| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self-explanatory thread, which type of caster classes do you prefer?
I love spontaneous casters. Being able to cast spells on the fly is sweet, and allows great flexibility in my play style.
I don't think I'd enjoy prepared casters, since it requires you to be Batman to pull it off effectively, and I am no Batman.
I'm all about spontaneous casting. I don't like having to pick out what I think I'll need at the beginning of the day and I like having more spell slots overall. There's also the fact that playing a prepared caster just really stresses me out.
I'm more accustomed to martial/hybrid classes. I'm enjoying playing a wizard for the first time in PFS. I buy a lot of scrolls and increase my options, and leave a couple slots open to fill during the day. The bonded item feature is nice, too. I can be pretty versatile!
That said, it's a lot of bookkeeping. Next time I play a full arcane caster it'll probably be a sorcerer :P
In theory I prefer spontanous casters.
But in actual play I really enjoy my scarred witchdoctor. Sure, sometimes I could really need the one spell I did not prepare but that doesn't come up so often.
What helped a lot is to prepare some spell you seldom need (but are glad to have when you need them) and use pearls of power if you want some spell more than once per day.
That way I have some spells I always use during hard battles (or battles that would be hard without them), have some "just in case" spells and fill the gaps with hexes.
The only time this doesn't work is when encountering lots of undead without knowing it ahead of time. Because most hexes and most of my standard spells don't work well on undead.
Why choose between the two? I'm with Half-Elf Oracle with Paragon Surge and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) on this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why choose between the two? I'm with Half-Elf Oracle with Paragon Surge and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) on this one.
The delicious fun of spontaneous plus the "oh s+#~ only one spell could save us now!" panic button of a super prepared Wizard. What's not to love (besides being stuck as a Half Elf)?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I prefer is XPH style spell points.
But if the options are only prepared or spontaneous, I take spontaneous EVERY time. Since I am usually GM (and my players don't read rulebooks), I basically always allow only spontaneous classes. Or allow the other classes to use spells per day or spells know like as sorcerers or bards.
The reason is that prepared magic does not make any sense at all. And is basically exclusive to D&D. In no other kind of fiction does magic work that way. Even the one novel series that D&D originally tried to emulate was actually different, as far as I know. Prepared magic simply should not exist. It's the one really big complaint I have with every edition of D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous are tactically richer. Prepared are strategically richer. Strategy is stronger, but also make more GM unhappy.
Like both, but find spontaneous more enjoyable
Thematically when I do casters, I prefer prepared.
The idea of Clerics praying for their spells is thematically better, IMO, than just getting them each day.
I prefer Hermetic-themed Arcanes, again to "just getting them." Pouring over old books, researching, reading your old book each day to mentally prepare.
As for mechanics, even with all the advantages PF has given spontaneous casters when it comes to being able to swap out spells or cast flexibly, I like the security blanket of at least theoretically being able to get "that one spell" or "those six spells that would be useful now, but wouldn't be on my list if I had limited spell access" if I need it/them which comes with "prepared casting." Again even though, intellectually, I know that by this point in PF the difference is marginal (spontaneous casters have so many ways to get access to "that one spell" if they need it, and often without having to rest for 8 hours, that if anything the situation has flipped).
For me it's become only a marginal difference, though; I like Bards, I have no personal objection to Sorcerers* or Oracles, and so on. I'm certainly not about to recommend they be written out of the game. I just hope the "Spontaneous Caster Preferred" people don't push to get prepared casting eliminated from the game.
*I have also always liked the idea of "ability from within" vs. "ability derived from a secondary, external source," and Sorcerers have thematic appeal in this regard.
I prefer Prepared Casters. Provided I can prepare properly of course. If I can't prepare properly, then Spontaneous casting is better.
Prepared caster with the ability to spontaneously cast a select few "backup" spells is even better IMO. Clerics and Wizards with Preferred Spell is where it's at for me.
I prefer spontaneous casters, definitely, even though prep casters are generally superior.
Partially for the simplicity; I can just write down the handful of spells I know on cards and never have to flip through a book. Harder to do with wizards, impossible to do for clerics/druids.
Partially because it fits how I prefer magic to work. You can't change up your spells known from day to day. Once you know a spell, YOU KNOW A SPELL, and you can cast it repeatedly.
The only prep-caster I could see myself playing willingly would be a Magus, since they can use a class feature to regain a spell previously cast, which takes a lot of the sting out of it.
Or, as a longshot, the 'Blockbuster' wizard, who essentially prepares nothing but BSU spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am always amused by posts of "X vs Y, which do you prefer?"
My kids always ask me things like "what's your favorite song" or "what's your favorite book?"
Favorite?
What the heck is favorite?
Variety is the spice of life. I like 'em both.
I just can't think of playing a prepared caster. The freedom of picking which spells to spam is an alluring mistress. Though, I guess one of these days I should try out a wizard just to have a great deal of spells under my belt.
I prefer spontaneous -- it just seems to model most fantasy worlds better. I would actually like to see it become the default, though there would be work to do around spells known and meta-magic.
I love/hate prepared spellcasters because I get/have to spend time perusing my character's spell book and contemplating all the wonderful/confusing options available and working out how to best exploit/deal with tactics and plan for team synergies and stuff...
I prefer prepared casters. When I need a new spell, I want to be able to put it in a spellbook for later use.
I'd really like to see an arcane version of the 3.5 spirit shaman. Now THAT was an interesting casting mechanic. Too bad it was MAD and restricted to the druid list.
Spontaneous i like better.
Now just talk my DM, into letting me use the Spontaneous chart for my Druid :)
Hell, Just let me my Sorcerer have access to the Druid "or" Cleric spell lists + all Cure/Inflict, instead of Wizard list.
What :) i really like the Flavor of Druid spells :)
Spontaneous i like better.
Now just talk my DM, into letting me use the Spontaneous chart for my Druid :)
Hell, Just let me my Sorcerer have access to the Druid "or" Cleric spell lists + all Cure/Inflict, instead of Wizard list.
What :) i really like the Flavor of Druid spells :)
Well, there's wands for that. If I remember right, there is an item that grants the ability to transfer a spell to your list (from any other spell list) and you can use it as a spell of your own; don't know the specifics of it, though.
Also, I hate prepared due to the rules they have for Metamagic spells v.s. the Spontaneous casters. I'm not going to know I'll need an Extended Fly v.s. an Empowered/Intensified Fireball until the moment presents itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like having to pick out what I think I'll need at the beginning of the day...
Number One Misconception About Prepared Casters.
You don't have to pick any of your spells at the beginning of the day. You don't have to pick them until 15 minutes before hand (1 min before hand with the proper feat). If you're preparing more than one encounter's worth of spells at the beginning of the day, you're doing it wrong.
...and I like having more spell slots overall.
Number Two Misconception About Prepared Casters.
Because they don't have access to Domains or Specialty Schools spontaneous casters get only a single spell slot per level over prepared rather than the apparent two.
Secondly, because of delayed progression, some levels will see them actually having less spell slots than prepared casters, and they will almost never have more slots of the top two levels they can cast (i.e. the ones that make a difference in most encounters) than prepared casters.
That said, I like 'em both. Spontaneous casters tend to have better class abilities.
Why choose between the two? I'm with Half-Elf Oracle with Paragon Surge and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) on this one.The delicious fun of spontaneous plus the "oh s@++ only one spell could save us now!" panic button of a super prepared Wizard. What's not to love (besides being stuck as a Half Elf)?Be a Human
Take the Oracle favoured class bonus of extra spells
Pick Racial Heritage (Half Elf) with your bonus feat
Laugh maniacally
and take focused study for triple skill focuses. so you can have eldritch heritage and 2 other awesome skills, i recommend Diplomacy and Perception.
stuff
I'm aware Fast Study and yes it is nice and greatly adds to the Wizard's versatility overall. That said it's not a timely option for when it really matters (ie combat).
Also fair enough about the slots. Didn't think about it that way.
I used to be firmly in the Spontaneous camp, but I like melee so I've played a Magus and a Cleric and I like having the prepared spells as back up and kind of figuring out how to use my spells that day.
When helping everyone down through the roof by holding the rope, I was really excited to see Istill had spider climb prepared that day. On my prep casters, I usually keep a standard list and deviate a little bit, or use downtime to scribe scrolls.
And when encounter runs into the second with little time to do anything what do you do? Preparing just one encounters worth of spells is really dangerous. Its also really hard to do because...I don't like having to pick out what I think I'll need at the beginning of the day...Number One Misconception About Prepared Casters.
You don't have to pick any of your spells at the beginning of the day. You don't have to pick them until 15 minutes before hand (1 min before hand with the proper feat). If you're preparing more than one encounter's worth of spells at the beginning of the day, you're doing it wrong.
In my experience this rarely happens without some kind of warning before hand.
(Hey, we're going into a dungeon which might have some unexpected encounters. Better take a few moments to prep a few more spells taking into account where we are so I can pick spells a little better than I could in the morning.)If it does, you just have to be a little more careful with your spell use.
Number Two Misconception About Prepared Casters.Because they don't have access to Domains or Specialty Schools spontaneous casters get only a single spell slot per level over prepared rather than the apparent two.
While you may not have that many more spell slots you have far greater versatility in using them from encounter to encounter. The Wizard needs to decide how many Hastes to prepare against Stinking Clouds and Slow. He needs to make difficult decisions about whether he will be facing things with decent Will or Fort saves as picking the right one has a major impact on actually getting your spells to land.
The Sorcerer just uses whichever one is most useful as the opportunity presents itself.
Which is why it's better to wait to prep spells. Used your Fireball and think you might want another? Take 15 min while the Cleric is administering CLWs from the party's supply of wands to prep another.
Sure it's not as always as convenient as spontaneous casting, but it beats a delayed casting progression.
The delayed casting thing is an issue which has been complained about since 3.0 and personally I would have liked to see Paizo remove it but they chose not to.
Spontaneous casters have a lot of advantages over Prepared, that's why so many players like them. They need some kind of drawback.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous, cuz I am a romantic.
Much prefer prepared casters.
I enjoy both mechanics styles, but the spell delay on spontaneous is just awful, IMO.
Either can be fun, but I find it easier and less stressful to play spontaneous casters... fewer spells whose mechanics I need to learn, can pick the spell to cast when I need it without worrying "oh crap, did I decide to prep this?" and never have to worry about adding to my spellbook so I know enough spells (wizard) or managing a huge list of too many spells known to start with (divine).
|
I've always preferred spontaneous. Sure,you get less spells, but so what? Just pick a few multi-purpose spells, and you're golden. I've never personally bought in to the idea that having a vast treasure trove of spells to choose from, but only a pittance available at a time makes you that much of a swiss army knife. Sure,you've prepared anti-undead spells because you think you're going into an undead tomb. Oh, wait...the DM was aiming to make it feel undead and instead threw in constructs like flesh golems instead as a minor twist. Now your choices are far more limited. In theory, picking a few spells that are useful overall, combined with a few metamagic feats to cover deficiencies like overcoming certain immunities,and you've got far more "variability" than a prepared caster.
In my experience anyway. That might have something to do with having DMs that enjoy throwing curveballs at you, and therefore making someone who prepares their spells for the day ahead literally useless, since you can't expect anything a day in advance, and preparation spellcasters simply lack the spells per day to prepare all-multipurpose spells.
Spontaneous. Like Yora, prepared just makes absolutely no sense to me. Not that I don't understand how it works, it just makes no sense that it works that way. Admittedly, that's probably because I had 20 years of experience with video games that used magic meters/mana pools before I ever played a tabletop game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Undone
Your logic is severly flawed.
1) Witch/Wizard vs Sorc- your argument is very weak (i.e. non-existant). The wizard is better at really dumb Out of Combat things (like permancy, scrying spells, and the create demeplane stuff) but in combat, the sorcerer having the versatility to be able to shift things up on the fly to meet sudden unexpected suprises is unmatched (oh! the enemy spell caster just silenced you! I hope you have a couple of silent spells repared). Now, if your GM is just doing a very cliche and boring dungeon crawl and that is very linear and straight forward then yes the wizard will shine, but if your GM is creative and can create alot of plot twists and such then suddenly the wizard will feel very inept. A perfect example is when in a game I was in, we had to go into this fortress to defeat this abomination in the dungeons below. The campaign was set in a artic and wintery place so the wizard prepared mostly fire spells, expecting to run into mostly ice based things. Well, lo and behold, deep beneath the fortress was actually a lava pit. The creators of the fortress (long since deceased) actually mined so deep they actually reached "hell itself" as the gate said. So suddenly the wizard had a good deal of his spells made useless. As for the witch, the ability to force something to reroll EVERY roll and ALWAYS take the worse, the ability to put something to sleep without HD limit, to fly without spells, and to summon the spirit of a 18HD wizard without having to waste spells is invaluable.
2)Cleric vs Oracle- again how about you try and explain? Oracles are worse generalists, but generally speaking, an Oracle can specialize much better than a Cleric. The abilities of war domain don't match up to the wall of abilities Battle Oracles or Metal oracles get. Bones oracles are much better necromancers than clerics.
3) Ok yes they get spell slots a level faster, but they get less known. So you can cast your lvl 3 spells... once when you first get access to lvl 3 spells. Not very back breaking right there. Unless your GM is one of those "oh! one encounter AND!!!!! end of game for today" type of people.
4) uh what? Ok your argument is very weak here. Yes a wizard can spam a single spell like a sorcerer if he uses ALL his slots to spam it. But if he does and suddenly a pit falls under him, he can't go 'oh crap! Communal feather fall!!" like the sorcerer can. You are stuck with your list of blasts. And if you think sorcerers take nothing but blasts then you sir are sadly mistaken and must OBVIOUSLY not know how to play a sorcerer.
Sorc has way better metamagic. Unless your wizard always waste a slot in a Silenced spell just in case, the anility to put metamagic pn the fly is much better.
About being able to spam: the ability to cast a second, or third, dispel magic when needed is worth it. Do you fight a tough guy? Spam enervate! Is he undead? Cool, cause you can use your 4th level slot for other things too! Need to infiltrate? You can spam invisibility.
The only two Things were wizards are better are pdd levels, and Int being much better than Cha (more skills, and magic oriented skills)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are both plenty powerful, so I don't feel a need to 'win' that endless debate.
But. . .but. . .this is the internet. *worried face*
Weather prepared or spontaneous casting is better can often depend on the DM and the Campaign.
Groups that are willing to spend time on recon and intelligence gathering will find a wizard to be the better option.
Groups that like to "wing it" will find a sorcerer better, but also put the group in a higher risk of Party Death due to sloppy and/or non-existent recon.
1a) Witch has free no SR sleep that it can spam all day. Neither the wizard or the sorc has this. Other than that the witch is a slightly more limited wizard.
1b) It's more expensive for the sorc to simply have all the buffs that the wizard will have by 3rd level. The wizard will be able to use the same gold to buy Pearls of power.
1c) Sorc only feats are abysmal. Wizard only feats are astonishingly powerful. Tangent wizards are better with metamagic thanks to more bonus feats and earlier spell progression.
You typically don't need the variety of a wizard if you plan the small selection you do have right. A number of your buffs are better handled by a cleric(Or Paladin) anyhow. And at 1st - 4th level you don't have spells to waste on buffs for either a wiz or sorc anyhow.
2a) First of all you agree at every odd level prepared casters are miles behind otherwise talking about this is pointless seeing as how they have MORE spells at odd levels and BETTER spells.
2b) This is only true of the base classes. The extra archetypes make up for it easily. Things like forgemaster, crusader, and so on give the cleric specialization too. If you wanted focus you can get more or less anything an oracle gets but have better casting.
At every odd level prepared spellcasters are 1 level ahead in the level spells they can cast. That gives prepared casters an edge at those levels. The only exceptions are 1st level and at 19 which most campaigns will never see.
3) Whu? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Example level 5 wizard vs level 5 sorc We'll use largely the same stat block swapping cha/int.Human Wizard Conjuration specialist
STR: 7 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 21 WIS: 10 CHA: 10
Spells
1: 6 (3 + 2 bonus spells + 1 school)
2: 4 (2 + 1 bonus + 1 school)
3: 4 (1 + 1 bonus + 1 school + 1 bonded object)Human Sorc
STR: 7 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 10 WIS: 10 CHA: 21
1: 8 (6 + 2 bonus spells)
2: 5 (4 + 1 bonus spell) Potentially 6 if you have a bonded object too.So potentially if you're a specific type of sorc you can have the same amount of substantially worse magic. If you add 1 level the sorc gains 4 spells but the wizard STILL has more top level spell slots. A sorc has either equal or less magic and it's worse magic at odd levels. If you're at a PFS table prep is incredibly powerful as you can work with the table filling in holes like communal resist energy, fly, communal protection from evil without one person cluttering their list. If you play in a home game you'll get a feel for the type of monster your GM likes and can work around it.
Nice, the wizard fan picks the only level a wizard can exceed a sorcerer in the number of spells as his argument example. Try looking at all spell levels. At 1, 2, 5, and 7 a wiz can match or exceed by 1 the sorcerers spells if built right. At all other levels the sorcerers is ahead. Starting at 8th level the sorcerer pulls ahead and never falls behind again. At 20th level a sorcerer will have 8 additional spells per day over a bonded item wizard. By the time the sorcerer pulls appreciably ahead they both have 20+ spells a day its not a big factor as a result. And by the time it reaches its largest disparity at 20th level when you are talking 52 spells for wiz vs 60 spells for sorc per day its a down right non-issue.
4) I don't think wizards are blasters. I think they're worse wizards. Anything the sorc does the wizard does better, faster, and needs to do it less as a result. Metamagic? Wizard's better. Buffing? Wizard can have more and more diverse without cluttering his list. Have the right spell for the encounter? Oh wait the wizard has spont casting 1/day. Need to open a door trapped? Fill in a slot in 15 minutes. The problem with spamming a spell being good is that most spells should only need to be cast one time to radically alter or reshape a combat. Wall of stone. Why would you want to spam that? Or black tentacles or stinking cloud, or magic jar. The nature of spells is such that the first one has an immense impact. The second one is often redundant.
Both a wiz and sorc are best at different things, which is better depends largly on how you use them.
A sorcerer is a better blaster due to their spontaneous casting ability. Their greater spontious casting ability means that they can handle common situations that a wizard might not have forseen and planned for better. But they will never have the sheer variety of spells a wizard can have and therefor cant handle uncommon situations that call for nitch spells as well as a wizard.
A wizard is a better utility caster due to the much larger spell list they can maintain. They can also have situational spells in their spell book that can handle many situations that don't come up often that a sorcerer does not have the spell list to deal with.
Both can be very capable at any role if build right though.
|
In my point of view, spontaneous Clerics (with a broad, but limited access to spells known) would be ideal for me. Say, 1/3 of the spell list and both Domains automatically known at level, (based on their particular faith rather than picking and choosing).
I hate Oracles, but otherwise prefer spontaneous casting over prepped. Since I like divine casters, I'd go with Cleric. Spell Points would also be my optimal choice.
Prepared with Spontaneous Casting feats (Preferred Spell and Greater Spell Specialization.)
And honestly the biggest reason for this above all else is because prepared casters advance their spell levels one level earlier than spontaneous casters.
In the case of Oracle vs. Cleric, you're giving up the Cleric's AMAZING trait of knowing their ENTIRE SPELL LIST, which really puts the Oracle on the lowest of the bottom tiers for me.
This is also a problem between Sorcerer and Wizard, but with the cost of scrolls it's a little less of an issue in the comparison.
In the context of the following each is best.1) PFS- Wizard is vastly superior. 3-4 encounters per day combined with largely predictable opponents as no home brew monsters really make it into adventures.
Home game 15 minute a day DM- Obviously this favors the wizard.
Home game 5 combats a day - Likely limited to 12-15 rounds of combat unless the group is losing hideously. It's largely even at even levels and way behind on odd levels. We'll give the sorcerer this at even levels only.
Home game 10 combats a day - Sorcerer beats wizard but loses comically to the witch who's probably put 20-30 enemies to sleep with what amounts to a save or die SLA.
10 Combats a day on a regular basis that require buffs and actual crowd control spells is a bit much. Stuff like this is needed in big fights, not routine romps.
You mean overland flight, mage armor, blur, haste, darkvision, protection from arrows, stoneskin, heroism, and enlarge person? That's just a few but you get the point. The exclusive buffs are often the most powerful. (HASTE!)
Considering most of these would make it onto a sorcerers spell list, even a blasters spell list, I don't see the merits of a wiz over a sorc in this department. Blasting only works If you metamagic it up a significant amount. Once you are high enough level to be basting effectively, your low level spells are largely gonna be best used as buffs and come from this list anyhow.
A wizards only advantage here is they can afford to learn spells that wont be used often. They can take the spell that might be used 1 or 2 times in the campaign whereas a sorcerer can not afford to take it as a spell.