|
How would you get around the "Resentment" that DMs would take full advantage of?
Evil demon that is called to our plane and accidentally dies on the last day of service doesn't get revenge.
Unfortunately, Evil Demon had a big family, and they're all surprising tight for a demon family. And he was the runt of the litter. :)
Although, seriously, do we even care if we get around the revenge thing? To a PC, hell is actually a game session where nothing important happens. Demons cropping up to revenge themselves on you is what is known in the adventuring trade as cardio.
To paraphrase a famous captain, we're all a bunch of big, damn heroes. And we're too pretty to die.
How would you get around the "Resentment" that DMs would take full advantage of?Evil demon that is called to our plane and accidentally dies on the last day of service doesn't get revenge.Unfortunately, Evil Demon had a big family, and they're all surprising tight for a demon family. And he was the runt of the litter. :)
Although, seriously, do we even care if we get around the revenge thing? To a PC, hell is actually a game session where nothing important happens. Demons cropping up to revenge themselves on you is what is known in the adventuring trade as cardio.
To paraphrase a famous captain, we're all a bunch of big, damn heroes. And we're too pretty to die.
That is only if you assume your DM is not going to let you die. Personally as a DM if you stretch the rules too much I'll make you pay. If you play clean, I play clean. If you start playng dirty by binding-then-killing your allyes , i'll make you pay the full price of "revenge". Once is smart play. Repetedly doing so is asking for me to kill you. This is an example, it applyes to all that "the rules allow it" case scenario. Becous remember, the rules always allow your DM to kill you.
|
|
You need 1 scroll for each day spent enchanting the wand as you need to have the spell available every day and the scroll is consumed.
So, unless you are taking a +5 to the DC to enchant at double speed you will use 1 scroll for a wand with a first level spell, 5 for a second level , 12 for a third level and 21 for a fourth level wand if you are enchanting them as a wizard.
As a sorcerer it require even more scrolls:
1 for a wand with a level 1 spell, 6 for a wand with a level 2 spell, 14 for a...
These are good points, and given that you're creating wands of low level spells, there's no reason to not take a minus 5 to craft at double speed. Here's a breakdown of costs (including the scrolls) for to you make a wand (of a spell you don't know) versus buying one as a sorcerer. It assumes you are crafting at double speed, as it uses less resources.
0 level - 200gp vs 375gp (1 scroll required)
1st level - 400gp vs 750gp (1 scroll required)
2nd level - 3600gp vs 4500gp (3 scrolls required)
3rd level - 9900gp vs 11,250gp (7 scrolls required)
4th level - 21,600gp* vs 21,000gp (12 scrolls required)
*actually costs more to make than buy.
These numbers reflect the cost of buying a "Wizard version" of a wand versus crafting a "Sorcerer version" (which I've always found to be a strange concept).
I think the game would be improved if Sorcerers received new levels of spells at the same level as Wizards, as this would eliminate the need for separate pricing for Sorcerer and Wizard versions of spell trigger and spell completion items (not to mention addressing one of the concerns in terms of balancing the Sorcerer class against Wizards).
When I buy scrolls, wands, and potions I pay the Wizard cost for a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. It's only when I make them that I have to pay the higher rate. I even use Wizard scrolls in crafting items.
If you are using Wizard scrolls to craft a wand, and they have minimum caster level, shouldn't the cost to craft be lower? After all, you're making a CL 3 Wand of a 2nd level spell, instead of CL 4 (the minimum for a sorcerer). It's a silly distinction that was only made necessary by a (imo) poor game-design decision.
|
I don't not know about everyone else, but my DM will limit resources to challenge PCs. Time, like gold, is often a resources that is limited. The party could take time to scout out the area with divination, but if we do that, the princess will be sacrificed in the evil ritual to happen at midnight.
It is in the fashion that the two classes are more equal.
If a DM gives you unrestricted time, just like gold, the wizard pulls ahead due to his larger selection of spells.
Personally I think a better thread title would be: "Help! I've been cursed with a mutated bloodline, how can I possibly hope to move past this scourge on my blood and try to live like a Wizard?".
My advice to people who have been afflicted with sorcererism is to carry around allot of books without pictures and pretend to read them. Books are those papery things with the pictographs that mean words, they are the key to real power. If you where not born into the arcane bloodline you can use the Eldridch heritage feat to get a familiar or a bonded object.
As for replacing the ability to learn any spell and cast it, I recommend picking up scrolls, scrolls are also paperey things with pictograms on them meaning words but they are allot shorter than books and are usually rolled up.
I'd recommend learning to read as well but who are we kidding, you are a sorcerer, unless your polluted chromosomes gave you comprehend languages and read magic your pretty much piss out of luck.
At least you get all simple weapons so you can at least pick up a longspear and occasionally do a d8 damage to your opponent, its not anything close to what a wizard could do but it at least gives you the competency of a commoner and for a sorcerer thats an achievement.
|
|
That is only if you assume your DM is not going to let you die. Personally as a DM if you stretch the rules too much I'll make you pay. If you play clean, I play clean. If you start playng dirty by binding-then-killing your allyes , i'll make you pay the full price of "revenge". Once is smart play. Repetedly doing so is asking for me to kill you. This is an example, it applyes to all that "the rules allow it" case scenario. Becous remember, the rules always allow your DM to kill you.
To be clear, I wasn't advocating for murdering bound creatures to avoid any further complications. I was making the point that if we spend too much effort making certain there are no consequences to the things that we do, we may actually get no consequences (and that would be a bad thing).
Adventurers shouldn't live uncomplicated lives. That'd be boring. Their lives should be loaded with consequences.
Also, thanks for pointing out that as a DM, you have the power to kill players. My DM has that power, too. I'm guessing he's much better than you at being a DM, because he doesn't set out to punish players, he sets out to challenge them each and every session. He doesn't feel the need to show us he can win at the game.
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.
Thought about that, but then everyone gets MAD.
But yeah, definitely explored that idea a little bit.
How would you get around the "Resentment" that DMs would take full advantage of?Evil demon that is called to our plane and accidentally dies on the last day of service doesn't get revenge.Unfortunately, Evil Demon had a big family, and they're all surprising tight for a demon family. And he was the runt of the litter. :)
Although, seriously, do we even care if we get around the revenge thing? To a PC, hell is actually a game session where nothing important happens. Demons cropping up to revenge themselves on you is what is known in the adventuring trade as cardio.
To paraphrase a famous captain, we're all a bunch of big, damn heroes. And we're too pretty to die.
Lol, sadly this is how I play now.
Right now I'm playing a Bard. Some guys gave me a glass of Ale that was obviously poisoned. My bard has a wisdom of 8, so I used this as an opportunity to satiate my curiosity of what kind of poison exactly was in this cup. What followed was a decision that ultimately cost the party 750 gold.
Bottoms up!
Even with a raise dead, you are taking a cumulative penalty to your leadership score every time you cause the death of a cohort.
I believe this rule is to prevent you from sending your cohorts into sure-death situations ("Go set off that trap"), not merely there because your cohort dies under any circumstances.
For example, if you went for an ocean voyage, and got shipwrecked, and your cohort drowns in the process, did you cause the death of the cohort? You could argue both ways, but you certainly didn't send the cohort off to his death.
There's going to be a certain amount of confusion as to where to draw the line of responsibility, of course, but Cohorts follow you out of loyalty, so they share some responsibility for their own fates as well. I'd reserve the penalty for players that treat their cohorts as cannon fodder or monster speed-bumps, but not for Cohorts who happen to die in the course of 'regular' dangerous adventure. Even then, if you bothered to raise a cohort from death, that should reasonably improve your leadership score, not reduce it ("My boss loves me enough to have me raised from the dead! He's awesome!").
That is only if you assume your DM is not going to let you die. Personally as a DM if you stretch the rules too much I'll make you pay. If you play clean, I play clean. If you start playng dirty by binding-then-killing your allyes , i'll make you pay the full price of "revenge". Once is smart play. Repetedly doing so is asking for me to kill you. This is an example, it applyes to all that "the rules allow it" case scenario. Becous remember, the rules always allow your DM to kill you.To be clear, I wasn't advocating for murdering bound creatures to avoid any further complications. I was making the point that if we spend too much effort making certain there are no consequences to the things that we do, we may actually get no consequences (and that would be a bad thing).
Adventurers shouldn't live uncomplicated lives. That'd be boring. Their lives should be loaded with consequences.
Also, thanks for pointing out that as a DM, you have the power to kill players. My DM has that power, too. I'm guessing he's much better than you at being a DM, because he doesn't set out to punish players, he sets out to challenge them each and every session. He doesn't feel the need to show us he can win at the game.
I just wanted to point out that character can die. This does not means that i like to kill character or that i do it on a wim. I just wanted to make clear that we play together, both player and master. So tryng to force something on just becouse "rules allow it" is not a good way to play, and may get you into trouble. The example of killing a character was just to show how bad this way of playng may end up if it's brought to the extreme.
Maddigan, I think at the end of the day we're disagreeing over the role of what you call "average encounters". The GM I play with doesn't use them. Your GM does.
My group gets to play once a month. Every one of us has a couple of decades of experience. The GM is a military intelligence officer and has had several of his fantasy novels published by one of the big publishing houses.
We don't use what you call "average encounters" because they're boring, they create grind, and we don't have to.
So you don't have average encounters. Got it. Not enough time to play a lot, super-homebrew story, only powerful encounters.
That's one way to play. It doesn't account for how most games, using APs and the like, have plenty of average encounters based on average party abilities with average players.
Some of us are content to plow through traps, monsters and mooks to get to the BBEG for the big finale. If every fight is that tough or specialized, you'll still get confounded now and then and have to back off and try again later.
For "average" games, you run what ya brung, so Maddigan's point still stands.
|
|
These are good points, and given that you're creating wands of low level spells, there's no reason to not take a minus 5 to craft at double speed. Here's a breakdown of costs (including the scrolls) for to you make a wand (of a spell you don't know) versus buying one as a sorcerer. It assumes you are crafting at double speed, as it uses less resources.0 level - 200gp vs 375gp (1 scroll required)
1st level - 400gp vs 750gp (1 scroll required)
2nd level - 3600gp vs 4500gp (3 scrolls required)
3rd level - 9900gp vs 11,250gp (7 scrolls required)
4th level - 21,600gp* vs 21,000gp (12 scrolls required)
*actually costs more to make than buy.These numbers reflect the cost of buying a "Wizard version" of a wand versus crafting a "Sorcerer version" (which I've always found to be a strange concept).
Using a old wand to create a new one reduce the costs.
0 level spell: scroll 12.5 gp 1 charge of a wand 7.5 gp1 level spell: scroll 25 gp 1 charge of a wand 15 gp
2 level spell: scroll 150 gp 1 charge of a wand 90 gp
3 level spell: scroll 375 gp 1 charge of a wand 225 gp
4 level spell: scroll 700 gp 1 charge of a wand 420 gp
so:
0 level - 195 gp vs 375gp (1 charge required)
1st level - 390 gp vs 750gp (1 charge required)
2nd level - 2,520 gp vs 4500gp (3 charges required)
3rd level - 7,200 gp vs 11,250gp (7 charges required)
4th level - 15,540 gp vs 21,000gp (12 charges required)
Done this way even the level 4 wand is worth it.
The problems start when you add the Summoner: haste as a level 2 spell and a CL of 4.
That mean that a summoner haste wand will cost 6.000 gp and the spell will last 4 round.
Very different from a wizard (11.250 gp, 5 rounds) or a sorcerer 13.500, 6 rounds) wand of the same spell.
In theory now all haste wands should be priced on the summoner version ...
I think the game would be improved if Sorcerers received new levels of spells at the same level as Wizards, as this would eliminate the need for separate pricing for Sorcerer and Wizard versions of spell trigger and spell completion items (not to mention addressing one of the concerns in terms of balancing the Sorcerer class against Wizards).When I buy scrolls, wands, and potions I pay the Wizard cost for a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. It's only when I make them that I have to pay the higher rate. I even use Wizard scrolls in crafting items.
If you are using Wizard scrolls to craft a wand, and they have minimum caster level, shouldn't the cost to craft be lower? After all, you're making a CL 3 Wand of a 2nd level spell, instead of CL 4 (the minimum for a sorcerer). It's a silly distinction that was only made necessary by a (imo) poor game-design decision.
Actually there is a clear reason why the sorcerer wand cost more: it cast the spell at a higher casting level. For some spell that as a noticeable impact.
Giving access to a new tier of spells at the same level to sorcerer and wizards (and oracle/clerics) would noticeably change the balance in favour of the sorcerer. Spontaneous casting is a powerful ability that is mitigated by the slower access.
Redoing that would require a lot of work to keep level of balance similar to the current situation.
|
|
Maddigan, I think at the end of the day we're disagreeing over the role of what you call "average encounters". The GM I play with doesn't use them. Your GM does.
My group gets to play once a month. Every one of us has a couple of decades of experience. The GM is a military intelligence officer and has had several of his fantasy novels published by one of the big publishing houses.
We don't use what you call "average encounters" because they're boring, they create grind, and we don't have to.
The lesser encounters are important as they force the characters into choosing between privileging speed or not being noticed or resource expenditures.
The level 1 guard with a dog isn't a direct danger of a level 10 party, but he can alert the whole castle you are trying to infiltrate.
To cite a the Crab lord in Legend of the Five rings "His job is to scream". Damaging anyone in your party is secondary.
So you will have to chose how you should bypass/avoid him.
Every choice has a cost and the cost is important for the "economy" of most adventures.
You can play spotlighting only the hard or world shaking parts, but you must remember that you are missing all those minor encounters that can make a difference.
A unrelated curiosity:
You live in Texas and your GM is a woman?
(trying to guess who your GM is)
Maddigan, I think at the end of the day we're disagreeing over the role of what you call "average encounters". The GM I play with doesn't use them. Your GM does.
My group gets to play once a month. Every one of us has a couple of decades of experience. The GM is a military intelligence officer and has had several of his fantasy novels published by one of the big publishing houses.
We don't use what you call "average encounters" because they're boring, they create grind, and we don't have to.
Yeah, right. If your GM is a military intelligence officer as you claim, then he knows full well what an average encounter is. He has reviewed them when doing intelligence analysis all the time.
The mooks at the front gate. The guys in towers of a base. The guards guarding the ammo dump. The response team for the air base their hitting. Don't feed me bull just to be right. I'll call you on that kind of garbage right there.
You know full well what an average encounter is. I doubt very much you've been playing this game for decades and don't know what an average encounter with lower level mooks is or haven't seen plenty of mixed encounters. That's total horse puckey.
I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're one of those people more interested in being right than having a discussion. When your points are invalidated in debate, you fall back on "I'm special. You wouldn't understand" and the kind of inane drivel you hear from people that can't sustain a debate based on well-reasoned arguments supported with factual information.
Maddigan, I think at the end of the day we're disagreeing over the role of what you call "average encounters". The GM I play with doesn't use them. Your GM does.
My group gets to play once a month. Every one of us has a couple of decades of experience. The GM is a military intelligence officer and has had several of his fantasy novels published by one of the big publishing houses.
We don't use what you call "average encounters" because they're boring, they create grind, and we don't have to.
Yeah, right. If your GM is a military intelligence officer as you claim, then he knows full well what an average encounter is. He has reviewed them when doing intelligence analysis all the time.
The mooks at the front gate. The guys in towers of a base. The guards guarding the ammo dump. The response team for the air base their hitting. Don't feed me bull just to be right. I'll call you on that kind of garbage right there.
You know full well what an average encounter is. I doubt very much you've been playing this game for decades and don't know what an average encounter with lower level mooks is or haven't seen plenty of mixed encounters. That's total horse puckey.
I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're one of those people more interested in being right than having a discussion. When your points are invalidated in debate, you fall back on "I'm special. You wouldn't understand" and the kind of inane drivel you hear from people that can't sustain a debate based on well-reasoned arguments supported with factual information.
Maddigan: I must strongly disagree with something in your post.
It's spelled "Horse Pucky" :P
Otherwise QFT
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Personally I think a better thread title would be: "Help! I've been cursed with a mutated bloodline, how can I possibly hope to move past this scourge on my blood and try to live like a Wizard?".
My advice to people who have been afflicted with sorcererism is to carry around allot of books without pictures and pretend to read them. Books are those papery things with the pictographs that mean words, they are the key to real power. If you where not born into the arcane bloodline you can use the Eldridch heritage feat to get a familiar or a bonded object.
As for replacing the ability to learn any spell and cast it, I recommend picking up scrolls, scrolls are also paperey things with pictograms on them meaning words but they are allot shorter than books and are usually rolled up.
I'd recommend learning to read as well but who are we kidding, you are a sorcerer, unless your polluted chromosomes gave you comprehend languages and read magic your pretty much piss out of luck.
At least you get all simple weapons so you can at least pick up a longspear and occasionally do a d8 damage to your opponent, its not anything close to what a wizard could do but it at least gives you the competency of a commoner and for a sorcerer thats an achievement.
Damnit, now I'm laughing outloud at work!
Maddigan, I think at the end of the day we're disagreeing over the role of what you call "average encounters". The GM I play with doesn't use them. Your GM does.
My group gets to play once a month. Every one of us has a couple of decades of experience. The GM is a military intelligence officer and has had several of his fantasy novels published by one of the big publishing houses.
We don't use what you call "average encounters" because they're boring, they create grind, and we don't have to.
Yeah, right. If your GM is a military intelligence officer as you claim, then he knows full well what an average encounter is. He has reviewed them when doing intelligence analysis all the time.
The mooks at the front gate. The guys in towers of a base. The guards guarding the ammo dump. The response team for the air base their hitting. Don't feed me bull just to be right. I'll call you on that kind of garbage right there.
You know full well what an average encounter is. I doubt very much you've been playing this game for decades and don't know what an average encounter with lower level mooks is or haven't seen plenty of mixed encounters. That's total horse puckey.
I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're one of those people more interested in being right than having a discussion. When your points are invalidated in debate, you fall back on "I'm special. You wouldn't understand" and the kind of inane drivel you hear from people that can't sustain a debate based on well-reasoned arguments supported with factual information.
How's that for standing up to critical analyses?
While the best option (according to Treantmonk) for wizards is focus on battlefield control, i guess the best option for sorcerers may be debuffing (along with blasting, i suppose)...
Consider, as an example, applying Persistent Spell to Blindness ...
Now, i think would be nice if the sorcerer could "re-learn" one (or more) of his/her spells to permanently apply a metamagic effect (even adjusting spell level), but at a standard casting time...
Perhaps a feat (called Evolved Power) that allows this option for a number of spells equal to your Cha modifier...
EDIT: BTW, Treantmonk... Have you considered doing a Treantmonk's Guide to Sorcerers?
|
Case in point:
I play a good amount of PFS. I have seen plenty of wizards, mostly conjuration (teleportation) or diviner schools (and every one seems to insist being the "one who doesn't have evocation spells" is being unique). I've also played with nearly every other class, different varieties (few prestige, but PFS really doesn't run high level long enough to reward that).
I have never met a sorcerer, even splashed.
It's not that they are bad. But because of countless reasons listed in this thread, Sorcerors just got the short end of the stick in every respect. Wizard can easy work around low Cha; plenty of cheats on planar bindings, even if you can find a campaign that allows you to take Leadership it maxes out relatively easily; and having tons of skill points compensates very nicely for low Cha if you want to be a party face for mid-high levels.
Meanwhile, you get much weaker abilities to compensate. Especially with wizards getting a power ramp in more recent books (teleportation (conjuration), and using scrolls at your level?). Sorcerer blood lines have stayed on-par.
As another poster pointed out, they failed to make the two "different enough" to warrant playing the weaker variant, even if you don't like the flavor of the "scholorly type".
That's another point. It's one that affects me, as I play in a format not unlike PFS in that you don't often know who will be in your party.
If a sorcerer joins a party and is redundant, there's no fixing that. The sorc is stuck being the 5th wheel. If a wizard joins a party and their spell selection is redundant, they can change it to something different to better suit the party.
If a sorcerer joins a party and is redundant, there's no fixing that. The sorc is stuck being the 5th wheel. If a wizard joins a party and their spell selection is redundant, they can change it to something different to better suit the party.
I'm gearing up for a game with a wiz (might be an EK) and a sor. Assuming we both end up playing (I'll play the sor), I'll do the bread-and-butter spells like haste (we're starting at 6th), and the wiz has a spellbook for our less frequent spells. He can leave a slot or 2 open for utilities. Should work out ok, if we cover most of the bases.
Like LazarX, I've played a few sorcerers, including one that went from 1st to 21st level, and they were effective and fun to play.
|
|
I have never met a sorcerer, even splashed.
It's not that they are bad. But because of countless reasons listed in this thread, Sorcerors just got the short end of the stick in every respect. Wizard can easy work around low Cha; plenty of cheats on planar bindings, even if you can find a campaign that allows you to take Leadership it maxes out relatively easily; and having tons of skill points compensates very nicely for low Cha if you want to be a party face for mid-high levels.
In our PFS area, San Diego, it is the exact opposite. Sorcerers far outnumber the wizards.
I have participated in 2 tables now which sat 5 sorcerers, with the 6th being a fighter once, and a bard the other time. Both tables were a huge success.
Most PFS scenarios do not allow you the luxury of spending an unlimited amount of time divining the area to get the perfect mix of spells, nor do you always have the time to study up in between encounters (although I am surprised how many wizards do not use this ability when it is available). Hence, your encounters are more spontaneous, which is where the sorcerer shines.
EDIT: BTW, Treantmonk... Have you considered doing a Treantmonk's Guide to Sorcerers?
I haven't even kept up the guides I've already done. Someday if I become motivated again to do all the work...
yeah, probably not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never met a sorcerer, even splashed.
It's not that they are bad. But because of countless reasons listed in this thread, Sorcerors just got the short end of the stick in every respect. Wizard can easy work around low Cha; plenty of cheats on planar bindings, even if you can find a campaign that allows you to take Leadership it maxes out relatively easily; and having tons of skill points compensates very nicely for low Cha if you want to be a party face for mid-high levels.
In our PFS area, San Diego, it is the exact opposite. Sorcerers far outnumber the wizards.
I have participated in 2 tables now which sat 5 sorcerers, with the 6th being a fighter once, and a bard the other time. Both tables were a huge success.
Most PFS scenarios do not allow you the luxury of spending an unlimited amount of time divining the area to get the perfect mix of spells, nor do you always have the time to study up in between encounters (although I am surprised how many wizards do not use this ability when it is available). Hence, your encounters are more spontaneous, which is where the sorcerer shines.
I don't know many wizards that don't have an effective spell strategy to begin with. Not being able to spontaneously cast is a very over-rated weakness. Most wizards that know the class know what spells to take to be effective in all but very rare circumstances. About as rare the sorcerer being caught in a scenario where their small selection of spells doesn't work.
I don't know many wizards that don't have an effective spell strategy to begin with. Not being able to spontaneously cast is a very over-rated weakness. Most wizards that know the class know what spells to take to be effective in all but very rare circumstances. About as rare the sorcerer being caught in a scenario where their small selection of spells doesn't work.I have never met a sorcerer, even splashed.
It's not that they are bad. But because of countless reasons listed in this thread, Sorcerors just got the short end of the stick in every respect. Wizard can easy work around low Cha; plenty of cheats on planar bindings, even if you can find a campaign that allows you to take Leadership it maxes out relatively easily; and having tons of skill points compensates very nicely for low Cha if you want to be a party face for mid-high levels.
In our PFS area, San Diego, it is the exact opposite. Sorcerers far outnumber the wizards.
I have participated in 2 tables now which sat 5 sorcerers, with the 6th being a fighter once, and a bard the other time. Both tables were a huge success.
Most PFS scenarios do not allow you the luxury of spending an unlimited amount of time divining the area to get the perfect mix of spells, nor do you always have the time to study up in between encounters (although I am surprised how many wizards do not use this ability when it is available). Hence, your encounters are more spontaneous, which is where the sorcerer shines.
The default sorceror number of spells is equal to or greater then the wizard. They can expand this selection with wands and staves, and even scrolls. They use the same kind of funds to do this as the wizard uses to expand past his automatic 4 spells/spell level.
==Aelryinth
Also, unless they specifically state otherwise, PrC´s DON´T give Wizards (or other prepared casters, e.g. Witch and Magus) the automatic new spells in their spell-book, that´s part of leveling up in Wizard. Spontaneous Casters DO gain spells known gained from their class (which includes Bloodlines/Revelations/etc) when they take PrC´s that advance Casting. Wizard Eldritch Knights may be 1/2 a spell level ahead on average, but it´s a rather expensive career path.
The default sorceror number of spells is equal to or greater then the wizard.
Your math is way off.
Even if a wizard finds 0 spellbooks and transcribes 0 scrolls he will have more spells known than a Sorcerer of equal level at every level 1 through 20. Significantly so at most levels. In some cases, it will be more than double.
Even if the sorcerer gets extra spells through favored class and the wizard does not, and the wizard finds zero spellbooks and transcribes 0 scrolls, the Wizard can still expect to have more spells known than the sorcerer to at least level 10.
Treant, a human arcane sorcerer finishes the game with 63 spells known, if you include favored class. If you don't, he finishes with 46.
The wizard finishes with 38 + starter spells (generally, 7). You are incorrect here.
Look at my above post.
Now, if you are referring to spells carried in memory, that's not true, either. With their FC benefit, Sorcerors can have a lot of spells in memory at one time, easily making up for the bonus spells from Int of the wizard (again, I did the numbers above).
A specialist wizard finishing with a 34 Int gets 66 spells + 5 cantrips in memory, but loses out on two schools of magic. The generalist finishes with 57 + 4 cantrips, but can actually use any spell.
And note that the sorceror spells are ALWAYS different spells, while the wizard is probably going to have 2 or 3x of something memorized. Spells castable for the sorc with a 34 Cha is something like 76 a day.
Someone did a calculation on what it would take to get the 'full spell list' from core, in excess of a wizard's auto spells, and it's value in WBL. Was in excess of 90k, I believe. Which is a lot of low level wands and scrolls for the sorc, if not a staff or two.
==Aelryinth
Treant, a human arcane sorcerer finishes the game with 63 spells known, if you include favored class. If you don't, he finishes with 46.
The wizard finishes with 38 + starter spells (generally, 7). You are incorrect here.
For the 20th level Sorcerer I count 5,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,3 (total 34) plus 9 bloodline spells = 43, with Favored class bonus, 60. If you add the "Arcane" bloodline, then you get up to 63.
So let's be clear where your numbers come from. The actual number is 43, then you add 2 mechanical methods to increase spells known for the Sorcerer and neglect the same benefits for the Wizard to skew the numbers.
For the 20th level Wizard, by your own Math, I count 45.
So my point holds. Sorcerers get less spells than wizards even without scrolls or spellbooks being transcribed, however, I guess I need to add the condition "all other things being equal", I thought that was implied, but I guess not.
They can ONLY get more spells than wizards if they take extra spells as a FC bonus AND THE WIZARD DOESN'T (although he has the same option with the same races).
The comparison using your numbers is meaningless, since you haven't evened the playing field. Counting no specific methods to increase spells known, Wizards know more spells.
If you add specific methods to increase spells known, Wizards STILL know more spells.
However, I grant you your point, as skewed as it is, if Sorcerers use methods to increase spells known, and Wizards do not, and there are no scrolls or spellbooks transcribed, then, given all those uneven circumstances, the Sorcerer can know more spells.
Other stuff completely unrelated to my point
Are you making a new point? That has nothing to do with mine.
They can ONLY get more spells than wizards if they take extra spells as a FC bonus AND THE WIZARD DOESN'T (although he has the same option with the same races).
And, honestly, the fact that I can't imagine any wizard I've ever seen played take that option is proof enough to me that the "sorcerers get to know more spells!" argument, even as limited/convoluted it is, is not so much wrong as profoundly silly.
Everyone making that argument knows better. They're just arguing for argument's sake.
A specialist wizard finishing with a 34 Int gets 66 spells + 5 cantrips in memory, but loses out on two schools of magic.
We're talking Pathfinder and not 3.5, so no, they don't. The specialist wizard can prepare spells of any school he likes.
|
|
A specialist wizard finishing with a 34 Int gets 66 spells + 5 cantrips in memory, but loses out on two schools of magic.We're talking Pathfinder and not 3.5, so no, they don't. The specialist wizard can prepare spells of any school he likes.
A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of magic must select two other schools as his opposition schools, representing knowledge sacrificed in one area of arcane lore to gain mastery in another. A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spell slots of that level to prepare the spell.
As Aelryinth was speaking of the spells that a wizard can have memorized at a specific time, it is relevant.
A 20th level sorcerer has from 43 (minimum) to 63 (maximum) different spell available at his fingertips as long as he has spell slots.
A level 20th specialist wizard with 36 intelligence (20 starting stat, +5 level increase, +5 inherent, +6 items, the maximum possible AFAIK), can have up to 73 different spells, as long as 9 are from his specialist school and none is from his opposite schools.
But as soon as he take some spell multiple times and/or memorize some spell from his opposite schools the actual number of different spells available drop significantly.
If he use a bonded object he get access to all of his spellbook for 1 spell, but that open a different argument that I haven't seen touched by anyone here:
how often the GM target the wizard bonded object?
Destroying or stealing it will create serious problems even to the mightiest of the wizards.
If he has chosen a weapon as his bonded object it can be disarmed with ease. Other objects can be sundered easily, they have way less hp than a weapon.
There are plenty of situations where a weapon bonded object will not be allowed (You can bring your weapons in presence of Lord XX; No weapons in the bank of Adabar,; all weapons need to be peacebonded when brought into the city).
An amulet or ring can pass unnoticed, but remember that it radiate magic, so security minded people can require its removal.
Beside that it use a ring or amulet slot, so it is one less magic item that the wizard can use, unless he enchant it, but enchanting it compound his weakness, as losing the bonded item mean losing a magic item too and replacing it with the 6 hours ritual will remove the magic from the previous bonded object.
As immediate versatility the sorcerer is advantaged, the wizard is better only if he has time to prepare for the specific obstacle.
As Aelryinth was speaking of the spells that a wizard can have memorized at a specific time, it is relevant.... As immediate versatility the sorcerer is advantaged, the wizard is better only if he has time to prepare for the specific obstacle.
We are no longer talking about "spells known" we are talking about spontaneous casting vs prepared casting. These are different debates entirely.
I am aware that spontaneous casting has certain advantages over prepared casting, nor am I debating that.
However, silly statements like "The default sorceror number of spells is equal to or greater then the wizard." discuss spells known, not spontaneous casting vs prepared casting, or spells available for immediate casting on any one specific day.
Changing the circumstance changes the argument.
A 20th level sorcerer has...A level 20th specialist wizard
First of all, let's make clear we are discussing the least relevant level in the game.
Second, let's make clear that we are discussing the least relevant level in the game because that is the level where the difference between sorcerer spells known and wizard spells known is the smallest.
Third, let's make clear, that even in that least relevant level, with the smallest difference, even by your math, the wizard still knows more spells than the sorcerer.
The statement I challenged stated that sorcerers default number of spells was equal or greater than a wizard. A statement that remains blatantly false unless we make the conditions uneven.
from 43 (minimum) to 63 (maximum) different spell available at his fingertips as long as he has spell slots.
If he use a bonded object he get access to all of his spellbook for 1 spell, but that open a different argument that I haven't seen touched by anyone here:
There is a reason why. Assuming bonded object for a Wizard in this comparison is like assuming a sorcerer with the arcane bloodline. It skews the results by making assumptions that the wizard or sorcerer made mechanical decisions that they very possibly did not make.
personally, I universally will take a familiar with a Wizard, partially for the reasons you mention, partially because familiars are very useful.
Assuming a bonded object to skew the numbers would, well, skew the numbers. Just like assuming arcane bloodline.
A sorcerer optimized for spell selection has more spells than a wizard who never studies or encounters other spellbooks? Thats really right up there with a Sorcerer is more powerful than a wizard if he takes leadership so he can have a wizard cohort handing him scrolls.
Can I just ask a random question here that might set this argument on (from what I can piece together) yet another tangent?
As a 10 - 12th level wizard, you are walking around Random Jungle Zone A, with the expectation to meet jungle animal type creatures. You have not yet befriended the locals to determine anything of note with these jungles. You are not sure if the leeches poisonous and of abnormal size. You are unclear if by 'giant stone THINGS' the peasant meant stone giants, Earth elementals or Stone Golems. You have learnt from watching the cows though that walking into the streams will get your flesh stripped by the local fishes. You are not aware of any dinosaurs in the area, but a few games back there WAS that giant using one as a mount that your GM seemed to like a LITTLE too much.
How is your spell selection going to differ here from (say) Random Mountainous Zone B. Or Underground Cave Network C? Even Coastal Sea-Shanty Town D your at for the day before you go inland into Jungle Zone A?
Really? Is there that much difference? Maybe if your underground you won't pack fly, but... you know what... there are plenty of deep holes and pit traps in cavern networks.
I'm unsure of how things run in other games, but we tend to run against the clock a HECK of a lot. Spending a week befriending the locals and discovering that the leeches are of abnormal size means that typically means whatever it was we were hoping to achieve, we won't. Typically also anything that is a threat to a 10th - 12th level adventuring party... well... the level 1 commoner locals that encounter those don't tend to come back with stories to tell.
In some instances I understand. If you have reliable intel that your going up against Daemons not Demons, then you can choose your spells appropriately based on their resistances. If your sure they are Demons, not winged monkeys, you can prep banishments and dismissals. If you are in an abandoned temple, odds are undead are the order of the day (though ironically enough, they weren't in the last one we were in. Golems and traps were the order of the day).
A wizard can and will shine in the situations where it has had the chance to acquire all that intel that it needs to use. But for the 'Standard adventuring day into the unknown', or as I prefer to refer to it 'What do you mean you can't tell me if it was a Demon or Devil that took your wife, you 0th level peasant?'... I'd throw the theory out there that most people have a 'standard' spellbook that they memorize close to the same spells every day. With most variation being on whim or hunch rather than on actual solid fact of "I be it's a Gorillian in goth makeup that's been Magic Jar-ed by a necromancer..."
If that's the case, then... does this actually mean that the sorc comes out better on flexibility in the times when the wizard CAN'T do their recon? At 13th level, a sorc has 6 different spells to choose from when casting 1st level. Each one he can cast as he sees fit with as many castings of each individual spell (up to a total of 7 or 8). The wizard has 5 - 6 spells to choose from, but once it's gone, he can't re-cast it. If he has already cast his burning hands, then the cannot just sacrifice his magic missile to be able to cast Burning hands.
Though he (probably) can sacrifice his Greater Teleport for Prismatic Spray once a day. And that does ruin anyone's day more than burning hands.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he use a bonded object he get access to all of his spellbook for 1 spell, but that open a different argument that I haven't seen touched by anyone here:There is a reason why. Assuming bonded object for a Wizard in this comparison is like assuming a sorcerer with the arcane bloodline. It skews the results by making assumptions that the wizard or sorcerer made mechanical decisions that they very possibly did not make.
personally, I universally will take a familiar with a Wizard, partially for the reasons you mention, partially because familiars are very useful.
Assuming a bonded object to skew the numbers would, well, skew the numbers. Just like assuming arcane bloodline.
I too would take the familiar, but the largest majority of posters in this kind of thread argue that the sorcerer spontaneous spellcasting of his spell know isn't a real advantage as the wizard can cast 1 spell spontaneously too, and he can choose between all his know spells.
There are several a common tropes between the wizard superiority apologists:
- the wizard always know the right spells
- the wizard always keep open slots
- at the same time the wizard always has his full roster of spells
- the wizard can cast any spell he want thanks to his bonded item but never suffer the bonded item drawbacks
- the wizard always has all his spellbooks with him but they are never in danger
- the wizard always has all the needed time to spy his opponent and tailor his spells selection as needed
- acquiring and copying the spells never cost anything and never require time.
My post was about one of those common tropes.
Second, let's make clear that we are discussing the least relevant level in the game because that is the level where the difference between sorcerer spells known and wizard spells known is the smallest.
Not exact:
between level 19 and 20 a sorcerer learn 1 9nth level spell, a wizard 2.So if we discard spell learned through other sources the difference is more favourable for the sorcerer at level 19.
We are no longer talking about "spells known" we are talking about spontaneous casting vs prepared casting. These are different debates entirely.
That was the argumentation Aelryinth had presented and Dire Mongoose dismissed without realizing (I think) what Aelryinth was saying.
I think that it is relevant to a comparison between sorcerers and wizards.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One bizarre argument I keep seeing is 'the wizard might have prepared the wrong spells and thus the sorcerer is better'. Isn't the sorcerer even worse off than the wizard if his/her spells are unsuited to the scenario?
Fire wizard and fire sorcerer need to go on an unexpected underwater expedition. Fire wizard takes a few days out to scribe water breathing and some nice spells for underwater and isn't as good at water spells but can still cast them when needed. Fire sorcerer looks glum and sits on the shore. He can buy the same scrolls but for him they're single use and won't last a whole adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is your spell selection going to differ here from (say) Random Mountainous Zone B. Or Underground Cave Network C? Even Coastal Sea-Shanty Town D your at for the day before you go inland into Jungle Zone A?
Really? Is there that much difference?
My spell selection as a wizard will vary a lot, but maybe not exactly in the way you're thinking.
I mean, yes, of course, if we're going ancient Osirian tomb raiding I'm going to be more ready for, say, undead than kobolds -- but spells based on terrain or your enemy are only a subset of situations in which I'll switch something up.
For example: What's the party trying to do? Are we trying to protect a caravan? Solve a murder mystery? Kill everything in a dungeon? Infiltrate a hostile city? Defend our keep from an invading army? All of those are different spells.
Or: What's the party make-up? In a sense this is usually mostly static, but what if Dave can't make the game this week and we're down a rogue? What if the party fighter died and it's two more days journey to get to somewhere where we can get him raised?
These are just a few examples, none of which requires divination or scouting to get right.
|
|
So ignoring the whole "who is better prepared line" (there are advantages to each, but only in very specific circumstances do wizards change out their spells):
*Wizards will get higher level spells faster
*Wizards have a more mechanically-useful primary stat
*Wizard powers min-maxed are more powerful than sorcerer bloodlines min-maxed
So wizards do get everything. And for those circumstances you do know things, being able to change spells instead of drop money on scrolls is very handy (water breathing and resist elements are great examples).
So really, pending the odd splash for Red Dragon Disciple / Pally arcane archers, I see no reason to choose a Sorcerors. While they can be very good (they are mostly wizards after all), you'll generally find a wizard superior, and the two classes are too similar to NOT directly compare. I really think they should eliminate sorcerer and make "spontaneous spell progression" an option for wizards, right now it's a poor holdover. From 3.5.