I believe the devs have said before that every option is not supposed to be equal. Some choices will be obviously better than others. Otherwise, what abilities you pick wouldn't matter.
But oddly, most of the options are roughly equal: each favoured class selection is worth 1/4 of a feat, or less.
As I said, if there was a feat that was four times as good as the sorcerer's favoured class option, then we wouldn't be having this discussion (although we might be having a different discussion).
Pre-APG sorcerers could cast X different spells Y number of times.
Post-APG sorcerers can cast X+Z different spells Y number of times.
Wizards can cast A different spells B number of times. Clerics can cast infinity different spells C number of times.
If you're complaining that the sorcerer can cast the same number of spells in a different configuration than before, you should be complaining about the wizard and especially the cleric.
The sorcerer can't last any longer than he used to. He can't fire spells faster than he used to. He just has a few more options. It is a boost, but not a dramatic boost.
I don't think that's the complaint at all. The complaint is that only human sorcerers get those Z spells. I don't think it's terrible out of whack, but I do agree it doesn't even remotely compare to +1 skill point. Or +½ use of your level 1 bloodline power.
|
I am coming to the conclusion watching these threads that it might come down to play style. Which effects how useful some people see different things.
Me personally i do think it is most but not all of the time the better option than a skill or hp point. I also don't think all the favored class bonuses are equal in power, but I am ok with that. I personally don't like things to try and be to perfectly balanced. It tends to remove to much of the flavor when you do that. IMHO.
I agree that a spell each level is way more powerful than the other variant class options. However, that's not even the biggest problem.
Why would anyone want to play a non-human sorcerer? You have strong mechanical reasons against it. I think it would have been much better allow these bonuses for any race, and just have a different penalty for every race. But as is, all it does is remove choices from the game (as in, I want to play a sorcerer, which race should I take?).
:(
I personally don't like things to try and be to perfectly balanced. It tends to remove to much of the flavor when you do that. IMHO.
That's my priority too. It's why I choose pathfinder: because I put flavour and interesting mechanics far above balance.
BUT "est modus in rebus". 1/2 spell per level could have been very useful withou being outrageously good.
I don't care if a (say) TWF built does +10% or -10% damage compared to a TH one, because I like too much how different in game they are, and how more useful is the former or the latter basing on movements, enemies, gamestyle and such. All these thing make the game beautiful.
BUT a melee build making 50% more damage, in every istance, with less drawbacks, would be problematic. Or at least concerning for someone.
Different abilities? HELL YEAH!
Better or worse, but flavourful? HELL YEAH!
No brainers? Please, at least try to avoid them.
I will not change te option.
I'll keep it as it is but am subject to change once it gets abused by my players.(But that is something I will not expect)
I think it is best to check out the rules and see how it folds out ingame before screaming about it without testing it.
Pre-APG sorcerers could cast X different spells Y number of times.
Post-APG sorcerers can cast X+Z different spells Y number of times.
Wizards can cast A different spells B number of times. Clerics can cast infinity different spells C number of times.
If you're complaining that the sorcerer can cast the same number of spells in a different configuration than before, you should be complaining about the wizard and especially the cleric.
The sorcerer can't last any longer than he used to. He can't fire spells faster than he used to. He just has a few more options. It is a boost, but not a dramatic boost.
The big equaliser for sorcerers, their bigger number of spells per day, and their ability to cast whatever spell they want whenever they want is that the number of spells known is inherently limited. Everything that increases that, gives him a nice boost.
Everything that adds 20 spells (17 of which are above cantrip level) to that list (that's almost 50% more spells) is a dramatic boost.
Versatility is power. The more versatile you are, the more often you can use unleash your full potential.
Look at the comparison fighter/paladin, especially damage output. Now look at it again, but imagine paladins could smite everything. At will. They'd just gain Cha to their AV and to attacks, and their level to damage. Max power doesn't change, but you can use it more situations.
Or even just smite everything. Changes a lot.
I would have to see an oracle played or build one to think it is worth playing. Maybe my bias against self-nerfing is blinding me. I will try to make one over the next few days to see what I can come up with.Please, everyone, the sorcerer is not the problem!
Oracle bends over the Sorcerer and makes it cry.It's the Oracle! There are the Sorcerer on steroids![/sarcasm]
I believe the devs have said before that every option is not supposed to be equal. Some choices will be obviously better than others. Otherwise, what abilities you pick wouldn't matter.
Exactly!
Could you talk to my GM? He won't let me play a solar paladin in his new campaign, because it is more powerful than human paladin or the like. I tried to explain, but he didn't understand!
I feel so stifled. What does it matter if it's a level 1 campaign?
I think we need to keep focus here. The issue is not with making the SORCERER omgwtfbbq imba powerful. It's about making one option DISPROPORTIONATELY superior to all others (first aspect of the problem) and limiting it to humans only (second aspect of the problem).
Now when news of this was first released on the boards in the preview, there was alot of concern expressed. James Jacob's response was that we should wait till we saw what the other alternate favoured class bonuses were before raising more concerns. Now that the book it out, several of us are still concerned about essentially the creation of a "no brainer" option (seriously, giving up a single hit point to learn an extra fifth level spell? Or eigth?).
Pre-APG sorcerers could cast X different spells Y number of times.
Post-APG sorcerers can cast X+Z different spells Y number of times.
Wizards can cast A different spells B number of times. Clerics can cast infinity different spells C number of times.
If you're complaining that the sorcerer can cast the same number of spells in a different configuration than before, you should be complaining about the wizard and especially the cleric.
The sorcerer can't last any longer than he used to. He can't fire spells faster than he used to. He just has a few more options. It is a boost, but not a dramatic boost.
The big equaliser for sorcerers, their bigger number of spells per day, and their ability to cast whatever spell they want whenever they want is that the number of spells known is inherently limited. Everything that increases that, gives him a nice boost.
Everything that adds 20 spells (17 of which are above cantrip level) to that list (that's almost 50% more spells) is a dramatic boost.
Versatility is power. The more versatile you are, the more often you can use unleash your full potential.
Look at the comparison fighter/paladin, especially damage output. Now look at it again, but imagine paladins could smite everything. At will. They'd just gain Cha to their AV and to attacks, and their level to damage. Max power doesn't change, but you can use it more situations.
Or even just smite everything. Changes a lot.
I think the closest analogy would be allowing paladins to choose another enemy type to smite as a favoured class feature.
Exactly how many spells are the human sorcerers going to have for each level? What I mean, is how many Cantrips, 12st, 2nd, etc spells will a human have over an elf?
In theory,
Human: 12 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 6 3
Other: 9 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
In practice, though, I suspect many sorcerers will choose the hit point at the first three levels instead of picking up extra cantrips. At the later levels, I really can't see anyone thinking "I'd rather have 1 extra hit point over knowing an extra 8th level spell". Or even a 3rd level spell for that matter.
That's my priority too. It's why I choose pathfinder: because I put flavour and interesting mechanics far above balance.
BUT "est modus in rebus". 1/2 spell per level could have been very useful withou being outrageously good.
Exactly.
I don't think it is a particularly valid complaint to say that this is a matter of "perfectly balanced". I'm supremely comfortable with a range of balance. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
But, there is an important element of balance, particularly PC to PC balance.
If someone made an "iceball" spell, that was fireball except it did cold damage and was level 1, it would be way out of balance. Saying that the demand for perfect balance would remove to much flavor from this spell would not make it any less bad.
I think some of the racial abilities are better than they should be as well.
For example, elves from core make perfectly capable rogues. Elven magic is frequently a 100% waste on them, but so it goes.
It is a no-brainer for an elf rogue (or ranger) to take Silent Hunter.
In effect, an APG elf rogue is now simply superior to a core rogue.
BUT,to me this is a very small boost and I *love* the flavor merit of it. I am willing to readily accept this. If someone else complained about it as power creep, I'd have no choice but to agree. I may try to convince them that it is a net gain, but I could only concede the power creep point and wouldn't begrudge them their preference.
But, I really don't buy the equivalence for human sorcerers. If anything, limited spell selection is part of the flavor of sorcerers, so expanding that *reduces flavor*.
To be honest, I would like the devs to join this discussion, since I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this particular bonus. It's a definite boost for Sorcerers, but one which doesn't overpower them, same for the other classes which receive this particular favoured class bonus when they play humans.
What I'd like to know is why it was tied to humans and why it had to be done as a favoured class bonus where it does stand out between the other bonuses.
You know I'm pretty sure one of the much bigger "balancers" to the sorcerer is that he's a full level behind wizards despite wizards getting almost as many spell slots as sorcerers do :U
|
|
To be honest, I would like the devs to join this discussion, since I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this particular bonus. It's a definite boost for Sorcerers, but one which doesn't overpower them, same for the other classes which receive this particular favoured class bonus when they play humans.
What I'd like to know is why it was tied to humans and why it had to be done as a favoured class bonus where it does stand out between the other bonuses.
You will probably have to go to one of the older threads about it. They made there reasons whether you agree or not with them fairly clear.
You know I'm pretty sure one of the much bigger "balancers" to the sorcerer is that he's a full level behind wizards despite wizards getting almost as many spell slots as sorcerers do :U
That's what I've been saying, too. ^^
You will probably have to go to one of the older threads about it. They made there reasons whether you agree or not with them fairly clear.
I've been discussing in the original thread, but there were others were James, Jason or Joshua ( eh, how to so many devs have first names which begin with "J"? ^^ ) discussed their reasonings behind implementing this particular bonus the way they did? Because I don't remember them saying anything why only humans got this very attractive bonus and if they thought it was a fix for the Sorcerer or just something nice for the class.
|
Why did anyone play a 3.5 monk?
Because they didn't know any better.
The ONLY way that a person would NOT pick the extra spell FC and be a human sorcerer would be because they just don't know any better. If you any inkling of system mastery, it's really a no brainer to be a human and that this FC bonus as a sorcerer. Kinda like any inkling of system mastery tell you the monk is BAD.
|
Why did anyone play a 3.5 monk?Because they didn't know any better.
The ONLY way that a person would NOT pick the extra spell FC and be a human sorcerer would be because they just don't know any better. If you any inkling of system mastery, it's really a no brainer to be a human and that this FC bonus as a sorcerer. Kinda like any inkling of system mastery tell you the monk is BAD.
By this way of thinking we should eliminate all feats apart from Quciken Spell, Power Attack, Weapon Foc/Spec and maybe a few more, same with spells and even magic itmes - they all should be thrown out of the book, because whoever picks them doesn't know any better.
That's my priority too. It's why I choose pathfinder: because I put flavour and interesting mechanics far above balance.
BUT "est modus in rebus". 1/2 spell per level could have been very useful withou being outrageously good.
Exactly.
I don't think it is a particularly valid complaint to say that this is a matter of "perfectly balanced". I'm supremely comfortable with a range of balance. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
But, there is an important element of balance, particularly PC to PC balance.
If someone made an "iceball" spell, that was fireball except it did cold damage and was level 1, it would be way out of balance. Saying that the demand for perfect balance would remove to much flavor from this spell would not make it any less bad.
I think this is one of the most pertinent statements made thus far. A range of balance is fine. Where trouble arises is where one option suddenly becomes vastly superior to other options. Furthermore, where that option is released to the class in general, it can be seen as a balance issue. However, when a vastly superior option is given to a single race, and arguably without strong reason, it detracts from encouraging players to experiment with roughly equivalent options.
Or for the less loquacious out there: I hate to think that in all campaigns hence forth, there might be as little reason to play a non-human sorcerer as there was to play a gnomish monk in 3.5.
And if you don't care about system mastery?Then they are free to enjoy the game the way it is meant to be played. ** spoiler omitted **
<gasp> Heresy! Burn the witch!
Or for the less loquacious out there: I hate to think that in all campaigns hence forth, there might be as little reason to play a non-human sorcerer as there was to play a gnomish monk in 3.5.
'Luckily' there are a lot of unbalanced things in the APG that every DM concerned with balance will ban it outright. Just have a look at the metamagic feats...
It's quite disappointing. With PF Core they at least tried to remove some obviously imbalanced stuff, and streamlined the whole thing. Now with the APG were back where 3.5 was with the Spell and Magic Item Compendium. :(
|
|
And if you don't care about system mastery?Then they are free to enjoy the game the way it is meant to be played. ** spoiler omitted **
It's not always fun when people purposely or accidentally do things that outshine other characters. Having certain options be that much more powerful as compared to other options doesn't help. I've seen more than a few times where player realize an option they picked wasn't good and became unhappy with it. It's not even only isolated to bad players either.
Honestly this isn't bad at all compared to the Human fighter favored class bonus. +1 CMD per level applied against two combat manuveurs used against of you choice.
Grapple and trip and you can have CMD for them in the 70s at 20th level. A tarasque would have issues trying to swallow you whole. And people complain about the sorcerer being able know a few more spells. LOL
By this way of thinking we should eliminate all feats apart from Quciken Spell, Power Attack, Weapon Foc/Spec and maybe a few more, same with spells and even magic itmes - they all should be thrown out of the book, because whoever picks them doesn't know any better.Why did anyone play a 3.5 monk?Because they didn't know any better.
The ONLY way that a person would NOT pick the extra spell FC and be a human sorcerer would be because they just don't know any better. If you any inkling of system mastery, it's really a no brainer to be a human and that this FC bonus as a sorcerer. Kinda like any inkling of system mastery tell you the monk is BAD.
Why so much love for Quicken Spell? It's not what it used to be (since now you can't reduce the cost, which is high). Wizards who want to quicken spells will just buy Quicken Rods. Or pay the really steep price to quicken one or two spells, but it's hardly a default feat for a wizard, like Power Attack is for melee-types.
Grapple and trip and you can have CMD for them in the 70s at 20th level. A tarasque would have issues trying to swallow you whole. And people complain about the sorcerer being able know a few more spells. LOL
Do tell how. I'm curious. :D
Honestly this isn't bad at all compared to the Human fighter favored class bonus. +1 CMD per level applied against two combat manuveurs used against of you choice.
Grapple and trip and you can have CMD for them in the 70s at 20th level. A tarasque would have issues trying to swallow you whole. And people complain about the sorcerer being able know a few more spells. LOL
You are comparing 20 spells more than normal with something that can be avoided using Freedom Of Movements (1 spell).
And human can choose the maneuvers, but other races have comparable bonus to defenses.
IMO, the difference between racial bonus is deeper.
Honestly this isn't bad at all compared to the Human fighter favored class bonus. +1 CMD per level applied against two combat manuveurs used against of you choice.
Grapple and trip and you can have CMD for them in the 70s at 20th level. A tarasque would have issues trying to swallow you whole. And people complain about the sorcerer being able know a few more spells. LOL
You are comparing 20 spells more than normal with something that can be avoided using Freedom Of Movements (1 spell).
And human can choose the maneuvers, but other races have comparable bonus to defenses.
IMO, the difference between racial bonus is deeper.
True enough but the fighter can't cast the spell. Of course there is always the ring that does that but I can think of better rings to use instead if I can get my CMD high enough for typical combat maneuvers.
20 spells known is nice but it's not like you can cast more spells. You just get a bit more versatility in what you can cast. Having 20 more CMD against trip attacks for fighter is equivalent in my opinion. Being DM and using trip against my players a lot I can see that being very useful for fighters. Just as useful as extra known spells for the Sorcerer. As you point out most of the races get bonus like that for the fighters.
I don't have a problem with the Sorcerer bonus as far as game balance. But I can see arguments that an Elven sorcerer may never get played because of it if optimization is your only goal. Clearly the Human is best for that followed by the Gnome.
True enough but the fighter can't cast the spell. Of course there is always the ring that does that but I can think of better rings to use instead if I can get my CMD high enough for typical combat maneuvers.20 spells known is nice but it's not like you can cast more spells. You just get a bit more versatility in what you can cast. Having 20 more CMD against trip attacks for fighter is equivalent in my opinion. Being DM and using trip against my players a lot I can see that being very useful for fighters. Just as useful as extra known spells for the Sorcerer. As you point out most of the races get bonus like that for the fighters.
Did you ever play a sorcerer? Spell slots are not a problem anymore after a few levels...every additional spell known is a huge advantage. Back in 3.5, where sorcerers only got a feat every third level and none of all that bloodline stuff, it was deemed important enough that WotC made the 'extra spell' feat which gave a single extra spell of not-the-highest-level.
I don't have a problem with the Sorcerer bonus as far as game balance. But I can see arguments that an Elven sorcerer may never get played because of it if optimization is your only goal. Clearly the Human is best for that followed by the Gnome.
Not only 'if optimization is your only goal'. If one option is so much more powerful than all the alternatives it's just silly to expect any player with a basic grasp of game mechanics to chose anything else.
I see we are firmly back in "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" territory.
I think the closest analogy would be allowing paladins to choose another enemy type to smite as a favoured class feature.Pre-APG sorcerers could cast X different spells Y number of times.
Post-APG sorcerers can cast X+Z different spells Y number of times.
Wizards can cast A different spells B number of times. Clerics can cast infinity different spells C number of times.
If you're complaining that the sorcerer can cast the same number of spells in a different configuration than before, you should be complaining about the wizard and especially the cleric.
The sorcerer can't last any longer than he used to. He can't fire spells faster than he used to. He just has a few more options. It is a boost, but not a dramatic boost.
The big equaliser for sorcerers, their bigger number of spells per day, and their ability to cast whatever spell they want whenever they want is that the number of spells known is inherently limited. Everything that increases that, gives him a nice boost.
Everything that adds 20 spells (17 of which are above cantrip level) to that list (that's almost 50% more spells) is a dramatic boost.
Versatility is power. The more versatile you are, the more often you can use unleash your full potential.
Look at the comparison fighter/paladin, especially damage output. Now look at it again, but imagine paladins could smite everything. At will. They'd just gain Cha to their AV and to attacks, and their level to damage. Max power doesn't change, but you can use it more situations.
Or even just smite everything. Changes a lot.
Yeah, it might, but my example is better at supporting my stance, so I'll stick to that ;-P
The "it only matters if you're a min-maxer" is a strawman argument. If you don't care for balance or anything else, you won't care about this. You probably won't need a 400-page addition to a 600-page rulebook to play make-belief. You'll just make the rules up as you go along. Maybe roll a die for everything. Or use Rock-Paper-Scissors-IncriminatingMaterialAboutTheGM.
But if you are concerned about game balance - either because you have power gamers in the group, or you just want things to be neat and fair - these things will matter.
And there's more to the spectrum of gamers than Munchking and PlayerPretend. You can strive for balance to a point. A game that has the right combination of balance and player freedom.
I count myself amongst those non-binary people. No lines in the sand for me. I don't mind if not everything is exactly the same, in all situations. I don't care if there are things that are strictly better than other things (but have different flavour).
But everything within reason. Things that are better than 1 skill point or hit point? Sure! Things that are way better than that? Please no.
Ideally, all options are viable whether you play for power or for fun, or as a combination.
Sure, the pure power-gamer will ignore flavour, while the pure role-player will ignore effects, but most fall in between. And no-brainer decisions are bad for them, because they'll have to either limit themselves to this choice and this choice only, or else choose an option that is so weak it's almost suicidal. (Or at least really, really bad).
Or you could look at it this way: Paizo gave a similar ability to wizards, allowing them to add a spell per level. Should there be a rule then that Sorcerers should be able to learn spells off scrolls so long as the new spell is not of the highest level they can cast? Or could it be that the people responsible for this section simply failed to realise that spells known are vastly more precious spells known are to sorcerers than wizards?
For me, the main reason I'm upset is that after all the GOOD work they did working out and balancing the new classes, they then turn to favoured class options and introduce a rule that showed little if any consideration regarding game balance.
What frustrated most of us with the WotC material was their at times complete disregard for game balance and the increasingly ludicrous options they churned out (divine metamagic and night sticks, I'm looking at you). What made Pathfinder so appealing was the promise of carefully thought out and balanced rules-and by and large it has been. But things like this give me some cause to worry that given a year or two, Pathfinder, having fixed many of the problems in 3.5, will ultimately fall foul of the same problems. It's the first dissatisfaction I've had with the system thus far, but it bears all the hallmarks of what ruined 3.5 that it rings alarm bells.
Or you could look at it this way: Paizo gave a similar ability to wizards, allowing them to add a spell per level. Should there be a rule then that Sorcerers should be able to learn spells off scrolls so long as the new spell is not of the highest level they can cast? Or could it be that the people responsible for this section simply failed to realise that spells known are vastly more precious spells known are to sorcerers than wizards?
For me, the main reason I'm upset is that after all the GOOD work they did working out and balancing the new classes, they then turn to favoured class options and introduce a rule that showed little if any consideration regarding game balance.
What frustrated most of us with the WotC material was their at times complete disregard for game balance and the increasingly ludicrous options they churned out (divine metamagic and night sticks, I'm looking at you). What made Pathfinder so appealing was the promise of carefully thought out and balanced rules-and by and large it has been. But things like this give me some cause to worry that given a year or two, Pathfinder, having fixed many of the problems in 3.5, will ultimately fall foul of the same problems. It's the first dissatisfaction I've had with the system thus far, but it bears all the hallmarks of what ruined 3.5 that it rings alarm bells.
I don't see this breaking game balance. I do see an issue with people only playing Human for Sorcerers from now. I'd still pick a another race if it suited me but then I'm a DM and I can do that as I play many NPCs through out a game. The players get one character and if Human looks the best that's what they would take.
What frustrated most of us with the WotC material was their at times complete disregard for game balance and the increasingly ludicrous options they churned out (divine metamagic and night sticks, I'm looking at you). What made Pathfinder so appealing was the promise of carefully thought out and balanced rules-and by and large it has been. But things like this give me some cause to worry that given a year or two, Pathfinder, having fixed many of the problems in 3.5, will ultimately fall foul of the same problems. It's the first dissatisfaction I've had with the system thus far, but it bears all the hallmarks of what ruined 3.5 that it rings alarm bells.
Indeed, some of the stuff in the APG reeks like the worst of the Complete's, the FR splats and the Spell Compendium combined... :(
|
|
What frustrated most of us with the WotC material was their at times complete disregard for game balance and the increasingly ludicrous options they churned out (divine metamagic and night sticks, I'm looking at you). What made Pathfinder so appealing was the promise of carefully thought out and balanced rules-and by and large it has been. But things like this give me some cause to worry that given a year or two, Pathfinder, having fixed many of the problems in 3.5, will ultimately fall foul of the same problems. It's the first dissatisfaction I've had with the system thus far, but it bears all the hallmarks of what ruined 3.5 that it rings alarm bells.Indeed, some of the stuff in the APG reeks like the worst of the Complete's, the FR splats and the Spell Compendium combined... :(
Examples. And no, one speedy errata candidate a.k.a. Selective Spell doesn't count.
Indeed, some of the stuff in the APG reeks like the worst of the Complete's, the FR splats and the Spell Compendium combined... :(Examples. And no, one speedy errata candidate a.k.a. Selective Spell doesn't count.
Reach Spell, Bouncing Spell, Persistent Spell.
Oh, and the human sorcerer bonus that was the reason for this thread.
|
|
Indeed, some of the stuff in the APG reeks like the worst of the Complete's, the FR splats and the Spell Compendium combined... :(Examples. And no, one speedy errata candidate a.k.a. Selective Spell doesn't count.Reach Spell, Bouncing Spell, Persistent Spell.
Oh, and the human sorcerer bonus that was the reason for this thread.
That's metamagic feats which are actually, like, worth taking compared to core mediocrity such as Widen Spell or Empower Spell. We're not within 10 miles of Divine Metamagic, Planar Shepherd, Orbs or Vortex of Teeth level of cheese here.
Wait, wait, what? Vortex of teeth is cheesy? WTF? It's a 4th level spell for a fairly minor amount of force damage in an AOE that doesn't move with a safe spot in the middle. It's cool, but cheesy or overpowered? WTF?
|
|
This is funny. I can't see how having or NOT having 2 additional choices (for the most part) is changing anything in regards to game balance. Most spells chosen to begin with will either be the must have or perfect fit spells for the character in question for the character conception. I honestly can't see how getting casting a specific different spell at the levels below is going to cause issues. A wizard is far more dangerous with versatility. The half-orc option actually does additional damage, while the elf ability lets you up to an additional 10 uses of bloodline ability. Depending on the build I can easily see choosing either or those races or the extra skill point option.
At the levels shown below what additional spell choice would be any real game changer?
I can see people choosing this option other than as a sheer damage. I would choose it for spells that fit the flavor or the character.Bonus Spells
Level 3 3 Cantrips Knows 5
Level 5 2 1st level Knows 4
Level 7 2 2nd level Knows 3
Level 9 2 3rd level Knows 3
Level 11 2 4th level Knows 3
Level 13 2 5th level Knows 3
Level 15 2 6th level Knows 3
Level 17 2 7th level Knows 3
Level 20 3 8th level Knows 3
If you think this option is gonna be OP because of extra damage, you don't know the spell system very well. You know those must have spells? Now you can have them all earlier. And some nice to have spell to boot. You can't say it's balanced because well, you can make bad choices that fit your character concept because that is not what the rules forces you to do.