If you can only do X, and I can do X+Y how am I not more powerful?I've played a number of human arcane sorcerers with buckets and buckets of spells. You know what I found in our games? Compared to other spellcasters (both sorcerers and non-sorcerers) it was actually kind of weak in comparison.
Action economy greatly helps keep balance with such a character. More spells makes you a little more versatile (in that there are less situations where you are sitting with your thumb up your butt), but it does NOT make you more powerful. After all, you can only ever get off one or two spells per round.
Because a person with the extra spells can't do X+Y, they can only do X or Y.
Because we both can only do a combination of x or x+y the same number of times per day. In addition to your only having X you also either have another skill maxed, or more HP than me.Yep. Those extra skill ranks and hit points may not seem like much on paper, but they make a BIG difference in play and are easily equal to having extra spells. It's not something you can easily see unless you've actually played it out.
I have played it out, and those spells were a lot more important to my NPC boss than the hit points or skills. Had it been a PC I would take skills and/or HP at low levels, and switch to spells at higher levels. Actually I did the same thing with the NPC.
I have played it out, and those spells were a lot more important to my NPC boss than the hit points or skills. Had it been a PC I would take skills and/or HP at low levels, and switch to spells at higher levels. Actually I did the same thing with the NPC.If you can only do X, and I can do X+Y how am I not more powerful?I've played a number of human arcane sorcerers with buckets and buckets of spells. You know what I found in our games? Compared to other spellcasters (both sorcerers and non-sorcerers) it was actually kind of weak in comparison.
Action economy greatly helps keep balance with such a character. More spells makes you a little more versatile (in that there are less situations where you are sitting with your thumb up your butt), but it does NOT make you more powerful. After all, you can only ever get off one or two spells per round.
Because a person with the extra spells can't do X+Y, they can only do X or Y.
Because we both can only do a combination of x or x+y the same number of times per day. In addition to your only having X you also either have another skill maxed, or more HP than me.Yep. Those extra skill ranks and hit points may not seem like much on paper, but they make a BIG difference in play and are easily equal to having extra spells. It's not something you can easily see unless you've actually played it out.
Your NPC boss had, what? Five rounds against the PCs?
What good is 10+ spells above and beyond the norm when you are only going to get the 5 off, especially when, as GM, you could ensure he has the best 5 spells from the start, without needing any bonus spells known?
In other words, in the case of NPCs, the bonus spells known are almost entirely inconsequential--especially when you could just give them one time potions and scrolls.
|
stuffsOn to new territory -- Yes as a matter of fact I did keep six copies of my basic spell book -- a wise wizard should (and I had a wisdom of 14 by the way -- making me very wise for a wizard), and I took spell mastery -- and eschew materials, AND still spell as well as silent spell, plus defensive combat training.
It's good to be paranoid.
It costed you 2 of those wizard "extra" feats.
To say "I can defang the wizard this easily" still doesn't fly -- sure you could -- but in those situations the sorcerer is going to be just as boned -- since they are likely gagged and bound as well (which wasn't a problem for my wizard by the way -- which I got due to all those extra bonus feats).
I didn't say "I can defang the wizard this easily". I did say "it is easier to de-fang a wizard".
And in the political example while you can remove spellbooks and components "politely" and still keep a façade of courtesy, gagging someone break it.
It is the same thing of your fighter counter example.
If you are in presence of the king you leave your weapons (and everything that radiate magic) outside the audience chamber.
In that situation a monk has a better time than a fighter.
Situational.
I fully concede the small difference and even sometime advantage of the wizard thank to his stats in spell levels.
Unless the players play in a very magic poor campaign a having a bonus spell for the highest spell level a guy can cast is a granted thing.
I personally feel that the free choice of spells still trumps that by a good margin, especially if the number of know spell get increased so much (39% if you get a bonus spell every level, cantrip not counted).
Your NPC boss had, what? Five rounds against the PCs?
Big bruiser boss? Probable.
Big caster boss? Not so probable.
Your NPC boss had, what? Five rounds against the PCs?
What good is 10+ spells above and beyond the norm when you are only going to get the 5 off, especially when, as GM, you could ensure he has the best 5 spells from the start, without needing any bonus spells known?In other words, in the case of NPCs, the bonus spells known are almost entirely inconsequential--especially when you could just give them one time potions and scrolls.[/QUOTE
And that why I feel that the difference is more noticeable for PC than NPC.
That one extra spell chosen at level 4 will be still useful at level 20 (certainly less than at level 4 but it will still an available resource), for a NPC it is generally a matter of 1-2 encounters with a NPC, even a recurrent nemesis could get "free of charge" one shot items between encounters while a player has to justify where he has got the items and pay for them.
I have played it out, and those spells were a lot more important to my NPC boss than the hit points or skills. Had it been a PC I would take skills and/or HP at low levels, and switch to spells at higher levels. Actually I did the same thing with the NPC.If you can only do X, and I can do X+Y how am I not more powerful?I've played a number of human arcane sorcerers with buckets and buckets of spells. You know what I found in our games? Compared to other spellcasters (both sorcerers and non-sorcerers) it was actually kind of weak in comparison.
Action economy greatly helps keep balance with such a character. More spells makes you a little more versatile (in that there are less situations where you are sitting with your thumb up your butt), but it does NOT make you more powerful. After all, you can only ever get off one or two spells per round.
Because a person with the extra spells can't do X+Y, they can only do X or Y.
Because we both can only do a combination of x or x+y the same number of times per day. In addition to your only having X you also either have another skill maxed, or more HP than me.Yep. Those extra skill ranks and hit points may not seem like much on paper, but they make a BIG difference in play and are easily equal to having extra spells. It's not something you can easily see unless you've actually played it out.Your NPC boss had, what? Five rounds against the PCs?
What good is 10+ spells above and beyond the norm when you are only going to get the 5 off, especially when, as GM, you could ensure he has the best 5 spells from the start, without needing any bonus spells known?
In other words, in the case of NPCs, the bonus spells known are almost entirely inconsequential--especially when you could just give them one time potions and scrolls.
\
PC often turned the best laid plans to waste so I had to have several contingencies. At least my players do anyway. The best spells are often defined by the situation* and it took them 5 rounds just to bypass the mooks. I don't give open lines of travel to my casters.*The situation changes as the fight changes.
edit:Scrolls eat into economy of action. I am not saying I don't use them, but they are for the spells I really hope I don't need to use or for buff spells that I intend to only cast once even if it is dispelled, or any other one time only spell when I am running an NPC.
I wouldn't use the word "overpowered". But I don't like the aesthetics; most favored class abilities are quite closely balanced to 1/3 or 1/4 of a feat (e.g. 1 hp is similar to 1/3 of Toughness [at best], 1 skill point is similar to 1/3 of Skill Focus, +1/2 alchemist bombs per day is similar to 1/4 of Extra Bombs, etc.), whereas the human favored class bonus is the equivalent of 1/2 of a feat (specifically, half of the feat Expanded Arcana).
I can live with it, though. If I were GMing a game, I'd probably change it to give 1/2 a bonus spell (i.e. a bonus spell every two times you take it).
This. It makes not me run away in fear, but I find it odd that the need of a "1/2" or "1/3" of level mechanics was needed, but has not been applied to one of the most powerful bonuses. That's all.
@LazarX: 9th level spell enter in play in my games. Just saying.
To add some actual play experience ( you know, the one Paizo most wants for their playtest feedback ), my group had a Sorcerer with that special and it changed absolutely bupkiss for the campaign. I guess he might have had an advantage one or two times during months of play until we reached 16th level and the adventure path ended, but most of the time he cast the same spells he would have had anyway.
This special looks a lot better than it actually is and seems totally balanced to me. I actually just made it a standard option for favoured class bonus for all races, since when it came out, it certainly looked like a stealth fix to the Sorcerer class ( in which case it shouldn't have been restricted to one race, because that kills diversity ). However, after seeing how it actually plays, I think it is more of a perk than a necessity.
|
|
To add some actual play experience ( you know, the one Paizo most wants for their playtest feedback ), my group had a Sorcerer with that special and it changed absolutely bupkiss for the campaign. I guess he might have had an advantage one or two times during months of play until we reached 16th level and the adventure path ended, but most of the time he cast the same spells he would have had anyway.
This special looks a lot better than it actually is and seems totally balanced to me. I actually just made it a standard option for favoured class bonus for all races, since when it came out, it certainly looked like a stealth fix to the Sorcerer class ( in which case it shouldn't have been restricted to one race, because that kills diversity ). However, after seeing how it actually plays, I think it is more of a perk than a necessity.
I agree that a sorcerer with a well rounded selection of spells and the right feats to change them enough to avoid holes in his offence and defence (for example changing his fireballs in iceballs) has a very limited need for more know spells.
But then the so much acclaimed advantage of the wizard of being able to memorize any of the spells in his spellbook is worth very little.
I know I am repetitive, but when people say "the wizard has a big advantage in the larger number of spell know" and then they say "increasing the number of the sell know for a sorcerer is not a big advantage" I find it a bit absurd.
I think versatility is important. Having played sorcerers a bunch, there has certainly been times where there were more spells on my 'must-have' list than I'd ever get.
So I think the human racial favoured class option is... well, maybe not powerful per se, but incredible convenient. To me it's not even about "hey, I can have 20 more spells than you". I don't need 20 more spells. I'd probably still pick the hit points or skill points most levels. But this feature lets me pick up the occasional spell that I really want but isn't quite good enough to make it into the top-five.
I think in the future I'd pick human every time. Even if I don't use this favoured class option. Even if you don't use it, having the option available is, to me, a dream scenario.
In the end, I pick sorcerer because spontaneous casting is more convenient than wizard casting. This option just makes it less painful to pick among your favourite spells. What's not to like?
To add some actual play experience ( you know, the one Paizo most wants for their playtest feedback ), my group had a Sorcerer with that special and it changed absolutely bupkiss for the campaign. I guess he might have had an advantage one or two times during months of play until we reached 16th level and the adventure path ended, but most of the time he cast the same spells he would have had anyway.
This special looks a lot better than it actually is and seems totally balanced to me. I actually just made it a standard option for favoured class bonus for all races, since when it came out, it certainly looked like a stealth fix to the Sorcerer class ( in which case it shouldn't have been restricted to one race, because that kills diversity ). However, after seeing how it actually plays, I think it is more of a perk than a necessity.
I agree that a sorcerer with a well rounded selection of spells and the right feats to change them enough to avoid holes in his offence and defence (for example changing his fireballs in iceballs) has a very limited need for more know spells.
But then the so much acclaimed advantage of the wizard of being able to memorize any of the spells in his spellbook is worth very little.
I know I am repetitive, but when people say "the wizard has a big advantage in the larger number of spell know" and then they say "increasing the number of the sell know for a sorcerer is not a big advantage" I find it a bit absurd.
The Wizard has the main advantage of getting all his spells after second level one level sooner, which is pretty damn huge. On paper having this big advantage may look a bit "so what?", but in actual play it is a tremendous advantage over the Sorcerer. I know this pretty well, because in that same campaign I was talking about, we had both a Sorcerer with the special in question and a specialist Wizard. At the odd levels, the Wizard was dominating, while at the even levels things were more balanced. That's still 50% of the campaign where the Wizard is flat-out better.
Wizards also have the big advantage that they can get a decent spell selection going as soon as they hit that new level of spellcasting, while Sorcerers start out with one measly spell.
The extra versatility Wizards have *is* certainly useful, but hampered by selecting your spells per day before the actual day occurs. Still, it's not the main selling points of why you'd play a Wizard over a Sorcerer, IMO. That's the disparity of one level in getting higher level spells.
Wizards also have gotten tons of great options with their school specializations, so they still are a great class to play, even if Sorcerers closed the versatility gap a bit.
New week, new "I didn't know that there is a Search function on this board" thread...Why does this even bother you? I'm honestly curious. I personally don't mind it when folks ask questions like this, since to me, that's evidence that we're growing our fan base—new gamers coming to Paizo is a GOOD thing for Paizo, and seeing questions get re-asked is one of the symptoms of gaining new gamers!
As for whether it's balanced or not... I suspect it is. It LOOKS really good, but in play, having a few more spells isn't all that overwhelmingly as game-breaking as it looks. If that means that there's a lot more human sorcerers than not... I'm kinda okay with that, since "sorcerer" isn't a class that's classically been associated with any of the other races anyway (not like rogues and halfings, or wizards and elves).
+1.
I would love if Gnomes, half-orks and Half-elves where given this option too.Especially the poor gnomes.
Welcome to the Messageboards shea83 :-)
I now play a Bard (level 12 Arcance Duelist) and she uses this ability. It's nice, but sometimes you really want that extra skill point or that extra hit point. I think it's balanced.
This special looks a lot better than it actually is and seems totally balanced to me. I actually just made it a standard option for favoured class bonus for all races, since when it came out, it certainly looked like a stealth fix to the Sorcerer class ( in which case it shouldn't have been restricted to one race, because that kills diversity ). However, after seeing how it actually plays, I think it is more of a perk than a necessity.I agree that a sorcerer with a well rounded selection of spells and the right feats to change them enough to avoid holes in his offence and defence (for example changing his fireballs in iceballs) has a very limited need for more know spells.
But then the so much acclaimed advantage of the wizard of being able to memorize any of the spells in his spellbook is worth very little.
I know I am repetitive, but when people say "the wizard has a big advantage in the larger number of spell know" and then they say "increasing the number of the sell know for a sorcerer is not a big advantage" I find it a bit absurd.
I see it only as more leeway for those who are sloppy in creating a refined concept for thier sorcerer, or who persist in the mistaken idea of running a sorcerer as a spontaneous wizard, instead of a focused thematic arcane caster.
Yes, its pretty powerful.. to the point that you probably won't see many non human sorcerers. Sorcerers don't have any class skills all that worth investing in besides diplomacy, and without any stats except cha and con many sorcerers will have enough hit points anyway.
These posts are pretty much the meat of the issue. Sorcerers are all about picking which options you want available all the time. Wizards are all about having as many options available as possible, given the character's resource constraints.
Sorcerers are very constrained as far as versatility goes, even when working off a thematic concept. This favored class option (as well as the Expanded Arcana feat) can help expand that versatility. Instead of being required to focus quite so much on a narrow concept, the sorcerer can be a bit more of a generalist caster.
Wizards are very versatile; the ability to prepare any spell in their spellbook(s) is only part of it. With the proper preparation (and a bit of expense in money and time, true), a wizard can pull off what the sorcerer brings to the table (casting certain spells multiple times) and still be more versatile. Wizards get Scribe Scroll for free at 1st level for a reason: so that they can scribe plenty of them for "back up" and "just in case" circumstances. To a lesser extent (levels 1-4), they can also be used for "cast the same spell multiple times" situations that sorcerers excell at; yes, there is a cost involved, but at spell level x caster level x 12.5 (maximum 100 gp per scroll at these levels), it's not that huge of one. At 5th level, the wizard gets a lot of benefit out of taking Craft Wand as their bonus feat; much more so than a sorcerer. For a 375 gp creation cost, the wizard can effectively treat a 1st level spell (such as, say, enlarge person for the party tank or endure elements for the entire party) as a cantrip; for a 1,125 gp creation cost, the wizard can have a wand of magic missiles (CL 3) to do 2d4+2 damage pretty much automatically (no attack roll or save, even affects incorporeal opponents); for a 2,250 gp creation cost (a bit steep at this level, but possible), the wizard can have a wand of acid arrow (long range vs. touch AC, no save, no SR), darkvision (no need for the party to carry a light source), resist energy (protect the whole party from energy damage), etc. This allows the wizard to focus their actual prepared spells on the ones that provide the most "bang for the buck."
I reckon it's not "power" of the option that's at issue, but rather the trade-off, which many perceive to be especially favourable at higher levels, and from experience with "the other rpg", this problem accentuates as more and more spells for different situations get added to the system. It could mean that you know dimension door on top of improved invisibility and resilient sphere, each of which can be used to respond to dynamically different situations, and which your 5th level feeblemind or dominate person would in no way render redundant. More earth-shatteringly powerful? No. More versatile? Surely. And is that versatility worth a singly hp? Well, at that level, compared to the versatility of an extra spell known, most would probably say "heck yeah".
But there are many who'd disagree. That's why these threads keep resurfacing and getting so long. So if I may propose a solution. If there was some option in ultimate magic that allowed sorcerers to increase their spells known (albeit with the restriction of it not being at the highest level available to the caster), both sides would arguably be happy. The one who think that the extra spells known are not that big a deal would still think it's not that big a deal, whilst the one's who do think it is will now be able to get those extra spells known will be happy that they now have their extra pie.
I for one would suggest either something similar to the runestaffs or knowstones from "the other RPG", or a feat that grants the same bonus that a human sorcerer would if he took the favoured class option at every level. Or heck, put in a character trait that allowed you to take favoured class options from another race. *shrug*
I'll repeat it once more: The main advantage of playing a Wizard is getting spells one level earlier, which means for 50% of the campaign you are more powerful. The higher versatility is a nice add-on.
I do think it's the most powerful favored class bonus available, but I do not think it's game breaking. It certainly wouldn't be a factor when it comes to choosing a race for my sorcerer.
Eh. The core ruling is good for the game. It makes playing a sorcerer a little more flexible, which adds fun, at the cost of survivability (skills, HP), which adds risk, which adds fun.
I do think it's the most powerful favored class bonus available, but I do not think it's game breaking. It certainly wouldn't be a factor when it comes to choosing a race for my sorcerer.Maybe for you :(
I can't get myself to play any non-human Sorcerer as long as they are the only ones to have the option for 16 lvl1+ bonus spells. I wanted to play Gnome, and I brought up that it would be nice for them to have the Favor Class bonus of bonus spells, but the GM was wary.
+1
It certainly would be a factor when it comes to choosing a race for my sorcerer. Most players will play human.Gnomes suck, so why you should play them I don't know.
|
|
Favored class options are not going to make it the "go to" race for ALL sorcerers. I play the apparently much maligned gnome sorcerer and I have not felt hindered at all or lower in power. The fact of the matter is that it can't overpowered you since it does not give you more power at all. It gives you more versatility to add more situational spells, but as another pointed out, combat lasts a limited number of round. You won't get all your spells off, so the extra 16 really don't come into play in most situations. It won't make everyone always choose human just to get more spells.
The fact is, most players choose human for the bonus feat and because it's the safest and easiest to role play for most people since they are humans as well. I, for one, never choose human unless I need the feat very badly or the concept I have in mind fits human. I don't like being a slave to power mechanics and choosing the most mechanically superior combination of Race, Class, Feats and Skills every time I make a character.
The goal is to have fun. No one wins for having the best character.
|
|
That's all fine too. Whatever it takes to make it fun. Being unhappy with a character is the worst. I have a Dragon Disciple I made that looked good on paper, but he has been just this side of useless in combat. He is one of the character I have told the GM to kill him off if she can, lol. I have another spontaneous caster that was a conversion of a Wu-Jen. They actually get a very generous spells known, but I chose them so bad. I hate that guy too and wish him dead.
.
..
...
....
.....
You can only learn Fireball once..
Tho really, a true devotee would unlearn FIREBALLfor the sheer joy of learning it once more!
F
I
R
E
B
A
L
L
::
Shakes fireball? No, my friend. Fireball shakes YOU.
Gnomes suck, so why you should play them I don't know.
Gnome Sorcerer (Fey Bloodline)? Gnome Magic (+1 DC to Illusion spells, SLAs) and Bloodline Arcana (+2 DC to compulsion spells) stack with Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Spell Focus (Illusion). Academician alternate racial trait can give a +2 on Knowledge (Arcana); Gift of Tongues alternate racial trait can help turn the sorcerer into a diplomancer/face, especially with the Ease of Faith and Charming character traits (the Charming trait adds to your spell DCs, too).
Who needs charm person when your Diplomacy check modifier is +10 at 1st level (18 Cha, Gift of Tongues, Ease of Faith)? Who needs a couple extra cantrips when the save DC against daze is 16 (without Spell Focus), basically forcing a low-level opponent to do nothing 50-80% of the time? If they get close, you can just color spray them (save DC is also 16).
If a racial option is causing a major shift in the population dynamics , that's an indication that, at the least, the players think the option is better than the others. I see no reason to think that they're wrong.
1 skill point per level= something a human sorcerer has no use for. They can have an 8 int and still get 3 points per level. 1 into diplomacy 1 into spellcraft and then one.. well i like acrobatics.
1 hit point per level = toughness= 1 feat.
taking the extra spells= 1/2 of one feat. Taking the extra spells 20 times= 10 feats.
Versatility is power. Sorcerers don't have many of their higher level spells at their disposal. You want one big attack, one big defense, and one big utility. That can be hard to maintain without the human bonus, especially if your big attack is blocked by energy resistance or immunity to a particular type attack (like a sorcerer with dominate person facing a dragon or undead)
This is not merely a paper bonus, but a fact of life that while adventuring the ability to do A B and C a number of times per day is useless if neither A,B, nor C are effective.
If a racial option is causing a major shift in the population dynamics , that's an indication that, at the least, the players think the option is better than the others. I see no reason to think that they're wrong.1 skill point per level= something a human sorcerer has no use for. They can have an 8 int and still get 3 points per level. 1 into diplomacy 1 into spellcraft and then one.. well i like acrobatics.
1 hit point per level = toughness= 1 feat.
Humans could do this regardless of whatever additional bonus they got from their favored class.
It hasn't affected the "population shift" in my games. Strangely, though the game I play in and the game I run are humancentric, sorcerors are usually NONhuman. *shrugs*
Go figure.
Greg
The
onlyadvantage a wizard has against a sorcerer is that he get higher level spells 1 level ahead of the sorcerer and that he has a wider selection of spells in his spellbook.
You're kidding, right?
That's like saying the only advantage Tiger Woods has over me in a golf tournament is that he's a lot better than me at golf.
I know I am repetitive, but when people say "the wizard has a big advantage in the larger number of spell know" and then they say "increasing the number of the sell know for a sorcerer is not a big advantage" I find it a bit absurd.
The problem is that you're not fully understanding the weight of a theoretically infinite spell selection vs. one that's limited, if a little less limited.
I'll give you one easy example: crafting. Let's say my spellcaster thinks it would be handy to have a Handy Haversack and would like to craft it without taking the DC kick for skipping a requirement. That means he needs to know Secret Chest. A wizard is likely to be able to buy a scroll of it in a village of almost any size. For a sorcerer, even with a couple bonus spells of that level? Secret Chest still doesn't make the cut -- it just doesn't.
Free scribe scroll for wizards kicks this up a notch, incidentally. It's rare that I'm going to want to cast mount, but it could come up? I'll scribe myself a cheap scroll of it and thereafter skip preparing it. A sorcerer either has to go all-in on a spell or not have it at all.
I'll give you a second easy example: all the kinds of spells you never would randomly prep for adventuring, but situationally if forewarned can be excellent. In anything but a dedicated aquatic campaign, a sorcerer would be insane to burn a spell slot on Water Breathing. The wizard can just prep it whenever it seems like it'll be useful. If the next week the party's in the desert instead of fighting the sahuagin kings, the wizard simply rotates Water Breathing out of his prepared spells list and the sorcerer sighs a lot.
It's a good favored class feature, don't get me wrong -- but in terms of versatility it's largely putting platform shoes on a short man and trying to convince yourself that now he can play for the Lakers.
The argument comes down to usefulness of spells.
Wizards have to spend resources to expand their spell selection beyond +2 a level. Sorcerors by default get more then that.
The money a wizard spends on enhancing his spell book and getting scrolls made the sorceror can do exactly the same thing with via wands and scrolls. 15k of Pearls of Power is easily replicated by 15k of wands of various sorts.
There's also the fact that a Sorceror is 'naturally' much better at UMD then a wizard is.
Having a spell is no longer required to make a magic item. You can sub for it with a Spellcraft check. And in any event...you can just buy the scroll and not worry about it.
Real 'hedge' cases like Water Breathing are also the LAST thing a wizard spends to get into his spellbook...getting spells and transcribing them across multiple formats is not cheap. Hedge cases are the kind of thing you leave to the divine casters, who have a massive inbuilt spellbook for special needs.
Being able to make a magic item every day is definitely not a given. Any interruption to the crafting schedule basically forces you to scrap the item, which is wasted gold. Plus you're costing the party time in the morning, and aren't you going to take a guard shift, either? Sure, sure, true down time, you can do that...but all a Sorc has to do is take the crafting feats, make a spellcraft check, and they can do the same.
I don't see the level earlier tag as all that unbalancing. The sorceror will have more lower level spells castable. For most purposes, unless you let the wizard prepare the perfect spell for an encounter, a wizard is going to be grabbing many of the same spells a sorc would, which is advantage: sorc, because they can cast a needed spell multiple times.
I also notice how people instantly go for the specialist wizard, instead of the generalist. I think that conveys more then anything the relative lack of power of the generalist wizard. Poor Ezren.
I'd also like to point out something for the HP mavens...Sorcerors have a much easier spamming False Life then wizards do!
If you completely ignore the GP value of an expanded spellbook (and many, many wizard lovers here do) and you let the wizard prepare for any encounter, then NATURALLY everything favors the wizard.
If extra spells count towards WBL, WBL has to be used to make extra spellbooks, and access to spells isn't willy-nilly...wizards don't look near as hot.
I will note that I do NOT expect wizards to follow in the 24 Int footsteps of Ezren, who relies on direct dmg and doesn't even have Teleport known...
===Aelryinth
Having a spell is no longer required to make a magic item. You can sub for it with a Spellcraft check. And in any event...you can just buy the scroll and not worry about it.
Well, two things:
The spellcraft check to ignore a requirement is inherently much, much easier for a wizard than a sorcerer. First, because it's much more trivial for him to throw a skill point at it every level without suffering elsewhere. Second, because he actually cares about and will constantly be raising his INT.
Second, if we're talking about the sorcerer buying a scroll to recite and use for crafting, he needs to do that for each day he'll be crafting the item. That, in some cases, gets a lot more expensive than buying it once and putting it in your spellbook.
Being able to make a magic item every day is definitely not a given. Any interruption to the crafting schedule basically forces you to scrap the item, which is wasted gold. Plus you're costing the party time in the morning, and aren't you going to take a guard shift, either?
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Please read the Pathfinder crafting rules. They're different from the 3.5 crafting rules and directly contradict everything you're saying here.
The money a wizard spends on enhancing his spell book and getting scrolls made the sorceror can do exactly the same thing with via wands and scrolls.
It doesn't quite work out that way. Adding spells to your spellbook is pretty cheap, and only gets cheaper as a % of WBL as you level up. Wands are expensive, don't go above 4th level, and have a limited number of charges. Scrolls only work once. Spells on the other hand can be memorized every day.
The well-argued reasoning from each side (Sorcerer vs. Wizard) suggests to me that they are, in fact, balanced.
MI
The well-argued reasoning from each side (Sorcerer vs. Wizard) suggests to me that they are, in fact, balanced.
MI
It really depends on the type of game one plays and how the DM runs things. The wizard still seems to be king of the mountain, but that does not mean a sorcerer or any other class is not good.
Unless the DM is going out of his way to hold the wizard back I don't see how they can't get any spell that they want.
I am not saying they should have access to every spell available up to their current level, but the ones that they want(they think will be useful) which will vary by the campaign are generally available.
1 skill point per level= something a human sorcerer has no use for. They can have an 8 int and still get 3 points per level. 1 into diplomacy 1 into spellcraft and then one.. well i like acrobatics.
1 hit point per level = toughness= 1 feat.
Good luck trying to identify the effects of a spell if you don't see it cast. Also you'll want to avoid any flying spells, because you've got no skill in it at all.
From this thread I'm less against it then I initially was. I would just house rule it to half a spell per level (so one spell every two levels).
Good luck trying to identify the effects of a spell if you don't see it cast.
Do you need to? Just toss a dispell magic at it. If that doesn't work, kill it.
Also you'll want to avoid any flying spells, because you've got no skill in it at all.
why would you need the skill to makea check?
Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally
Good luck trying to identify the effects of a spell if you don't see it cast.Do you need to? Just toss a dispell magic at it. If that doesn't work, kill it.
Also you'll want to avoid any flying spells, because you've got no skill in it at all.why would you need the skill to makea check?
Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally
You fall every time you get whacked unless you make the skill check, so it helps to have a rank or five in fly.
|
|
Being able to make a magic item every day is definitely not a given. Any interruption to the crafting schedule basically forces you to scrap the item, which is wasted gold. Plus you're costing the party time in the morning, and aren't you going to take a guard shift, either?
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.Please read the Pathfinder crafting rules. They're different from the 3.5 crafting rules and directly contradict everything you're saying here.
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit.
If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night. If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).
I, if I was one of his companions, would have serious misgivings about a caster enchanting items during his watch.
That guy will really notice anything less obvious than an earthquake while enchanting?I as a DM would apply the "Creature making the check is distracted DC +5" modifier at least.
Then you get a whopping 250 gp of work every day. You will have trouble making anything more complicated that a low level potion or scroll in less that 4-5 days.
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the armor, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the armor triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the armor's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
Same thing for all the otehr items.
Guess who has the greater chance to have that spell slot available at the end of the day?
And really you think that losing regularly 1 or more spell slots while adventuring will be a wise choice?
Note that: "Preparing Spells: Rest: To prepare his daily spells, a XXX must first sleep for 8 hours. The ... does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells." and "Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a xxx has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit."
Day 1: our caster will use 1 spell slot to enchant the item and will not not have it available the next day (remember, he is enchanting during his watch).
Day 2+ : the caster will be -1 spell and need to keep another spell of the same level to enchant during his watch. So it is minus 2 spells or he will enchant nothing.
The morning of day 3 he will recover the spell spent during day 1 but he will be minus the spell spent on day 2 and still have to keep the slot open for the nightly enchanting.
If you do something requiring multiple spells it became even worse.
Sure, your whole group can adjust their routine to the caster wants so that you do 12 hours rest period every day and avoid the "unrecovered" spell problem.
Let's see our "working day":
- 8.00 am casters wake. Pray/meditate/learn spells/enchant
other guys cooks, break camp, do the cores, do guard duty.
- 9.00 breakfast
- 9.30 hop on your horse and start riding/tackle the dungeon.
- 13.30 stop for midday meal. and a bit of rest.
casters enchant, other guys tend the horses, clean weapons, cook etc.
- 14.00 casters eat
- 14.30 again on march.
- 18.30 end of the "adventuring day"
casters enchant and do do guard duty, other guys make camp, cook, tend the animals,
- 20.00 casters eat.
- 20.30 casters do after diner guard duty and enchanting
- 21.30 casters have done the 4 hours of enchanting for the day. hopefully at that time they spend some time to clean a bit.
- 23.00 casters go to bed (they get at least 9 hours of sleep to cover for the risk of nightime encounters breaking the sleep).
Note that the wizard get about 1 hour between 21.30 and 23.00 to copy spells in his speelbook.
Feasible? yes.
But the "non spellcasters" adventuring companions in that scenario aren't companions. They are minions working for the spellcasters.
Great for min-maxing resources but not as role playing. Mundane adventurers will start the "do nothing" casters very fast.
Then there is the little problem: "You have the right components with you to do the enchanting?"
For potion and scrolls picking up the stuff before going for a trek is easy.
But if you are enchanting a wand you should have the right components for it from day one (and really hope it is well protected while you are fighting enemies).
For a weapon you need the masterwork weapon and thousand of GP in components. An armour is even worse (end if you are enhancing someone existing weapon or armour it will not be available while you are working on it).
Personally I find the "enchant on the move" option a very bad idea.
|
|
Second, if we're talking about the sorcerer buying a scroll to recite and use for crafting, he needs to do that for each day he'll be crafting the item. That, in some cases, gets a lot more expensive than buying it once and putting it in your spellbook.
You use a ring of spell storing and a spellcasting service. (obviously only while in town)
Cheaper than a scroll (after the initial cost of the ring) if you go for the minimum level spellcaster:
- Spellcasting: Caster level × spell level × 10 gp
- scroll: Caster level × spell level × 25 gp
If you have some friend/henchman with the right spell it is even cheaper.
If your group do a lot of enchanting the ring could even be a shared expense.
One item solves most problems for the enchanter on the move: The Ring of Sustenance. Its wording is quite interpreteable that it allows for much more time per day to enchant items.
As for the crafting components, DM's should remove the sticks from their rectums before giving their players a hard time about those kind of details. Just assume that the crafting components a character buys are for the right items a player plans to craft.
|
If a racial option is causing a major shift in the population dynamics...
I'm pretty sure that's not been proved, beyond maybe people's individuals games (where other people's games will find no 'shift' at all).
1 skill point per level= something a human sorcerer has no use for. They can have an 8 int and still get 3 points per level. 1 into diplomacy 1 into spellcraft and then one.. well i like acrobatics.
Why is the Sorcerer investing so heavily in the non-Class Diplomacy Skill? One would imagine that Bluff or Intimidate would be better. Then there's Spellcraft, of course, Use Magic Device (with their Charisma, surely most Sorcerers take this?), then at least Knowledge (Arcana), Craft if they want to make magic stuff, and Fly when the game hits those levels... I honestly can't imagine any character having 'no use' for an extra Skill point, much less a 2 Skill point per level Class...
1 hit point per level = toughness= 1 feat.
taking the extra spells= 1/2 of one feat. Taking the extra spells 20 times= 10 feats.
So how many 'feats' is using a bloodline power 10x extra a day worth (elf)? Or doing +10 fire spell damage (half-orc)? The idea that all favoured Class options have to = a set amount of 'feat' equivalents is something of a false premise. And again, why just the Sorcerer? The human Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Oracle, Witch, and Wizard all get the same option. Humans, as their 'flavour', get extra versitility, other races generally get extra raw power.
... Sorcerers don't have many of their higher level spells at their disposal. You want one big attack, one big defense, and one big utility...
By the time the favoured class bonus lets you select from a specific spell level, you already have two spells known of that level anyway. Is it good to have one more? Sure - that's why it's a bonus. Is it overpowered? Well... I guess that's the debate...
... But consider that by the time the Sorcerer can pick up an extra spell known of 'level X' via the favoured Class bonus (for a grand total of 3 spells known of that level), the Wizard already has up to 8 spells of that level in his book from his normal Class progression alone, plus another 2 from his human favoured Class bonus, if he wants (for 10 spells 'known' total, with zero effort on the Wizard's part), plus whatever he's spent the time and money in adding on top of that. Granted, he's more likely to have 4 spells of that level plus the two from his favoured Class bonus (for a total of 6 spells of that level, twice that of the Sorcerer) because he's already gone on to bigger and better things, but he has the option... I still can't see how that's 'overpowered' for the Sorcerer...
|
|
One item solves most problems for the enchanter on the move: The Ring of Sustenance. Its wording is quite interpreteable that it allows for much more time per day to enchant items.
As for the crafting components, DM's should remove the sticks from their rectums before giving their players a hard time about those kind of details. Just assume that the crafting components a character buys are for the right items a player plans to craft.
" The ring also refreshes the body and mind, so that its wearer needs only sleep 2 hours per day to gain the benefit of 8 hours of sleep. This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day."
You still get the "not recovering spell cast in the last 8 hours." but it will avoid the "all guys should follow my schedule" problem.
Why is the Sorcerer investing so heavily in the non-Class Diplomacy Skill? One would imagine that Bluff or Intimidate would be better. Then there's Spellcraft, of course, Use Magic Device (with their Charisma, surely most Sorcerers take this?), then at least Knowledge (Arcana), Craft if they want to make magic stuff, and Fly when the game hits those levels... I honestly can't imagine any character having 'no use' for an extra Skill point, much less a 2 Skill point per level Class...
Any spellcster worth his salt will take spellcraft to incant items.
It work for all of them while the craft skills only work for the "right" kind of item and it ha several other useful functions.If I had to put a 8 somewhere to buy my stats as a sorcerer I would put it in strength, not intelligence.
Even with a 10 point builds I could get a 9/12/12/10/10/15 starting build (and so a 17 in charisma after the racial modifier).
My ST will be decent (for a low fantasy setting) I would have a +1 AC for dexterity and a +1 HP/level for constitution.
One thing to keep in mind: The concern is NOT that the extra spells known will make the sorcerer game-breakingly powerful.
Rather, the apparent imbalance stems from the RELATIVE utility of an extra spell known over an extra single hit point. At higher levels (arguably once you can take 3rd level spells using the favoured class bonus), the utility of knowing an extra spell will arguably start to far outstrip the utility of a single extra hitpoint.
And let's not let this thread devolve into YET ANOTHER sorcerer vs wizard thread.
Rather, the apparent imbalance stems from the RELATIVE utility of an extra spell known over an extra single hit point. At higher levels (arguably once you can take 3rd level spells using the favoured class bonus), the utility of knowing an extra spell will arguably start to far outstrip the utility of a single extra hitpoint.
I was under the impression that was intentional, which is why races only have special Favored Class bonuses for classes that are archetypal for them, and why Humans get them for any class. The hit point and skill point bonus are for special snowflakes.
|
What we did, is houserule to give sorcs an ability to switch out one spell per level spontaneously. Like cast a spell they didn't know, basically.
Now my wizard vs sorc rant:
My problem with it is that if NERFS wizards. In comparison, NOBODY would EVER choose a wizzy over a sorc. Ever.
The one thing wizards always had over sorcs is utility. "Give me a day and I'll have the spell we need prepared"
They never had as many spells per day to cast, but they could cast anything they knew if it could be prepared.
Sorcs had more spells per day, but VERY limited in spells known. Like, WAY more restricted than a witch's list restricted.
That is how it should be. Period.
Aikyou, +17 Spells known isn't going to break anything compared to a wizard's possible spell utility...especially since many campaigns ignore the WBL of a wizard's extra spells, AND wizards who can prepare for an encounter ahead of time can be devastating vs a sorceror who must be prepared generally.
Really, it makes a sorceror more fun to play, with more options. It certainly doesn't step on the toes of the wizard being able to prepare specifically for any threat.
I will say it slams the coffin on the generalist wizard and nails it shut. The combo of missing out on extra spell slots AND extra spells known is way too big a hit...who would ever bother to be Ezren?
===Aelryinth