We started a new adventure last night (Realm of the Fellnight Queen) and I knew vaguely what to expect. I (playing the wizard) tried to not metagame and only choose spells that would have been fun/useful at a wedding. The sorcerer's player (who did not know what to expect) is a metagamer. In this particular character he has mostly spells to help the 'people with the damage'.
OK not a strong argument, but I found the flexibility of sorcerers argument pointless. :)
I also think cohort argument is pointless:
A. it is available to any class and therefore is pro for both sides.
B. Filling the weak point of apples with an orange implies the necessity of the orange.
C. Can be used to fill any gaps (ie sorcerers are better at swords/healing/shoetying/singing/spaceship piloting than fighters/clerics/rogues/bards/wookies because I can have a fighter/cleric/rogue/bard/wookie cohort. *
The only thing I feel should be corrected is that while enchanting the spellcaster should still use up the appropriate spell slot, even if the spell was provided by a magic item.
Well, that´s obviously not the actual rules, and while you´re free to come up with house-rules that exist to penalize Sorcerors, I would be pissed as a Sorceror player if the non-spellcaster dude with Master Craftsman just laughs because they don´t have spellslots to begin with.
I don´t really understand the basis of why you would do this. If somebody else (or an object) is providing the magical ju-ju, why would your own magical ju-ju be expended? Assuming you´re a Wizard who COULD memorize the spell, but happens to have a bunch of scrolls lying around (and plans for the evening that make you want to memorize other spells), why would using the scroll prevent you from using that slot for something else? Using scrolls doesn´t normally consume one of your own slots, after all. The ju-ju was already expended in the process of making the scroll, after all, where it is ´stored´ until used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No you can't, and buying scrolls does not make you equal. You will never have enough scrolls to be a good pseudo-sorcerer. On top of that pulling them out eats into your action economy. The bard is not a sorcerer nor can he scroll himself into being one anymore than he can scroll himself into being a wizard.With scrolls you can do ANYTHING!Bards can't do binding. Bards are a good class, but not > Sorcerer.
My thoughts exactly.Bard > Sorcerer, because they can turn Charisma into something useful with Versatile Performance (Sense motive with CHA baby!) AND they can tote around the 100 scrolls that Treantmonk was talking about.
*takes off top-hat and bows*
I apologize if my contextual sarcasm was bleeding through my text onto your keyboard.
I could have one of my cohorts clean that up for you, but I just found out that when they do things that cost money, it turns out it costs money. That and I hear that my good Game Master might be banning them soon...
What a shame.
Evil demon that is called to our plane and accidentally dies on the last day of service doesn't get revenge.How would you get around the "Resentment" that DMs would take full advantage of?
Quite clever. I have read your Malconvoker guide.
To be specific though, I was more concerned with them thwarting your request somehow with some clever contractual loophole while they are under the spell.
I suppose that could be part of the roll for your group though... If there is a large enough difference in the creature's failure the DM might consider the contract to be foolproof enough that it's never an issue - until they're released which as you say can be fixed easily enough.
My DMs aren't quite so kind when it comes to those sorts of things, and if I made a habit of killing other planar denizens after they perform forced servitude under my hand, the story would quickly be turned to the relatives of those said denizens seeking for revenge instead.
Not that your Malconvoker guide hasn't inspired me to go ahead try anyway one of these days.
Evil demon that is called to our plane and accidentally dies on the last day of service doesn't get revenge.How would you get around the "Resentment" that DMs would take full advantage of?
And if he dies, that's always his last day of service.
Lilith, do you ever notice how you often seem to have a lot of people all disagreeing with you? Not that the majority is the best way to judge sanity, but it is a good measure of when to reevaluate one's conclusions. Perhaps not everyone else is wrong. Just a thought.Tiny Coffee Golem, when a lot of people agree with me, its a red flag that I need to re-evaluate what I believe. A quick look at history shows that when the majority of people believe something, its usually just a matter of time before they are proven wrong.
I better stop drinking water guys.
And breathing. Everyone BELIEVES it's important for survival, but history has spoken.
It's wrong to assume that what everyone believes is right, but the other extreme is an equal logical fallacy.
And if he dies, that's always his last day of service.Evil demon that is called to our plane and accidentally dies on the last day of service doesn't get revenge.How would you get around the "Resentment" that DMs would take full advantage of?
So true
Not that your Malconvoker guide hasn't inspired me to go ahead try anyway one of these days.
There of course are other dangers. Maybe that bearded devil you killed served a master who found him valuable before you ended his existence.
As for loopholes, that's pretty easy. Not much fine print in the contracts I make up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will note that your PC better not have "good" written on his character sheet at this point - enslavement and then murder to avoid longer term consequences...
nor lawful I suppose.
I usually go neutral with the following 2 rules:
1) Treat all creatures with honesty, mercy and respect.
2) If the creature is the physical manifestation of evil, ignore rule #1.
|
The only thing I feel should be corrected is that while enchanting the spellcaster should still use up the appropriate spell slot, even if the spell was provided by a magic item.Well, that´s obviously not the actual rules, and while you´re free to come up with house-rules that exist to penalize Sorcerors, I would be pissed as a Sorceror player if the non-spellcaster dude with Master Craftsman just laughs because they don´t have spellslots to begin with.
I don´t really understand the basis of why you would do this. If somebody else (or an object) is providing the magical ju-ju, why would your own magical ju-ju be expended? Assuming you´re a Wizard who COULD memorize the spell, but happens to have a bunch of scrolls lying around (and plans for the evening that make you want to memorize other spells), why would using the scroll prevent you from using that slot for something else? Using scrolls doesn´t normally consume one of your own slots, after all. The ju-ju was already expended in the process of making the scroll, after all, where it is ´stored´ until used.
Sure it will be a house rule.
The aim is to control magic item production and at the same time for consistency in the setting .Most of the power of the magic item come from the components you use and it is shaped by the spell(s) you use making the time, but a bit should come from you.
The "control magic items" part limit what you can build to stuff for which you could potentially cast the needed spells, so it will not be possible to "overcast" using scrolls or items that you can use without risk of failure and construct a magic item capable to use effects that aren't currently unavailable to you.
To make an example, I am a wizard and want to have a staff of delayed fireballs (no other power).
Cost is 400*13-7=36.400
CL 13
DC 18
The item is above my CL +5 to DC
Another +5 to produce it at double speed to cut down on scroll usage.
Total DC 28
I am not particularly intelligent, so only a +7 modifier. I can easily make that when I get craft staff at level 11 as, with maximized skill, my skill is +11 (skill level) + 3 class skill +7 (int) = +21
Taking 10 I will get a +31 result. 0% chance of failure.
The staff would cost a extra 43.225 gp, so not a bargain, but, depending on the campaign, it can be worth it.
It is only an example and hardly a particularly broken one, but I am sure that a canny spellcaster could find the way to make way better use of this kind of trick than my example.
Another possible solution would be not to allow people to build stuff above their CL.
Note: I am not particularly convinced that the rules allow people to craft items above their CL, but I have often seen people in these boards stating that the rules allow that.
For sure nothing explicitly prohibit that.
I apologize for assuming that you knew the word "re-evaluate" and how it differs from "automatically change".
I better stop drinking water guys.And breathing. Everyone BELIEVES it's important for survival, but history has spoken.
It's wrong to assume that what everyone believes is right, but the other extreme is an equal logical fallacy.
That was most certainly a reevaluation on my part.
It sure didn't last long after all.
I apologize for assuming that you knew the word "re-evaluate" and how it differs from "automatically change".
I better stop drinking water guys.And breathing. Everyone BELIEVES it's important for survival, but history has spoken.
It's wrong to assume that what everyone believes is right, but the other extreme is an equal logical fallacy.
That was most certainly a reevaluation on my part.
It sure didn't last long after all.
To be clear, btw, clearly I never said that just because a bunch of people believe something, that means its wrong.
I said that when I find that a lot of people believe what I believe, its time for me to re-evaluate what I believe.
Because you're brilliant. Sorry. I forgot. Won't happen again. *deep bow*
I said that when I find that a lot of people believe what I believe, its time for me to re-evaluate what I believe.
I recommend a belief system based on evidence instead of using other people believing the same thing you do as a warning sign that it's time to get skeptical.
I'm sure lots of things you believe that everyone else thinks is utter and complete nonsense could use one of your "re-evaluations" too.
Alright, then. Here's a challenge for you, LT:
Don't post in this thread anymore. Next time one of these comes up (and it will), refrain from posting in it.
See what comes of it without your influence.
My point was and is that it doesn't matter whether many people agree with me or not. What matters is that one's position stands up to critical examination.
I find this statement hilariously ironic, and I'm curious what entity has authoritative critical examination.
Because it is apparently not the community that plays this table-top role-playing game.
Alright, then. Here's a challenge for you, LT:
Don't post in this thread anymore. Next time one of these comes up (and it will), refrain from posting in it.
See what comes of it without your influence.
No way, even if it's for the sake of devil's advocate, opposing positions, no matter how ridiculous, are what keep a discussion going.
I'd like to see where the discussion goes without a giant concrete barrier in its path.
authoritative critical examination.??
Who said anything about authoritative critical examination? The concept doesn't make sense. Who could/should grant the authority?
The whole point of a message board like this one is that we critically examine each other's points without the idea of anyone having any particular authority. Its called the Socratic method of examination.
I shouldn't need to explain this.
I find this incessantly entertaining.
I need to stop feeding the troll.I find this incessantly entertaining.authoritative critical examination.??
Who said anything about authoritative critical examination? The concept doesn't make sense. Who could/should grant the authority?
The whole point of a message board like this one is that we critically examine each other's points without the idea of anyone having any particular authority. Its called the Socratic method of examination.
I shouldn't need to explain this.
lol,
For the record, I basically agree with you - I prefer Sorcerers now that they've received what they've gotten in Pathfinder and its Splatbooks.
It's things like "Charisma is a great stat" that we started getting disparaging opinions.
But there are indeed reasons to prefer a Wizard too. Honestly, this thread has done wonders for my feelings about the two classes - I feel like there is some kind of balance between the two options now and that they do indeed match a particular playstyle rather than offering a simple "good and bad" optimization choice.
My impression is that sorcerers are the most popular choice for cross classing as far as the full spellcasting classes go… so they’ve got that going for them.
For the record, I basically agree with you - I prefer Sorcerers now that they've received what they've gotten in Pathfinder and its Splatbooks.
It's things like "Charisma is a great stat" that we started getting disparaging opinions.
But there are indeed reasons to prefer a Wizard too. Honestly, this thread has done wonders for my feelings about the two classes - I feel like there is some kind of balance between the two options now and that they do indeed match a particular playstyle rather than offering a simple "good and bad" optimization choice.
Agreed. Sorcerer and Wizard offer distinctly different experiences despite using the same spell list. It is hard to put a value on spontaneous casting, but with options to increase spells known, the value of spontaneous casting increases greatly.
Personally I prefer wizards for style more than mechanics. The Wizard is the nerd with his studying and his books, the Sorcerer is the student council president with the great hair that all the girls faun over, and the rich parents.
I see a lot of CHA bashing going on here. While I agree it's not useful in and of itself, I house-ruled in the following traits which do alot to balance the stats. They're all combat traits, and are arguably more powerful than pretty much every other trait (they were feats in 3.5), but I'm fine with that.
Strength of Body: The character must substitute their Strength score for their Constitution score when making Fortitude saves.
Insightful Reflexes: The character must substitute their Intelligence score for their Dexterity score when making Reflex saves.
Force of Personality: The character must substitute their Charisma score for their Wisdom score when making Will saves.
I feel this does alot to rebalance the stats (as I feel that Dex and Con are worth FAR too much, while Cha is virtually useless to any character concept not built around it). I feel like these traits add a bit of dynamic-ness to the game that it lacks otherwise.
I see a lot of CHA bashing going on here. While I agree it's not useful in and of itself, I house-ruled in the following traits which do alot to balance the stats. They're all combat traits, and are arguably more powerful than pretty much every other trait (they were feats in 3.5), but I'm fine with that.
Strength of Body: The character must substitute their Strength score for their Constitution score when making Fortitude saves.
Insightful Reflexes: The character must substitute their Intelligence score for their Dexterity score when making Reflex saves.
Force of Personality: The character must substitute their Charisma score for their Wisdom score when making Will saves.
I feel this does alot to rebalance the stats (as I feel that Dex and Con are worth FAR too much, while Cha is virtually useless to any character concept not built around it). I feel like these traits add a bit of dynamic-ness to the game that it lacks otherwise.
While I basically bashed Paizo for not fixing Charisma themselves, I also didn't offer any suggestions to fix it.
That's because I really don't know how to fix it.
And while I like your trait idea, it's not a houserule I would adopt, simply because all it does is take classes that already benefit from Charisma and make them stronger.
I don't think it will do anything to entice the classes that dump Charisma to second guess their decision like, say, Intelligence because of the skill points.
For instance, Wisdom is still a better choice than Charisma because Perception is the most used skill in the game - so a fighter is still going to be socially inept.
Now a Planar Binding Wizard might take it as a good opportunity to improve that ability while still keeping his Will high, but I think that might be an exception, and still one that I'm not sure I'd be willing to accept as a DM.
I dunno, it's almost like the system needs the 6th stat just to work as a dump stat for classes that don't use it.
In any case, while as a player I'm attracted to ways to avoid it if I can (Or harness it for great power like a Paladin does), it's a scab I'd rather not pick at.
While I basically bashed Paizo for not fixing Charisma themselves, I also didn't offer any suggestions to fix it.
That's because I really don't know how to fix it.
And while I like your trait idea, it's not a houserule I would adopt, simply because all it does is take classes that already benefit from Charisma and make them stronger.
I don't think it will do anything to entice the classes that dump Charisma to second guess their decision like, say, Intelligence because of the skill points.
For instance, Wisdom is still a better choice than Charisma because Perception is the most used skill in the game - so a fighter is still going to be socially inept.
Now a Planar Binding Wizard might take it as a good opportunity to improve that ability while still keeping his Will high, but I think that might be an exception, and still one that I'm not sure I'd be willing to accept as a DM.
I dunno, it's almost like the system needs the 6th stat just to work as a dump stat for classes that don't use it.
In...
I agree with most things you've said here, but I consider myself something of an optimizer, but I almost ALWAYS play character with high Charisma. The reason? No one else does. Yes, Perception is the most used skill in the game. Of course, EVERYONE knows that Perception is the most used skill in the game. In a game I'm DMing right now, there's a gnome cleric with skill focus (Perception), max ranks, and purchased a Lens of Detection. At level 8 he has +25 to Perception. It is exceeding rare that he misses anything. So why bother stacking awesome Perception on top of awesome Perception? Diplomacy, Bluff, UMD. All of these are awesome choices, and UMD can be used by martial classes as well.
I will note that your PC better not have "good" written on his character sheet at this point - enslavement and then murder to avoid longer term consequences...
nor lawful I suppose.
I usually go neutral with the following 2 rules:
1) Treat all creatures with honesty, mercy and respect.
2) If the creature is the physical manifestation of evil, ignore rule #1.
I like the cohcept of a good wizard that enslaves evil with the intent of sending them on suicide missions. That's awesome. I have to use that concept at some point.
The killing of the fiend before the end of the service is intended. I'm sure evil wizards and casters try to do it all the time. I'm basically "corrupting" the evil guy by using him for good purposes.
While this may be true, it ignores the fact that a PC is likely to see his cohort die a couple of times - particularly in the early period right after getting a cohort if the character has a low charisma. That penalty stacks up. Sorcerers can soak that penalty.
I don't personally allow this feat most of the time. A character two levels lower makes my life as a DM much harder than it needs to be. And optmizers will never,ever fail to take this feat if I allow it. So I don't unless it's a campaign like Kingmaker where Leadership is sort of expected.
And even so, 5,000 gold for a raise dead for a high level henchment is cheaper than having a lower level henchmen.
The wizard is paying for that out of his WBL. He has a problem dealing with spells which need to be cast an unspecified number of times. He doesn't have the versatility of going off the arcane spell list. In other words, the two classes are pretty equal in versatility.
For average combat encounters, I agree. Not so much because I think the sorcerer is more versatile, but that I believe encounters aren't. You can win most encounters without casting a spell or casting nothing but haste or your other favorite spell over and over again. So if you can cast the same spell over and over again, at least you have something to do.
As far as preparation, most wise wizard players bring scrolls or wands for multiple use spells of a common nature like resist energy or protection from evil. And they also leave quite a few slots open to slot in spells at convenient times. That's why a solid forward scout is a boon to a wizard.
Blasters aren't optimal builds for Sorcerers.
Someone hasn't been exploring blaster options for sorcerers.
I play an optimal blasting sorcerer right now. I do much better than my wizard, my other more generalist sorcerer, the other "GOD" wizard in my group, and most of the casters I've seen run.
Right now I rip face with my blaster sorcerer. What I said in the previous post applies to the blaster sorcerer, encounters are not versatile enough to make a blaster sorcere a less than optimal build. It is in fact a super optimal build for average adventuring and the sorcerer is amongst the best at it.
I end encounters before they start because most encounters build off the standard rules for APL and the like. Which means fighting a mixed encounter where most of dies real easy to a massive damage blast is quite common.
When I do run into a BBEG that withstands my blasts, I just haste the party, toss in a wall of force when needed here or there, and enervate it if it can be enervated. Three spell slots for spells that work. I even empower the enervate on occasion for more negative level goodness.
Blaster builds are very optimal. Now that I've found Dazing spell, probably just got a whole lot better being able to toss on a Dazing spell at need rather than having a few pre-memorized.
You need to do some more blaster build investigating. When the optimal use of heroic finale is to give the blaster an extra action to do even more damage, blasting isn't a sub-optimal build for a sorcerer.
I love turning into a dragon, having well over 200 hit points, and moving around the battlefield blasting away. Great fun and powerfully scary.
Wizards go from really, really, good to really, really bad. They are very swingy. The fact that they might memorize the wrong spells for the day or don't have enough slots for a given spell can drastically nerf them. OTOH, in a best case scenario, the wizard can be quite powerful. And, yes, the fact that a DM can't always correctly predict whether a wizard is going to be powerful or a mensch makes encounter design hard on the DM.
That's why I said a day or two to prepare. Wizards ruin far more encounters than sorcerers with time to prepare. You can even do exploratory fights with a wizard where you go in,fight the enemy, find out what they can do, retreat, give the wizard a day to prepare, then defeat the enemy the next day easily.
I know this works. Done it a bunch of times. DM preps his encounter. You go in and figure out his strategy is hammering you. You leave, hole up in your scry protected house, and head back the next day ready to counter. Can't use this tactic as effectively with the sorcerer. Either the sorcerer has what he needs to win or he doesn't.
Personally I prefer wizards for style more than mechanics. The Wizard is the nerd with his studying and his books, the Sorcerer is the student council president with the great hair that all the girls faun over, and the rich parents.Except the Sorcerer often has physical deformities (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) who doesn't look quite right. He's the kid who people always tell ghost stories about - they think he's going to grow up to be a serial killer.
The Sorcerer is the kind of character who usually pops up in a Stephen King novel - the evil cult leader who may appear completely normal the first time you see him, but who gives you this unshakeable eerie feeling that all is no longer right with the world.
That part I agree with. Sorcerers are much more interesting for story telling purposes with the bloodlines. For one shot encounter campaigning, you can make some real creepy or strange enemies that players don't really know what they can do unless they've read and memorized every single bloodline.
So, you nerf the Sorcerer's prime attribute and then argue that the Sorcerer is weaker than the Wizard.
I trust you realize the problems with complaining about a class being weak right after you institute house rules that nerf it?
I didn't argue the sorcerer was weaker. You seem to be assuming I think this.
Leadership has always been up to the DM. What are you even talking about? It has never been a feat that is open for anyone to take whenever they feel like it. Ever. You don't know what a nerf is if you think that.
If your entire idea of equality is allowing the sorcerer to take a feat that is the province the DM to allow, you've already lost any credibility to your argument. As I said, if you need Leadership so you can take a pocket wizard to be on par with a wizard, then you're not on par with a wizard.
I can make a sorcerer on par with a wizard without taking the Leadership feat and do it all the time.
Even with a raise dead, you are taking a cumulative penalty to your leadership score every time you cause the death of a cohort. That stacks up fast when your cohort is several levels below you (Raise Dead causes the loss of two levels and the cohort is already two levels lower than you and, with a low charisma, he's starting out much lower than you). Unless your character has Cha as a prime attribute, Leadership isn't all that great of a feat and quickly becomes worse.
No you don't. Causes a cohort to die only applies if the cohort permanently dies and you have a new one. Read the Leadrship feat. Cumulative per cohort killed does not apply if it is the same cohort. That's your own house rule that is not RAW.
Depends on the quality of the GM. I've been playing for decades and I've got one GM who constantly surprises the table.
I've been playing since D&D came out. I know how this game works and don't understand why you don't. I said average encounters, not specialized encounters.
If I knew you, I'd bet you money your GM doesn't make every encounter hard enough you need to cast every time or even need that many spells to win every encounter.
It's like you don't understand what average encounter means. You know, all those little encounters like orc guards the two ogres the room or the babau demon guards or the random wander ogre raiders or the pack of wights and the evil priest. All those encounters that makeup an entire adventure. I don't know why I have to explain this every time like people don't even really play the game, they just post on the boards a bunch of theoretical encounters rather than actually admitting what a real adventure is like with its mix of encounters of varying power levels.
It's amazing how many people on messageboards don't seem like they actually play the game. Otherwise they would clearly know what "average encounter" means. Adventures are absolutely stuffed to brim with such encounters.
Assuming the enemy is smart, they can and will limit the effectiveness of your scout. And scrolls are great, but not for repeated casting (the cost gets crazy).
You mean assuming the party is dumb, the scout is worthless and doesn't know how to do his job? I'm supposed to assume this smart enemy is so much smarter than the PC scout whose very life depends on his ability to not be seen and do a proper job scouting that he is going to make scouting worthless? Is that your argument?
I named the type of spells scrolls and wands are good for. They are very cheap to make and use. Once again showing you are a rookie when it comes to understanding how this game works.
Perhaps, but I have to wonder how much flexibility/versatility you've sacrificed. For example, how well can you handle non-combat encounters (forex. you want to pull a street wise NPC - he's got a good Sense Motive - off the street without drawing attention)?
Are you seriously using as an example of versatility an extremely rare circumstance that might come up once in the entire life of the character? Really? And I'm in a party right? Do you really do everything for your party because they're a bunch of incompetents?
I don't design my character around the idea I need to do everything for my party. That's ridiculous. That's like asking the fighter to take social skills, disable device, and stealth just in case.
If I have to do something like get someone off the street without being notice, I'll work with my party to get that done. If we have to buy a scroll for that extremely rare occurrence, then we'll do so. I won't plan my character around it.
Which you don't usually have.
Speak for yourself. I usually do have the time. My group isn't filled with incompetents that build characters easily defeated by the almighty caster.
I keep slots open. We do advance scouting. We will retreat and prepare accordingly if needed.
It doesn't seem like you play many wizards or have much experience with them. I have strong experience with both the wizard and sorcerer playing with a strong team. I know how they work. When I hear someone acting as though the wizard walks around unprepared, I can only assume they've been playing with a rather poor wizard player that doesn't know how to prepare spells that work.
You act like wizards don't pick similar staple spells you might pick as a sorcerer. Sorry, but they do. If they need extra castings of buff spells, they cast them or the mass version which sorcerers don't usually take. I usually make mass versions of several common spells as part of spell research. And now with the new communal spells, it's even easier to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I basically bashed Paizo for not fixing Charisma themselves, I also didn't offer any suggestions to fix it.
That's because I really don't know how to fix it.
Here's one:
Combine Wis and Cha into a single stat, call it Willpower.
Move a couple skills around.
Done.