so hey My brother totally photoshopped a character sheet for your system kirth...
it looks pretty epic.
I have it saved as a PDF but I dont know how exactly to post it :S
Help? I figure some people would want this sheet.
these are google docs
The first one is the photoshopped one and the second is the original (for the other two pages, one is optional for spells and such)
hope people like them
TOZ if you still want the email file I can send it.
|
Remember that these [rules] were written specifically for my home group. Anyone in that group who intentionally tried to force [daft crap] past me would no longer be invited. That's not to say that sloppy rules language that leads to genuine confusion should be tolerated -- it shouldn't. It does mean, however, that relatively unambiguous language shouldn't be wilfully twisted to mean things that it clearly doesn't mean.
That (or a version of that) should be a sticky on every CharOp board, and on page 1 of every RPG rulebook ever printed.
Remember that these [rules] were written specifically for my home group. Anyone in that group who intentionally tried to force [daft crap] past me would no longer be invited. That's not to say that sloppy rules language that leads to genuine confusion should be tolerated -- it shouldn't. It does mean, however, that relatively unambiguous language shouldn't be wilfully twisted to mean things that it clearly doesn't mean.That (or a version of that) should be a sticky on every CharOp board, and on page 1 of every RPG rulebook ever printed.
+1
yeah.
Still every DM should take favored enemy rules lawyers at level 1, otherwise they will be weak compared to the rest of the group ;)
Rogues are glass cannons, intentionally. They hit hard, but are advised to flee thereafter. And bards now get 7th level spells, good ranged attacks, and a host of other abilities. I'm unconvinced that any of those three classes come out of these rules getting a "bad deal." Hopefully after actually looking at them you'll agree.
I just gotta say, I'm in love with your rogues. Skill Mastery got my heart all a-flutter, but Skill Excellence sealed the deal. And the talents! This is the first time I've ever thought rogues seemed interesting to play.
Edit: fixed the quote-y bits
Arcane Strike and Blade of Force do effectively the same thing…the only difference is strike incorps against counts as magical. Fold them into the same feat with both benefits, i.e. if you have a Force Spell memorized, it can hit incorps.
Awesome. That's an excellent idea -- consider it implemented. I'm still going through your list, but this one jumped out at me.
This file is awesome.
Yes! Yes, it is!
Only two things I'd add (well, other than a big box for your portrait!):1. Instead of hp gained per level, I'd use those spaces to mark thresholds at which you're lightly wounded (-1 to rolls) or heavily wounded (-3 to rolls) and allow players to check off which applies. That way you don't have to do the math every time, and there's also less excuse for players to conveniently "forget" that they're exhausted.
2. With insight bonuses to AC easy to get via canny defense, I'd definitely have a box for that bonus.
Hold the Line: You made it a stance, consider just mixing it with Sidestep Charge up higher. Also, you might want to penalize or eliminate the ability of a rider to make a Ride check to neutralize the AoO, unless he immediately stops the charge.
Also done. Another great suggestion!
For the barbarian, few things I noticed from the current doc up.
Page 1 Table 1 For the 1st level powers: rage (+2) and totem +1 are not in alphabetical order. Under class skills add alchemy, blacksmith, construction, and toxicology for choices of the craft skill, fine art (mainly forgery) is a reach for a barbarian. Change profession (sailor) to profession (sailing). Under the weapon and armor proficiency it gets complicated. You call multiple abilities agile dodge (barbarian and monk) but they actually work different. Also multiple classes have canny defense but they also all work slightly differently. Do you want to rename each to a unique name or do you want to standardize these abilities? Also I assume one must select agile dodge for a barbarian, or canny defense for a barbarian, fighter, or favored soul at first level only. Does the Barbarian's agile dodge also grant a bonus to CMD? Finally, if a barbarian multiclasses into a monk can they gain both agile dodge bonuses? Also can a 1st level barbarian choose the brawler ability then gain 19 levels in monk? The barbarian brawler only gains the free improved two weapon fighter feat if he reaches 6th level in barbarian right?
Page 2 Under endure elements change to "Fortitude saves or Endurance checks". Furious counterattack and power attack are not in alphabetical order. Under rage the bluff skill now allows you to "browbeat" not "intimidate."
Page 3 The rage powers heading is not in alphabetical order. Under totem you state “This bonus improves by +1 per 4 class levels you possess, as shown in the table. Unless otherwise noted specifically in the description, this bonus is considered a sacred bonus.” In the table your 1st totem +1 happens at 1st level, and then the 2nd happens at 4th level. You do follow the every 4th level after that though. Also Massive damage changed in pathfinder to half your hit points (minimum 50) rather than always being a set 50 hit points at higher level, is there a reason you do not follow that ruling?
Page 4 Under Indomitable Will (Ex): add “Starting at 14th level,”
Page 5 If your table is correct the paragraph under totems should read “As noted above, each totem provides a scaling bonus, a +1 at 1st level, a +2 at 4th level, then it increases by +1 per 4 levels thereafter. You also gain bonus feats at 2nd level, at 5th level, and then every 4 levels thereafter. Finally, you gain special abilities at 3rd and 6th levels." Under low light vision do you want to add the clause “If you already have darkvision your existing darkvision extends an additional 30 feet.” Like for the rogue. Under Alkylosaur"us" (James Jacobs will disown you if you misspell a dinosaur's name) totem, do you want to reword the totem bonus to “You gain armor training (as the fighter talent of the same name). For each totem bonus you gain you gain armor training an additional time, and these armor training talents stack.” Powerful build should not reference the bear totem, since the alkylosaurus totem comes first.
On a side note, I have thought more about the ranger and monk spell progression. I see it as the Rangers 5th level spell is find the path and he can cast it at will, and his 6th level spell is improved quarry, and it is a per encounter spell rather than a once per day spell. Plus he does not need to place as many points into wisdom (save dc's are less of an issue and at 14 he can cast all his spells). The monk is different since he actually uses his spell to attack and so his save dc is very important. To overcome opponent's saves he needs a good wisdom along with higher level spells (both of these things allow him to bump up his save DC for his ki attacks). Not giving him a 6th level spell hampers him more than the ranger since it is a tax on his ability to overcome saves at the higher levels.
Finally, one may want to make sure your errata switch from power attack to furious focus is placed correctly alphabetically (this was not you on the online docs I know Kirth, I am sure the guilty party will step forward).
Thanks, more as I can get to it.
Also I saw that sleep is a 2nd level ranger spell. Seems a little late to gain as a 7th level ranger.
The way to balance wizards is to force multi-statting them and fix the spells, not handwave away a stat raise just because you hate them.
Make wizards a prestige class for sorcs. d4 hit die means they can't go light on Con either, and they'll need Dex for any kind of AC. They go from one mandatory stat to a minimum of two, and probably 3.
Or Hell, use a unified mechanic for all spellcasters, with Int for Spells Known Bonus, Cha for spell DC's, and Wis for bonus spells castable. That way nobody gets to dump a stat. Wizard vs Sorc then becomes a matter of bloodline vs class abilities/school specialization, if that's a concern. It gets even snarkier if you tie spell level castable to all 3 stats...i.e. 19 Wis & Cha & Int to cast level 9's...
The only way you're going to be able to abuse this is to hand out inherent bonuses willy-nilly, but that's a DM issue. Make it cost enough xp, and lagging in levels does the job for you.
For scything blow and deft strike, why don't you just make it one feat, and eliminate any chance of stacking? I didn't know why you made two identical effect feats, anyways. It doesn't matter if it's slashing or finessable, if it grants the same benefit regardless, and doesn't stack. I.e. when used with a one-handed finessable weapon, this feat is called Deft Strike, but the benefits are identical.
==Aelryinth
|
Or Hell, use a unified mechanic for all spellcasters, with Int for Spells Known Bonus, Cha for spell DC's, and Wis for bonus spells castable. That way nobody gets to dump a stat. Wizard vs Sorc then becomes a matter of bloodline vs class abilities/school specialization, if that's a concern. It gets even snarkier if you tie spell level castable to all 3 stats...i.e. 19 Wis & Cha & Int to cast level 9's...
Oh snap, that's a radical idea. I kinda like it. Maybe combine it with Trailblazer's idea of one spellcasting progression chart.
1. For the 1st level powers: rage (+2) and totem +1 are not in alphabetical order.
2. You call multiple abilities agile dodge (barbarian and monk) but they actually work different[ly].
3. Also multiple classes have canny defense but they also all work slightly differently. Do you want to rename each to a unique name or do you want to standardize these abilities?
4. Finally, if a barbarian multiclasses into a monk can they gain both agile dodge bonuses?
5. Under totem you state “This bonus improves by +1 per 4 class levels you possess, as shown in the table.” In the table your 1st totem +1 happens at 1st level, and then the 2nd happens at 4th level.
6. Also Massive damage changed in pathfinder to half your hit points (minimum 50) rather than always being a set 50 hit points at higher level, is there a reason you do not follow that ruling?
1. Sadly, favored terrain is totem-dependent, and furious counterstrike is rage-dependent, so it made more sense to put them after the primary abilities, even though that's not alphabetical.
2. They work more or less identically, except the barbarian gets a save vs. fear bonus as a freebie.
3. Again, they're close enough to share a name, and I like the freedom to make different classes give up different numbers of things for it.
4. The levels would stack, but not the base +1 (which they'd only get once). Good catch; I edited in a note to clarify that.
5. That's correct; it's an additional +1 "per 4 levels you possess," not "per 4 levels after the 1st."
6. I hadn't even realized Pathfinder had changed that. The class ability stays the same, however.
Also I saw that sleep is a 2nd level ranger spell. Seems a little late to gain as a 7th level ranger.
Should be a 1st level spell for them, I agree.
Regarding "half-casters" (monks, rangers): I'm thinking about pegging the max spell level for both at 5th, and spreading the progression a bit, so that they would get "0" 1st level spells at 3rd level (only if Wis 12+), 1 at 4th, etc.; 0 2nd level spells at 7th level (Wis 14+), 1 at 8th, etc.; 0 3rd level spells at 11th level (Wis 16+), 1 at 12th; 0 4th level spells at 15th level (Wis 18+), 1 at 16th; and 0 5th level spells at 19th level (Wis 20+), and 1 at 20th. Opinions?
btw, looking through the wizard...where are the Low Arcanum?
I saw the one for the witch, but not the wizard.
I also note that the Generalist Wizard is really discriminated against. Note that 1 bonus spell = able to cast a spell of a barred school (2 slots), have the same spells as a Gen wizard, and a boatload more class abilities. His abilities seem to be more about flavor then effectiveness...but it may just be me.
For the Intense Spells thing: Why is it limited to +7 dmg like it is? That's counter-intuitive. The only spells I can think of it affecting are multi-shot rays and magic missile. A fireball with the affect would do +7 dmg to everyone it hits...why can't a magic missile?
Or is doing d4+1 +7 to five different targets considered broken, vs 9d6+7 to all of them?
I recommend wording it to : this damage applies once per spell to any target affected by the spell.
thus, if you wanted to drop five goblins with d4+1+7 magic missiles, you could...but if you combine the missiles, the single target still only takes 5d4+5+7, not +35 (per shot dmg). It gives the mage an incentive to spread out the damage, and not have to pick and choose what takes the extra dmg. Also, it's basically only a problem on low-level spells, and the bonus is so miniscule overall, it shouldn't be imbalanced to just apply it by spell.
You might also want to make explicit that extra damage is/is not affected by Empower/Energize.
==Aelryinth
Hey, Kirth. Still slowly reading through the list, jumping back and forth to the various things that appeal to me. I've only been skimming a lot of the discussion so far, so I apologize if this has already been pointed out:
The second and third paragraph in the Perception skill description are duplicates.
btw, looking through the wizard...where are the Low Arcanum?
Low Arcanum are listed under each Wizard's specialization description, further down the document.
The way to balance wizards is to force multi-statting them and fix the spells...
Spells are a separate issue. Evocation needs to get a LOT better; a lot of schools need to be shuffled, etc. However, spells are hard enough to cast in melee now that I don't want to nerf their effects -- nor do my players -- and this is a very firm point with them (as in "we quit if spells get nerfed.") So "fixing spells" is out.
Or Hell, use a unified mechanic for all spellcasters, with Int for Spells Known Bonus, Cha for spell DC's, and Wis for bonus spells castable.
I was leaning in that direction, and the option hasn't totally been taken off the table. A bit more playtesting with the current casting rules is needed before I'm ready to take that step, however.
For scything blow and deft strike, why don't you just make it one feat, and eliminate any chance of stacking?
Because then you can use the same feat for both types of weapons, rather than being restricted. I wanted it restricted.
The way to balance wizards is to force multi-statting them and fix the spells...Spells are a separate issue. Evocation needs to get a LOT better; a lot of schools need to be shuffled, etc. However, spells are hard enough to cast in melee now that I don't want to nerf their effects -- nor do my players -- and this is a very firm point with them (as in "we quit if spells get nerfed.") So "fixing spells" is out.
Or Hell, use a unified mechanic for all spellcasters, with Int for Spells Known Bonus, Cha for spell DC's, and Wis for bonus spells castable.I was leaning in that direction, and the option hasn't totally been taken off the table. A bit more playtesting with the current casting rules is needed before I'm ready to take that step, however.
For scything blow and deft strike, why don't you just make it one feat, and eliminate any chance of stacking?Because then you can use the same feat for both types of weapons, rather than being restricted. I wanted it restricted.
erm, use the Melee Weapon Mastery language - Pick a weapon type/group/dmg type, etc. Same effect. "When you take this feat, pick two handed slashing weapons, one handed finessable weapons, or your mother's fruitcake...."
btw, looking through the wizard...where are the Low Arcanum?Low Arcanum are listed under each Wizard's specialization description, further down the document.
Oh, they aren't actually called out as Low Arcanum, like the High Arcana are...they're just mandatory class abilities, no choice involved. Duh.
==Aelryinth
btw, looking through the wizard...where are the Low Arcanum?Low Arcanum are listed under each Wizard's specialization description, further down the document.Oh, they aren't actually called out as Low Arcanum, like the High Arcana are...they're just mandatory class abilities, no choice involved. Duh.
==Aelryinth
Heh. I found out the opposite way. I skipped right to the Transmutation section of the wizard section (since that's what I play in Kirth's campaign), and was reading through it when he refers to one of the abilities as an "arcanum." I thought to myself, "Wtf is an arcanum?" Then I skipped around the document until I found it. Then I said, "Aw, sh*t. He changed my class, again." Then I read the changes, and I said, "Oh, cool. I have way more options, now."
My question on the totem bonus was if you had noticed that even though you stated that the progression was every 4th level in the rules summary, your table has you gaining your first totem bonus at 1st level and your second at 4th level, which works out to every 3rd not every 4th. This is the same issue with the totem feats, you gain your 1st feat at level 2 and second feat at level 5, which is also every 3rd not every 4th. After the 2nd feat and totem bonus your increases do follow the every 4th level rule though.
I think spreading out the spells as you intent would work. I think the big thing is to just make sure that the classes get level appropriate spells for their character level so you may need to make some small adjustment to which spell is what level for the monks and rangers. Also are you taking away the zero level spells from the ranger class, I do agree that it is nice to make the monks and rangers spell progression consistent with both gaining only 1st through 5th level spells with a similar progression.
Thanks
To be honest I think spell casters work fine as it is so far.
I liked that wizards have spells based on Int and Cha (even makes sense, you might learn difficult spells but casting them is force of personality).
I wouldn't make wisdom a dependent ability (except for maybe Eiditic Memory instead) because its already a necessity due to will saves. No one in their right ming would dump a will save (atleast no one should). the only stat wizards dont need really is strength. That is totally fine, there will always be one stat that a fighter wont really need. If your DM plays by the load capacity rules the wizard wont dump it too low.
The sorceror could maybe use another stat. Perhaps basing his spells known as wisdom (too close to wizards maybe? but hear me out) because in literature it is reflected. Only in DnD characters have a seen the flamboyant arogant no neck magic user. Sorcerors throughout history were usually very wise, had insights into the world, embraced finding the truth behind things. Basically my arguement is that sorcerors were wise. Maybe the "arrogant and I dont want to be intelligent" sorcerror has a place, I just never liked that someone who can wield reality being... well... less than intelligent.
I am not saying change it now (too much immediate change can be bad for a system, no one will know what to play), but it was something I always thought about.
Bottom line is Wizards get to choose their spells EVERYDAY. That means everyday you can be a new kind of Wizard.. that doesn't ever suck.
For most of the classes you can make ANY attribute important within the class. While a strength wizard might make less sense (I dont even really have a concept for this other than multiclassing) it would be interesting to see a wizard that actually needed strength to work his spells better or something, perhaps a special transmographer?
anyways I think it works for us now, I play tested a little already, so unless extensive playtesting proves things to be out of whack (or obvious things need to be fixed) keep it the way it is.
If it aint broke, dont fix it ya know.
PS:
In my mention of the sorceror I would say this DOES NOT apply to the battle sorceror, which could be the first strength and charisma caster (maybe not but wisdom I am not sure if that fits). In that statement I am leaving the battle sorceror out of consideration.
Also I am sure the answer is what I am expecting but why are wizards back to limited cantrips per day?
Kirth you have tested the system more than me so I have to ask:
with the new house rules and feats do monsters need any changing?
and I wouldn't mind helping (if not with your help and others on here willing to help) converting a Kirthfinder Kreature Kompendium.
Also I am curious what you would do about this, problem I have had for years.
Skills in reference to when you can take a skill:
For instance, someone puts a rank in profession sailor when they live in the desert. Someone puts a rank in acrobatics and never attempted or practiced balancing or tumbling.
I dont like restricting people because that would be a lot more work on my part and very unfair, but I am a firm believer that you should only get better at a skill by practising it repeatedly. Suddenly you max your ranks in stealth after 4 levels of clunking around and you never practised but you leveled? LAME! Most of my players dont do this but I always felt it wasn't too much of a problem because skills weren't as good (not the case in your system). Basically I am afraid this will become an increasing occurence. Any suggestions for how I should run that? it probably doesn't require its own mechanic though I suppose I could make one for my games.
Ranger link goes to a .docx which isn't there so the link is broken.
Replacing the link with .doc does work. Just informing.
My question on the totem bonus was if you had noticed that even though you stated that the progression was every 4th level in the rules summary, your table has you gaining your first totem bonus at 1st level and your second at 4th level, which works out to every 3rd not every 4th.
When you gain the 1st (base) bonus is irrelevant. It could be negative 50th level. Look strictly at the increase, which is stated not in terms of level increase, but rather in terms of a remainderless fraction of your class level.
Exactly the way Paizo's Power Attack now works.
Also are you taking away the zero level spells from the ranger class, I do agree that it is nice to make the monks and rangers spell progression consistent with both gaining only 1st through 5th level spells with a similar progression.
I really like for rangers to get things like mending and endure elements right away, so their 0-level spells will not be going away. If that means that monks need to get them, so be it, but they could just as easily be left off for monks -- who are front-loaded enough not to need the extra "oomph." Maybe they could trade their 1st level bonus feat for an orison progression or something.
Also are you taking away the zero level spells from the ranger class, I do agree that it is nice to make the monks and rangers spell progression consistent with both gaining only 1st through 5th level spells with a similar progression.I really like for rangers to get things like mending and endure elements right away, so their 0-level spells will not be going away. If that means that monks need to get them, so be it, but they could just as easily be left off for monks -- who are front-loaded enough not to need the extra "oomph." Maybe they could trade their 1st level bonus feat for an orison progression or something.
I would say the passive ki powers kinda fills that niche already.
Also I am sure the answer is what I am expecting but why are wizards back to limited cantrips per day?
They have a limited number PREPARED per day, but unlimited uses of those. Just like in PF.
Also I am sure the answer is what I am expecting but why are wizards back to limited cantrips per day?They have a limited number PREPARED per day, but unlimited uses of those. Just like in PF.
ah
smiles totally missed that
Just realized an error I had with a name of a book of monsters...
sigh. thats what I get for trying to be cute with alliteration.
please excuse guys *embarrased*
with the new house rules and feats do monsters need any changing?
Not for me, but I use very few "vanilla" monsters without class levels -- most of my villains are humans, etc. Also, I'm not too careful about making sure encounters are "level-appropriate" -- I prefer a sandbox situation in which the PCs gradually learn which areas to avoid until they're tougher, and learn to run away (and maybe come back with reinforcements) when they're overmatched. When undermatched, I have no problem watching them slaughter the opposition. Finally, I come from a 1e background, in which a huge, ancient red dragon had only 88 hp -- the fight was over in a round or two at most -- either you're all dead or the dragon is. I like combat to be over very, very quickly at higher levels.
someone puts a rank in profession sailor when they live in the desert. Someone puts a rank in acrobatics and never attempted or practiced balancing or tumbling.
Maybe they live in the desert currently, but as a child sailed down the Nile every spring and boated around the sea. Just because they never used those skills since then doesn't mean they were never learned! Likewise, the second guy you mentioned is assumed to be practicing all the time -- but offstage at home or at the gym, not while he's in the middle of an adventure.
I don't like the 24/7 adventuring schedule in which there is no down time, and in which people go from 1st to 18th level in a year, without ever having seen an inn. In our home campaign, the main group is 6th level, and over a year and a half of game time has elapsed since they started.
someone puts a rank in profession sailor when they live in the desert. Someone puts a rank in acrobatics and never attempted or practiced balancing or tumbling.
Maybe they live in the desert currently, but as a child sailed down the Nile every spring and boated around the sea. Just because they never used those skills since then doesn't mean they were never learned! Likewise, the second guy you mentioned is assumed to be practicing all the time -- but offstage at home or at the gym, not while he's in the middle of an adventure.
I don't like the 24/7 adventuring schedule in which there is no down time, and in which people go from 1st to 18th level in a year, without ever having seen an inn. In our home campaign, the main group is 6th level, and over a year and a half of game time has elapsed since they started.
Oh I agree with you I just think some of my players dont practice in the down time (I would assume if I brought it up that they would)
Its more of a personal thing for me I suppose, but I feel like if something isn't that challenging (for instance doing handstands in down time) then you shouldn't be getting that much better at it. Kinda harsh I suppose.
maybe I will institute a complete one check per rank rule, and one check for every 5 ranks must be one under pressure (either by a party member assaulting you in down time or in combat) and the rest can be practiced checks on downtime. (per level not day)
I suppose this is arbitrary but I just wanted a second opinion. Ill see how it goes.
BTW:
I saw that you saw Evil Lincolns feats (the battle changing feat ones) and wanted to know if you planned on using those for anything.
I would like to see a similiar thing for skills (maybe a devoted practice skill that allows you allocate points to certain skills nigh exhaustion and fatigue)
just a thought
Oh I agree with you I just think some of my players' [characters] dont practice in the down time
By that logic, I'd be forced to assume that the PCs never defecate -- but I don't therefore impose "constipation penalties" to attacks, saves, and checks. A lot of what the PCs do while off-duty and off-camera is their business. As DM, I usually really don't want to know the details of Cadogan's day-to-day affairs, for example.
Oh I agree with you I just think some of my players' [characters] dont practice in the down timeBy that logic, I'd be forced to assume that the PCs never defecate -- but I don't therefore impose "constipation penalties" to attacks, saves, and checks. A lot of what the PCs do while off-duty and off-camera is their business. As DM, I usually really don't want to know the details of Cadogan's day-to-day affairs, for example.
that is a very fair point. something I must think about then.
Ross must have missed that one. I'll flag for the admins again.Ranger link goes to a .docx which isn't there so the link is broken.
Replacing the link with .doc does work. Just informing.
*cough*
|
As DM, I usually really don't want to know the details of Cadogan's day-to-day affairs, for example.
I don't think I want to know the details of Cadogan's day to day affairs...
As DM, I usually really don't want to know the details of Cadogan's day-to-day affairs, for example.I don't think I want to know the details of Cadogan's day to day affairs...
OMG! Rope, a ring of animal frienship and oil!?!
I definately don't want to know! ;)
|
|
As DM, I usually really don't want to know the details of Cadogan's day-to-day affairs, for example.I don't think I want to know the details of Cadogan's day to day affairs...OMG! Rope, a ring of animal frienship and oil!?!
I definately don't want to know! ;)
Hey, Cadogan isn't Scottish...
a ring of animal friendship and oil!?!
Hey, Cadogan isn't Scottish...
Hmmm... maybe his comeliness is because he's related to Richard Gere...
4e Does it by having Wis or Cha work for the will save; Str or Con for the fort save; and Int or Dex for the reflex save. ergo, it becomes a choice for the save, instead of a necessity. Note that moving the Will save from Wis to Cha just moves all the Wis focus to the Cha focus for most classes. It gives sorcs a substantial boost over Clerics, too, with the natural will booster...not that that is a bad thing.
A wizard can become a completely new spellcaster in the morning...if he has the appropriate spells in his book to do so! I did a comparison against an Arcane Sorcerer, and a default wizard not only had less spells known/day, 30 Int and all, but since he defaults to only 2/level, unless he spent substantial amounts of gold, the variety of spells he had was also considerably less. The wizard needed a minimum of 8 spells/level or so to compete with the arcane sorc EQUALLY...and the sorc ended up with all those spells all the time/en masse, while the wizard got them individually. To really have diversity, the wizard needs 12-16+ spells at every level to completely change their spell bars, and the usefulness of that over having 8 key spells available all the time is highly debateable.
===Aelryinth