Prepared casters are stronger.
Spontaneous casters are more flavorful/fun.That's my answer, take it however you will. :)
sums up my position entirely!
|
No, It is not the limits of the game that make the game. It is the DM and the players and the rules.
If your DM has a 15 minute workday and/or they let you leave and come back without consequences, the game will be very different. Which is why I keep saying discussing this out of the context of a campaign is unproductive.
As to a point made above, absolutely if you secure an area you can create a space for the wizard to memorize the empty slots. But you have to create the area, either literally or by having the rest of the party support you for the period of time you are memorizing spells. This is also true each morning for extended campaigns. Parties make it work, but it is a cost in the same way fighters without the proper feats generally sleep without armor, makes them more vulnerable to night ambushes.
Regardless, in wave type and ongoing encounters, which happen frequently in both modules and adventure paths, Wizards are at a higher risk of running out of "useful" spells for a specific extended encounter than spontaneous casters.
That being said, it is correct that the empty slot allows them the ability to memorize utility spells out of conflict, if they know them.
If in your game you fight your way through the BBEG's fortress and then stop outside of the BBEG's door to memorize the uberspells you will need to defeat him before you open the door and your GM lets you, I think you have a very easy GM.
|
|
Good post
I largely agree with what you said and about the percentages, although I would say there is at least one other common scenario.
To paraphrase you said the scenarios were
1. Immediate problem that needs to be dealt with (Combat encounter was the example). This would not allow for memorization and you said it is about 70%
2. Problem that occurred that we need to address relatively quickly that we can't immediately fix, but we aren't in ongoing danger from at the time (Someone is under a spell effect is the example) This is absolutely an area of huge advantage to the prepared casted.
3. Problem that is not time sensitive, which favors the prepared, but can generally be resolved one way or another because it isn't time restrained issue.
The fourth scenario which is very common in my experience is the when your party is preparing to deal with what is known to be a very long encounter day, or just having a long encounter day foist upon them. You are attacking a fortress, or you are going on a dungeon crawn, or your have to rescue the Macguffin from X. These situations will require an extended party day or encounter due to time or logistical restraints.
In these situations the prepared caster can be absolutely amazing or run into serious problems, depending on if they prepared properly or not, as it will be unlikely they can memorize new spells on the fly, and they will likely need to spend a significant portion of memorized spells (or resources if we are talking scrolls) through the encounter.
In the example Ashiel provided from RoTRL (since she didn't include the spoiler tags I included...) the party is attacked by three successive waves. The sorcerer is better equipped for that encounter, as a spell like color spray cast multiple times would be great, while it is unlikely a wizard would have a spell like that memorized multiple times.
Having a wizard in the party is a huge resource boon to the party for a number of reasons. But they are also a very dependent class, as they can be caught unprepared more often than other classed and need to be protected more than most classes.
I'm not saying they are bad, I'm just saying I think you are undervaluing being able to cast effective spells multiple times without memorizing them multiple times.
@Egoish and @Ciretose
Finally we have an understanding here.Power and Utility are not the same.Both prepared and spontaneus casters can deal in both areas but each is especially well suited for one of them.
The only disagreement i have with your assessment of the fourth scenario ciretose is that the result you come up with, in this case spamming colour spray, is not the only solution.
As a prepared caster who spends time thinking about his spell list will have multiple ways of dealing with mobs of npc's if he has prepared correctly. Grease, colour spray, sleep, web, glitterdust, aqueous orb, sleet storm, black tentacles... I would always have a few of these memorised.
If its a wave of weak enemies casting enlarge person on the fighter might deal with every wave with one spell depending on level and space between waves. A wall spell means that by the time they get to you they are one mob insted of waves so buffing with haste is an easy option if you cluster to avoid to many attacks.
What if it is actually a wave of zombies and your sorcerer has colour spray? He's even more useless than a wizard who can only help with one wave.
Probably my most cast spell is grease, its a reflex save or fall over, or be disarmed. It stays in effect on a patch of floor (i have a funny story about waves of zombies and a 10ft wide door), it prevents charges, it helps people escape grapples. I always have 2, i plan to have a persistant one for disarms and a quickened one for blocking charges. I also love tentacles and aqueous orb, glitterdust is ok but its not reliable enough with the repeated saves however i keep one available all the time for incase of invisibility.
Spamming spells is great if you really have to but even an encounter with 3 waves shouldn't need much more than 3 or 4 spells from a caster, they don't all need to be the same. A first level wizard who would go through the encounter you gave probably couldn't keep up using control though since resources at level 1 are very limited for both prepared and spontaneous, at level 1 i think spontaneous probably are better due to having more per day, by level 3 though that stops being the case and at level 2 they should be about even.
Edit: also if i were playing in that encounter as a fighter of similar and either arcane caster in my group finished the entire encounter of waves with the same spell each time i'd feel a little disapointment. If my opponents slipped on grease in the doorway landed and my feat and i killed them when they tried to stand up i'd be laughing all the time.
|
|
The only disagreement i have with your assessment of the fourth scenario ciretose is that the result you come up with, in this case spamming colour spray, is not the only solution.
As a prepared caster who spends time thinking about his spell list will have multiple ways of dealing with mobs of npc's if he has prepared correctly. Grease, colour spray, sleep, web, glitterdust, aqueous orb, sleet storm, black tentacles... I would always have a few of these memorised.
If its a wave of weak enemies casting enlarge person on the fighter might deal with every wave with one spell depending on level and space between waves. A wall spell means that by the time they get to you they are one mob insted of waves so buffing with haste is an easy option if you cluster to avoid to many attacks.
Probably my most cast spell is grease, its a reflex save or fall over, or be disarmed. It stays in effect on a patch of floor (i have a funny story about waves of zombies and a 10ft wide door), it prevents charges, it helps people escape grapples. I always have 2, i plan to have a persistant one for disarms and a quickened one for blocking charges. I also love tentacles and aqueous orb, glitterdust is ok but its not reliable enough with the repeated saves however i keep one available all the time for incase of invisibility.
Spamming spells is great if you really have to but even an encounter with 3 waves shouldn't need much more than 3 or 4 spells from a caster, they don't all need to be the same. A first level wizard who would go through the encounter you gave probably couldn't keep up using control though since resources at level 1 are very limited for both prepared and spontaneous, at level 1 i think spontaneous probably are better due to having more per day, by level 3 though that stops being the case and at level 2 they should be about even.
But again, this is why I think the discussion needs context, and you are part of the other experiment, so I can't give you anything but praise for putting your opinion to what I consider a much more fair test.
If you like, I would be fine with you running both your oracle and a wizard for the experiment in the other thread. We will even have Abraham's sorcerer for comparison (although I think he is building it to show it can fill a rogue type role)
We still need at least two more judges and then I think we are ready to start.
|
I think something that people need to take into account is the fact that the Wizard can switch from being a blaster one day, to a buff machine the next or play a little bit of both. I know the Sorcerer can do this as well at times but the party does change when classes hit certain levels so the Wizard is actually able to adjust himself to his party, much more difficult for the sorcerer.
|
|
I think some people have forgotten the main purpose behind RPG's like D&D/Pathfinder which is bringing your character to life and how it interacts with the world, not how much DPS it can do. It's not all about the numbers.
I have never played an Oracle but I have played a Favored Soul and I think the two maybe similar.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's rather arrogant of you to proclaim your purpose as the purpose of D&D/Pathfinder.
The purpose of gaming is to have fun. If you have fun bringing characters to life, you have fulfilled that purpose. If you have fun crafting the most optimal mechanics and setting them against each other, you have ALSO fulfilled that purpose.
|
|
I think it's rather arrogant of you to proclaim your purpose as the purpose of D&D/Pathfinder.
The purpose of gaming is to have fun. If you have fun bringing characters to life, you have fulfilled that purpose. If you have fun crafting the most optimal mechanics and setting them against each other, you have ALSO fulfilled that purpose.
Mr. Black please meet Mr. Kettle.
Point of order TOZ... as long as the genre is still called "Role Playing Games" then I am going to assert that the actual purpose of the game is, in fact, exactly what it says it is, which is what Shadowsoul said it is.
The fact that you and plenty of others can have fun doing something else with it is nice to know, and that's all good and wonderful, but that does not change the fact that the game actually does have a defined and stated purpose.
Your argument is like saying, "whoah, you can't say the purpose of a car is to drive from place to place! I know lots of people who love to use theirs as a place to sleep!"
Sure they do. But that doesn't change the car's purpose.
Maybe you shouldn't use 'game' in your title then?
Non sequitur
I've always chosen sorcerers over wizards. Eight hours of beauty sleep and an hour in front an expensive, fragile book every morning do not mix well with adventuring. Clerics and druids are fine.
|
|
Diego, i didn't spot it in any of the earlier posts, i would re read them but i'd rather just apologise if i overlooked someones contirbution. It was just that particular post that brought it home for me, i think i would like to discuss over/under preparedness and what it constitutes but a lot of that will vary table to table.
I notice now that I missed a part of your comment:
Glendwyr, in the case of my wizard the opportunity cost of not filling all my slots has never come up. I have been playing for a long while and if i don't need to cast a spell to ensure the party wins i don't but that probably comes from ad&d.
so you are right, it was never said about your wizard in particular, but it was called out about keeping open slot in general.
None of my comments was about you in particular, it was about the thread in general.
...This. I'm tired of not being able to discuss issues of Paladins, Fighters, Spontaneous casters, or alignment without getting a third degree ass reaming for it. Especially Paladins.
The only advice I can give is, "don't feed the trolls."
Sometimes it is hard, but when someone responds to my posts and is obviously just trying to fight. The best bet is just to ignore them. You are not going to be able to convince them. They have either already made up their mind or (more likely) they don't really have any opinion other than opposing you just for the 'fun' of it.
I have thought most of your posts were interesting and reasonable even when I don't agree with them. {I lurk alot more than I post.}
|
|
...This. I'm tired of not being able to discuss issues of Paladins, Fighters, Spontaneous casters, or alignment without getting a third degree ass reaming for it. Especially Paladins.The only advice I can give is, "don't feed the trolls."
Sometimes it is hard, but when someone responds to my posts and is obviously just trying to fight. The best bet is just to ignore them. You are not going to be able to convince them. They have either already made up their mind or (more likely) they don't really have any opinion other than opposing you just for the 'fun' of it.
I have thought most of your posts were interesting and reasonable even when I don't agree with them. {I lurk alot more than I post.}
You may also consider that a discussion without the other side presenting their position isn't a discussion.
If you wish to present a position without opposition, that is a sermon, not a discussion.
A "third degree ass reaming" is very different than a typed response of disagreement, delivered in a direct manner.
A "third degree ass reaming" is very different than a typed response of disagreement, delivered in a direct manner.
Yes, it is abundantly clear that different people have widely different tolerances for dissent to their opinions... When two people with a wide gap in their tolerance level for rebuttals attempt to discuss things, the one with the lesser tolerance generally feels "attacked" and then feels justified in "retaliating" which is one of the main ways these things escalate.
There was a great Youtube video of a group of actors playing out in a room the conversation that appeared between a group of "friends" on Facebook. The harshness and cruelty of the FB comments was clearly apparent when delivered across a table in a face-to-face manner. Since seeing that video I have started to try to visualize my comments here as if I were speaking to a friend across a table at lunch.
It's not easy though.... Because so many people can be so... ;-)
I think that, in general, spontaneous casters are more fun, more suited to the adventuring life, and more flavorful. Which is why it annoys the hell out of me that the developers, in their attempt to balance the class, double-penalized it. (Limit on spells known AND delayed spell progression)
Don't forget metamagic the longer casting time. Not big penalty but it is there as well.
I think that, in general, spontaneous casters are more fun, more suited to the adventuring life, and more flavorful. Which is why it annoys the hell out of me that the developers, in their attempt to balance the class, double-penalized it. (Limit on spells known AND delayed spell progression)
I'd say, slightly more suited to the adventuring life. And that fun is what you make it. And that eating casters is a good way to pick up mad cow disease.
I'm sorry, but without the limit on spells known, you totally nerf wizards. You want to know a lot of spells? Then play a wizard and earn having a lot of known spells.
Likewise, the delayed spell progression is a perfect simulation of the nature of an untrained, instinctive manipulator of magic, as opposed to someone who studies and trains their ability to do so, in a longstanding tradition of the art and science of magic.
Don't get me wrong: I like sorcerers, a lot.
But, given the truly obscene powers that they obtain, PLUS the totally-spammable number of spells/day they have, PLUS only 2 bonus feats less than a wizard on a full progression -- admittedly, from shorter lists, but still...
I think the slow progression/spell limits are fair price for the amount of power you can fling.
|
My point was that either slow progression or spell limits alone might have been a good balance (my preference would be for the limited number of spells), but having BOTH apply tips the balance towards the wizard.
As for the delayed spell progression, you could likewise make the argument that the magic flows through the sorcerer naturally, and that the wizard has to force it, and the HE should be the one to suffer delayed spell progression...which is just as reasonable as the "learned vs unlearned" argument you presented.
My point was that either slow progression or spell limits alone might have been a good balance (my preference would be for the limited number of spells), but having BOTH apply tips the balance towards the wizard.
As for the delayed spell progression, you could likewise make the argument that the magic flows through the sorcerer naturally, and that the wizard has to force it, and the HE should be the one to suffer delayed spell progression...which is just as reasonable as the "learned vs unlearned" argument you presented.
I agree that both sorcerers and wizards should follow the same spell progression as should oracles and clerics. Delaying the next level of spells is one of the biggest limiting factors on the debate of spontaneous vs prepared and a fact that we have mostly ignored in this debate as it is an insurmountable problem for spontaneous casters.
Giving sorcerers and oracles the next level of spells at odd levels rather than evens would truely make spontaneous/prepared casting as even as they can be.
Considering variety as the ability to be useful in a lot of situations... My point of view is that, contrary to what everybody says, variety is something an oracle/sorcerer is stronger at than a wizard / cleric is.
Wizard instead has more power, power to cast higher level spells one level before, power to select necromancy focus and have a higher save on his exhausting ray, he has variety only as far as he is prepared and well informed about the adventure he is going to face.
Let's look at this practically: a 5° dragon bloodline sorcerer can, for example, prepare mage amor / magic missle / feather fall / shield / sleep and cast whatever is more suitable: he does not have to prepare 1 sleep, than facing lots of orcs and have no more sleeps to cast, or find fighter/ogres with 5hd and find himself with a useless spell slot wasted on sleep. If he finds lots of <4hd monsters he can cast how many sleeps he wants, if his magic armor gets dispelled he can re-cast it, if he needs shield after the duration expires he can cast it again, if he does not need it he has not wasted a spell slot preparing it. If he needs feather fall because the stone bridge on which the group is passing collapses, he just cast feather fall and saves his life against this 1% chance hazard, without wasting a slot on his whole adventure on a feather fall that would be otherwise useless.
As someone previously pointed out, an oracle/sorcerer can silent cast if he is sneaking or has been silenced, he can still cast if he's grappled, he can 'lightning ball' if he wants to damage a group of fire imps, and so on. He has a HUGE variety. A wizard would almost never be able to get access to these useful options, because be serious and tell me what wizard would prepare a still lightning bolt instead of a 4th level spell (he might be able to prepare some silent spell only if he knows the group is going for a stealth mission for example).
These advantages give a sorcerer / oracle a great variety, and make them real good spell casters. They pay this capacity to be more effective in most situations, with a delay on spell casting progression that is a HUGE disadvantage. As HUGE is the advantage to be so much more flexible.
That being said, in an hypothetical clash between prepared vs spontaneous, I would still bet on prepared.
I and many others understand that this is your point, and that others have advocated it as well. There are those of us that simply do not agree. Giving the sorcerer the same progression has wizard would not tilt the balance towards the sorcerer, it would tip it all the way. I think you undervalue the casting flexibility the sorcerer has and the wizard does not even close to duplicating.My point was that either slow progression or spell limits alone might have been a good balance (my preference would be for the limited number of spells), but having BOTH apply tips the balance towards the wizard.
Given that this is a pretty common house rule from what I've asked around online, and the fact that I've been allowing sorcerers to use the same spell progression as the Wizard for years (effectively treating the sorcerer as being 1 level higher for spells known and spell slots), and yet I still think the Wizard has more edges on the sorcerer; I'm going to have to say that it's not as large an advantage as people seem to think it is; or at least, it has not demonstrated itself as a powerful advantage yet.
In fact, from what I've seen, the sorcerer still lacks the flexibility that the wizard has, but with the human favored class and un-nerfed spell progression, well they at least are closer to being balanced between one another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flexibility that the wizard has?
I really don't see this.
From my experience of dungeon master and player, sorcerers are way ahead as flexibility. In my actual 2 groups... I appreciate the efforts the wizard puts into using the spells he prepared, but the sorcerer of the other group is a more efficient and reliable damage dealer and controller.
I think it depends on how strict is the dungeon master and how much information 'out of role play' the characters receive...
If you don't know what you are going to face, even with a ring of sustenance you still need some minutes to prepare free slot spells (not something you can do in combat), while the sorc can blast / control whatever according to the situation, always effectively.
Clearly it's two different classes, power and planning versus reliability and flexibility.
I honestly would never give the same spell progression to wiz and sorc, it would be like giving the same spell progression to ranger and druid.
Maybe... But is the advantage of casting whatever spell you like without preparing it less or more valuable than a +1/4 BAB and 1 HP per level?
I don't think getting spells one level after is a price too high to pay
Maybe... But is the advantage of casting whatever spell you like without preparing it less or more valuable than a +1/4 BAB and 1 HP per level?
It's not whatever spell you like. It's whatever spell you have on that teeny tiny itsy bitsy runty stunty spells known list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer: "Hi! I'm a spontaneous caster. I can cast spells without preparing them so I'm always ready."
Wizard: "Hi! I'm a prepared caster. I can prepare any spell in my book and cast it when I'm ready."
Level 8:
Sorcerer: "I cast D.Door"
Wizard: "I cast D.Door -- then I cast summon monster 4."
Sorcerer: "I cast D.Door again."
Wizard: "I cast stoneskin."
Sorcerer: "I cast D.Door again."
Wizard: "Is that the only spell you know?"
Sorcerer: "Um... yeah."
Wizard: "Oh... so how is that greater diversity and ability to choose your spells on the fly working out for you?"
Sorcerer: "P*## off."
Oracle: "I don't know why he's so upset -- is he hurt? I can cast cure critical wounds if he is. No? Hm... well is it ability drain? I've got restoration too. There are a lot of little monsters in the area I think I'll summon monster 4. It's a good thing I can choose what spell to cast out of these three spells I know."
Sorcerer:
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oracle: "I don't know why he's so upset -- is he hurt? I can cast cure critical wounds if he is. No? Hm... well is it ability drain? I've got restoration too. There are a lot of little monsters in the area I think I'll summon monster 4. It's a good thing I can choose what spell to cast out of these three spells I know."
Sorcerer:
I never really looked at the Oracle, so I never noticed that. Rey's going to go sit on the short bus and cry now...
(Aside, the Life mystery in my PDF follows the 3,5,7 etc format. DO I need to DL an errata'd copy?)
I believe that's updated in the errata, if not it was covered in the FAQ and was supposed to be -- we know how that goes though.
|
|
But but but Abraham, Sorcerers can cast their 2nd level spells with their 3rd level slots, so they DO have more than one spell to cast!
Maybe... But is the advantage of casting whatever spell you like without preparing it less or more valuable than a +1/4 BAB and 1 HP per level?
Um, Sorcerers don't get that, and Druids don't cast spontaneously, so I have no idea what you are getting at.
But no, spontaneous casting is not more valuable than BAB/HP, not as it currently stands.
what I'm getting at is: why the ranger does not cast like a druid? He does not transform into a huge elemental, he has just 1/4 BAB less and 1pf per level, so let's give him the same spell capability as a Druid. Sounds as crazy to me as giving the same spell progression to sorcererr
@abraham: wizard: cast d. door - prepared arrow on him from a hidden archer, concentration check failed, no more d. door.
see also: wizard: cast prepared black tentacles, uops they are flying, wops I did not prepare any lightning bolt and those red dragon whelps look pretty resistant to fire... Wait me 20 minutes while I prepare my very flexible lightning bolts.
Blah,Blah,Blah
Human Sorcerer Level 10
1st level Spells:Mage Armor,Magic Missile,Enlarge Person,Disguise Self,Charm Person,Floating Disc
2nd level Spells:Glitterdust,Protection from Evil(communal),Scorching Ray,False Life,Command Undead,Invisibility,Fog Cloud
3rd level Spells:Dispel Magic,Sleet Storm,Fireball,Heatstroke,Haste,Fly
4th level Spells:Dimension Door,Wall of Ice,Black Tentacles,Enervation
5th level Spells:Cloudkill
...now mind you,this is without the bloodline spells.
Wizard advocats, pleeeeze show me where this spell list is lacking,and what a wizard could do better,preferably a situation that comes up often and can not be solved by having a Staff or a scroll.
Of course you have to built a proper sorcerer, with for example black tentacles lightning bolt and fireball you can damage on area, change element, control the battlefield, as much as you have spells, and you have plenty. A wizard could prepare one of those, 2, than just watch.
A sorcerer can take still and silent spell and actually use them with profit. It's a different concept, the bloodlines abilities I think are the good compromise between enhance spontaneous spell casters and the impossibility of giving them the spell progression of a wizard.
As the oracle, ok maybe he knows just 4 2° spell, but he does not have to learn any restoration, and doesn't have to rely on spontaneous healing. I gave a Half Orc oracle (6° now) as an npc to my group, he's a tough melee character with 18 strength (15point built), he has at the moment those spells
1) cure light wounds, divine favor, shield of faith, remove fear + enlarge person from mistery
2) lesser restoration, bull's strenght + fog cloud (m)
3) cure serious wound + magic vestment (m)
he's doing a lot of damage with his great sword, can control, can heal, can remove ability damage. I can say he's a successful character indeed. It is another concept, but I don't think if he was a Cleric he would be dong much better.
|
|
Sounds as crazy to me as giving the same spell progression to sorcererr
And again, rangers and druids do not compare to sorcerers and wizards that way. You're saying that the difference between apples and cherries is the same as the difference between apple pie and cherry pie. Not the same comparison.
@abraham: wizard: cast d. door - prepared arrow on him from a hidden archer, concentration check failed, no more d. door.
Hidden archer snipes both sorcerer and wizard every time they attempt to cast, meaning neither get any spells off. Balanced, right?
You lose your spell due to the sneak damage, next round you are aware of the danger and you can move behind a barrel (it's just an example, imagine being in a dead end, in the slum district of the city, cornered by robbers) and cast a spell that otherwise would be forfait: that was the point.
I'm not interested in lowering the level of this stimulant dispute.
You're saying that the difference between apples and cherries is the same as the difference between apple pie and cherry pie. Not the same comparison.
Not a very good analogy:)