Two of my players and very good friends of mine, whose opinions I value greatly and would never call "munchkiners," have recently come to the conclusion that they'd like to see a group house rule that Sorcerers (and Orcales, subsequently) get spell progression at the same rate as Wizards. We're not talking about changing spells known or per day necessarily - just ensuring that spontaneous casters get 3rd level spells at 5th level, instead of 6th.
I'd like to state that I'm entirely objective in this matter. I play spontaneous casters far more than other casters, but I'm also currently GMing our Kingmaker campaign which has two sorcerers in it. I'm simply consulting you wonderful people to see what your knowledgeable opinions are, as my ultimate goal here is allowing my friends to have fun playing while keeping the game relatively balanced.
So. Does this make Wizards and Clerics inferior, or does their overall versatility still make you feel okay about this? Please elaborate and let me know.
Two of my players and very good friends of mine, whose opinions I value greatly and would never call "munchkiners," have recently come to the conclusion that they'd like to see a group house rule that Sorcerers (and Orcales, subsequently) get spell progression at the same rate as Wizards. We're not talking about changing spells known or per day necessarily - just ensuring that spontaneous casters get 3rd level spells at 5th level, instead of 6th.
I'd like to state that I'm entirely objective in this matter. I play spontaneous casters far more than other casters, but I'm also currently GMing our Kingmaker campaign which has two sorcerers in it. I'm simply consulting you wonderful people to see what your knowledgeable opinions are, as my ultimate goal here is allowing my friends to have fun playing while keeping the game relatively balanced.
So. Does this make Wizards and Clerics inferior, or does their overall versatility still make you feel okay about this? Please elaborate and let me know.
I would not go for it, the slower progression is a counter the larger amount of spells sorcerers and oracles receive. It would also make some combinations like sorcerer/oracle/mystic theurge very strong since they both run off charisma. Wizard has its own merits with its specialty schools in conjunction with the much more versatile arcane spell list. It is not the same with cleric versus fast spell progression oracle. I find that a battle, flame, knowledge, or life oracle is already better than a cleric, coupled with a fast spell progression I would not play a cleric in that case. The divine spell list is somewhat weak the down side for spell slots is not as bad compared to arcane and the higher level divine spell list is so thin a cleric and oracle will pretty much have the same spells.
Remember too spontaneous spell casters maximum spells cap out at 6 where prepare are at 4. The ability for my 8th level oracle to heal is pretty substantial with 8 1st level, 7 2nd level, 6 3rd level, and 4 4th level spells. The same can be said of an evocation sorcerer who is just pumping out one damage spell after another and getting those spells at the same progression as a wizard could be annoying if you also have a wizard in the party.
Two of my players and very good friends of mine, whose opinions I value greatly and would never call "munchkiners," have recently come to the conclusion that they'd like to see a group house rule that Sorcerers (and Orcales, subsequently) get spell progression at the same rate as Wizards. We're not talking about changing spells known or per day necessarily - just ensuring that spontaneous casters get 3rd level spells at 5th level, instead of 6th.
I'd like to state that I'm entirely objective in this matter. I play spontaneous casters far more than other casters, but I'm also currently GMing our Kingmaker campaign which has two sorcerers in it. I'm simply consulting you wonderful people to see what your knowledgeable opinions are, as my ultimate goal here is allowing my friends to have fun playing while keeping the game relatively balanced.
So. Does this make Wizards and Clerics inferior, or does their overall versatility still make you feel okay about this? Please elaborate and let me know.
The sorcerer is strong enough as it is. The only thing I do for sorcerers is not make metamagic feats take a full round action. It is not a wizard, but that could be said for any class.
If there are no wizards or clerics in the group, then..
give it a shot. See how it goes.
if it turns out that its too powerful then you know not to do it again. I personally do not see it being over-powered (due to the extremely limited spell selection). I think it is just one of those hold-over things from 3.0 when they thought "omg spontaneous is the uber"
-S
The slower spell progression of the sorcerer reflects his instinctive access to the arcane arts.
Not being an academician, diligently researching in libraries for years like his cousin the wizard, he doesn't progress as fast in his spells.
In the old time, in previous editions, he might have used a slower experience table than the wizard's, but now he just get his spells slower.
However, a more academic sorcerer (like a "guild sorcerer") would deserve the same progression as the wizard.
And he could still remain a spontaneous caster, being considered as a prodigy by his brothers.
The slower spell progression of the sorcerer reflects his instinctive access to the arcane arts.
Not being an academician, diligently researching in libraries for years like his cousin the wizard, he doesn't progress as fast in his spells.In the old time, in previous editions, he might have used a slower experience table than the wizard's, but now he just get his spells slower.
However, a more academic sorcerer (like a "guild sorcerer") would deserve the same progression as the wizard.
And he could still remain a spontaneous caster, being considered as a prodigy by his brothers.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. How does having magic in your blood, and that being your focus, somehow make you learn slower than the people with no magic in their blood who have to try to copycat you with books and bat dung?
I say go for it. This is the single biggest disappointment I had with Pathfinder - until sorcs get their spells known at the same level, they are and will remain significantly weaker than wizards.
And the more spells per day thing? Currently, wizards are almost equal at every level (specialist wizards here, but most are), but some of those spells are higher level slots, which are much more valuable. Not to mention the other bonuses. Skill points? Wizards win. Skill range? Wizards win again. Want to craft things? Go to the wizard. Need an obscure spell for something? Yep, wizard again - sorcs can't afford to take situational spells. Not to mention that wizards can scribe scrolls of their spells (feat's free after all) if they're afraid of running out, while a sorc has to buy scrolls of situational spells, which costs double.
As an alternative you could give them access to the spell LEVEL at the same rate, but no new known spells. So for that extra level they would be casting lower level spells... or meta magic versions that fill that level.
|
And the more spells per day thing? Currently, wizards are almost equal at every level (specialist wizards here, but most are), but some of those spells are higher level slots, which are much more valuable. Not to mention the other bonuses. Skill points? Wizards win. Skill range? Wizards win again. Want to craft things? Go to the wizard. Need an obscure spell for something? Yep, wizard again - sorcs can't afford to take situational spells. Not to mention that wizards can scribe scrolls of their spells (feat's free after all) if they're afraid of running out, while a sorc has to buy scrolls of situational spells, which costs double.
I agree with allowing sorcerers to use the wizard advancement table as long as you don't have any wizards in your group. I would suggest that you disallow the human favored class ability to learn extra spells.
We've been running for like three months in my current game with sorcerers/oracles effectively gaining spellcasting as if they were a level higher (so they gain access to new spells at the same rate as wizards and clerics). No issues to report so far. Game includes both a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, and oracle.
Give it a shot. Worst case you can pop it back - but I don't think it will come to that.
An alternative that we have considered....is allowing Sorcerers to cast bloodline spells at the same equivalent level as Wizards, but leaving the rest as is.
To me this makes sense in regards to the whole "magic in the blood" feel that spontaneous casters are supposed to have, but keeps the balance.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. How does having magic in your blood, and that being your focus, somehow make you learn slower than the people with no magic in their blood who have to try to copycat you with books and bat dung?The slower spell progression of the sorcerer reflects his instinctive access to the arcane arts.
Not being an academician, diligently researching in libraries for years like his cousin the wizard, he doesn't progress as fast in his spells.In the old time, in previous editions, he might have used a slower experience table than the wizard's, but now he just get his spells slower.
However, a more academic sorcerer (like a "guild sorcerer") would deserve the same progression as the wizard.
And he could still remain a spontaneous caster, being considered as a prodigy by his brothers.
I always looked at it that Wizards are the ones being copycatted by Sorcs. From an in game perspective, Wizards have -earned- their magic through hard work and dedication... Sorcs just get their magic for free with no actual effort. From the perspective of the Wizards, how is that fair? (and the reason why Wizards in games I run tend to look down on Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters, hehe) They have to have -some- advantage. Making their spell progression equal is too much and would honestly swing the balance wayyyyy in the favor of the Sorcerers imho.
I always looked at it that Wizards are the ones being copycatted by Sorcs. From an in game perspective, Wizards have -earned- their magic through hard work and dedication... Sorcs just get their magic for free with no actual effort. From the perspective of the Wizards, how is that fair? (and the reason why Wizards in games I run tend to look down on Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters, hehe) They have to have -some- advantage. Making their spell progression equal is too much and would honestly swing the balance wayyyyy in the favor of the Sorcerers imho.
Well, yeah, wizards work hard to copy the sorcerer, but remember, the sorcerer's focus is magic too. If it wasn't, they'd have skills like a rogue, or BAB like a fighter, or something - they've got magic in the blood, but it's not like they just sit there and don't practice it. And who's going to be better in...well, pretty much any field - someone who's naturally gifted at that thing and puts a lot of effort into being better at it, or someone who isn't naturally gifted at it, but works hard to be good at it anyway? Sure, the second person will probably be good, but never as good as the other person that puts just as much effort in but has a talent for it too.
In game, sure, wizards probably look down on sorcs...but they'd do it out of jealousy, not because their method is better. Except, for some reason, it is by the rules...which is why I was so terribly disappointed about that not being fixed.
And besides, wizards would still have plenty of advantages. More spell versatility, the ability to scribe plenty of scrolls to make up for less castings per day, still more skill points, still a better skill selection, still a much easier time crafting anything, still a more generally useful casting attribute (charisma can be good too, depending on your campaign, but intelligence is always good - higher rolls are always better for knowledges). Plus they can make sue of some items that are useless to sorcerers (pearl of power, for example).
An alternative that we have considered....is allowing Sorcerers to cast bloodline spells at the same equivalent level as Wizards, but leaving the rest as is.
I like this option. I may have to steal it for my campaigns :)
As an aside: The main reason I don't like Sorcerers getting spells one level later is the fact that they also have to wait an additional level to qualify for those prestige classes that require "ability to cast X level spells". That's a bigger problem than getting spells later, imo. Well, at least it was back in 3.5, when Sorcerers had absolutely no reason to stay as full 20th-level Sorcerers..
I don't think it hurts anything for the sorcerers to get spells at the same levels as wizards. It doesn't make the wizard any less viable/powerful. Even if you have a wizard in the party I don't think it should matter. If s/he feels a little jealous give them more spells and call it a day. That to me is the really difference between the classes, versatility. A sorcerer will never be able to compete with a wizard if the wizard is given time to prepare/stack the deck. And as far as more castings a day: all things being equal a wizard only casts one less spell/day as long as he is a specialist wizard, and the wizard can actually cast the same amount of spells/day of one level with a bonded item. That isn't a big enough difference to warrant the delay in spells IMO. Especially when you add skills and scrolls to the mix. Just my 2c.
Some time ago, I was looking for a build towards Arcane Hierophant using Sorcerer levels, and found that the "arcane spells level 2" requirement couldn't be reached before level 4. So, I tried to find another spontaneous arcane spellcaster with a faster spell progression... and I haven't found one.
I think that delaying the access to higher-level spells is a part of game balance that has been applied to all spontaneous casters. Besides, most spontaneous spellcasters have other powers on top of casting spells dynamically. So, I wouldn't change that, unless everything is balanced against this. For instance, take one ability from each class and grant it a level earlier.
Some time ago, I was looking for a build towards Arcane Hierophant using Sorcerer levels, and found that the "arcane spells level 2" requirement couldn't be reached before level 4. So, I tried to find another spontaneous arcane spellcaster with a faster spell progression... and I haven't found one.
I think that delaying the access to higher-level spells is a part of game balance that has been applied to all spontaneous casters. Besides, most spontaneous spellcasters have other powers on top of casting spells dynamically. So, I wouldn't change that, unless everything is balanced against this. For instance, take one ability from each class and grant it a level earlier.
Well, it is...sort of. It was a balancing thing back when it was initially introduced, but it ended up being that wizards (and other prepared casters) were still way stronger than spontaneous. Why it's been left in for 2 updates now, when this was well established (at least among the optimization community) so long ago is a great mystery...
Well, it is...sort of. It was a balancing thing back when it was initially introduced, but it ended up being that wizards (and other prepared casters) were still way stronger than spontaneous. Why it's been left in for 2 updates now, when this was well established (at least among the optimization community) so long ago is a great mystery...
In my mind, "stronger" is subjective because some class abilities seem better to different people. Spellcasting-wise, wizards have more spells, but they also have less versatility (they can't cast a spell they haven't memorized, and can't generally apply metamagic on the fly). Sorcerers (and other spellcasting classes) have other abilities, too. This is paid by a lateness in spell access.
Instead of balancing the other classes to adapt to a vamped up Sorcerer class, the original poster can also create a new class which would be like the Sorcerer but with reduced abilities in exchange for earlier access to spells.
You can do it but its just power creep.
The sorcerer gets lots of spells, its just that wizards get them a level earlier.
As to comments that the wizard gets more skill points - he looses the corresponding value from charisma.
I'd be tempted to make the standard wizard progression a perk of the universalist wizard (without the extra spells per day) and knock back all the empowerred spell casters back to the sorcerer progression.
The Sorcerers and the Wizard Specialists could be in the same boat as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather that then yet another thing that universalists are not good at.
Failing that -assuming you still want to do it- make the faster progression part of the Arcane Sorcerer path. Take the least popular sorcerer from the list and give it a perk.
|
In the campaign I play in the GM does the one level higher routine for sorcerers and it doesn't make things unbalanced, but it does make a wizard slightly less desirable. In reading the posts above an idea came to me: make the ability to get spells known one level higher than actual level a feat. Once you get access to the next spell level, you may cast it once a day. When you would normally get access to the level of the spell you may then cast that level the normal three times a day. Doing it this way, the sorcerer can "keep up" with the wizard on spell levels, but at a price reflecting that the sorcerer is different from the norm and has to work a little harder to do it. What does everyone think?
|
|
Once you get access to the next spell level, you may cast it once a day. When you would normally get access to the level of the spell you may then cast that level the normal three times a day. Doing it this way, the sorcerer can "keep up" with the wizard on spell levels, but at a price reflecting that the sorcerer is different from the norm and has to work a little harder to do it. What does everyone think?
Wait, you mean do it just like the wizard does? Because they only get one spell per day when they first gain access to the next spell level. The sorcerer jumps from none at that level to 3 of that level at next level.
The easiest way to do it is to just add a 0 in the spells per day slot for those levels that the wizard gets one. Then the sorcerer only gets one bonus spell of that level thanks to a high CHA score.
As an alternative you could give them access to the spell LEVEL at the same rate, but no new known spells. So for that extra level they would be casting lower level spells... or meta magic versions that fill that level.
Now that's an interesting idea. There are some thing this will change. Not that it would break things but something to keep in mind.
They could get known spell via feat from the APG called expanded arcana. The favored class bonus in the APG of humans allows them to get known spells for highest level they have known spells in. Meaning at 3rd level they could take a known spell of 1st level instead of at 4th.
Another thing would be prestige class requirements. Such the Eldritch Knight where the Sorcerer qualifies at the same level as Wizard.
I kind of like this concept. I might have to give it try as see how it works.
|
|
Wait, you mean do it just like the wizard does? Because they only get one spell per day when they first gain access to the next spell level. The sorcerer jumps from none at that level to 3 of that level at next level.
Except a specialist wizard with an arcane bond gets 3 spells when he gains a new level of spellcasting. (It generally makes sense to use your arcane bond for the highest level spell you can.)
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
In the campaign I play in the GM does the one level higher routine for sorcerers and it doesn't make things unbalanced, but it does make a wizard slightly less desirable. In reading the posts above an idea came to me: make the ability to get spells known one level higher than actual level a feat. Once you get access to the next spell level, you may cast it once a day. When you would normally get access to the level of the spell you may then cast that level the normal three times a day. Doing it this way, the sorcerer can "keep up" with the wizard on spell levels, but at a price reflecting that the sorcerer is different from the norm and has to work a little harder to do it. What does everyone think?
I like this idea. The feat would have to be worded very carefully, though, to prevent it from being used in ways other than its actual intent.
I've been running all my games for the last 3 years without the lag for spontaneous casters and it has made absolutely no difference at all.
Spontaneous casters are limited by their pathetic spell lists, having more spells per day is fine but not over-powered if it's the same spell over and over again.
You could [as Mr. TreeMinky suggested above] make them pay, say via their first level Feat or something but really, in my experience it's not necessary.
|
|
Except a specialist wizard with an arcane bond gets 3 spells when he gains a new level of spellcasting. (It generally makes sense to use your arcane bond for the highest level spell you can.)
My bad, I was talking about spellcasting progression, not other class features. So much for the sorcere getting more spells per day than a wizard.
The sorc has one huge advantage over the wizard - access to all their spells at once. I have on numerous occasions seen a situation where the sorcerer state 'I fly the party', meaining six castings of fly on party members. No wizard can do that without a lot of advance preparation, or a wand.
You're right Wizards can't do that, but "that" isn't broken. Also by 8th level [the level your Sorc would need to be to cast 6 Fly's] every character would have at least one Potion of Fly on them surely?
Also Fly is one of the only 2 spells your Sorc has at that level!
|
|
House rules are always good for the goose and the gander. If your PCs have faster progression, so to do your NPCs. Sorcerers foes are my preference as a GM over wizard ones, just easier to pick from the spell list each round then worry about memorization. Also less prep making smaller spell lists. So really just bumps the challenge without bumping the challenge rating.
If your players are cool with the implications of their decision, then power to them.
If i was playing a wizard or cleric and a GM gave this to a spontaneous caster, I'd be baffled/livid/ and demanding some compensation or the ability to change my class over. It may not be the intent of the players in the OP's post to unbalance things, but can be unbalancing.
Slower spell progression is needed for classes that can cast more and have that versatility. If you polled everyone on the boards and asked if they would play a spontaneous or memorized caster, I bet it would be close to 50/50. Its a tough choice, slightly more spells and versatility along with some nice bloodline powers or higher level spells quicker, with a familiar and perhaps specialist school(of course you don't have to be a specialist do you?)
I hate 1 WHOLE level for my 1st 3rd level spell but by 6th level both the sorcerer and the wizard are casting 3rd level spells and the sorcerer has more!!!! I mean come on, the disadvantage doesn't last that long, then your back on top with same level spells and spells per day.
The sorc has one huge advantage over the wizard - access to all their spells at once. I have on numerous occasions seen a situation where the sorcerer state 'I fly the party', meaining six castings of fly on party members. No wizard can do that without a lot of advance preparation, or a wand.
You're right Wizards can't do that, but "that" isn't broken. Also by 8th level [the level your Sorc would need to be to cast 6 Fly's] every character would have at least one Potion of Fly on them surely?
Also Fly is one of the only 2 spells your Sorc has at that level!
If i totaled up all the things that every character would SURELY have on them at a specific level, no character with under a 30 str would even be able to move!!! I have played plenty of games where i never found or bought a potion of FLY. besides a potion is a one shot item, spells will be back the next day. The question is at 8th level are you as a GM ok with the entire party flying all over the place??? If its a party of 4 then it will be much sooner.
Slower spell progression is needed for classes that can cast more and have that versatility.
Versatility? I'd say that versatility is the Wizards strong suit. He can have a wide variety of spell options where the Sorc can't.
Try it out, I'm sure you'll find, as I did, that it's not broken or power-creep. Even with this houserule I have a Wizard and Cleric in my current game.
Slower spell progression is needed for classes that can cast more and have that versatility.
Versatility? I'd say that versatility is the Wizards strong suit. He can have a wide variety of spell options where the Sorc can't.
Try it out, I'm sure you'll find, as I did, that it's not broken or power-creep. Even with this houserule I have a Wizard and Cleric in my current game.
I understand some players wont mind, but I would. It is power creeping at least, even if its not "broken" How can you give a sorcerer better spell casting ability and then walk way thinking they are not more powerful than they should be. Why not bump a fighters HD to d12 and the oracles spell/day as well. barbarians should get heavy armor too and bards should get sneak attack. let the rogue inspire allies. It's all power creeping. Its fine for homebrew if no one objects but it reeks of favortism and i can't see why i'd even bother with a wizard if i can be a sorcerer and wizard all at once.
I understand some players wont mind, but I would. It is power creeping at least, even if its not "broken" How can you give a sorcerer better spell casting ability and then walk way thinking they are not more powerful than they should be. Why not bump a fighters HD to d12 and the oracles spell/day as well. barbarians should get heavy armor too and bards should get sneak attack. let the rogue inspire allies. It's all power creeping. Its fine for homebrew if no one objects but it reeks of favortism and i can't see why i'd even bother with a wizard if i can be a sorcerer and wizard all at once.
Slower spell progression is needed for classes that can cast more and have that versatility.
Versatility? I'd say that versatility is the Wizards strong suit. He can have a wide variety of spell options where the Sorc can't.
Try it out, I'm sure you'll find, as I did, that it's not broken or power-creep. Even with this houserule I have a Wizard and Cleric in my current game.
I hear you but my Wizard player wanted versatility in his spell choices, he didn't want limited spell options. He'll often leave slots open to fill later in the day when he knows what he needs etc. This is a very strong part of the Wizard class, imo, and trumps the spells/day of the Sorc. It's quality over quantity.
I don't know who decided that spontaneous casting was soo amazing that it required very limited spells known AND spell lag to balance it, all I do know is that removing the lag hasn't made my players pick spontaneous casters more than regular ones in the 3 years I've been running my game that way, YMMV.
|
|
Well for the causual group, it won't matter much. For the optimizers...umm yeah, lets go to the free candy store. The thing is, with a high level of system mastery, you don't really need more spells known then what the sorcerer gets...as far combat encounters goes anyways.
I generally leave it alone, mainly because I'm lazy. If ultimate magic gave an alternate sorcerer without the lag I would allow it without any issues.
|
|
Being veterans of various non-Vancian systems, such as GURPS, when 3.0 came out we immediately house-ruled that Sorcerers not only got the same progression as Wizards, but also didn't have to spend extra time to metamagic their spells. Spontaneous casting clearly scared the crap out of the Vancian-weaned third edition D&D design team, but it was old hat to us.
And still, years went by, and nobody played a Sorcerer. Not a single player has proven willing to give up the versatility that comes with a spellbook full of spells. The whole appeal of playing a Wizard, for us, was having a toolbox full of spells, for all different situations, and playing the 'game within a game' of gathering new spells, like collecting Magic cards and preparing your spells in the morning like 'building the perfect deck.' It was all strategic, and the individual castings were all tactical.
The Sorcerer felt like what the 3.5 Warlock turned into, a repetitive class that had a limited palette of options that it could use a lot. It might as well have been a dude with a Wand of X, as it, too often, seemed to be all about 'spamming' spell X over and over. What could have been a bold new break away from the Vancian paradigm instead felt too little, too late, a timid entry at best (and, paradoxically, I think the Warlock did it much better, just flat out abandoning spells entirely, and turning into a magical superhero, flying around and shooting repulsor beams).
I guess it depends on your players. If they have a lot of experience with non-Vancian systems, then the Sorcerer might come off as being not exactly the most ground-breaking idea ever, and not really warrant as many drawbacks compared to the prepared caster that it was stuck with.
|
Being veterans of various non-Vancian systems, such as GURPS, when 3.0 came out we immediately house-ruled that Sorcerers not only got the same progression as Wizards, but also didn't have to spend extra time to metamagic their spells. Spontaneous casting clearly scared the crap out of the Vancian-weaned third edition D&D design team, but it was old hat to us.
And still, years went by, and nobody played a Sorcerer. Not a single player has proven willing to give up the versatility that comes with a spellbook full of spells. The whole appeal of playing a Wizard, for us, was having a toolbox full of spells, for all different situations, and playing the 'game within a game' of gathering new spells, like collecting Magic cards and preparing your spells in the morning like 'building the perfect deck.' It was all strategic, and the individual castings were all tactical.
Agreed. Nobody played a Sorcerer in 3.0/3.5 because it was underpowered compared to the other options availible and it wasn't the only example of this. The Warlock essentially replaced the sorcerer as a class. There used to be long arguements on how to 'fix' the sorcerer.
Pathfinder has the same issue, though I think pathfinder has narrowed the gap it is still inferior, I therefore favor allowing equal spell levels.
If you're not doing anything else, at least change most prestige classes entry requirements from "must be able to cast X level spells" to "Caster level X".
I also suggest if not that, skills set at 4 with possibly 1-2 open skills chosen at first level.
All the Best,
Kerney
|
|
Pathfinder has the same issue, though I think pathfinder has narrowed the gap it is still inferior, I therefore favor allowing equal spell levels.
With the addition of Bloodline powers, I'd actually *consider* playing a Sorcerer now, but I've written a few up for PBPs, and was so disappointed with them when I was done with character generation that I want back to Bard, Cleric, Druid or Wizard, all of which felt like superior choices.
Before Bloodline powers, I would have happily just ditched the 3.X Sorcerer class entirely and allowed someone to play a 'spontaneous Wizard' who cast spells like a Sorcerer, but keeps the same spell progression and bonus feats of a Wizard. With Pathfinder, the Bloodline powers don't balance against the Specialization School powers, so they'd either need to be toned down, or the School powers toned up, or some mix of the two, before I could rationalize that.
If you're not doing anything else, at least change most prestige classes entry requirements from "must be able to cast X level spells" to "Caster level X".
The effect of delayed acquisition (or classes that get spells at different levels, like Paladins, Rangers, Adepts, etc.) just messes with that sort of arbitrary PrC cutoff anyway, IMO. I don't have a perfect solution for that, but it feels inelegant that a Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds from a Cleric costs 4500 gp, from an Adept or Bard costs 6000 gp, from a Druid, Paladin or Ranger costs 11,250 gp.
Someone smarter than I would have to figure out how to make that work... (Perhaps just a caveat that items always cost the same as they would for a primary caster to create, or something. So that a Summoner couldn't create 'cheap' wands of haste and black tentacles or whatnot.)
I also suggest if not that, skills set at 4 with possibly 1-2 open skills chosen at first level.
Yeah, I was a big proponent of just bumping the 2+Int mod classes (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard) to 4+Int mod, and leaving the Rogue, Ranger and Bard at the top of the heap with 6 or 8.
|
|
If there are no wizards or clerics in the group, then..
give it a shot. See how it goes.
if it turns out that its too powerful then you know not to do it again. I personally do not see it being over-powered (due to the extremely limited spell selection). I think it is just one of those hold-over things from 3.0 when they thought "omg spontaneous is the uber"
-S
+1
With all the mentions of sorcerers being able to cast more spells I'm wondering if I'm missing something. As I figure it as long as the ability scores are equal a specialist wizard gets 5 spells/level/day max and a sorcerer gets 6 spells/level/day max. That doesn't seem like the advantage others make it out to be. Add in fewer spells to draw from, no bonus crafting feats for things like scrolls and wands and I'd say it is the wizard who has the advantage. A wizard can have a handyhaver sack full of scrolls covering things from utility to blasting. So I don't see how the sorcerer with its limited spell list is ever going to replace a wizard even if it gets spells at the same time. I might actually see a sorcerer played if they got better spell progression, but for now arcane casters in our groups are all wizard all the time.
Once you get access to the next spell level, you may cast it once a day. When you would normally get access to the level of the spell you may then cast that level the normal three times a day. Doing it this way, the sorcerer can "keep up" with the wizard on spell levels, but at a price reflecting that the sorcerer is different from the norm and has to work a little harder to do it. What does everyone think?Wait, you mean do it just like the wizard does? Because they only get one spell per day when they first gain access to the next spell level. The sorcerer jumps from none at that level to 3 of that level at next level.
The easiest way to do it is to just add a 0 in the spells per day slot for those levels that the wizard gets one. Then the sorcerer only gets one bonus spell of that level thanks to a high CHA score.
I like this idea you have.
The problem I have with the Sorcerer class as RAW is that, while it may be the Ubermench class at high levels, it is tough suffering through the low levels when all you can do is one thing, and then waiting for those second levels spells forever.
This is why whenever I play a Sorcerer, I end up multiclassing to something else so I can actually do something interesting.
I would give the Sorcerer just one additional spell known per level, and a '0' where a Wizard currently gets the next level of spells. That way, Sorcerers get a little more variety to their lives, especially at those low levels, without impinging on the versitality of the Wizards, and while still being delayed at getting the highest levels of spells, Sorcerers at least get the lower level spells on the same schedule as the Wizards.
If the Wizards complain, I could give them an extra spell cast per spell level per day to make up for it. But I think as RAW, Wizards do pretty well as they are. The Sorcerer class still needs something at lower levels.
One thing, the way most games are, most PCs stay near the levels they are generated at. So if low levels suck, they suck for as long as the PC is in play, and if higher levels rock, the suckiness of lower levels does not make up for it because the PC was probably generated at the higher level anyway.
|
|
With all the mentions of sorcerers being able to cast more spells I'm wondering if I'm missing something. As I figure it as long as the ability scores are equal a specialist wizard gets 5 spells/level/day max and a sorcerer gets 6 spells/level/day max. That doesn't seem like the advantage others make it out to be. Add in fewer spells to draw from, no bonus crafting feats for things like scrolls and wands and I'd say it is the wizard who has the advantage. A wizard can have a handyhaver sack full of scrolls covering things from utility to blasting. So I don't see how the sorcerer with its limited spell list is ever going to replace a wizard even if it gets spells at the same time. I might actually see a sorcerer played if they got better spell progression, but for now arcane casters in our groups are all wizard all the time.
+1 Though I could see it varying from campaign to campaign as to how much more powerful an advantage a wizard has. In a game where everyone is rushing around killing stuff and only that, I'd say the advantage is negligible.
Sorcerers do seem better/more logical for a multi class dip.
All the Best,
Kerney
I would give the Sorcerer just one additional spell known per level, and a '0' where a Wizard currently gets the next level of spells. That way, Sorcerers get a little more variety to their lives, especially at those low levels, without impinging on the versatility of the Wizards, and while still being delayed at getting the highest levels of spells, Sorcerers at least get the lower level spells on the same schedule as the Wizards.
I think giving the sorcerer an additional spell/level in conjunction with the human favored class ability makes the sorcerer more appealing then getting wizard spell progression. The number of spells known is the limiting defining factor, as I see it. Sorcerers are going to get the same level of spells and I don't think it hurts anything if they get them at the same time as the wizard because the wizard will always no more. Start adding more spells to the spells known list and I think you start taking away some of the wizards appeal. I personally don't think it is over powered, but I imagine others will disagree.
To the original poster: I hope you post how your experiment goes. I think it will be interesting to hear if getting the spells earlier has a dramatic effect or not.
With the addition of Bloodline powers, I'd actually *consider* playing a Sorcerer now, but I've written a few up for PBPs, and was so disappointed with them when I was done with character generation that I want back to Bard, Cleric, Druid or Wizard, all of which felt like superior choices.Before Bloodline powers, I would have happily just ditched the 3.X Sorcerer class entirely and allowed someone to play a 'spontaneous Wizard' who cast spells like a Sorcerer, but keeps the same spell progression and bonus feats of a Wizard. With Pathfinder, the Bloodline powers don't balance against the Specialization School powers, so they'd either need to be toned down, or the School powers toned up, or some mix of the two, before I could rationalize that.
I guess it all depends on what you are looking for in your caster. I much prefer the Sorceror over the Wizard. Where I have played Wizards before, when the Sorceror came along in 3.0, I was all over it. For me, the spontaenous casting ability just trumps the Vancian system in having to memorize spells. Yes, you have more known spells, but always hated having to pick ahead of time what I would cast that day, I much prefer being able to cast my spells on the fly for whatever situation I am in at the time.
When playing a Wizard, there are too many times I have found myself with spells I don't need and short of spells I wished I had, that were still on my spell list.
"Ok, Stoneshape around this door as well?"
"I can't, used my only memorized Stoneshape and the two scrolls I had left."
*Looks at my spell list and sighs, the Stoneskin, Greater Invis and Wall of Fire rotting on my list*
And although not that exact scenario has happened, very similar situations have in the past. I like the flexibility the Sorceror has in able to cast any spell he has on his list at any time. And with the added amount of spells per level, I don't have worries of running out of them.
But again, to each their own. Some prefer Wizards over Sorcerors, some the other way (like myself). But I don't think by any means Wizards are well overpowered compared to Sorcerors.