You want to swap out rings, fine. But you lose your bonus spell slots, and you don't get them back by putting it back on until the next time you prepare spells. Most wizards will use only one such ring for this reason if they've got another ring that they would rather not go without for the other slot, i.e. ring of protection, etc.I think it´s absolutely cool and legal for a wizard to own several rings of wizardry on different levels.
When needed switch them, take the wizard thing that let´s you prepare spells faster and go.
The arcane discovery Fast Study is the key to this. You don´t even need to wear the ring of wizardry before. In the morning you prepare the spells you have and want normally. Then if you encounter a situation where you need another spell, you put on the appropriate ring and prepare the spell you want in one minute. You need to find that minute though and you can only do it from level five on.
I'd probably rule that RoW follow the same rules as stat-boosters. Wear them 24 hours before getting the effects. Or at least you need them on when you rest to regain your spells. Handles all the problems with passing them around, swapping them out, etc.
Luckily, I've never had anyone try to abuse them.
I'd probably rule it the same way. It'd be incredibly cheesy to be able to swap out rings that way. My rule of thumb, is if it smells like cheese, it probably is. Hence why I'd never allow the Paragon Surge / Expanded Arcana exploit. Or at the very least I'd rule that once you used that combo to gain one spell known, future usage of that combo would produce the same spell known.
Of course, one could probably combine a RoW 3 with a RoW 4 onto one ring if one felt so inclined.
Ring of Wizardrydescription doesn´t say that.
So when you say "rule that" it should really be "houserule that", since it´s a huge difference. Doing as i said is absolutely legal by the rules and if you think it´s abusive, it´s your opinion which you should mark as such. What happens here quite often is people are so assuming, they always sell their opinion as "THE RULES", but it isn´t.
In fact, if i liked to be sensitive, i could say what you just wrote is insulting to me, since you point out that i am abusing rules, which is commonly referred to as bad behaviour.
I don´t see a problem with such combinations in my games, neither as player nor as GM. Finding good and powerful combinations that work is in no way abusive most times. It depends on your personality, how you treat others and how you play and cooperate what makes things abusive or not.
Ring of Wizardrydescription doesn´t say that.
So when you say "rule that" it should really be "houserule that", since it´s a huge difference. Doing as i said is absolutely legal by the rules and if you think it´s abusive, it´s your opinion which you should mark as such. What happens here quite often is people are so assuming, they always sell their opinion as "THE RULES", but it isn´t.
In fact, if i liked to be sensitive, i could say what you just wrote is insulting to me, since you point out that i am abusing rules, which is commonly referred to as bad behaviour.
I don´t see a problem with such combinations in my games, neither as player nor as GM. Finding good and powerful combinations that work is in no way abusive most times. It depends on your personality, how you treat others and how you play and cooperate what makes things abusive or not.
I wasn't aware we were on a rules forum. But I guess when I said, "I'd probably rule..." I reasonably assumed others wouldn't take it as "They should rule that way too because what I say goes". By me saying "I'd rule that way" it implies house-rule.
You're perfectly at your right to play the game how you want, as is everyone else. I'm just stating my opinion on the way I think the RAI should be interpreted in these cases. Hence starting my whole post with "I'd probably rule it the same way too", and then proceeded to explain why.
What's amusing is that a wizard can prepare 25% of his spells in 15 minutes. The reason a wizard spends 1 hour to prepare all their spells is they're preparing 100% of their spells in four 15 minute increments.
I would treat the new spell slots from a ring the exact same way you treat new slots from levelling up, or putting on an Int booster. You have to have eight hours rest with the slots 'in existence' before you can use them, just like any other spell slot.
--
as for the wizards vs Sorcs spells known, I AM comparing apples to apples...the maximum amount of spells known both classes can have at any one time in memory.
This completely sidesteps the issue that if a wizard wants to cast the same spell twice, he has to reduce the number of spells he has on hand. A sorceror does not.
Spell slots considers raw power unleashable.
It also sets asides material boosts, such as pages of spell knowledge, pearls, extra spells in a book that aren't doing you any good right now, scrolls, wands, staves and rods.
And I'm pretty sure I started with a 16 Int Wizard, instead of an 18, and compared to a 16 Cha Sorceror.
So, a Ring of Wizardry increases Spells Known for a wizard (he can memorize +4 new spells) AND spell power (he can cast +4 spells). For a sorceror, should it not provide the exact same benefits?
==+Aelryinth
... as for the wizards vs Sorcs spells known, I AM comparing apples to apples...the maximum amount of spells known both classes can have at any one time in memory...
You are not using the terms the same as anyone else. For what you are describing "have in memory" everyone else uses the term Spells Prepared.
Spells Known is the spells you have learned if you are a sorcerer/oracle, spells in your spell book if you are a wizard, or every spell on the cleric list and your domain if you are a cleric.
I think holding a masterwork weapon increases the DC's of wizard spells by 1 because it gives fighters a +1 to their main aggressive d20 roll so why should it not provide the exact same benefit to wizards? Checkmate
I'm using a term that applies to both, because Prepared Spells is a term for Prepared Casters only. Sorcs don't have Prepared spells, so I'm using 'Spells in Memory' as a catch-all for both. I am not Unaware of the correct terminology for specific classes...however, I am referring to ALL CLASSES, which means I can't use those terms.
Oh, and I use the General Mage because if you want to have the sorceror's ability to prepare spells from all schools (apples to apples), you have to be fair. If a Spec prepares an off-school spell, it takes two slots, which means they aren't any better then a Universalist wizard. Arguably, with a base 4 spells per level, one of the spells should be of their two opposition schools, right?
==Aelryinth
Wow, so much is wrong with this that I have to respond.
as for the wizards vs Sorcs spells known, I AM comparing apples to apples...the maximum amount of spells known both classes can have at any one time in memory.
First, The two terms you are looking for are Spells Known and Spells Per Day. That's only two terms you need to consider when making the comparisons. The Sorc has a Spells Known table.. The wizards Spells Known are whatever he puts in his book. Both the sorc and wiz have a Spells Per Day table. Your confusion I believe stems from the word "Spell Slot". a Spell Slot for a wizard is just a Spell Per Day that needs to be filled with a Spell Known before it can be used.
So, now that you are aware of this, you can see that your comparison is nowhere near apples to apples.
So, a Ring of Wizardry increases Spells Known for a wizard (he can memorize +4 new spells) AND spell power (he can cast +4 spells). For a sorceror, should it not provide the exact same benefits?
So, now that you are aware of the difference of Spells Per Day and Spells Known, you should realize that the RoW only increases spells per day for both the wizard and sorc, while doing nothing to either classes spells known.
...so I'm using 'Spells in Memory' as a catch-all for both....
But you weren't. You were using 'Spells Known' which already has a specific and significantly different meaning for everyone else.
Arguably, with a base 4 spells per level, one of the spells should be of their two opposition schools, right?
Yeah obviously about a quarter of my conjurer's loadout is Evocation spells because
(p.s. this is in addition to everything else you have said being unambiguously false)
Yeah I pretty much avoid preparing spells from my opposed school unless it's during downtime and I'm scribing them as scrolls or making wands of them. I mean, why would I prepare 1 spell at the cost of 2 slots unless it's absolutely necessary?
For example, my character in my Saturday game has enchantment and necromancy as barred schools. I'm not exactly prepping charm person regularly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a wizard simply requires too much guess-work, sure you have spells that are a pretty safe bet (fly, invisibility, haste, etc) but you often don't carry a large number of them (certainly not enough for all the party or a number of encounters) and any application of meta-magic must be predicted.
I find that the fun of the wizard is the challenge of making sure you have the right spell for the job on hand. That's something you may not have with a sorc depending on the job. Of course, as a wizard you too can be without the right spell, but the challenge is to know what spell to have. As far as the availability of spells for a whole party, that can be mitigated somewhat with wands and scrolls, but additionally most of the useful spells that you want to cast for the entire party are available in communal or mass forms at higher level.
I do agree that a sorc can apply meta-magic more dynamically. That advantage is somewhat lessened via meta-magic rods, and if you are like me, you carry some of these rod for lower level utility spells, but you also are able to spontaneously add meta-magic to your preferred spells on the fly, without increasing the casting time. Generally the spells you want to add meta-magic to are easily predicted.
Likewise the human (and as highlighted, via a spell the Half Elf) Sorcerer will know a lot more spells and be far less disadvantaged by a limited spell choice. Many Sorcerer bloodlines also allow the alteration of damage type for spells, another example of the 'tactical flexibility' that sorcerer's enjoy.
Here we're getting into the race and specialization specific aspect. It's hard to do a apples to apples comparison when adding these aspects, but there are advantages to being an elf vs human or half-elf that favors the wizard. They get a bonus to their caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, and as an elf can choose the spellbinder archetype if they want to add more spontaneous flexibility to their daily spell selection. That means they can prepare for something unexpected, and then swap their spells for their bread and butter spellbinder spells if it turns out what they prepared for was incorrect.
If they don't want spellbinder, they can choose arcane bond and spontaneously cast Any spell in their book, providing a one shot use of the most versatile spell casting option in the game.
For their arcane schools. Admixture also changes damage types. Foresight allows you to pre-roll a d20 to potentially use at any time during a round (This is huge for bypassing SR). Divination in general gives loads of initiative bonus. And Teleportation allows a super useful get out of nearly any problem swift action teleport spell.
Clearly, both bloodlines and schools have their perks and drawbacks.
In short, my experience of playing a Sorcerer is that they are superior to wizards and have more 'legs' between resting due to a greater spell casting compliment.
I'll concede the greater legs between encounters argument typically favors a sorc due strictly to having more spells per day, with a few caveats. Every other level, a wizard knows spells of a higher level than a sorc does. That extra spell level can mean the difference between a hard encounter and a marginalized one. After all, if you have to cast 3-4 spells to accomplish the job that my 1 did, I'm in a better position for future encounters.
In short, my experience playing both classes, is that the wizard is the superior arcane caster. But that's like saying would you rather have a porshe or ferrari when everybody else drives buicks.
So, the spec wizards are hampering their spell choices, and more likely to double up on certain spells because of spec. The universalist has no such criteria, and is thus more likely to have a wider range of the better spells? While the sorc is free to pick any spells on the list.
That's how I based things.
I stand by my criteria.
And kindly don't think I'm ignorant of the power of extra spells per day, either.
Spells Known for a sorc means spells in their head. I am comparing spells in their head to spells in their head. The wizard can have a zillion spells in his book, the only criteria at the moment of an encounter is what he has access to. As I define the meaning of what I want to have happen, I decide the terminology applied.
If you don't like it, that's fine. But you didn't do the math or input the time, so deal with it. :)
==Aelryinth
Spells known = spells available to be used in a slot. For wizards it's spells in their book, for sorcerers it's spells they've chosen through leveling up.
Spells per day = spell slots available for use. For wizards it's spells they prepare, for sorcerers it's spell slots that can be used for any spell of that level they know.
Just so we're all clear.
Also, by 10th level a specialist wizard can remove their opposition schools anyway if they want to cast spells of those schools, so they're not much of a weakness.
by burning outside resources, which I am ignoring in the favor of comparison straight up and trying to stick to the central rules.
Seriously, how long before sorcs will get a double-blooded feat for another 9 spells, or access a cleric domain, or some other stuff? Meh.
And Spells in Memory is how many spells the caster has to draw on right now, not scribed in his book, which for sorcs equals spells known, and for wizards equals spells prepared (if they aren't memorizing ANY spell twice!)
==Aelryinth
Also, by 10th level a specialist wizard can remove their opposition schools anyway if they want to cast spells of those schools, so they're not much of a weakness.
Only one of them. You can't take that discovery twice.
|
So, a Ring of Wizardry increases Spells Known for a wizard (he can memorize +4 new spells) AND spell power (he can cast +4 spells). For a sorceror, should it not provide the exact same benefits?
==+Aelryinth
It does. Each of them get more spells per day. 'Spells in Memory' is not a game term and is not referenced anywhere in the text for RoW. The wizard and sorcerer each get more spell slots. They do not get to learn new spells to use them with.
And Spells in Memory is how many spells the caster has to draw on right now, not scribed in his book, which for sorcs equals spells known...
Equals, but is not the same as.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a wizard simply requires too much guess-work, sure you have spells that are a pretty safe bet (fly, invisibility, haste, etc) but you often don't carry a large number of them (certainly not enough for all the party or a number of encounters) and any application of meta-magic must be predicted.
Spamming 6 useless spells still equal useless.
Sorcerers require a hell of a lot more guesswork than a Wizard because you essentially have to do your guesswork for the rest of the game. A wizard gets to change his spells everyday and actually leave some spell slots open.
I never understood how people can think that having more spells per day (to cast) and less spells known can make your spells somehow be more useful in encounters than a prepared caster.
Playing a wizard simply requires too much guess-work, sure you have spells that are a pretty safe bet (fly, invisibility, haste, etc) but you often don't carry a large number of them (certainly not enough for all the party or a number of encounters) and any application of meta-magic must be predicted.Spamming 6 useless spells still equal useless.
Sorcerers require a hell of a lot more guesswork than a Wizard because you essentially have to do your guesswork for the rest of the game. A wizard gets to change his spells everyday and actually leave some spell slots open.
I never understood how people can think that having more spells per day (to cast) and less spells known can make your spells somehow be more useful in encounters than a prepared caster.
Shallowsoul...I agree with you sir. The idea is simply bonkers. The idea that having more of the same is somehow making you more versatile than the guy who can shift around his entire focus in about 9 hours time.
If the sorcerer and wizard both learned scorching ray as a 2nd level spell and then find they must travel to the elemental plane of fire or journey into a volcano filled with magma beasts and such, neither the sorcerer nor wizard is going to get much use out of scorching ray. But one of these classes is going to have the option to prepare something entirely different.
If your sorcerer is prepared only for combat and then your party finds themselves in an urban adventure investigating who is the mastermind behind the orc raiders plaguing the southern merchant caravans you may find yourself in a large period of the game where fireball and dispel magic aren't really coming up; meanwhile the other guy has swapped most of his combat spells out for espionage and/or information gathering while keeping a few good low-collateral spells and buffs in case of an urban encounter.
Yeah but what if you never are allowed even the sixty seconds of rest needed to prepare a new spell (assuming Fast Study)? If you're forced to never stand still for more than two rounds then wizards can't change their spells ever and sorcerers are more versatile. Since this is obviously a thing that happens, wizards are underpowered.
|
Yikes. Things are getting heated in here.
I am of the school of thought that both classes have their benefits. A sorcerer will outshine a wizard 99% of the time when that sorcerer has use for all of his spells known. The problem is that that only happens on occasion. The wizard, however, if played intelligently (you do have an 18 Intelligence, right?) will outshine the sorcerer the rest of the time. Particularly if the wizard has taken the appropriate precautions. Contingency is FAR more useful to a wizard, as are any of the craft feats. In addition, a simple bit of tactical planning and information gathering by the scout (Familiar, if necessary) means the wizard has an idea about what spells will be most useful to prepare.
A sorcerer does not have that option. Thus, while in very specific encounters I can see a sorcerer excelling, they are still IMO a marginally weaker class than wizards. Until we add in magic items, then wizards = gods.
IMHO, sorcerers are...
Good at going into a total meltdown nova.
They are also nice as NPCs (less bookkeeping, literally).
They are simpler to play (but lose out to Psions in this category too).
Sorcerers are not...
Good for beginners who are picking their own spells (a mistake or two can haunt you for quite a few sessions). Wizards aren't good for beginners due to complexity of bookkeeping for spells, but their class is far more forgiving when it comes to spell selection and experimentation. Psions are the kings of this category due to simplicity and the ability to keep their spells relevant and always which allows a mixture of simplicity and versatility that neither sorcerer nor wizard can match (even though wizard is more powerful than the psion all things being equal).
Versatile (because they are locked into a very small list of options), requiring items they could never create themselves to alleviate this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers and Oracles have one crippling weakness in my book: They base themselves off a nigh useless stat.
Wizards get to base their stuff off INT, which makes them far better at their skills than a sorcerer can ever hope to be.
Sorcerer bases his stuff off CHA, which he does not really support as he has merely two charisma based skills trained, and not enough skill points to do both that, AND know what the heck he is doing in terms of magics.
Cleric bases his stuff off WIS, which supports several skills such as Heal and Sense Motive, and fuels his will save, making him a mental bastion that is mostly immune to most mind affecters, and thus far more reliable.
Oracles bases his stuff off CHA, which does nothing in terms of making him stay in the fight when someone tells him to NOT be. He has more skill points, which allows him to do some stuff with his social skills, but the strength of divine spellcasters has always been versatility, which he loses flat.
Not to mention crafting. Holee bovine are the preparing casters better. A wizard will likely have access to the esoteric spells needed to craft stuff, and if not? Then his spellcraft is the highest in the game, and the +5 DC barely even equalizes the playing field compared to a sorc that DOES know the spell. Clerics and Druids have all the spells on their list the next day, so they never have to deal with the dreaded +5 unless they are making a spell that they do not even have on the list in the first place.
Sorcerers and Oracles are more "unique" from one to the next, that I will give you. And I had lots of FUN playing a sorcerer. But in terms of being objectively "better"? Wizards and Clerics all day, erry day.
I will admit that undead sorcerers are more appealing. A great example is how the sample lich in the bestiary is a sorcerer. Undeath and sorcery have a lot of synergy since it's kind of like combining your Constitution and Charisma for most purposes (though you die at 0 HP so you lack the death threshold).
Yeah we all wait for the Pathfinder Ghost Walk Book that will then immediately become PFS legal and all go crazy again^^
... I never understood how people can think that having more spells per day (to cast) and less spells known can make your spells somehow be more useful in encounters than a prepared caster.Shallowsoul...I agree with you sir. The idea is simply bonkers. The idea that having more of the same is somehow making you more versatile than the guy who can shift around his entire focus in about 9 hours time...
As I said before; it depends upon your campaign, group, and GM.
The campaign we are currently in has tremendous time pressure, so there is rarely time to scout or spy and certainly not time to withdraw and come back tomorrow. Our current GM rarely allows us any information about what is coming up except for the most general terms. The group is generally not willing to wait around while the prepared caster is changing his preparations.
I retired the wizard since it was doing so poorly and am now playing an oracle.
{ But the wizard almost never had the ideal spell prepared either. Because he didn't have the knowledge or opprotunity to prepare the ideal spell. }
He also has a few utility spells that are generally useful in non-combat situations. Is it the ideal spell for that situation? see above
For this combination of campaign, group, and GM the oracle is much more successful and generally useful. He is maybe not quite the powerhouse of the group, but he is at least in the running for the top spot.
I will also say that on those rare occasions when the wizard did get sufficient intel and time, he was stellar. The perfect spell at the perfect time is nearly unbeatable. But that was rare. Most of the time he had one 'decent' spell for any given encounter. And by the end of the day still had many of his prepared spells still ready to cast.
Now with another campaign, group, or GM the situation could easily change. I have played wizards at other times that did stomp all over the campaign to the point where I had to tone it back just to give the other players some spotlight time.
------------------------------------
... Sorcerers are not...
Good for beginners who are picking their own spells (a mistake or two can haunt you for quite a few sessions). Wizards aren't good for beginners due to complexity of bookkeeping for spells, but their class is far more forgiving when it comes to spell selection and experimentation. ...
What I have found works best with beginers who really want to play a primary spell caster is:
Spontaneous caster (prefer oracle), experienced player to help them pick decent spells, and GM who will allow them to experiment and change spells a few times.--------------------------------------------
Sorcerers and Oracles have one crippling weakness in my book: They base themselves off a nigh useless stat...
I strongly disagree with this. Charisma is not my favorite stat. But I would never call it useless. I find having one or more people in a group with a high charisma to be nearly essential. I would rather it be someone else since I don't like the party face role. But I think there almost has to be one.
I agree with Kydeem de`Morcaine.
On paper prepared wizards are awesome, especially with divination and other perks. In play this might often look different and really depend on the GM. Best for wizards is then to either be a diviner if the GM is willing to cooperate there in a meaningfull way, but many GM´s kind of feel disturbed by such things. Or have the fast study feat, go in make some knowledge checks, retreat if possible and find that minute or more to learn adequate spells.
So, the spec wizards are hampering their spell choices, and more likely to double up on certain spells because of spec. The universalist has no such criteria, and is thus more likely to have a wider range of the better spells? While the sorc is free to pick any spells on the list.
This is a patently false argument. my level 9 foresight wizard has more spells than your level 20 sorc example, and has yet to grab an opposition school spell for his book. Additionally, I'd be no more likely to double up on a spell than a universalist wizard in any given situation. The only reason to double up is if you know specifically that something is vulnerable to so something and you want to spam it to make sure it sticks. It's rare that I'll double up on a spell.
You need to adjust your math to account for a specialist wizards bonus spells to keep the already sketchy comparison fair.
Spells Known for a sorc means spells in their head. I am comparing spells in their head to spells in their head. The wizard can have a zillion spells in his book, the only criteria at the moment of an encounter is what he has access to. As I define the meaning of what I want to have happen, I decide the terminology applied.
And spells known for a wizard is spells in his book, not spells in his head. Spells in his head is called Spells Prepared. It's important to use terminology that is consistent with the rest of the gaming community in order to avoid confusion.
It's vital to use the terminology consistently or else one might confuse the Ring of Wizardry as adding more spells known, when it clearly does not do that.
Now using the terminology as I assume your using it.. Spells Known for a Sorcerer vs Spells Prepared for a Wizard at exact moment an encounter starts. I'm willing to concede that if the Wizard did not have a chance to prepare proper spells before the encounter started, the Sorc generally has the advantage, with the exception that if the encounter doesn't fit what the sorc knows.. Both are SOL. However, if given the chance to properly prepare, the Wizard will have the advantage, with the caveat that if the encounter just happens to fit what the sorc knows, they will have the advantage.
The difference is, if the sorc doesn't have what he needs, he will never be able to do it. Whereas a Wizard only need to retreat, prepare properly and hit it again. The Wizard is more flexible in that regard. Meaning, if a wizard doesn't have it now, he can have it in 15 mins, or at the latest, the next day. If a sorc doesn't have it now, he waits til he levels.
As I said before; it depends upon your campaign, group, and GM.
The campaign we are currently in has tremendous time pressure, so there is rarely time to scout or spy and certainly not time to withdraw and come back tomorrow. Our current GM rarely allows us any information about what is coming up except for the most general terms. The group is generally not willing to wait around while the prepared caster is changing his preparations.
This is a prime example of a scenario in which I would go Sorcerer over Wizard. Without the time to prepare, get new spells, ect.. A Sorc is a way better option.
This is a prime example of a scenario in which I would go Sorcerer over Wizard. Without the time to prepare, get new spells, ect.. A Sorc is a way better option.As I said before; it depends upon your campaign, group, and GM.
The campaign we are currently in has tremendous time pressure, so there is rarely time to scout or spy and certainly not time to withdraw and come back tomorrow. Our current GM rarely allows us any information about what is coming up except for the most general terms. The group is generally not willing to wait around while the prepared caster is changing his preparations.
Problem here is the underlying premise that there are objectively better spells with wide-ranging applications. There are, I agree with it. But implying that the Sorcerer would pick them and the Wizard would not is disingenuous. A Wizard who doesn't know what's coming and a Sorcerer who doesn't know what's coming will choose the same core spells. After a day of encounters/adventuring a Wizard can adjust their spells, a Sorcerer cannot. (Less if a Wizard leaves some slots open, and uses Fast Study on the go) So to say that in the face of the unknown a Sorcerer is more useful is false, especially if an objectively better spell ceases to be useful. As a Sorcerer it's a dead spell on your spells known. A Wizard can just choose not to prepare it.
The only way a Sorcerer would be more useful is if he needs to spend all his spells, every day, and the exact spell is relevant. But if you're just flinging any and every evocation or SoS then you can do that as a Wizard, and you'll be half a spell-level ahead so you'll probably have roughly as many slots anyway. As well as metamagic not costing a full round action to use (unless you pick the arcane bloodline).
This is all besides the point that, barring Sages, Sorcerers will have fewer skill points and will contribute less without magic.
(Hmm, Sage seems really, really good now.)
You are ignoring the strength of the Sorceror. Ashiel is particularly egregrious, mentioning use Scorching Ray and traipsing off to the Plane of fire.
the Sorceror will still have multiple other spells to use. Sure, that one level 2 spell known might not see much use. But he has other options, and if only one of those options is viable, guess what? He can spam that one option over and over again, and use all of his spells slots for it. maybe he has to keep using Acid Arrow, Summon II, Invisibility or Stinking cloud. Guess what? He still can.
The wizard, if he doesn't have the right spell for a situation, can't spend the energy it represents. It's just stuck there and dead. Clerics at least can swap for healing spells. Druids can swap for summons. Wizards? Need outside investments. And while getting free minutes to pop in a spell before a fight sounds really great, only in the most set peice encounters with prior knowledge does it actually get to happen. In the rest, he's SoL.
And going around with no spells in half your spell slots means you're hamstringing your own combat capability if something spontaneous does happen. That's not a good situation to be in, either. The sorc never has that problem. If he has a spell slot left, he's got access to all his spells known for that level. A wizard will just one spell in memory.
Saying someone is going to make bad spell choices as a Sorc and then not forgiven for not knowing the game is like saying the same thing is going to happen to a Wizard and he's not going to be given some room for error. And once you've got the experience, you don't make the same mistake.
I will agree that Wizards have a crafting advantage...but it's not huge. The DC's are low, you add +5 for not having the right spell, yes? And you go from there.
I will also note that Arcane Bond is far more useful for a wizard, since it can access any spell in his book. For sorcs, it's just a spell slot more.
And Gecko, any wizard can accrue a massive spell book. There's nothing stopping them from doing so. Happily, I don't give a fig about your spell book in the comparisons. I care about spells accessible Right Now.
And if you choose to gimp yourself by barring two entire schools of magic, that's hitting your versatility as a wizard. You might as well call yourself a Thassilonian spec and win all the power fights...except the sorceror isn't so restricted, and can take the best spells in the schools you've let slide.
So, apples to apples comparisons. You want to claim maximum versatility for the wizard, you back the game and memorize barred spells...which makes you no better then a general caster.
==Aelryinth
Oh, erm one useful Charisma based skill, and a class one for Sorcerer's at that! Repeat after me: Use. Magic. Device.
One of the best in the game.
Oh, does that grant some additional utility also? Without wishing to get into an item/build debate again.
What...? I assume that's not for me because it doesn't really relate to anything I was talking about except skills but if it is:
The only difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer with respect to UMD (by itself) is the difference between their Charisma modifiers. As to whether or not it alleviates the problem in this example, the answer is no. Consumables require time and money to acquire, Kydeem de'Morcaine was referring to a time-sensitive style of play as well as a lack of information beforehand. That limits what you could use UMD with considerably.
Not to mention Wizards start with Scribe Scroll and checks for making items are easy. UMD checks are harder but if you're building for it then less so.
(Actually it occurs to me the flexibility in spontaneous casting is an advantage over the wizard. However, given the applicability of some spells and character concepts I really wouldn't jump at a Sorcerer over a Wizard, or the other way around. )
No. I don't regard as a strength something that must be Schroedinger'd to 'always be effective.'
Right up above, they cited campaigns where sorcs are better then wiz's. Why? Wiz's didn't know what was coming. Being able to prepare the perfect spell means nothing if you don't know what you want to prepare or don't have time to do it.
Everyone knows the wizard shines in that situation, but that's a very particular situation, and in that situation, the sorceror gets to make preparations and plans, too...maybe not the perfect plans, but something!
In short, the wizard has a better chance of not being very useful at any particular instant because he's spent spells, then he does of being uber because the DM was nice enough to give him the time and information to have the perfect spell set on hand. His awesomeness when he does makes him the sorc's equal, but in 'general load out' situations, the sorc will likely have the edge just because he can spam the spell of the moment that works fine.
The wizard's main edge on the sorc is crafting and downtime spellcasting with weird load-outs. Of course, he's burning gold to have those weird loadouts, so hopefully the sorc is doing somethign similar in his own way.
===Aelryinth
... There are, I agree with it. But implying that the Sorcerer would pick them and the Wizard would not is disingenuous. A Wizard who doesn't know what's coming and a Sorcerer who doesn't know what's coming will choose the same core spells ...
I was not implying that. In fact, that is exactly what I said happened. My wizard was picking the same spells as a sorcerer would have picked because they tend to be useful. But I only had one of each. If I needed it again, too bad. And if one of those spells was not actually useful in any capacity today, then the memorized spell was wasted.
It seemed like the only way I was going to be even slightly functional was to take at least 2 or more spell mastery, fast study, etc... In other words I had almost no build choice because I was trying to make him as sorcerer like as possible. So instead of being a strong wizard I was reduced to being a very weak quasi-sorcerer.
... After a day of encounters/adventuring a Wizard can adjust their spells, a Sorcerer cannot. ...
The theoretical potential was there, but it was rarely realized. because the next day I still didn't know what was coming, I still didn't have time to spy or scout, etc... So I would have the same list day after day.
|
|
Feat: Create Wand + Spell: Channel the Gift = Wand of Channel the Gift. Now that wizard may have to lose an additional turn to cast one of his spells, but he can spam it forever. Said wizard prepares all different spells as per the norm, decides he NEEDS to spam, and now he can, although not as well as a sorcerer with the same spell. Difference? The wizard can still change spells, and can still cast a spell in a hurry if its absolutely imperative. Sure, its only 3rd level and below. How often do wizards need those? The early levels of the game, mostly. By the time you are casting your 5th level spells, the wand will be mostly a fun toy, used to tick off that sorcerer that says he can spam spells. Too bad you can spam more of them.
Feat: Create Wand + Spell: Channel the Gift = Wand of Channel the Gift. Now that wizard may have to lose an additional turn to cast one of his spells, but he can spam it forever. Said wizard prepares all different spells as per the norm, decides he NEEDS to spam, and now he can, although not as well as a sorcerer with the same spell...
That's pretty kool spell. I haven't seen it before. Expensive tactic, but I think well worth it for a wizard or cleric. You would have to know you need multiples of a spell before you cast and lose it, but that is probably often the case.
I can't afford any new books for awhile, but I will definitely add that one to my list.
Thanks for bring this one to my attention.
|
|
No problem. Its in Gods and Magic, I believe. Typically, if there is time to spend a standard action using the wand first, then its better to just use it just in case. Add in the Arcane Bonded item, as mentioned, and you have more spells than a sorcerer can shake a stick at. Also, I considered the possibility of putting a quickened version of this into a staff at higher levels. 10 free 3rd and lower spells every day. If that staff is also your arcane bond, you don't even need to spend the feat for it, and while it will cost you some gold, its absolutely worth it.