Hello. I'm building up a backup character for a home game, and I've been attempting to challenge myself. I've played spellcasters and enjoyed them, but so far they have all been sorcerers with one or two oracles. Okay, once I played a cleric that was so specced-out all he did was spontaneous cast domain spells back in 3.5.
Either way, I'm not used to dealing with prepared spells. My first challenge is that most of out game days cover multiple days of campaign world time, and I'd like to find a way to streamline my time spent picking spells for my character. The cool thing about a wizard is that I'd have a bunch of versatility, but I don't want to bog down game time constantly by re-doing my spell list. I'd prefer to do it in a way where I don't bring an extra electronic device to the table, as D&D is my escape from LCD hobby.
With that, how would I be advised to split my spells per day amongst offensive, defensive, other, and left open? As I level up, it seems like I'd be able to split the load more evenly figuring scrolls, wands, and other magic items, but building for low level presents me with the challenge of dividing an already small resource pool of spells per day and character wealth.
...or, should I just say screw it and try to convince my DM to give a sorcerer the wizard spell progression, as I'm willing to take a versatility hit, but being a level behind in spells has kinda sucked for a while.
|
I've played mostly wizards, and this hasn't been such a big problem for me. There's some things you can do:
Make a few standard preparation lists.
One list if you're inside a town; with spells to subdue without killing or doing lots of property damage, because you want to be able to come back to this town later. Glitterdust and Hideous Laughter have a good chance of defusing a difficult situation without making people too angry.
Make a dungeon list. Prepare battlefield spells that would work in corridors and rooms, like Create Pit (which is less impressive on an open field outside). Have trap-finding spells ready like Mage Hand. There's a chance you might need Comprehend Languages to read ancient runes.
Make an overland travel list. Spells that work in wide open spaces are needed here. Don't use only fire, because if the weather is dry you might get into trouble with those. A Mount spell could also be handy from time to time. Because combat encounters can be spread all over the day, you may need to prepare multiple Mage Armor spells.
Later on scrolls will certainly become important, but having some of these lists should be very useful already. Another thing I can advise: get a ranged weapon, a crossbow perhaps; at lower levels you can actually run out of spells. It's best to use a few battlefield control spells to shape the tactical situation to one that the fighters can handle with you as backup archer, instead of trying to blast something every turn. If the fighters can handle the fight, there's no need to rush, conserving spells is a good thing.
Stay on the Wizard path, Sorcerers are no match for Wizards in the long haul.
I always make 3 separate list. Offensive. Defensive. Versatility.
Usually it ends up like this for us. I have no need for offense since our Fighters are doing their thing.
Defense is covered by our dedicated Cleric.
So that leaves the Versatility. Take spells that seem usless and harmless. Enlarge/Reduce Person, Dispel Magic, Dimensional Door, Fly, etc.
Also take he feat Eschew Materials so you don't have to worry about spell materials for spells lower than 3.
Just my take.
What Asca & g0at said + even if you want an all rounder Wizard you could specilize as a Diviner which gives you nice benefits for minimal drawbacks.
All in all I don't think that the Sorc is very versatile compared to the Wizard.
In most situations (ie combat) you will need the same 3-4 spells. This leaves a lot of room for utility. For everything else you can do Wands and Scrolls easily.
Really, once you played the Wizard, I guess you won't ever go back to the Sorc.
His Cleric should have all his Divine spells covered. Trust me, healing is a waste of a wizard.
If the party is taking that much damage, they need to re think their stratagy.
Uhm, Diviner = Wizards specializing in the school of Divination and therefore getting limited powers of Augury (p80 core)
Doing this at work guy, no reference materials.
As g0at is at work, I think they either misremembered Eschew Materials, or are accidentally citing a house rule. The feat doesn't have anything to do with 3rd level spells - or any level of spells - it just lets you ignore spell components with a cost greater than 1 gp. That is to say, you wouldn't need a "spell component pouch." Sorcerers get the feat for free at 1st level in Pathfinder.
However, unless you're expecting to frequently be separated from your gear, wake up naked in a prison every morning, or get robbed of all your possessions more than once, it's not really worth a feat. You have bigger problems in the above scenarios than being without inexpensive spell components; namely, you're probably also missing your spell book and (if you have one) your bonded item. Missing the former prevents you from memorizing new spells, and not having the latter on hand incurs a DC 20+spell level concentration check if you want to cast anything.
So, all in all, not needing a spell component pouch to cast the spells that have material components of negligible costs (which is not all of them - a lot of spells don't have material components at all) isn't really more than flavour, unless you have reason to believe your DM is going to go out of their way to deprive you of your spell components on a regular basis.
Fireball. I'll just leave this here.
|
|
I have to say that what PF did to the sorcerer made them cool to the point that I might - might! - consider trying one instead of a wizard. A sorcerer strikes me as indeed being a lot about theme. You aren't a spellcaster so much as a magical being. You are the magic.
The wizard is more like an engineer; he watches the sorcerer and goes "Hmm, I could reproduce that with some colored powders and a few days work in the lab...", and when the party anticipates some repeating problem, like a particular enemy, he goes "there's a spell for that...", and it's no big thing to learn it.
Even so, you'll probably be using a handful of spells all the time because not all problems require a unique solution. Some crowd control spells to set things up for the fighters, maybe some getaway spells. Blasting is optional but can be fun.
Not unlike a sorcerer, the spells per day have a diversity limit, due to preparation. So versatile spells are still good; Summon Monster is a big toolkit for the wizard as well.
Honestly if you don't want to do a lot of spell research and spend a lot of time picking spell lists, don't go Wizard, just stay a Sorcerer. Pathfinder has given Sorcerers a lot of love, and frankly left Wizards in the cold (can you hear the bitterness in my Wizard-loving heart?).
The one thing Wizards do get from Ultimate Magic is Arcane Discoveries. Fast Study is freakin' amazing, but it still requires you to do spell research and spend some time picking out spells.
|
If you want to streamline things I recommend an Apple or Android spell list app. There are quite a few Pathfinder ones. OR you can print out spell cards from online (I can't remember the site but I am sure if you search Google you can find it) and just pull the cards you want prepared. Remember that you can leave 1/4 of your spells unprepared and prepare them in 15 mins. So that gives you some added versatility albeit at a small slow down.
The best advice here, and one I need to start following on my wizard (I already did it for my magus) is to have a set of base spell preps, which you update pretty much just once per level.
These are your defaults for basic situations; fill those out on some sort of card (or full sheet of paper), and each day, pick the one closest to what you anticipate for that day, then make any minor adjustments you want. Since I normally do my sheets on the computer, I'd have the default preps in ink, and adjust them, plus mark spells off, in pencil. That makes it easy to restore the prep for the next time.
Some of it relates to your GM, group, and/or campaign.
My current group doesn't plan much they just 'wing-it' most of the time.
My current GM doesn't usually give much detailed information from information gathering, hiring spies, scry, etc...
Our latest campaign is under tremendous time pressure and tends to leave us virtually no time to prepare or craft. Rarely the time or place to fill 'open slots' for the specific situation encountered.
In my situation a prepared caster is usually less powerful than a prepared caster. I normally found that half my spells were not right for the situation unless they were the 'basic' ones that 'everybody' nearly 'always' takes. So I ended up using mostly the same list day after day and being a bad version of a sorcerer. Now on those rare occasions when I do have the time and information to prepare a specific list, I'm king of the hill.
As Ascalaphus suggested, I have 3 lists of standard spells that I use when I don't have time or reason to prepare something different.
Mine were defensive, offensive, and information gathering. But the same concept. All of them always contain at least 2 good defense and 1 good offensive spell though.
A few varied lists is good.
Other things wizards can do:
1) if there is some spell you think "might be nice once In a while",then don't memorize it, make a scroll of it. Make lots of scrolls. At low level, make a few more scrolls of stuff you cast regularly -- that will let you keep going if you run out of spells. At higher levels, this is less likely to be a problem, but you will appreciate the flexibility of always being able to pull something out of your scroll case to solve the problem.
2) research and divine. Scouting, knowledge skills, etc. Find outwhat you are going up against and prepare spells for that foe, or that problem. This is where wizards really shine.
3) have spells that target different weaknesses -- one Fort save, one Reflex save, one Will save, one hit point damage, etc. then use your knowledge skills to figure out which of them your foe is weak at. Hit him there.
4) don't try to do everything. Think of yourself as the fickle finger on the scales of fate. Step in and do enough to let everyone else win, while saving more of your power for critical situations.
One of the things I do when playing a prepared caster is to study my available spells in advance. I've known some players who flounder around not knowing what to do with a given spell, but my approach is something along the lines of "Spell x is really good in situation y. I'll watch for y to happen, or find a way to force it to happen." The time I used Solid Fog to stop a group of archers from attacking a party through arrow slits was one such instance. When you have a list of prepared spells, it's often important to wait for just that right circumstance.
As a wizard, you have to know your entire spellbook cold to get the most use of it. If you're not willing or able to put the time in, go with sorceror.
And +1 for scrolls. I'll also throw in a mention for wands when there are spells you might need a lot of, sometimes. (endure elements, disguise other)
I guess I should redirect you to all those threads which keep saying how much sorcerers pale to wizards in Pathfinder, but I've stopped paying attention to both sides of that aisle.
Well personally, I would love to read a well written and thought out post explaining how anyone in their right mind can possibly think a wizard outshines a sorcerer. Most of the complaints aren't really about a Wizard being better, they're more about complaining about the limitations of a sorcerer. They want to do everything a Wizard does plus everything a sorcerer does.
Lots of good advice so far. I'll throw out a few clarifications on my end:
First, our party has no cleric. I would be playing the only caster of any sort. This was one of the first things that made me look at wizard instead of another spontaneous caster, as I'm thinking the versatility to change depending on the day and the multitude of options to be prepared may just offset the rest of the party being nonmagical characters.
Second, I'm more than willing to put the time in to figure out my spells, I just want to make sure that I'm not going to be slowing things down at the table. The last thing I want is to go from having so few options I'm in a constant WoW state of "GOGOGO" to having so many options, that even if I'm familiar with them, it'll be hard to divide resources accordingly in my head. "Do I go with create pit, even though we may not have a combat encounter today? How should I prep in case we encounter a flying enemy? Does my list have room for scorching ray?" Those kind of questions are the ones I could pour over with a sorcerer and take my dear sweet time considering before I got to the table, but it seems like I'd have to be making those at the table as a wizard.
As far as Wizard vs Sorcerer, my thoughts on the subject come down to a matter of play style. Some people prefer having more options available to them for the theory of the game, many of the claims I've seen of the prepared caster have been in the regard of "If I have spell X prepared for situation Y, we win." My response to this has usually been, "Yeah, but what if you come across situation Z? Or you get interrupted in situation Y and lose the spell?" Some people like the toolbox approach of a sorcerer. These are the tools you get to fix the problem, make it work. Sure, if you fill your toolbox with hammers and you come across a situation needing a wrench you're screwed, but if you keep the toolbox stocked with general all-round tools, you're set to deal with everything, maybe not as precise as a wizard, but at least deal.
Thanks again for the advice so far.
One thing I do with my notes for wizards is have the save and range listed by the spell. Saves time looking up and calculating
E.g., "web, M, R18", or "fireball, L, 20' r, R20"
...As far as Wizard vs Sorcerer, my thoughts on the subject come down to a matter of play style. Some people prefer having more options available to them for the theory of the game, many of the claims I've seen of the prepared caster have been in the regard of "If I have spell X prepared for situation Y, we win." My response to this has usually been, "Yeah, but what if you come across situation Z? Or you get interrupted in situation Y and lose the spell?" Some people like the toolbox approach of a sorcerer. These are the tools you get to fix the problem, make it work. Sure, if you fill your toolbox with hammers and you come across a situation needing a wrench you're screwed, but if you keep the toolbox stocked with general all-round tools, you're set to deal with everything, maybe not as precise as a wizard, but at least deal...
I think that is a pretty good summation. =)
What? Getting spell access a level earlier, getting two spells known of a new spell level immediately with the option to buy more, having a better bonus feat selection, a better casting stat, and the ability to use metamagic without costing full rounds aren't enough?
Let's analyze that a bit closer shall we?
Spell access: That's about the only thing a Wizard gets over the sorcerer.
2 Spells known: Cool except 1 of those spells a Wizard has to choose from a limited selection, a sorcerer can choose anything, and sorcerers can also use wands/scrolls ect.
A better bonus feat selection... serously? Okay I'll give you that, but compare that to a sorcerer bloodline.
Better casting stat? A sorcerer can use ANY mental stat including INT.
Metamagic: Again seriously? You think it would be fair to require a Wizard to have to pre-plan and use up slots ahead of time, but a sorcerer should just be able to add any metamagic feat to any spell with no cost what-so-ever. That seems fair and balanced to you? Really? Let me tell you that is so FAR from a limitation for a sorcerer that it's actually a benefit of the class. I WISH Wizards could do this.
So again, it may seem like it, but in reality people aren't complaining that a Wizard is better, they're just complaining that a Sorcerer can't do everything better.
|
|
Having spells that target all the different defenses is important (fort ref will, touch AC, force for Incorporeal).
Also check what the rest of the group is doing. Learn some spells that work really well with them. My Glitterdust spell blinds people; this makes them vulnerable to the rogue's Sneak Attack.
---
I don't use spell cards. Instead I made a spreadsheet with my spells in rows, and their parameters in columns. I can easily see the range, saving throws, areas, durations etcetera of all my spells of a given level. In the margin I note which spells I've prepared that day. It's really convenient for me.
You don't want to listen, but I'll go ahead and answer for the audience.
Oh I listen, I just think you're crazy and very wrong.
Have you actually looked at the spell list? You think it's a burden to learn two transmutations or conjurations per level? A Wizard is casting level 5 spells by the time a sorcerer has more than one level 4 spell and you think this is an advantage to the sorcerer because the Wizard has to have some specialist spells in his spellbook? Even the Diviner has two non-divinations by the time the sorcerer has one spell of a given level. And the wizard can learn more for mere gold.
And what limitations do sorcerers have on their spell choices? Can't the sorcerer pick all those spells too? So a sorcerer has no limitations the Wizard does, win: Sorcerer.
Let's take the iconic bloodline. A blasting bonus for one selected energy type, claws (at 1/2 BAB) for a few rounds/day, some admittedly nice resistance, a breath weapon that's not much better than a spell, and if the game's still going at level 15 a slightly faster replacement for Overland Flight with inferior maneuverability. On the other hand the Wizard can be getting, with a school that won't hurt him on spell selection, increased summon durations, an acid attack nearly as useless as claws, and what is effectively reduced distance Dimension Door as a SLA. Is the bloodline really worth having only two first string feats on the bonus list compared to what the non-sucky schools get you?
So pick one of the millions of better bloodlines. Right now you're trying to compare the Transmuter spell list add the Diviner School abilities and say that those two combined are better than one particular bloodline. I agree they are, execpt a wizard can't do that. A Wizard has a choice, a good selection of free spells, or a good school power. A sorcerer just has to choose the bloodline they like the most.
And, yes, Wizards can do things with metamagic Sorcerers can't. They can use the metamagics like intensify, dazing, and persistent that aren't contingent on outside events without standing still. They can use quicken with other metamagics. If you plan on using metamagic other than quicken, Wizards do it better. If you didn't have a plan of what to do with metamagic you wouldn't have taken the feats in the first place. Wizards use metamagic according to the prepared caster paradigm and use metamagiced spells as easily as unmetamagiced. Sorcerers use metamagic according to the spontaneous caster paradigm, but have to give up their mobility to use anything but quicken. Unless you can't tolerate the prepared casting paradigm that's advantage: wizard.
Your thinking on this is so far out of wack. What you are essentially saying is that a level 3 spell slot, for example (a level 1 spell with metamagic attached), isn't better than the sacrifice of an occasional move action. You're saying that if your GM said, hey I'll give you an extra spell slot, but around once a combat you have to sacrifce a move action, in your mind that's a horrible deal. I'm pretty sure you're one of the only people that think like that.
Add to that, a sorcerer can use that metamagic feat as often as they have slots, a Wizard typically only memorizes it that way once. This system is SO much more beneficial to the sorcerer I don't even understand how you couldn't see it.
But you still didn't answer my question: Do you think a sorcerer should be able to add any metamagic feat they have to any spell at any time as a standard action? You honestly believe that would be fair and balanced?
|
Having played both, they are both different in their approach to magic. I think the wizard-favoring crowd assumes that because on paper the wizard can look better in almost all scenarios, therefore it is the auto-win. This is not always the case. Wizards often prepare spell-lists that match or are very similar to a sorcerer's known spells. This is because although you can tweak your spell list based on what you think is coming up, you often do not know and you pick the spells which are most versatile.
Wizards have versatility. Sorcerers always have their tools. Captured? No spellbook or spell component pouch to take away. Your Area-of-Effect spell of choice didn't take out that swarm, fine, just do it again. Wizard's in the RPG world do seem to conserve their spells more, as they have a limited number of that kind to use. Sorcerer's typically do not.
I love playing both ... the both rock. Just acknowledge it and move on.
P.S. If you do play a wizard, it is important to leave a spell slot or five "open", as you will not be versatile if you cannot adapt.
If you do play a wizard, it is important to leave a spell slot or five "open", as you will not be versatile if you cannot adapt.
This is absolutely key. This is why the Arcane Discovery Fast Study is so crucial. Being able to take a minute to add a spell you need goes a long way to giving the Wizard the versatility everyone thinks they have. However, the original poster has stated they don't want to spend a lot of time going over and changing spell lists. If you're not interested in doing that, I have a hard time recommending a Wizard, and think you'll be better off with a Sorcerer.