| lastblacknight |
Putting ranks in a skill is a negligible sacrifice for a caster, whose power comes almost entirely from their spells.
Especially for the specific example of a Sage Sorcerer who is Int based like a Wizard.
Every argument you put there is against a Sorcerer over a Wizard, not against using a Seeker/Sage instead of a Rogue.
My points address previous comments (which concerned a sage sorcerer build).
My argument holds for most cases; a PC only has a finite amount of skill points, ranks in one skill mean that other skills suffer. Wizards are expected to knowledgeable on a range of topics. Sorcerers are usually the 'face' of a party. Whilst rogues can be expected to find and disable traps, or be able to take advantage of surprise.
My reply also had more going for it; I talked about party balance and flexibility as well. The emphasis being on what 'role' in a party a PC fills. Are you the wall that others stand behind? Are you the one they can rely on to keep them in the fight? Are you the trapfinder?
Just ensure you can 'do' the role when your party needs you to.
It's happening more often; where the trapfinder of a party can't find/disable magical traps. It's almost as useful as the 'healer' in party being the person with the most ranks in UMD and a wand of CLW...
So the sage sorcerer/trapfinder is going to find him/herself up the front of a party filing the rogue/scout role.
Some ideas are great on paper, but at the table they need some work. So it's good to know that if you're a new player and your build is off you can get some pointers and adjust your character up until level 2 in PFS. That sort of flexibility makes learning an easier process for new players.