| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the spellbook can be lost or destroyed by circumstantial means, but to target it is something I have never seen explained well.
We once had an antagonist Wizard pay to have the spellbook stolen so that he could 1) deprive his opponent of that much needed item and 2) expand his own spellbook in the process.
It doesn't take a bizarre turn of events for one wizard to covet another wizard's spellbook, or for an opponent to want the party's wizard neutered... in fact, it could be argued that the only way a wizard's spellbook isn't targetted is by GM fiat. Generally speaking, reasonable precautions is all it takes to keep it from happening - just like getting killed in your sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, if you knew you were up against a wizard, is not his spellbook and/or familiar something you would target?
Especially if you could sell the former off for a lot of money?
It IS intelligent play. Wizards just don't like acknowledging they've got a weakness. Wizard without spellbook is like fighter without weapon, but they never cry foul if the fighter is disarmed.
-----------
On Wiz vs sorc:A wizard should be your introduction to the arcane casting classes. Why? So you can sample casting all those different spells, and not be penalized for making bad choices.
By simply changing your load out, you can feel what it's like to be a summoner, an AoE dmg machine, a party buffer, a divining snooper, a master of illusions, a mind-slaving enchanter, or a battlefield controller.
Once you know the spells, you can throw out the spells you don't want to have and focus on the ones you do, and go sorceror and enjoy the ability to spam the ones that best fit the situations. Instead of having to confer with a spellbook, you get Pages of SPell Knowledge or scrolls for the special situations.
Sorceror is relatively unforgiving of poor spell choices unless you've a compliant DM. So, play wizard, get all the spells, and try out some different play styles. After you know the spells, then you're ready for a sorc.
==Aelryinth
Wizards are not clerics, they don't get all of the options for free. A compliant DM is required of any new player, but tackling the entire dimension of the game that is spell preparation and all the resource management involved in keeping track of all the pages of your spellbook, as well as coming up with defenses for it, it just makes them so much more difficult for newer players to grasp. Especially considering the fact that newer players tend to burn through spells faster, and giving them more spells to do that with makes a sorcerer a lot easier.
I can't agree with your sentiment about starting new players off with wizards at all. I am...
Your opinion is free.
But a new player who has no experience with casters does NOT have experience with picking ANY spells.
And any spells that he picks for his sorceror are VERY hard to get rid of.
Spells that he errs on for his wizard? Oh, well, out some gold, memorize something useful.
that is MUCH more important then any other consideration for playing a caster. Poor spell selection cripples casters.
Once he knows what spells he wants, go sorc.
And the wizard lets him test out multiple playing styles, whatever choices he could make as a sorc, he can test out as a wiz (or cleric/druid/witch).
The sorc has the same universe of spells to pick from as the wizard. Unlike the wizard, he doesn't get to wave off a bad choice.
==Aelryinth
To be honest, if you knew you were up against a wizard, is not his spellbook and/or familiar something you would target?
Especially if you could sell the former off for a lot of money?
It IS intelligent play. Wizards just don't like acknowledging they've got a weakness. Wizard without spellbook is like fighter without weapon, but they never cry foul if the fighter is disarmed.
Well said.
Your opinion is free.But a new player who has no experience with casters does NOT have experience with picking ANY spells.
And any spells that he picks for his sorceror are VERY hard to get rid of.
Spells that he errs on for his wizard? Oh, well, out some gold, memorize something useful.
that is MUCH more important then any other consideration for playing a caster. Poor spell selection cripples casters.
Once he knows what spells he wants, go sorc.
And the wizard lets him test out multiple playing styles, whatever choices he could make as a sorc, he can test out as a wiz (or cleric/druid/witch).
The sorc has the same universe of spells to pick from as the wizard. Unlike the wizard, he doesn't get to wave off a bad choice.
Somewhat disagree here though, and think Sorc make better arcane casters for newbies, because of this line...
"But a new player who has no experience with casters does NOT have experience with picking ANY spells."
... if it's a true new player, he should be getting help from the DM and other players in picking his spells. That being factored in, the Sorcerer can be far more forgiving to learn simply because of it's ease of management. Also as Sorcerers by mechanic tend to specialize more than Wizards, the new player is trying to master one or two roles of spell casting, not the dozen a group can expect a wizard to need to fill (size and make up of group depending).
If that ISN'T happening, if the new player isn't getting help from others in his spell selection, then that table has bigger problems than spell selection of a PC, and the new player should probably not be playing any casting class that's not divine/prepared for his first character.
...To be honest, if you knew you were up against a wizard, is not his spellbook and/or familiar something you would target?
Especially if you could sell the former off for a lot of money?
It IS intelligent play. Wizards just don't like acknowledging they've got a weakness. Wizard without spellbook is like fighter without weapon, but they never cry foul if the fighter is disarmed.
-----------
On Wiz vs sorc:A wizard should be your introduction to the arcane casting classes. Why? So you can sample casting all those different spells, and not be penalized for making bad choices.
By simply changing your load out, you can feel what it's like to be a summoner, an AoE dmg machine, a party buffer, a divining snooper, a master of illusions, a mind-slaving enchanter, or a battlefield controller.
Once you know the spells, you can throw out the spells you don't want to have and focus on the ones you do, and go sorceror and enjoy the ability to spam the ones that best fit the situations. Instead of having to confer with a spellbook, you get Pages of SPell Knowledge or scrolls for the special situations.
Sorceror is relatively unforgiving of poor spell choices unless you've a compliant DM. So, play wizard, get all the spells, and try out some different play styles. After you know the spells, then you're ready for a sorc.
==Aelryinth
Wizards are not clerics, they don't get all of the options for free. A compliant DM is required of any new player, but tackling the entire dimension of the game that is spell preparation and all the resource management involved in keeping track of all the pages of your spellbook, as well as coming up with defenses for it, it just makes them so much more difficult for newer players to grasp. Especially considering the fact that newer players tend to burn through spells faster, and giving them more spells to do that with makes a sorcerer a lot easier.
I can't agree with your sentiment about starting new
Most new players need to learn the basic mechanics of even casting spells, using a standard action vs a full round to cast, how to calculate and understand what DCs are and how they work, spontaneous casters are blatantly superior when it comes to ease of play. If we are specifically talking about a brand new player who doesn't have knowledge of what certain spells do, and you as a GM are deciding that neither you, nor the newbie's team mates are allowed to help him with spell choices to get him used to the mechanics of the game, then are you telling me that this player is to be left completely on his own, and should he choose spells that are suboptimal, even on his wizard, he will still be punished by being taxed into buying new spells for his book which gimps his character even more because instead of buying the spells that are good, he has to buy the ones that make up for the fact that no one helped him out in the first place. It may be a strawman here, but I don't see it. Are you really not helping new players understand spell choices, and forcing them to learn things the hard way? Resulting in them being less powerful than the other players at the table and ultimately, this causes the new player loses out on what should be a much better time. If the only argument is that a sorcerer might choose bad spells, then I say that is no argument for a serious GM who is bringing new players into the game.
GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
Nope. I shouldn't have been sleeping on the job.
It comes down to how much risk you want in your game. I like some. Not everyone does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a matter of personal taste.
I prefer the Sorcerer class. You take the combat/defensive spells and use your gold to buy wands for the utility spells.
I have never enjoyed the Wizard because of picking and choosing spells that may or may not be worth it.
Pfft. Psion is where it's at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. I shouldn't have been sleeping on the job.GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
I like how you don't sleep. Teach me how. If you don't, stop pretending you don't sleep. The intelligent thing to do is kill them in their sleep, possibly after finding them with scrying. Or just scry and die.
Its not about risk. Its about the DM being a jerk. He went out of his way to do it.
It is not fun to have no class features. My idea of fun is not spending the day without spells, or having to buy a whole new spell book, or worse having no moneys or spellbook because they robbed me of that too. I didn't roll a commoner.
Pfft. Psion is where it's at.
Hurray for power points! Too bad its 3rd party. I actually prefer power points at a glance, still haven't had a chance to use a psion though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have only seen only "lost spellbook" situation that was not contrived or GM Fiat. I think that is what makes players upset.
It takes a powerful adversary out of the fight. GM fiat is the fact that the bad guys so rarely target spellbooks/familiars/bound items/spell component pouches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer all the way.
For one thing, the party tends to get bored when the wizard takes a long time deciding which spells to prepare and how many.
Sorcerers are the wizard's cooler sibling
Depends on how you prepare. I've never spent a long time preparing when I play a wizard. My teammate cleric on the other hand has spent 15 minutes picking what first level spell to bring.
It is not fun to have no class features. My idea of fun is not spending the day without spells, or having to buy a whole new spell book, or worse having no moneys or spellbook because they robbed me of that too. I didn't roll a commoner.Best play a sorcerer then.
Or I could play a wizard with someone else. My point in the first place was that you could just ignore those DMs and walk away. They are by my definition, jerks.
It is not fun to have no class features. My idea of fun is not spending the day without spells, or having to buy a whole new spell book, or worse having no moneys or spellbook because they robbed me of that too. I didn't roll a commoner.
Wizards have weaknesses in their class design much the same way a fighter or paladin does. Reliance on gear can be overcome if the player is smart enough. It's another reason why I feel sorcerers are better for simpler games, or 'less skilled' players, because they don't have to spend resources (like time!!!) into protecting their spellbook, or organizing their thoughts and preparing their spells based on what encounters or adventures they may go through for the day.
Prepared casters are more versatile and can cover a lot of roles, where spontaneous casters are more potent with what they are designed to do.
Compare a cleric to an oracle and we'll have the same discussion with the exception being that an oracle is better at healing damage than a cleric vs. a sorcerer being better at dealing damage than a wizard. Same rules about preparation, time spent doing said preparation, and losing your spellbook/holy symbol preventing you from using your spellcasting ability.
|
Or I could play a wizard with someone else. My point in the first place was that you could just ignore those DMs and walk away. They are by my definition, jerks.It is not fun to have no class features. My idea of fun is not spending the day without spells, or having to buy a whole new spell book, or worse having no moneys or spellbook because they robbed me of that too. I didn't roll a commoner.Best play a sorcerer then.
And my point was that most classes rely on gear of some kind: weapon, holy symbol, spellbook, familiar, animal companion...whatever!
I can't read your mind, only your posts, and it seems like you believe that it's okay if PCs lose any of the above....but if a spellbook is lost then DM must be a dick!
Why is a spellbook sacrosanct but the rest isn't?
It sounds like you would accept the loss of your PC's stuff with good grace...but throw your dummy out of the cot if your spellbook got half-inched!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that make me a dick? And by reverse logic does it make my players?
Yes, going out of your way to tell the wizard he can't do anything is being a jerk. The NPCs are much more expendable than your friends. The NPCs are expected to show up and die or add to scene/plot what have you, and are constructs of the mind. Your friends show up every week, possibly bring drinks/food, and have to suffer the consequences of sundered weapons, stolen gear, and burned spell books. Your friends have personalities and minds, and exist in real life. The NPCs, are plot devices conceived in your head. I didn't suggest you give PC's character shield from all bad things, and I never said I was okay with stealing animal companions, killing familiars, sundering, or any of that nonsense and that the wizard's spell book was more special than those things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i suggest sorcerer
especially when you have an Antagonistic Richard For a DM like i do.
Wizard may have more skill points from their higher intellect, but they have to protect their precious books, their precious components, and either a fragile and small animal that can be killed or a dear focus item that can be sundered.
Sorcerer, through smart bloodline choice, can have either the same number of skill points, or even a better perception or will save.
sorcerer doesn't have to carry a spellbook, doesn't have to keep as many components, doesn't have to carry a third Achilles heel, and has less overwhelming options. it may be easier to screw up, but any abilities you cannot use, you can acquire through use magic device by both having it as a class skill and using a wizard's dump stat.
plus sorcerers are much better at using such things as compulsions and planar bindings due to having an easier time with the charisma check.
plus a petite young sorceress looks better in a Gothloli dress than the old perpetually virgin Wizard dude does in a dress and pointy hat.
Sorcerers also pull off the following other styles better
Skinny Jeans
Kimonos
Labcoats
Tattoos/Body Paint
School Uniforms
School Swimsuits
Lingerie
Anything Silken
Any kind of Dresslike Garment
Short Skirts
Anything seductive
especially when you have an Antagonistic Richard For a DM like i do.
What is with the existence of these characters?
especially when you have an Antagonistic Richard For a DM like i do.What is with the existence of these characters?
My Dungeon Master; Weekly William, is such an Antagonistic Richard
that he looks for any way he can to nerf or even Depower player characters
he forces paladins into "you're screwed scenarios"
he does the same with clerics
he de-rages barbarians
he sunders fighter signature weapons, kills familiars, and steals spellbooks.
To me its being a jerk. Can you live with that? I don't play with people who go out of their way to screw me. I come to have fun, I run games to have fun, I have a big list of "won't do's" when I'm on either side of the screen to keep everything fun and mellow. Can you live with that?
Burning the spell book isn't entertaining from my perspective as a player. Overcoming monsters, puzzles, and social encounters is. Taking the spell book is removing my tools, burning it means I have to go through a large amount of work to get back my spells and burn a large amount of gold doing so, and its cliché and not well thought out. If its not fun, why insist I live through it or I'm a terrible person?
This has gotten very off topic, but honestly, why would you play with someone who is trying to make your experience not enjoyable?
he's a fun DM, even if he is a bit of Richard. building characters to counter his Fiat is entertaining.
This has gotten very off topic, but honestly, why would you play with someone who is trying to make your experience not enjoyable?
I would say masochism, but that infers pleasure. I think some players actually enjoy that sort of challenge, but if someone doesn't enjoy it there really isn't a reason to put them through it. Saying "play a sorc!" isn't really a proper response I don't think. feels like a response to threat and fear, and its telling someone to play something they don't always want to. I happen to enjoy prep more than spontaneous, but I happen to enjoy the idea power points and augments more than either of those.
This has gotten very off topic, but honestly, why would you play with someone who is trying to make your experience not enjoyable?I would say masochism, but that infers pleasure. I think some players actually enjoy that sort of challenge, but if someone doesn't enjoy it there really isn't a reason to put them through it. Saying "play a sorc!" isn't really a proper response I don't think. feels like a response to threat and fear, and its telling someone to play something they don't always want to. I happen to enjoy prep more than spontaneous, but I happen to enjoy the idea power points and augments more than either of those.
With Weekly William; a Single Psionic character at any point in the campaign is an open license for him to use Psionic Monsters, and such a license, though it may not be acted on immediately, may be a reason for possible death by Illithids.
so unless the campaign tends to be one of the rare short lived Monty Hauls, we try not to open that can of worms
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
no I do not.
Sorcerers have a better in-combat tactics. Wizards can be far more strategic.
If you play in a campaign where stuff is just throw-ed at you constantly, then sorcerer is the way to go.
If your games allow the party to plan and scout out the enemy and objectives, then wizard has the advantage.
Mmmmm, brain eating squids. Those are fun. Speaking of which, sorcerers have far less problem with brain eating squids and those any of the other brain eating creatures than wizards. Not having your brain eaten is a good advantage. Oddly enough because of the way Psionics work they're basically just more casters/anti caster material. Psi-Spell transparency. Not sure how much of a can of worms that is because I've never played Psionics side by side a wizard/sorc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
no I do not.GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
Who doesn't have an alarm set up? or Rope-trick or the million other ways to sleep safely?
Who doesn't have an alarm set up? or Rope-trick or the million other ways to sleep safely?no I do not.GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
A lot of people I know. One time I set up a ton of defenses against any intruders, several spell slots devoted to it and an outsider companion that never slept on guard duty. DM still said one of our party members died and ignored them all. DM fiat can bypass a lot of things.
Mmmmm, brain eating squids. Those are fun. Speaking of which, sorcerers have far less problem with brain eating squids and those any of the other brain eating creatures than wizards. Not having your brain eaten is a good advantage. Oddly enough because of the way Psionics work they're basically just more casters/anti caster material. Psi-Spell transparency. Not sure how much of a can of worms that is because I've never played Psionics side by side a wizard/sorc.
the cans are all setting based
a lot of DMs don't like dealing with Psionics, not always because of the mechanics, but because of the following factors
- bad memories of previous systems
- bad memories of illegally built PCs
- a dislike for Sci Fi in their setting
- a dislike for the Orient in their Europe
- the dislike of incorporating real world religion in fantasy, such as bhuddism. the first psionics in myth where bhuddist monks in Nepal
- a dislike for video game mechanics in their fantasy, like mana pools
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spellbook is built as a weakness that's meant to be able to be gone after. You can softball it and ignore that if you want, but that weakness is meant to be part of their balance. That's why the Spell Mastery feat exists.
Anyway, as for the actual topic, I like the flavor of wizards, but of the two I prefer the mechanics of sorcerers without a contest. Preparing spells is tedious.
The spellbook is built as a weakness that's meant to be able to be gone after.
I disagree. Its an awful form of 'balance' created by fluff. Its the difference between being playable and going home for the evening because you can't do anything.
I used to think its a great challenge to protect it, but it turns into tedium. It turns into an ever looming threat that bores me after the umpteenth time someone wants to break my character. It is not fun not to not have the spell book, and DM fiat bypasses any form of protection you had.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, if you knew you were up against a wizard, is not his spellbook and/or familiar something you would target?
Especially if you could sell the former off for a lot of money?
It IS intelligent play. Wizards just don't like acknowledging they've got a weakness. Wizard without spellbook is like fighter without weapon, but they never cry foul if the fighter is disarmed.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong in every way.
A wizard without his spellbook or a witch without a familiar is like a fully armed and operational gunslinger without his bullet molds. He's pissed off and deadly and wants to make you suffer and it'll be cold comfort in the boneyard that he will be inconvenienced after you die painfully. Except unlike gunslingers wizards can inflict fates worse than death.
Only an idiot with no sense of self preservation goes for the spellbook and only a dick sends idiot NPCs with no sense of self preservation against the wizard's spellbook.
If an intelligent NPC with steal or sunder wants to thwart a caster he goes for the spell component pouch or holy symbol. Going for the spellbook is a waste of his effort and increases, rather than decreases, the risk to his life.
Um, no.
The spell component pouch or holy symbol is a target only in the middle of combat.
The spellbook is a target every other time. In combat, not so much.
The gunslinger without his bullet molds is a full BAB combatant with martial weapon prof who can still pick up stuff and fight with it. The wizard who has no spells to memorize in the morning is desperately running on fumes and is a very intelligent commoner waiting to be picked off.
And like, if someone isn't going to steal a spellbook, they aren't going to gank the wizard, or simply make it impossible for the wizard to determine exactly who took it. C'mon, would YOU make it that easy? I can so totally see the desperate wizard tracking his spellbook right into a tailor made ambush.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players always have multiple copies of their spell books whenever they can afford it.
It drains off excess cash, and the occasional theft or destruction of a copy just makes them paranoid [and spend more cash on even more copies].
To be fair, I have only stolen a players spellbooks twice years back when they were at odds with another mage and a critical failure on a save versus dragon breath burned another few books to ashes...
But...man do my players have long memories!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spellbook is built as a weakness that's meant to be able to be gone after.I disagree. Its an awful form of 'balance' created by fluff. Its the difference between being playable and going home for the evening because you can't do anything.
I used to think its a great challenge to protect it, but it turns into tedium. It turns into an ever looming threat that bores me after the umpteenth time someone wants to break my character. It is not fun not to not have the spell book, and DM fiat bypasses any form of protection you had.
Not really--if you lose your spellbook, you still have the spells you'd already prepared to help you get it back. Now, if a DM just takes it by fiat ignoring whatever you did to try to protect it, then yes, that GM is being a jerk.
It's not really 'fluff' though--it's hard mechanics. I agree though that it's kind of tedious and not a /good/ balancing factor. Just that, as written, it is one.
If your trying out being a caster, then I'd go Sorc to begin with. Spend time building you known list and get it solid. Focus on that rather than spending the time coming up with a new spell list every time you rest.
As to which is better? Do you like gambling? And do you play small or large stakes? Bear with me here...
A wizard who has prepared for the zone that they are in and is relatively well informed about it will absolutely trounce anything that they encounter unless they roll abysmally. They will be able to completely tailor their spell list and loadout to what they are expecting to encounter and (therefore) completely dominate whatever they run into in there. If your invading a giant lair, Dominates, suggestions, charms and other things that target will saves are the order of the day.
But here's the risk. If the screw that up selection, they have just nerfed themselves into the ground. Have a look at Kingmaker 5, the Abbey for an example of where this could go horribly wrong.
Except that there's no poison and only 1 undead in the whole area from memory. I hope you didn't stack your list towards undead hunting and not dying to poison too much... which is what you would have done if you were trying to take advantage of being a wizard and customize your spell list to terrain and enemy.
Conversely a sorc doesn't have that flexibility and risk / reward gamble with it (as much). They have their static list which will most likely have a way to deal with the situation on it, but maybe not the most optimal way. Occasionally they will, but because they can't mix and match with as much ease, they have a harder time being 'perfect'. Because they have slots as opposed to spells, it opens up a bit more 'small scale' flexibility to them. If the baddies are in a cone, the sorc doesn't have to use Magic Missile because he's already cast Burning Hands. He just uses Burning hands again. he doesn't have to be angry because he can't Sleep the skeletons... he just uses the slot for something else.
Bard's have a specialized spell list, have a weird place in combat, and are a spontaneous caster. If your goal is that specialized spell list and you like the skill points, they are pretty nifty. They also aren't one of the two classes the thread is about however.
I like wizards for my skill monkeys. All that intellect makes up for a bad charisma pretty quickly. Being able to afford to put points into so may skills.
They are both solid when it comes to mechanics. Your a full caster. Congrats. Your better then 60 percent of other classes before you start building your character.
The decision as to which you want to play is really a choice in RP. Do you want to be the intelligent book worm who knows everything. Or do you want to be the charismatic face with a mystical linage that gives you arcane power. Both have solid RP. Both are fun.
As far as your party is concerned...
If no one in your party has a Cha over 12... go Sorc
If no one in your party has more then 4 skill points a level... go wizard.