I think I'll just go and start a "Wizards are weak, what's that silly idea of GodWizard anyway?" thread.
+1 LOL :-D
When I read threads like this I really sometimes wonder how I or other players could ever have had fun and be effective with sorcerers, bards or oracles. And why the wizards and clerics did not make the others basically unnecessary... :-P
I have never had problems with a limited spells known list. Other ways to overcome obstacles were found, and the advantages of the spontaneous casters were leveraged often enough. Pathfinder is, after all, a group game.
I like my spontaneous casters :-)
Prepared casters are powerful and power to those who enjoy them as well.
Now back to waiting for the next posts... Where is that popcorn... :-P
You do realize that rogue's can have Wands of Knock, or a scroll of knock or use "any" magic item out there. There are other ways to open a door than just using a set of lockpicks.*While the Wizard and Fighter argue over who opens the door, the rogue in the party has already done so and gone into the next room to pocket that nifty magic item he just found.*Not if the door didn't have a lock on it he didn't. Notice I pointed out the time you want knock is if you come across a door that's barred. Very simple, low-tech means of keeping folks out. Just a thick plank of wood anchored to each side of the wall that prevents the door from being opened. If the door is sturdy, you're not getting through easily.
If the door has a mundane lock that can be opened by your party's resident locksmith, or you have the time to hammer the door down and aren't worried about anyone on the other side of the door, then go for that. There should rarely, if ever, be an argument between the caster and warrior as to how they are going to open the door.
Damn strait. However, I'm also aware that a wand of knock costs 90 gp per charge, and you need to be able to hit a DC 20 UMD check reliably, can't take 10 on it, and if you roll a 1 you can't activate the item at all for 24 hours. A scroll of knock costs 150 gp and requires a DC 23 UMD check to cast, possibly requiring you to emulate a 12 Int if you lack one (which is a DC 27), and risk a scroll mishap if your caster level is high enough to cast the scroll (possibly requiring another UMD check to emulate caster level).
In short, having a real caster is a good idea. If you have other mundane ways of getting by without casting, again, awesome! That's great! You can keep that scroll of knock you crafted while everyone was eating breakfast for a different rainy day. That rainy day may come in the form of a big-arse monster squeezing down the hallway where your warrior is trying to hold it at bay while everyone else scrambles to open a door that is being a pain in the butt, and your only exit beyond going through said hairy beastie. :P
|
Stuff
Money where your mouth is, the thread is waiting.
What you "might" have done and what you actually did in the context of the game are two very different things.
Schrödinger's wizard may have the right spell, or they may not. They may have spent all their money making utility scrolls, or they may have bought gear, or they may have bought extra spells, or...well that's the thing.
The argument out of context is a waste of our time...again. I've suggested a context you have said is fair...yet...
I think I'll just go and start a "Wizards are weak, what's that silly idea of GodWizard anyway?" thread.+1 LOL :-D
When I read threads like this I really sometimes wonder how I or other players could ever have had fun and be effective with sorcerers, bards or oracles. And why the wizards and clerics did not make the others basically unnecessary... :-P
I have never had problems with a limited spells known list. Other ways to overcome obstacles were found, and the advantages of the spontaneous casters were leveraged often enough. Pathfinder is, after all, a group game.
I like my spontaneous casters :-)
Prepared casters are powerful and power to those who enjoy them as well.
Now back to waiting for the next posts... Where is that popcorn... :-P
Please don't think I think spontaneous casters are necessarily weak. Far from it (except Oracles, I think they suck pretty bad). I actually argued that pound for pound, core sorcerers are nastier in terms of raw power when they go nova than a psion is (nova = burning through all your spells as fast as possible to completely steamroll some badguys) on these very boards a couple of years ago. In fact, here is the post as a PDF: Psion vs Sorcerer nova (I made a pdf of it for my group for when we were discussing novas or spellcasters).
Sorcerers are very potent in the right situation. I tend to use them as NPCs fairly often. For general adventuring, I feel like they are lacking, because general adventuring has a wide variety of things that might come up. That doesn't stop people from liking them, and shouldn't stop anyone from playing them if that's what they want to play. :)
What you "might" have done and what you actually did in the context of the game are two very different things.
Schrödinger's wizard may have the right spell, or they may not. They may have spent all their money making utility scrolls, or they may have bought gear, or they may have bought extra spells, or...well that's the thing.
General preparation does not a Schrodinger's wizard make folks. Schrodinger's wizard is an argument that was made about people citing spells that the wizard has access to, and then assuming the wizard automatically overcomes problems by having that spell whenever it is needed (effectively making the silly assertion that the wizard's spell slots would be filled with the spell needed when they needed it).
Playing a smart wizard is very different, but it can appear similar for the uninitiated. A 3rd level specialist wizard might pick up web and glitterdust for free, then pays 120 gp to learn alter self, levitate, and knock. Then the wizard spends 75 gp during the afternoon in a town to craft a scroll of knock to add to his gear. During an adventure he likely has 3 spells (1 school, 1 normal, 1 bonus spell). He prepares web and glitterdust and leaves 1 slot open. Later he can fill that slot with any of his above spells, and he has a scroll of knock lying about if he needs that. So he's got 2 spells that can be good for combat or for problem solving (web can be used as a battlefield control or for making an escape, glitterdust is control + anti-ivinsibility) and is ready to use use alter self or levitate if they come across a situation where he needs a swim speed, vision changes, or to reach something he normally wouldn't (like securing a rope for his party, as I suggested earlier).
To someone not aware of the wizard's strategy, it might appear that the wizard has access to any spell he needs when he needs it. Not exactly true, but he's doing a good job as a wizard. At this level the wizard has access to Craft Wondrous Item, and at 5th level he can get Craft Wand, which he can use to store spells that have general combat effectiveness. Wands of things like web, scorching ray, acid arrow, mirror image, invisibility, lightning bolt, summon monster III, sleet storm and stuff he will use regularly are a good investment, which can be an expensive investment but allows him to spam such spells easily (taking 50 encounters before his investment has expired); many of those spells not needing good save DCs or save DCs at all to remain useful.
|
|
What you "might" have done and what you actually did in the context of the game are two very different things.
Schrödinger's wizard may have the right spell, or they may not. They may have spent all their money making utility scrolls, or they may have bought gear, or they may have bought extra spells, or...well that's the thing.
General preparation does not a Schrodinger's wizard make folks. Schrodinger's wizard is an argument that was made about people citing spells that the wizard has access to, and then assuming the wizard automatically overcomes problems by having that spell whenever it is needed (effectively making the silly assertion that the wizard's spell slots would be filled with the spell needed when they needed it).
Playing a smart wizard is very different, but it can appear similar for the uninitiated.
Which is exactly the point of the exercise I proposed. I refute your "smart wizard" argument as simply a Schrödinger variant unless it can be shown as it is being built through the course of an adventure, while contributing/surviving along the way.
|
Well let's see GORBACZ'S PHASES OF DRINKING.
First Hour - Beer. Feels nothing. Socializing nicely.
Second Hour - Stronger Beer. Good mood. Tends to tell stupid jokes.
Third Hour - U-boats/Kamikaze. Great mood. Nerd-talk commences.
Fourth Hour - Vodka. The Best Mood Ever. Starts talking to random people about X-men comics.
Fifth Hour - Beyond Vodka (Slivovitz?). MY NAME IS MOOD. Starts recruting random people for PF games.
Sixth-Eighth Hour - Blackout.
Ninth Hour - Nothing. Moment of Clarity. "I can get to bed on my own, honest".
Tenth Hour - OK, where's the bucket?
|
|
In these discussions generally the prepared spellcasters always is some kind of fantastic figure that can at the same time:
- have all the spell he need and have open slots
- always has the time to memorize spells in the open slots
- always has the possibility to "return another day" after changing his memorized spells, and the target will never be the wiser and prepared for him (too many computer games)
- always has all the items he want.
To be fair, that's not a very good case. You're basically saying that it's unfair to note that the wizard can leave slots empty and prepare them as needed. Yes, he may not end up with the time, but sorcerers can't do it at all. No matter how much time the sorcerer has, he can't spend 15 minutes to drop a spell-slot to use knock on the door barred from the other side. The wizard can. Interestingly, there's even a wizard option that reduces the time to prepare spells on the spot to 1 minute down from 15.
EDIT: Also, I've never been in a game where literally every single adventure was rush, rush, rush. If you can't spare 1-15 minutes to Macgyver together the perfect tool for the job, maybe you need to switch to decaff.
My problem is the apparent number of spell slots those caster have.
"I always have the spell to resolve several encounter" and "I always leave 1/4 of my spell slot open" don't seem compatible.Look Egoish example character.
Spells (leaving cantrip out) 9/8/6/5
To get there he has used every trick and a half to optimize his character: He is a Thassalonian specialist, that get 2 extra slots each level but must memorize the same spell in them and has 2 totally prohibited schools. That is an example of versatility?
His character will never, ever be capable to use spells from the evocation and illusion schools.
His actual spell rooster is 7+2/6+2/4+2/3+2
Still impressive, but wrong too.
His base spells are 4/3/2/1
int 23 +2/+2/+1/+1
Total 6/5/3/2 before is specialist bonus.
I suspect he has added his specialist bonus twice, once as a specialist in the conjuration school and then again as a specialist in Sin magic, conjuration.
I really doubt it is meant to work that way.
If he had a normal specialist he it would be way less easy to play the open slot+ready for an encounter game.
Which is exactly the point of the exercise I proposed. I refute your "smart wizard" argument as simply a Schrödinger variant unless it can be shown as it is being built through the course of an adventure, while contributing/surviving along the way.
I'll check and see if I have any old OpenRPG logs on my external hard drive.
My problem is the apparent number of spell slots those caster have.
"I always have the spell to resolve several encounter" and "I always leave 1/4 of my spell slot open" don't seem compatible.Look Egoish example character.
Spells (leaving cantrip out) 9/8/6/5
To get there he has used every trick and a half to optimize his character: He is a Thassalonian specialist, that get 2 extra slots each level but must memorize the same spell in them and has 2 totally prohibited schools. That is an example of versatility?
His character will never, ever be capable to use spells from the evocation and illusion schools.
His actual spell rooster is 7+2/6+2/4+2/3+2
Still impressive, but wrong too.
His base spells are 4/3/2/1
int 23 +2/+2/+1/+1
Total 6/5/3/2 before...
Fair enough. Honestly I've never even heard of a thassalonian specialist. ^.^"
That's why in my recent example, I was just assuming a basic specialist wizard. I'm very fond of keeping stuff simple when discussing stuff like this. Despite my powergamer nature, I really can't seem to find a lot of credibility in builds and such that require you to have a whole lot of extra stuff, be very specific combinations of traits/feats/races/archtypes and stuff like that. Just doesn't really rub me the right way when speaking in general terms. :o
|
|
Which is exactly the point of the exercise I proposed. I refute your "smart wizard" argument as simply a Schrödinger variant unless it can be shown as it is being built through the course of an adventure, while contributing/surviving along the way.I'll check and see if I have any old OpenRPG logs on my external hard drive.
That isn't going to provide the context of the adventure, but it's better than nothing.
|
In my opinion, the developers double-penalized spontaneous casters. The limit on number of spells known would have been enough of a limiter. But they heaped a delayed spell progression on top of that. It's one of the things I wish Pathfinder had bothered to fix.
Adding insult to the injury, the methods given to prepared spellcasters to "work around" their weakness are generally MUCH better than the similar options given to spontaneous spellcasters.
|
|
Fair enough. Honestly I've never even heard of a thassalonian specialist. ^.^"That's why in my recent example, I was just assuming a basic specialist wizard. I'm very fond of keeping stuff simple when discussing stuff like this. Despite my powergamer nature, I really can't seem to find a lot of credibility in builds and such that require you to have a whole lot of extra stuff, be very specific combinations of traits/feats/races/archtypes and stuff like that. Just doesn't really rub me the right way when speaking in general terms. :o
It is in Inner Sea Magic. Very good reading, use with caution.
I stay away from presenting build as I am not much of a powergamer or optimizator. Force me tu use a character that is extremely good at a very narrow field and and I will leave the game pretty fast.
My characters generally are generalists that can do something useful in every situation but rarely are the best guy in a narrow field.
Most overoptimized characters rub me the wrong way. Especially when the player try to use his capabilities to overcome the drawbacks of the horrible intelligence, wisdom or charisma of his character.
As I had a bit of things this evening I hadn't the tiem in the earlier post to address this:
EDIT: Also, I've never been in a game where literally every single adventure was rush, rush, rush. If you can't spare 1-15 minutes to Macgyver together the perfect tool for the job, maybe you need to switch to decaff.
True, 70-80% of the time you can spare a few minutes. Then there is the time you need that spell and now.
I think that some of the difference stem from old habits, from 1st edition.In my playing group we always play our characters with the idea that they should be capable to manage at least another fight after they have decided to retreat/hole up to rest/sleep in the wilderness and so on.
We think that wandering monsters are the norm, when you are trying to sleep into a dungeon the local denizens will come to knock at the door at 2 AM and the guys that survived yesterday has fled or gathered his friends to kill us.
The last time one of our wizards has lost his main spellbooks was in a 1st edition adventure, but we always keep a spare copy somewhere safe as we still remember the sad tale.
So while we feel that the "open slot" options is useful, none of us make an extensive use of it.
Probably in my evaluation the spontaneous casters are good (not gods) because their advantages shine in that kind of environment.
When the wizard is down to his last spells, those left are the leftovers, his less useful spells.
The sorcerer has still his full choice of spells available.
|
|
True, 70-80% of the time you can spare a few minutes. Then there is the time you need that spell and now.
EDIT: Also, I've never been in a game where literally every single adventure was rush, rush, rush. If you can't spare 1-15 minutes to Macgyver together the perfect tool for the job, maybe you need to switch to decaff.
And honestly, depending on how you play it is very frequent you don't have the time to memorize because the next encounter is on top of you.
If you are in a dungeon crawl, where are you finding enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration, free from distractions?
Hopefully you are being sneaky and don't agro the whole place, but the bad guys aren't just going to sit around and wait for you to buff and prep before you enter then next room in games I've played.
Wizards being able to "save a slot" for later use is only a single aspect of the comparison between wizards and sorcerers. That ability could be said to be offset by the sorcerer's ability to apply metamagic on the fly. If not an exact balance, each ability has obvious utility and power to the character.
How this is anything but a question of taste is beyond me. Sorcerers can use scrolls, wands, staves, wondrous items, etc. to increase their versatility. Wizards can use scrolls, wands, staves, wondrous items, etc. to increase their spell count. Wizards will always have a bit of an edge in versatility, sorcerers will always have a bit of an edge in sheer quantity of spells.
Both have their place. Both are full casters. Both can cast "wish" and therefore cast almost any spell in the game if they want. This is like arguing who is stronger, Thor or the Hulk... It's nothing but one opinion vs another.
Unfortunately it seems I don't still have the OpenRPG logs I was hoping to use as an example. The logs also included an undead-human sorcerer who was also very useful (their favored class option is really a must have), and I wanted to show that sorcerer off as well, as an example of a sorcerer who was played very similarly to a spontaneous god-wizard. Essentially picked very broad-use spells and a few things that would be cast at least once per fight. Humorously she rarely cast more than 1-2 spells per combat, since those usually were enough.
How this is anything but a question of taste is beyond me. Sorcerers can buy and use scrolls, wands, staves, wondrous items, etc. to increase their versatility. Wizards can create and use scrolls, wands, staves, wondrous items, etc. to increase their versatility and spell count. Wizards will always have a bit of an edge in versatility, sorcerers might have a bit of an edge in sheer quantity of spells.
...Snip...Look Egoish example character.
Spells (leaving cantrip out) 9/8/6/5
To get there he has used every trick and a half to optimize his character: He is a Thassalonian specialist, that get 2 extra slots each level but must memorize the same spell in them and has 2 totally prohibited schools. That is an example of versatility?
His character will never, ever be capable to use spells from the evocation and illusion schools.
His actual spell rooster is 7+2/6+2/4+2/3+2
Still impressive, but wrong too.
His base spells are 4/3/2/1
int 23 +2/+2/+1/+1
Total 6/5/3/2 before...
There is currently a thread about thassilonian spevialisation which is discussing this very thing, i am using the interpretation as it currently stands in that thread. Which is actually one i spoke out against but does seem correct by RAW.
A thassilonian specialist has x spells for level plus stat modifier plus one specialist plus two thassilonian which must be the same spell.
X+a+1+(2)
4+2+1+2/3+2+1+2/2+1+1+2/1+1+1+2
9/8/6/5
I'm not 100% its RAI myself but thats how it works, join the other thread in the rules section though and we can discuss it further.
This challenge btw, do i have to make the entire party or just the arcanist? Cause i have a pre written "perfect" party i use to test my own homebrew stuff on, if they get killed by it then i can't throw it at my pc's, normally its a good litmus test, if they lose a member then chances are my group will tpk.
Edit: that character is a wizard 5/diabolist 2 that i am currently playing in a home brew absalom city game, it has organically grown from level 1 over about 6 months of irl gaming(we alternate gms after plot arcs) and i have never been in a situation in which i have been unable to contribute. At level one i was using sleep, grease and enlarge person then laughing as i used acid splash to kill wounded npcs (our inquisitor hates it when i steal his kills), at level 3 i was glitterdusting and summoning to help our cannons flank and sneak attack, at level 5 i did an entire fight casting just haste once and aiding another to help the rogue hit since using aoe control in the spall space we were in wouldn't work. Most recently i cleared 8 monsters out of a room with 3 spells and saved our party a huge chunk of resources for the boss fight (in which i glitterdusted the greater invisible shadow demon and cast haste and bestow curse). Overall i would say our MVP is the party ranger who is a high damage archer, we also have a decent damage high ac inquistor tank, a rogue who recently retired and a cleric who normally rolls below 14 on a 6d6 channel. Our cleric is probably lurking somewhere on the forums now and i'm sure he will agree that my control spells have probably saved several party members lives when he wiffed a healing roll. I'm not the top performer but i am consistent with every encounter and sometimes i end them before they start, i also do my bit outside of combat with divinations, abjurations and charms.
|
|
hmmm...
Interesting thread so far.
IMO, both spontaneous and prepared casters have their place in the game. Both of them have relative strengths and relative weaknesses compared to the others. Only Sorcerers and Wizards, and Oracles and Clerics, form pairs that use the same spell list anyway-- the other casting classes have their own strengths and weaknesses, and can fill different roles, but IMO do not lend themselves well to this sort of side-by-side comparison. Now, within each of these two pairs, I really don't care which one allegedly has the 'mechanical' edge over the other-- I really think it depends more on who's playing the character than on which class the character is, and again each of them has their own strengths. Specifically regarding the Oracle (which some people appear to have claimed to be worthless), I'm finding that the Oracle's revelations and other talents (such as base 4 sp's instead of 2 per level) can and do make up quite a bit for whatever weaknesses they may have relative to the Cleric (a lot also depends on which mystery you take, and how well that applies in the campaign).
Personally, I prefer playing spontaneous casters over prepared casters-- but not because of optimization concerns, perceived mechanical advantages, or ability to optimize one over the other. The spontaneous casters simply fit the character concepts I've come up with and my aesthetic feeling regarding how my characters should use magic (I like the "it's in the blood"/"it comes naturally to me" more than the "I spent a lot of time hitting the books"-- most of my characters are reasonably intelligent and do study various skills, but it's not what makes them 'magic'). And I'm (so far), having no trouble with being effective in game play.
And I still feel there's a place for both types in the game-- my personal preference for which variety to play is not any sort of statement of objection to other people's preference for playing prepared casters. :D But, IMO it's not (and should not be) all about what's most effective according to the rules and numbers.
Posted in your test thread Cire, let me know how they fare through the first cakewalk encounters and i'll level them to two.
Shatter doesn't affect magical objects. Again, it only deals damage against crystaline creatures.
Wrong.
It is one of the few spells that can destory a Demilich.Immunity to Magic (Su) A demilich is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells function differently against the creature, as noted below.
A shatter spell deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6), with no saving throw.
The other spells are dispel evil, Holy smite, power word kill (power word kill spoken by an ethereal caster)
The worst spontaneous caster is probably the oracle. Shunted with the sorcerer's spell progression, limited to divine spells, and essentially a failure as a team-support divine caster. Their limited spells known basically renders them overly specific to be a good divine caster. If you diversify yourself at all, you are likely to miss out on staples like protective wards, buffs, and so forth. In general being able to cast more priest spells is less useful than being able to cast the priest spells you need.
+1
I played a Gnome cohort Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple (Draconic Bloodline) in CoCT. My main character was a Arcane Duelist.
Both classes had spells like Haste, Greater Dispel Magic and Glitterdust on their list of spells known.
The Sorcerer also had stuff like Shocking Grasp, Enlarge Person, Mage armor, Shield, Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement, Resist Energy, Scoring Ray, See Invisibility, Lightning Ball, Fireball, Displacement, Fly, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Arcane Eye, Stoneskin, Fear, Teleport, Wall of Force, Disintegrate, Chain Lightning, etc.
Surprise, surprise, He Also had stuff like Gust of Wind and Knock.
Sure I wish he had some more spells known, but he was far better than any Orcale would have been.
Oracles are problematic. They are not a flashy class like Sorcerer but a team-support caster. This mean they must have much more situational spells and should have many more situational spells. Also divine spells don't scale well (exception would be Resist Energy and Protection from Energy). Low level spells quickly becomes useless or less useful. All my arcane casters have used stuff like Glitterdust or Mage armor, Shield, Mirror Image, Ray of Enfeeblement, See Invisibility at really high levels.
Also Oracles and other Divine casters have problems using scrolls, wands and rods since they use weapons. Some even use shields.
I'm not saying the Sorcerer is a better class than the Oracle, but the Sorcerer is a better / more powerful spell caster than the Oracle, and it probably should be. That said, with the Divine spell list being what it is the Oracle could do with some more spells known or some other spell casting options, like the Arcane bloodline's Metamagic Adept and new arcana.
Before I played my gnome Sorcerer I played a Human sorcerer with the Arcane bloodline. This was before the APG. Metamagic Adept and new arcana was a huge boost. Being able to use meta magic as a standard action was great. It was fun playing him. I seriously doubt an Oracle would have been as fun or useful unless I played a Codzilla Oracle. I fear the Oracle is actually pushed in that direction.
Spontaneous casters vs. Prepared casters? I think both are valid options.
Prepared casters are more powerful and versatile.
Spontaneous casters are more fun.
The most powerful caster is obviously the wizard.
The divine casters (Cleric, Druid and Oracle) are less powerful casters. They don't have both hands free, the spell list isn't as flashy as the arcane, they are more team-support casters, spells usually don't scale well, high level spells are usually tide to alignment based spells or summons. (The Druid spell list is actually more sexy at higher levels than the Cleric/Oracle list). On the other hand the Divine caster s are probably the most powerful classes in the game.
I wish Paizo gives Spontaneous casters some more love and make the divine spell list a bit more sexy.
Edit:
Sorcerers and Oracles could do with a little bit of sympathy. Especially when they are Gnomes (or Half Orcs).
|
|
There is currently a thread about thassilonian spevialisation which is discussing this very thing, i am using the interpretation as it currently stands in that thread. Which is actually one i spoke out against but does seem correct by RAW.
I will look it. I didn't meant any offence with my remark (and I think you don't feel offended). I really doubt that the RAi of the Thassalonian specialization was to have 3 extra specialization spells. RAW it seem a stretch but I haven't see what people use to support the claim.
Wrong.
It is one of the few spells that can destory a Demilich.Immunity to Magic (Su) A demilich is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells function differently against the creature, as noted below.
A shatter spell deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6), with no saving throw.
The other spells are dispel evil, Holy smite, power word kill (power word kill spoken by an ethereal caster)
Also an effect of the demilich, not the spell itself. That is not part of the spell, but when cast on a demilich has special effects because of the demilich. Similar to how golems react to certain spells in wildly different ways than those spells function by themselves.
On a side note, a demilich is something of a crystaline creature, essentially just being a skull that grows lots of shiny gems. >.>
I will look it. I didn't meant any offence with my remark (and I think you don't feel offended). I really doubt that the RAi of the Thassalonian specialization was to have 3 extra specialization spells. RAW it seem a stretch but I haven't see what people use to support the claim.
There is currently a thread about thassilonian spevialisation which is discussing this very thing, i am using the interpretation as it currently stands in that thread. Which is actually one i spoke out against but does seem correct by RAW.
No offense intended and none taken, consider me devils advocate on the issue in the hopes for some clarity.
One of the things I find most ammusing in these threads is the number of people complaining about how weak the sorc's are in comparison to the wizards and that's why everyone always plays wizards.
However, in my group, I'm the only one who will even consider playing a wizard (and I don't want to do it all the time).
As I said before.
I think the wizard has a bit of an edge in general power/usefulness. But I don't think it is anywhere nearly as large a gap as many seem to think.
I also still insist that is GM/campaign dependant. I HAVE been in campaigns that are almost a constant rush or no enemy intelligence was available.
Also, as I mentioned in another thread, the relative strengths and weakness of prepared vs. spontaneous is why it is good to have one of each in a party. Best if you can mix them with the arcane and divine mix.
ex:
Cleric and sorc
Or
Wizard and oracle
In the same party work very well.
My experience has been that sorcerers appeal to some players because of the increased number of daily spells and the limited spell list. Some people seem to find a caster easier to play if they don't have a bewildering number of choices to make.
This is not a "noob"comment. I know gamers who have several years of experience who prefer the sorcerer because they just don't want to have to agonize over their spell choices after every rest. Tossing spells off in combat is fun for them, but contemplating a couple dozen spells and then picking the "wrong ones" frustrates them. For those players the sorcerer is a far superior class just from a game play perspective.
Spontaneous casters are definitely easier to play. I find that with wizards, I still tend to choose the same bread-and-butter spells I would with a sorcerer, but with more flexibility in having better access to the rarely-used spells. That comes in handy mostly in investigations and negotiations. In combat, the sorcerer can spam better.
Both classes fill the same role, and can radically change an encounter with just a spell or two. I don't have enough experience with some of the newer classes (like oracle) to really say.
Which is exactly the point of the exercise I proposed. I refute your "smart wizard" argument as simply a Schrödinger variant unless it can be shown as it is being built through the course of an adventure, while contributing/surviving along the way.
Part of the problem I see with your claim here ciretose is that you've already admitted you actively avoid people that 'play that way' -- which means evidence can't be provided because you actively seek to avoid it.
Please note that people have been saying on the theoretical level wizards are mechanically more powerful -- (I try to make sure every time I personally stated that a prepared was mechanically more powerful that I also pointed out this is on a theoretical level).
At that level I don't see how you could possibly make a case that it isn't. You can't provide rules or something that proves that a wizard can not do what has been claimed -- the best you can do is give specific situations where it might not be possible.
That's hardly a good argument to be trying to make. The rules and evidence is there that (again on the theoretical level) a prepared caster (specifically wizards) are more powerful than spontaneous casters (specifically sorcerers).
At a practical level there are many, many, many more factors that have to be considered. Enough so that an actual analysis of practical results is almost impossible (everything from setting, to player skill, to GM skill, to specific campaign, to books available on).
When the system is considered as a whole outside of actual play experience a prepared caster has many advantages over a spontaneous caster -- how that plays out in an actual game however can be anyone's guess.
|
|
Which is exactly the point of the exercise I proposed. I refute your "smart wizard" argument as simply a Schrödinger variant unless it can be shown as it is being built through the course of an adventure, while contributing/surviving along the way.Part of the problem I see with your claim here ciretose is that you've already admitted you actively avoid people that 'play that way' -- which means evidence can't be provided because you actively seek to avoid it.
Please note that people have been saying on the theoretical level wizards are mechanically more powerful -- (I try to make sure every time I personally stated that a prepared was mechanically more powerful that I also pointed out this is on a theoretical level).
At that level I don't see how you could possibly make a case that it isn't. You can't provide rules or something that proves that a wizard can not do what has been claimed -- the best you can do is give specific situations where it might not be possible.
That's hardly a good argument to be trying to make. The rules and evidence is there that (again on the theoretical level) a prepared caster (specifically wizards) are more powerful than spontaneous casters (specifically sorcerers).
At a practical level there are many, many, many more factors that have to be considered. Enough so that an actual analysis of practical results is almost impossible (everything from setting, to player skill, to GM skill, to specific campaign, to books available on).
When the system is considered as a whole outside of actual play experience a prepared caster has many advantages over a spontaneous caster -- how that plays out in an actual game however can be anyone's guess.
I don’t feel you are representing my position fairly.
When I say I don’t play with people who play “that way” I am referring to rules lawyers and loophole seekers who demand spaced encounters, 15 minute workdays, predictable enemies that don’t regroup and reinforce if you retreat. You know this very well from past discussions, so I'm not sure what you are trying to do here.
The theoretical wizard built for the theoretical scenario provides nothing to the debate. As I have said, many times, the Wizard is the all win/all fail class. If they are able to know what is coming, they can know exactly what they need to deal with. If they don’t, or worse if they are mislead, they can become the most vulnerable class who contributes the least.
Both scenarios are likely to occur in any extended campaign, particularly for any kind of specialist class, which tends to be the recurring theme on here.
A system being considered outside of actual game play is like considering if bacon is delicious outside of cooking environment.
Raw bacon is not cooked bacon. Theory craft completely abstracted from the game is not the class in the game.
Untested theory is fairly useless. Debate without context is equally useless. So pure theory crafted abstract wizards...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the same score a theoretical situation in which a wizard can never use his advantage is absolute rubbish.
The fact is that if a wizard makes bad choices for daily spells like you suggest then they are boned for that DAY, if a sorcerer suffers from the same issue then they are boned for FOUR levels.
The wizard CAN leave open slots to use utility spells, the sorcerer CANNOT do this.
These are just examples of the advantage to prepared casting and the point Abraham is trying to make is that your argument rotates around the fact its best not to have that advantage incase you never use it. This is not a good stance to take, your arguing against options on the grounds that you might not need options.
I enjoy playing a sorcerer just as much as a wizard but the simple fact is that wizards do have an advantage, how that plays out in your game or my game, where you play or i play could be entirely different due to system mastery, group dynamics, gm fiat and any number of minor differences in the way we play. But if you stand back and look at both classes objectively without bias then the mechanical advantages are plain to see, and thats all we can discuss on an internet forum without navigating the mine field of home rules and opinion.
I'm also not saying that my game is better than yours or i play the game better, however you appear to be against people who know the rules and use them to enrich their game. I prefer to run a game by RAW so everyone knows whats going on and we can get on with pretending to be fantasy heros and rolling dice while eating pizza.
Removed a post and the replies and the discussion of the post. Please consider taking a step back, a deep breath and try to be calm when posting and refer to the messageboard rules.
|
|
All you'd really ever do with the class was blast, blast, and blast.
That was the whole purpose of the Warmage was to "blast, blast, blast". It was a superb class for what it was designed to do. The Warmage was not designed to be a primary spellcasting class, it was designed to work along side the Wizard because the Wizard took care of utility while the Warmage blast the hell out of everything. One of my best characters ever was a Wizard/Warmage/Ultimate Magus who then continued on to Wizard/Warmage/Ultimate Magus/Cleric/Mystic Theurge. Now for that game we rolled our stats so I had a fantastic Int, Wis, Cha, and Dex.
You can't fault the class for being a blaster when that was it's design purpose.