause your charisma is higher should get get default bonuses. Once again, if you think Sorcerers should get more starting magic items thats one thing. Also, you need to have a reason for it.
1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.
3. The party must defend a small village from assault by a horde of humanoids, including some tougher guys and minor spellcasters. They have some limited time to prepare.
4. The party is about to enter a huge and unexplored tomb complex, where unknown dangers await. The expedition will likely take several days at least and require sleeping inside the complex.
5. The party must penetrate an ancient sage's abandoned sanctum sanctorum. It is not only laden with traps, but contains a wide variety of puzzles and intellectual challenges that will test the parties ingenuity and knowledge.
1)Diviner wizard for sure. Depends on level I suppose. At level 9 or above a diviner will be able to teleport himself and allies out of harms way. Or throw up something like Wall of Stone or Ice to protect the party. Also, while the Wizard might have expected no combat that day (a wizard ALWAYS expects the unexpected :P) he will have relevant scrolls which he scribes while they travel.
2)Wizard. He scries on the evil wizard, does research on his lair and his personality, finds out what kind of spells/tactics he prefers, prepares the right spells, and teleports in. Cheap I know, no one likes scry and fry but it's your hypothetical not mine!3)Wizard. He knows exactly who these humanoids are and everything about them. He takes 15 minutes or half an hour to prep some illusion spells, tells the village their weaknesses, and posts illusory guards at all village entrances. He flies, invisible, among the horde of humanoids and lobs a fireball here, a confusion here, and soundly routs the horde singlehandedly.
4)Well if you have to sleep in the tomb you had better have things like Rope Trick. Also Shrink Item may come in handy to haul away loot. If you don't know what will be down there, you could send an Arcane Eye into particularly dangerous locales, and with your Knowledge skills be able to know which is the path of least resistance. These are all things the Wizard excels at.
5)Wizard. You said puzzles and that's a wizard's favorite pasttime.
I know. Rather one-sided, but as I've said I play a wizard much like LT plays a sorcerer but with stronger spell versatility, knowledge, and class features.
I definitely think there should be some rule changes. For example, the leadership table should be rewritten so as to more strongly favor characters with high charisma.
Personally, I think a Reputation system needs to be integrated into the game, and THAT should have an effect on leadership. Mind you, I also think that INT and WIS should have bearing on Leadership scores - people who are intelligent, wise and charismatic will be the best leaders; anyone who dumps any one of the three is IMO going to be lacking in the Leadership department.
I believe cohorts should be limited to progressing no higher than the character's effective leadership score allows (rather than up to two levels lower than the character's level) and that the effective leadership score of all characters should take something like a -4 to -6 modifier for determining the cohort's level.
This would make cohorts totally useless for most characters - including anyone with a medium Charisma (12-14), which puts them head and shoulders above the common man. I see no good reason to even have the current table for cohort levels - make cohorts 2 levels below the character and be done with it (I'm not even sold on your Cohort not being able to level past this glass ceiling, but I can accept it for balance's sake). I could see a high Charisma character having more than one Cohort, though it'd probably be hard to balance.
What's really needed is a point based system where you can allocate cohort points to determine their potential. This could include things like stat arrays, starting equipment and level cap (and could allow for multiple cohorts if you had the score for it). This would allow higher Leadership scores to actually be meaningful beyond just hordes of squishy followers.
I'd like to see characters with high charisma have their max magic item gold piece value be increased.
Lost me there. Because they're good at negotiating for prices? If that were the case, use overall Diplomacy score.
I'd like to see Perform have guidelines so that where it states, "in time, you may draw attention from .. extraplanar beings", we know what that means, functionally, and how to use it in the game.
Terribly irked that Clerics, of all people, don't get Perform. Religion and music have gone hand in hand basically forever, and street preachers are often just another kind of performer.
I'd like to see the Sorcerer get Perform, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy and get +2 skill points per level.
I'm of the opinion that 4/level should've always been the minimum. However, Pathfinder did a good job of rolling skills together. The sorcerer just didn't benefit from it :-/ That said, cross-class skills DO NOT SUCK in Pathfinder. Losing the +3 bonus (a 15% difference) is NO obstacle to character design/conception.
This, together with the changes to Perform mentioned earlier, will allow for the slinky dressed oil-slathered cultist Sorceress to conjure up a powerful extraplanar entity by ritualistically, ecstatically writhing and dancing and gyrating - think any of a number of Conan stories.
I'm not a Conan scholar (heh), but IIRC almost all spellcasting types were basically book oriented, even the nubile female types. Books of forbidden knowledge and all that rot. All the writhing around was just the Somatic components :D
None of this is because I think the Sorcerer is weak, but because I believe it will open up more role playing possibiliites.
The sorcerer isn't weak at all - no primary caster class is considered weak by, well, anybody, really.
While I certainly don't believe the Sorcerer is a weak class, charisma based core classes (Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers) are often rated as among the weakest classes in the game. If you believe they should be so rated, what's wrong with giving them a power swing upwards?
I don't think you correctly read what I wrote? Not once have I mentioned that those classes are the weakest classes in the game. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that leadership is an extremely powerful feat, some even think it borders on broken. And you want to make it exclusive to Charisma base classes? It would completely upset the balance of the game. I understand that your favorite class is the sorcerer, and you feel there are things it should have that it does not. I completely understand that. Its common for people to feel that way about their favorite classes. I wanted to know if there was a reason why you think sorcerers should get the things you mentioned earlier in the thread.
In an attempt to salvage a deteriorating thread (and might I suggest some of you pause from your posting now and again to get some sleep, you're getting testy), let me rephrase the original intent with some specific questions, since it should be abundantly obvious that people will continue to disagree with each other about the merits of a sorcerer vs. a wizard. Let's look at some classic situations, and give our opinions as to which they would prefer to have with their party for each situation. I would be surprised if anyone can honestly say sorcerer or wizard straight across the board.
1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.
3. The party must defend a small village from assault by a horde of humanoids, including some tougher guys and minor spellcasters. They have some limited time to prepare.
4. The party is about to enter a huge and unexplored tomb complex, where unknown dangers await. The expedition will likely take several days at least and require sleeping inside the complex.
5. The party must penetrate an ancient sage's abandoned sanctum sanctorum. It is not only laden with traps, but contains a wide variety of puzzles and intellectual challenges that will test the parties ingenuity and knowledge...
My first thought when I looked at this list of scenarios (no, second thought; the first thought was, 'Yay! Cool scenarios!) was that I wished I knew what level my sorcerer and a comparable wizard would be at in each one. Because the lower my Sorcerer level, the more that even my spontaneous access to all my spells-known will avail me fairly little - because I won't know very many spells at all. (Spontaneous choice...! of almost no choices...?)
The middler to higher my level, the more the balance tips in my favor, I think, when it comes to tough challenges involving lots and lots of enemies and unforeseen circumstances. (Not so much in the Plan Assault Like Clockwork scenarios; those go to the Wizard every time). My reason is not that I get *more* spells per day. I think it's already been well established that sorcerers having more castings is largely a myth. But because I can decide on the fly what's worth trying more than once. And not just to spam for greater effect, but to try again, if the first attempt should fail. If a spell fails to take effect, we all lose a spell slot. The sorcerer, so long as he's had enough levels to accumulate a decent number of choices, doesn't have to predict ahead of time which spells he can repeat. Which is handy whenever you have enemies with unknown numbers and unknown properties. (But not nearly as good when you want to spy out the fortress, plan something complicated, and then carry out the plan systematically).
Anyway, I think this is going to be the thing I keep reminding myself, whenever I feel depressed about my Sorcerer getting coal from Santa, when the Wizard gets a bike with a bell. (I am hyperbolizing the disparity to maximum, LOL, because I overestimate the effectiveness of my sense of humor, but despite my love of the Sorcerer - esp. the fun of bloodlines - I do think the Wizard is more powerful and much luckier when it comes to resources he can use to augment his powers). Maybe you don't have to be able to do some one thing that absolutely no other class can do, if the slightly-redundant things you can do can be combined to good effect. Not having to decide at prep time how many times you want to attempt something in a single day is a very modest advantage, but it is something from which the team may often benefit.
I said that the sorcerer is often rated among the weakest character classes in the game.
To be fair, if you glance at the "lets rate the classes again" thread, and the various other threads out there that talked about the Tiers, the Sorcerer always rated as just below he other pure casters.
Also, Bard was always considered quite powerful (although not to everyone's tastes), and the Paladin has been considered extremely strong since the Smite upgrade in Pathfinder.
I'm not sure where this sentiment you speak of is coming from.
The only "weakest class in the game" I've heard of since Pathfinder's release is the Barbarian (a little, not everyone is saying it), and the Monk (who has only a few holdouts thinking it's mechanically great).
Arthur had a cohort (Lancelot), but Arthur could easily be seen as a Paladin.
I realize it's so OT but, Lancelot ran off with Arthur's wife. Maybe he was Guinevere's cohort?
Sorry for the nit-pick.
Without something to compare the Sorcerer to, there's nothing to be gained by providing a Sorcerer example.
But if I do a write up of a Wizard to compare the Sorcerer to, I'm certain that many people in this thread will reply "You stacked the deck by not optimizing the Wizard correctly". To avoid that, it just makes sense for one of you to create the wizard to compare to.
Let me join Stéphane Le Roux. Here's a first level, fresh out the gate.
He is a Universalist. He is Human. 15 point build. He's often been seen in the company a largish black cat.
Str: 10; Dex: 13; Con: 12; Int: 16; Wis: 12; Cha: 10
Hp: 8; AC: 12
FORTITUDE +1; REFLEX +1; WILL+3
Feats: Improved Unarmed Strike, Dodge. (He used to get beat up by the big kids.)
Trait: Bullied & Hedge Mage (From trying to fix those way cool magic books.)
Knowledge (arcana) +7
Perception +2
Sense Motive +2
Spellcraft +7
Stealth +5
And leadership depends heavily on charisma in the real world.
More like money. Bill Gates isn't winning any charisma awards, and he's running a rather large company with lots of minions. Heck, he doesn't even really run it anymore, but they're still his minions.
Stephen Hawking isn't surrounded by an army of followers. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Robert Patinson, none of these people have a reputation for genius, but they all have a multitude of followers - they are (or were) extremely charismatic.
Yeah, watch some interviews with some of these folks. Not exactly inspiring. But they have money and fame, and people are greedy and egotistical. How many people would take a bullet for these folks? That's what Cohorts and Followers are willing to do, BTW.
What does charisma measure? As per the SRD, "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance". What does "ability to lead" have to do with leadership? I think the answer to that question is kind of obvious.
Charisma does heavily affect leadership. At the level you get it (7th), your CHA bonus (let's say you're CHA 20 at 1st level) can well be nearly 42% of your score (+5 of +12). That's huge. You will ALWAYS recruit a cohort of maximum possible level. At 16th level (CHA 24, +7, no book bonuses), you'll have a follower score of at least 23 and a skillion followers (okay, 110 followers) - and your CHA score is still 30% of your score. At maximum possible CHA and level (30 and 20), CHA bonus becomes 50% of your score (+10 CHA + level 20) before other factors.
So a CHA dedicated character's Charisma is going to be somewhere between 30-50% of his Leadership score. That's pretty darn significant - huge, actually.
|
Not once have I mentioned that those classes are the weakest classes in the game. Please don't put words in my mouth.I didn't say you did. I said that the sorcerer is often rated among the weakest character classes in the game.
And leadership depends heavily on charisma in the real world. Stephen Hawking isn't surrounded by an army of followers. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Robert Patinson, none of these people have a reputation for genius, but they all have a multitude of followers - they are (or were) extremely charismatic.
What does charisma measure? As per the SRD, "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance". What does "ability to lead" have to do with leadership? I think the answer to that question is kind of obvious.
Bwahaha...I have no idea where you got the idea that people think the sorcerer or paladin is weak. In fact there are many MANY treads of paladin is broke OMG. So your very wrong on that count.
As for leadership, leadership doesn´t mean having a bunch of flunkies and fans, it means actually LEADING. Think president of the USA. Now think of the ones who we consider to be bad...think they maybe lacking in the wisdom and intelligence department a bit? Leadership is not I´m a rockstar, it´s I´m the mayor/governor/president. You NEED int and wisdom to do those properly.
While I certainly don't believe the Sorcerer is a weak class, charisma based core classes (Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers) are often rated as among the weakest classes in the game. If you believe they should be so rated, what's wrong with giving them a power swing upwards?I don't think that would be a good change to the Leadership feat. Its already the most powerful feat in the game. If you tailor it to make it something only certain classes can benefit from then the power swing in those classes would upset the previous balence of the game. Bards, Paladin, Summoners, and Sorcerers would all get a huge power boost. And then they would have to rework classes again. If you think Sorcerers should get a "special" rule for cohorts, that would be different but the Leadership feat as is does not need to be changed.
Is there a reason why high charisma characters should get max magic item gold piece value increased? I can see the point if you have skills like Appraise and Diplomacy for chance of something little extra. But once again this is something you want for a certain stat, I don't think just cause your charisma is higher should get get default bonuses. Once again, if you think Sorcerers should get more starting magic items thats one thing. Also, you need to have a reason for it.
I have never seen a sorcerer or paladin called weak by anyone who knew what they were talking about.
Not once have I mentioned that those classes are the weakest classes in the game. Please don't put words in my mouth.I didn't say you did. I said that the sorcerer is often rated among the weakest character classes in the game.
And leadership depends heavily on charisma in the real world. Stephen Hawking isn't surrounded by an army of followers. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Robert Patinson, none of these people have a reputation for genius, but they all have a multitude of followers - they are (or were) extremely charismatic.
What does charisma measure? As per the SRD, "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance". What does "ability to lead" have to do with leadership? I think the answer to that question is kind of obvious.
Most famous entertainers have followers. If Stephen Hawkings started acting he would have a fan club too. It is like I said before popularity brings followers.
2 cents regarding Leadership:
A good bard can boost your fame, an army of bards can make you a legend in your own time.
...however, all they're doing is increasing awareness of a subject/empasising associations with the subject - i.e creating a character.
So, a famous rockstar everyone loves... well, is it them that is famous *or* is it the brand/idea that the bards have made you aware of, repeatedly, that is famous?
i.e - it's not the subject but your associations with the subject.
Marketing! Brand names! People can be brand names just easily as carbonated soft drinks and both are equally viable products that benefit from advertising..
..so be nice to bards, ok?
Ok?!?!
OT: This thread went AWOL.. o_o
You'd think that, yes, if your campaign world treats both the same then a direct power-2-power argument could be healthy but...
..well, really, how many campaigns do this? It'd be a crime!
..while Sorcerers are the ones that have a natural gift and who don't need the existing network of organised learning and as such are hunted by the wizard establishment. It's much harder to stop them learning how to blow up innocent people/control them.
Wizards require books, research, study - all of these need other people, require civilization. (to simply build the library, to make the books, to write the papers that provide a platform for learning etc)
Sorcerers are much more self sufficient and do not need to rely on the trappings of civilization - which is why so many non-civilized monsterous races have sorcerers rather than wizards.
Yep, most famous entertainers have followers. And the difference between being a famous entertainer and somebody stuck doing late, late night movies is often charisma.Most famous entertainers have followers. If Stephen Hawkings started acting he would have a fan club too. It is like I said before popularity brings followers.Not once have I mentioned that those classes are the weakest classes in the game. Please don't put words in my mouth.I didn't say you did. I said that the sorcerer is often rated among the weakest character classes in the game.
And leadership depends heavily on charisma in the real world. Stephen Hawking isn't surrounded by an army of followers. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Robert Patinson, none of these people have a reputation for genius, but they all have a multitude of followers - they are (or were) extremely charismatic.
What does charisma measure? As per the SRD, "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance". What does "ability to lead" have to do with leadership? I think the answer to that question is kind of obvious.
The difference between being a famous entertainer and somebody stuck doing late is.. are... just might be...
...THE BARDS!1!1
....um yes o_o
Personally I'd argue that a good leader would need:
The intelligence to know what to say,
The wisdom to know when to say it,
..and the charisma to make you believe them.
Without intelligence, wisdom and charisma you won't get very far.*
''If you can't say what you mean then you can't mean what you say.''
*Unless you have the Str, BAB and HPs to destroy anything that opposes your iron-fisted reign of terror...
|
This is just a comparison of spells/day at each level. I'm adding bonus spells from casting stats, and assuming a casting stat of 30 which I feel is reasonable for a 20th lvl character. I'm imagining both towards having the most spells possible per day. I won't be separating sources out beyond those I'm listing up front. Additionally, I removed cantrips from the wizards count since the two classes handle them somewhat differently.
Wizard Sources:
Arcane Bond - One spell
Arcane School Specialization Bonus - One spell per level, excluding cantrips
Sorcerer Sources:
Bloodline - Arcane Bond - One spell
Both:
Ability modifier bonuses
----------Sorcerer-----Wizard
Level------Spells------Spells
1-------------7----------6
2-------------8----------7
3-------------9----------12
4-------------16---------14
5-------------17--------18
6-------------23---------20
7-------------24---------25
8-------------31---------27
9-------------33---------32
10------------39---------34
11------------41---------38
12------------47---------41
13------------49---------45
14------------54---------49
15------------56---------51
16------------61---------53
17------------63---------57
18------------68---------59
19------------70---------61
20------------72---------63
So, as you can see, there are three levels where the spell-focused wizard actually has more spells per day than the sorcerer. He also has higher level spells to cast at those levels as well.
By level 20, the sorcerer can cast 9 more spells per day than the wizard. But that's much greater than the difference we saw in spells per day in 3.5.
Comparatively, in 3.5 the sorcerer at 20 would have - ignoring cantrips again - 65. The wizard would have 53, or 62 with specialization. Though losing two categories of spells entirely, he'd only be 3 short of the sorcerer.
Spells per day - Sorcerer wins *excepting three levels*
Spells Known - Wizard *though he has to pay for them, he can have more*
Skills - Wizard *since usability of any given skill is very dm subjective, we can instead evaluate on skill points instead*
Feats - Wizard (four vs three bonus feats)
No downtime - Sorcerer
Some downtime - Wizard
Easy access to magical items - Wizard *since that dang pearl of power, almost negligible over 20 levels but worth mentioning*
Difficult access to magical items - Sorcerer *not affected by scarcity of scroll access for new spells*
Bloodline powers/specialization power - Sorcerer *more and more varied/useful. Wizard gets three specials, sorcerer gets 6- 5 powers and 1 arcana*
On-the-spot flexibility - Sorcerer
Long-term flexibility - Wizard
Class-based Costs - Sorcerer *no cost for spells means more gold*
Spell Level - Wizard *unfortunately, it is true that sorcerers lag a level behind*
Prestige Class-ability - Wizard *more skills and feats for prerequisites, earlier access to spells for prerequisites*
So, I think the wizard pulls ahead. The biggest power discrepancy between the two classes is the caster level. Otherwise, they're mostly comparable. While the sorcerer can metamagic on the fly, he has to increase the casting time. Standard action spells go up to full-round casting times. Anything longer than a standard action moves it to two full-round casting times. Quicken spell being the exception. The wizard has to prepare metamagics before time, but doesn't have to increase the casting time.
-----Side note here. This might mean that a sorcerer who casts a still and silent spell would have to spend two full rounds to cast it. Thoughts on this?
I think that in any build, the factors balance out against each other, up to casting level. The slower progression of sorcerer spell access means that 50% of the time, the wizard will have higher level spells to use, and the other 50% of the time, have more spell selection for that level.
All in all, I think that the sorcerer could do with one of two things before I would consider it equal to a wizard *although the sorcerer is very playable as is*. Either removing the difference between the two classes for spell levels, or boosting the sorcerer spells/day by a total of 4-6. This way, the sorcerer wouldn't ever be embarrassed by having fewer spells/day than the wizard :P
30% of your score. At maximum possible CHA and level (30 and 20), CHA bonus becomes 50% of your score (+10 CHA + level 20) before other factors.
So a CHA dedicated character's Charisma is going to be somewhere between 30-50% of his Leadership score. That's pretty darn significant - huge, actually.
Correction: At level 20, your potential CHA bonus will be 33% of your score. Whoopsie. :-o
|
|
Hmmm...
3.5
sorcerer would have
17 spells from ability modifier
+6+6+6+6+6+6+6+6+6 spells
= 71
3.5
Wizard would have
17 spells from ability modifier
+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4 spells
+9 specialization
= 53 or 62 with specialization
Comparing my 3.5 to my pathfinder -
*scratches head*
That darn page crease, messing up my counting. Yup, missed the ninth lvl 6 spells on the sorcerer. Well, better that than the comparison chart.
At least that paragraph wasn't terribly relevant :P
Yep, most famous entertainers have followers. And the difference between being a famous entertainer and somebody stuck doing late, late night movies is often charisma.Most famous entertainers have followers. If Stephen Hawkings started acting he would have a fan club too. It is like I said before popularity brings followers.Not once have I mentioned that those classes are the weakest classes in the game. Please don't put words in my mouth.I didn't say you did. I said that the sorcerer is often rated among the weakest character classes in the game.
And leadership depends heavily on charisma in the real world. Stephen Hawking isn't surrounded by an army of followers. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Robert Patinson, none of these people have a reputation for genius, but they all have a multitude of followers - they are (or were) extremely charismatic.
What does charisma measure? As per the SRD, "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance". What does "ability to lead" have to do with leadership? I think the answer to that question is kind of obvious.
If I can sing and you can sing the difference is who has the better songwriter. I have never seen a singer(decent) sing a song correctly and get booed off stage. Their manager and his ability to secure a contract due to his charisma is also a factor. You as the singer only need to be able to sing, maybe dance, and remember a few lines.
edit: Tim Duncan who shows no emotion on the court, does not give great interviews, and is considered a boring basketball player to watch has a great number of fans. Nobody will ever tell you Tim has charisma.
|
|
Personally, I prefer the sorcerer in every way.
Not having to be reliant on a spellbook + being able to cast whatever is in my arsenal (however small) + the customization via arcane bloodlines makes the sorcerer my "go-to" class for arcane spellcasting EVERY time.
Just my opinion.
However, a friend of mine loves wizards, and would rather play a character based on INT rather than a character based on CHA.
I don't think there is a "better." Depends on the player, depends on the GM, depends on the campaign, etc.
Just because they draw from the same list doesn't mean we should compare them.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I may use another medium as a reference…
Wizards are Batman, Sorcerers are Captain America.
Almost any advantage the Sorcerer has can be negated by the Wizard given time. Need a high charisma boost? Either craft the item or research an improved Eagle’s splendor (the later, the Sorcerer can't do). Know you’re facing a Sorcerer? Research an arcane version of Ego Whip, or use all those knowleges to summon a pack of Lahamu. OTOH, a Sorcerer ambushing a Wizard has the advantage.
In a party, the Sorcerer or the Wizard take the 'arcanist slot' This means the Sorcerer is going to be lacking in 'Wizardly duties' including Knowleges, Appraise, etc. Yes, the other classes may pick up the slack, but then you're taking their resources, so you'll need to make up for it in other ways.
To play a 'dedicated summoner' you're going to need Knowlege(planes), and likely Knowlege(Arcana) to know what you're looking for, and to know how to bind them. If we take Lillith'sThrall's Bluff and UMD, that's 4 skills. I'd assume you'd want Spellcraft as well.
Helic, I appreciate the effort you made in running these numbers. But, I think you unintentionally glossed over something rather important - actually two things rather important. For determining the level of the cohort, for characters who are charisma based, only a small fraction of charisma is actually used. The max level of a new cohort is two levels less than the character. Characters with high charisma will be getting a cohort which is significantly lower than their effective leadership score allows. So, they only use a small fraction of their charisma in determining their cohort level.
OK I see where you're coming from on this argument. Leadership (AFAIK) was designed to give you a 5th level cohort at 7th level, unless you dump Charisma. There's a good reason for this, too - at the lowest levels, the differences between levels is much larger. Compare the differences between a 5th and 7th level character and a 15th and 17th level character. If people who took the feat at 7th level didn't get a 5th level cohort, the feat would be pretty useless.
Anyways, cohorts will quickly level to the max regardless of overall Leadership score - it's just a matter of how coddled they have to be in the meantime. That's why I suggested that cohorts should just start out 2 levels below you regardless - because in effect, that's what happens.
And while you might not agree with the logic (fair enough), Leadership doesn't have a CHA requirement, which I actually find strange. I 'think' it's because Leadership is the go-to feat for shoring up a party's glaring weakness. For example, got a party of 3 fighters and a wizard? Somebody take a cohort rogue to find traps. Leadership is often rated as THE most powerful feat, but the way it's built, it seems to be designed for the purpose of minimizing a group's weaknesses. The fact that it can make a strong character much stronger is almost a by-product (and why lots of GMs disallow it).
Anyway, let's run the math again and see what pours out.
Assumptions: Charisma based character. Starts with CHA 20 and boosts CHA exclusively, gaining CHA 22 @8th and CHA 24 @ 16th. I'll leave out stat books because they're so variable (when and how much) and items b/c they don't offer permanent boosts (you'll take them off sooner or later). You don't get Leadership until 7th level.
Level 7, +5 CHA = Ld 12, max cohort = 8th (+3 overkill)
Level 8, +6 CHA = Ld 14, max cohort = 10th (+4 overkill)
Level 9, +6 CHA = Ld 15, max cohort = 10th (+3 overkill)
Level 10, +6 CHA = Ld 16, max cohort = 11th (+3 overkill)
Level 11, +6 CHA = Ld 17, max cohort = 12th (+3 overkill)
Level 12, +6 CHA = Ld 18, max cohort = 12th (+2 overkill)
Level 13, +6 CHA = Ld 19, max cohort = 13th (+2 overkill)
Level 14, +6 CHA = Ld 20, max cohort = 14th (+2 overkill)
Level 15, +6 CHA = Ld 21, max cohort = 15th (+2 overkill)
Level 16, +7 CHA = Ld 23, max cohort = 16th (+2 overkill)
Level 17, +7 CHA = Ld 24, max cohort = 17th (+2 overkill)
Level 18, +7 CHA = Ld 25, max cohort = 17th (+1 overkill)
<math stops here, as a score about 25 is pointless>
Okay, so you're basically as much CHA as possible. At it's worst you're wasting 4 points of your bonus, but as you level you are wasting less and less of it. If you're a sorcerer with a familiar (popular choice), the difference almost goes away.
And this is the top-end case. Many CHA characters will start with 18 or even 16 (depending on point buy); in these cases the 'overkill' is reduced.
Now, of course other modifiers come into play, but negative modifiers are a lot easier to come by (familiar, diff align, deaths) for cohorts than bonuses (special power, fair/generous, great renown). The higher CHA allows the character to soak SOME penalties while still attracting maximum level cohorts. Other, non-CHA characters, have no such luxury. An 18th level wizard with +0 CHA and a familiar attracts an 11th level cohort. An 18th level sorcerer with +7 CHA and a familiar attracts a 16th level cohort (the maximium). Big difference.
|
|
The problem is not the raw number of slots, but the number of powerful slots. And only at odd level. Because the advance in spell level give you one high-level slot, and also add one high-level bonus slot from specialization, and one high-level level bonus slot from high ability score.For example, at level 9, do you really think that the larger number of level 1 and 2 slots of the sorcerer can compare with the larger number of level 3-4-5 slots for the wizard ?
That's the whole problem of the "one level late" of the sorcerer: it make the increased number of slot essentially an illusion, for almost half of the levels.
Yep, that's why I called it spells per day, and had a separate entry for spell level. And I also pointed out the lag effect :D
Wow, late to this party, but just wanted to say re: the OP's comment about the sorcerer's spell list and if it should be different than the wizards:
The way I see it, the sorcerer's magic is innate, but as he learns to shape that magic, he can learn to mimic the tricks wizards do like Identify and Permanency.
For me, the difference is the source of magic--for sorcerers, it's from themselves, and for wizards, they learn out to siphon magic around them using their formulaes. But the expression is similiar, the power once shaped looks very much the same.
That said, I will certainly let bloodline influence my sorcerer's chosen spell list to a degree--a red draconic bloodline sorcerer might have a lot of fire spells for example. But I don't think you need a whole new spell list to do that.
That said, it would be interesting to see a separate spell list for sorcerers; I think the hard part would be to somehow make sure it somehow suits all bloodlines, or have a different list suit all bloodlines, and that might be more work than necessary. Would be cool to see though.
I don't think - and certainly hope against - anyone has called sorcerers one of the weakest classes in the game.
Yes, they aren't as good as wizards. They're still a full caster. The sorcerer is at infinity, the wizard is infinity +40, or something. The sorcerer has only a few nuclear bombs while the wizard is a nuclear bomb golem, but they're still atom bombs.
As for paladin, he's the most powerful of the melee classes.
As for trying to use leadership to equate to real life, plenty of people without charisma have fan clubs. Hell, nobody that was involved in the Twilight movies could act their way out of a paper bag, and people LOVE them.
I don't think - and certainly hope against - anyone has called sorcerers one of the weakest classes in the game.
Yes, they aren't as good as wizards. They're still a full caster. The sorcerer is at infinity, the wizard is infinity +40, or something. The sorcerer has only a few nuclear bombs while the wizard is a nuclear bomb golem, but they're still atom bombs.
As for paladin, he's the most powerful of the melee classes.
As for trying to use leadership to equate to real life, plenty of people without charisma have fan clubs. Hell, nobody that was involved in the Twilight movies could act their way out of a paper bag, and people LOVE them.
I'd probably put Sorcerer at #3 or #4 of the base classes, behind wizard cleric and tossup between them and druid.
It would be interesting to see Sorcerers being able to cast spells from other spell-casting lists at one level higher than normal, ie a Sorcerer could learn, as one of their Spells Known, Desecrate as a 3rd level spell or Entangle as a 2nd level spell. Maybe even 2 levels higher, in the case of some of the more potent spells.
Throw them the ability to toss Cure/Inflict spells could be troublesome, but the ability to basically 'break down' the 'walls' between spellcasting lists since their power is innate, not derived from studious application of arcane formula or the whims of distant Gods, the Sorcerer could, with a bit of knowledge and some sheer willpower, learn to cast spells from a wide range of sources.
This theory, however, holds the problem of that the Sorcerer must already make sure they have certain 'must have' spells on their lists for utility, defence, offence and battlefield control (or variations of), adding even more spell-choices to the list could risk the Sorcerer watering down their abilities even further, and they would still be arcane casters, meaning that most scrolls of Divine Spells still would require a UMD check.
|
|
I don't think - and certainly hope against - anyone has called sorcerers one of the weakest classes in the game.
Yes, they aren't as good as wizards. They're still a full caster. The sorcerer is at infinity, the wizard is infinity +40, or something. The sorcerer has only a few nuclear bombs while the wizard is a nuclear bomb golem, but they're still atom bombs.
As for paladin, he's the most powerful of the melee classes.
As for trying to use leadership to equate to real life, plenty of people without charisma have fan clubs. Hell, nobody that was involved in the Twilight movies could act their way out of a paper bag, and people LOVE them.
I dunno about that. Maybe they're all incredible actors, and they're just performing as the director requires. I remember hearing the guy who plays the boyfriend vampire talking about a fight scene. He said the director kept telling him to make his snarl look beautiful. :p
I'd probably put Sorcerer at #3 or #4 of the base classes, behind wizard cleric and tossup between them and druid.I don't think - and certainly hope against - anyone has called sorcerers one of the weakest classes in the game.
Yes, they aren't as good as wizards. They're still a full caster. The sorcerer is at infinity, the wizard is infinity +40, or something. The sorcerer has only a few nuclear bombs while the wizard is a nuclear bomb golem, but they're still atom bombs.
As for paladin, he's the most powerful of the melee classes.
As for trying to use leadership to equate to real life, plenty of people without charisma have fan clubs. Hell, nobody that was involved in the Twilight movies could act their way out of a paper bag, and people LOVE them.
Yes. I would say,
#1 Wizard
#2 Cleric
Then for #3 and #4. Druid from level 1-11 Gets #3, and Sorcerer #4. Once you get to Mid-High levels, the sorcerer goes to #3 and druid #4
Trying to rate things on a pure 1:1 scale is a bad move, I think. The reason I prefer tiers is because it allows classes to be rated in "power" while at the same time letting you group them together.