Apparently forcing an angel to eat children via planar binding is a good act because the spell is good.
Can i flag this thread as derailed? If we arent going to discuss why choose wizard? I will be forced to take measures!
Apparently forcing an angle to eat children via planar binding is a good act because the spell is good.Not so, summoning the Angel is a good act because an angel is inherently good and left to it's own devices will do good. Causing the eating of children is a separate evil act.
And if I cast protection from evil enough times, I'll stay a good character.
Because that is as equally dumb as being a saint who becomes evil by binding demons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can i flag this thread as derailed? If we arent going to discuss why choose wizard? I will be forced to take measures!
Poor wizard with low cha can't convince people to do things because charm magic does not work through the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can i flag this thread as derailed? If we arent going to discuss why choose wizard? I will be forced to take measures!Poor wizard with low cha can't convince people to do things because charm magic does not work through the internet.
Ah, but you forget that he's a 9th level wizard, so he can already use dominate person, instead ;)
I apologize, I could not resist a final stab. I think I'm done with this thread unless someone needs responding to.
-Nearyn
/Thread
Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?
Which is why I said there were certain spells which I felt were alignment neutral but name me a saint who got that way by summoning demons, and furtermore explain why if he's so saintly he couldn't call upon an angel instead to help him in which case he doesn't plague the world with an increased number of unholy beings made of pure congealed evil.And if I cast protection from evil enough times, I'll stay a good character.
Because that is as equally dumb as being a saint who becomes evil by binding demons.
Well supposedly King Solomon summoned a lot of demons and he was generally considered a good guy. And keep in mind he was making them do stuff in the name of God who is generally considered good.
Which is why I said there were certain spells which I felt were alignment neutralAnd if I cast protection from evil enough times, I'll stay a good character.
Because that is as equally dumb as being a saint who becomes evil by binding demons.
Hey you're the one that said if the descriptor has an alignment it is that kind of act. You can't have it both ways.
Either binding demons work in a soup kitchen is evil AND casting protection from evil enough times allows you to murder children while retaining a good alignment.
OR that's all BS and spells don't have intrinsic morality.
Well supposedly King Solomon summoned a lot of demons and he was generally considered a good guy. And keep in mind he was making them do stuff in the name of God who is generally considered good.Which is why I said there were certain spells which I felt were alignment neutral but name me a saint who got that way by summoning demons, and furtermore explain why if he's so saintly he couldn't call upon an angel instead to help him in which case he doesn't plague the world with an increased number of unholy beings made of pure congealed evil.And if I cast protection from evil enough times, I'll stay a good character.
Because that is as equally dumb as being a saint who becomes evil by binding demons.
Jesus also had complete mastery over all demons, but most don't consider him evil.
Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?
you presume to know my thoughts now?
I posted the question looking for the reasons I could not put into words.When one uses potentialities to validate the choice rather than hard data... I am going to object.
Hawwe yuh gotta be f#%@in' kidding me! This doesn't have s#% to do with wizards being better than sorcerers come on!
Because they're coated in awessomesauce! All. The. Time.
You haven't read your Old Testment have you? Solomon for all his wisdom, ended up as an arrogant, decadent, and wicked king whose deeds offended God so much he told him that he would strip most of Israel from his birthright, which is why 10 of the tribal provinces were given to someone else.Well supposedly King Solomon summoned a lot of demons and he was generally considered a good guy. And keep in mind he was making them do stuff in the name of God who is generally considered good.Which is why I said there were certain spells which I felt were alignment neutral but name me a saint who got that way by summoning demons, and furtermore explain why if he's so saintly he couldn't call upon an angel instead to help him in which case he doesn't plague the world with an increased number of unholy beings made of pure congealed evil.And if I cast protection from evil enough times, I'll stay a good character.
Because that is as equally dumb as being a saint who becomes evil by binding demons.
God called Daniel a man after his own heart and we can all agree he was kind of an immoral jerk so... I'm guessing the bar for good is pretty low or God is just plain awful at picking people to rule. Either way Solomon was for a time considered a good and wise king and he summoned demons not angels.
Let me try to go back on topic:
Wizards can be better than sorcerers because they have the option to keep a spell slot open and use it to cast a highly circumstantial yet useful spell like control weather.
Sorcerer can do the same by buying a scroll (which the wizard had to do in the first place anyways).
What it all boils down to is whether you want to play a character that is always prepared (Wizard) or one that, despite being not as prepared, is ready to beat the living S#it out of things to get his way (sorcerer).
Or both (arcanist) yay
|
What it all boils down to is whether you want to play a character that is always prepared (Wizard)
Of course, one thing is often ignored on the forums is that, in the absence of the Schrödinger's wizard that is nigh omnipresent in all forum discussions: the question of whether or not what the wizard is prepared for has any relationship to the events that are actually occurring to him.
"No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."
- Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard Graf von Moltke
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?you presume to know my thoughts now?
I posted the question looking for the reasons I could not put into words.When one uses potentialities to validate the choice rather than hard data... I am going to object.
Except every single thing in this game is a "potentiality."
If a GM decides that Fighters use a 3/4ths BAB progression, that's the rule. It's a super-s#itty rule, but it's the rule.Ditto screwing your Wizard player out of a fair shot at finding extra spells to scribe.
Well supposedly King Solomon summoned a lot of demons and he was generally considered a good guy. And keep in mind he was making them do stuff in the name of God who is generally considered good.Which is why I said there were certain spells which I felt were alignment neutral but name me a saint who got that way by summoning demons, and furtermore explain why if he's so saintly he couldn't call upon an angel instead to help him in which case he doesn't plague the world with an increased number of unholy beings made of pure congealed evil.And if I cast protection from evil enough times, I'll stay a good character.
Because that is as equally dumb as being a saint who becomes evil by binding demons.
Word of David (through word of Joseph Heller) says Solomon was a dim-witted plagiarist, I'd say neutral at best.
Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?you presume to know my thoughts now?
I posted the question looking for the reasons I could not put into words.When one uses potentialities to validate the choice rather than hard data... I am going to object.
Except every single thing in this game is a "potentiality."
If a GM decides that Fighters use a 3/4ths BAB progression, that's the rule. It's a super-s#itty rule, but it's the rule.Ditto screwing your Wizard player out of a fair shot at finding extra spells to scribe.
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?What we know for a fact is that a wizard is only guaranteed to know All Cantrips, 3 + Int Mod 1st at 1st level and 2 additional spells equal to or below any level he is capable of casting. The rest is "potential."
I can buy a lottery ticket and I have the "potential" to win the jack pot but that outcome is not a forgone conclusion.
Now access to unique class features that is more of a selling point for a wizard. The Arcane discoveries (There really need to be more of these IMO) for example; these are (AFAIK) the exclusive right of the wizard. Having access to these is a selling point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?you presume to know my thoughts now?
I posted the question looking for the reasons I could not put into words.When one uses potentialities to validate the choice rather than hard data... I am going to object.
Except every single thing in this game is a "potentiality."
If a GM decides that Fighters use a 3/4ths BAB progression, that's the rule. It's a super-s#itty rule, but it's the rule.Ditto screwing your Wizard player out of a fair shot at finding extra spells to scribe.
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?
What we know for a fact is that a wizard is only guaranteed to know All Cantrips, 3 + Int Mod 1st at 1st level and 2 additional spells equal to or below any level he is capable of casting. The rest is "potential."
I can buy a lottery ticket and I have the "potential" to win the jack pot but that outcome is not a forgone conclusion.Now access to unique class features that is more of a selling point for a wizard. The Arcane discoveries (There really need to be more of these IMO) for example; these are (AFAIK) the exclusive right of the wizard. Having access to these is a selling point.
Take the players WBL and subtract the cost for an int item, a con item, and a cloak of resistance. The rest is used to either copy spells from spell books (CHEAP!) or buy scrolls and learn from them (not as cheap).
To be fair, Apply same logic to sorcerer with pages of spells known.
Subtract from both other potential cost (undead minions, binding bargains, magic jars, ect...)
EDIT: A generously low estimate would be double the base spells known. Triple is more reasonable. 10 times is quite doable. Regardless we're looking at several multiples more spells known than a sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?you presume to know my thoughts now?
I posted the question looking for the reasons I could not put into words.When one uses potentialities to validate the choice rather than hard data... I am going to object.
Except every single thing in this game is a "potentiality."
If a GM decides that Fighters use a 3/4ths BAB progression, that's the rule. It's a super-s#itty rule, but it's the rule.Ditto screwing your Wizard player out of a fair shot at finding extra spells to scribe.
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?
What we know for a fact is that a wizard is only guaranteed to know All Cantrips, 3 + Int Mod 1st at 1st level and 2 additional spells equal to or below any level he is capable of casting. The rest is "potential."
I can buy a lottery ticket and I have the "potential" to win the jack pot but that outcome is not a forgone conclusion.Now access to unique class features that is more of a selling point for a wizard. The Arcane discoveries (There really need to be more of these IMO) for example; these are (AFAIK) the exclusive right of the wizard. Having access to these is a selling point.
Take the players WBL and subtract the cost for an int item, a con item, and a cloak of resistance. The rest is used to either copy spells from spell books (CHEAP!) or buy scrolls and learn from them (not as cheap).
To be fair, Apply same logic to sorcerer with pages of spells known.
Subtract from both other potential cost (undead minions, binding bargains, magic jars, ect...)
EDIT: A generously low estimate would be double the base spells known. Triple is more reasonable. 10 times is...
so the answer is no there is no rule.
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?
As many as he chooses to have (or can afford). He gets scribe scroll for free. Add 5 to the spellcraft DC for not having the spell he wants. Boom. Scroll of whatever he wants. Copy scroll into spellbook. Profit.
Really, they are supposed to have bunches and bunches of spells.
...Since it derailed I have a better question why do people with defined opinions post threads under the guise of asking a question and then proceed to argue with all the answers they went to the trouble of soliciting?you presume to know my thoughts now?
I posted the question looking for the reasons I could not put into words.When one uses potentialities to validate the choice rather than hard data... I am going to object.
Except every single thing in this game is a "potentiality."
If a GM decides that Fighters use a 3/4ths BAB progression, that's the rule. It's a super-s#itty rule, but it's the rule.Ditto screwing your Wizard player out of a fair shot at finding extra spells to scribe.
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?
What we know for a fact is that a wizard is only guaranteed to know All Cantrips, 3 + Int Mod 1st at 1st level and 2 additional spells equal to or below any level he is capable of casting. The rest is "potential."
I can buy a lottery ticket and I have the "potential" to win the jack pot but that outcome is not a forgone conclusion.Now access to unique class features that is more of a selling point for a wizard. The Arcane discoveries (There really need to be more of these IMO) for example; these are (AFAIK) the exclusive right of the wizard. Having access to these is a selling point.
Take the players WBL and subtract the cost for an int item, a con item, and a cloak of resistance. The rest is used to either copy spells from spell books (CHEAP!) or buy scrolls and learn from them (not as cheap).
To be fair, Apply same logic to sorcerer with pages of spells known.
Subtract from both other potential cost (undead minions, binding bargains, magic jars, ect...)
EDIT: A generously low estimate would be double the base spells known. Triple is
The rule is however much of the Wizard's Wealth By level they want to spend, since at high level (9th) there's no problem teleporting/planeshifting until the 75% chance you get the spells you desire comes up. It will vary based solely on the preference of the player, but effectively a player will have the spells they desire to spend WBL on. Really your argument is becoming increasingly poor here.
Edit: Ninja'd by BigDTBone. Knew I should have used Swift Metamagic on my post.
When I GM; Wizards get their fair share of extra spells (and then some...) By level 5 it is not unreasonable, in one of my games, for them to know a minimum of 50 spells (Not including cantrips).
However I am not the norm in this region.
Out of the pool of 25 GMs available the average is closer to 20 total spells (not including cantrips) by level 5.
Because certain spells "break" the game instead of just curtailing the availability of those spells they have over reacted in typical human fashion and throttled the availability of all spells.
The "potential" to learn all spells is not a valid selling point.
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?
As many as he chooses to have (or can afford). He gets scribe scroll for free. Add 5 to the spellcraft DC for not having the spell he wants. Boom. Scroll of whatever he wants. Copy scroll into spellbook. Profit.
Really, they are supposed to have bunches and bunches of spells.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are the mods asleep? Why hasn't this troll been banned yet?
I thought this was an interesting thread about planar binding and King Solomon's ability to summon demons.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.
Amen.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.
So the GM has no say what so ever to what is and is not available in his world and where?
Not everyone plays in Golarion.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.
Who's dice!? GM's or player's?
Wow
Such house-rules
much fiat
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.So the GM has no say what so ever to what is and is not available in his world and where?
Not everyone plays in Golarion.
No one uses house-rules to measure class balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone plays in Golarion.
What does that have to do with anything?
Not everyone plays in Golarion.What does that have to do with anything?
Assuming CRB rules mean Golarion setting.
Therefore without that setting, such magic item rarity rules can be avoided.
Look it is really simple...
I asked why would someone play a Wizard.
And I have gotten some very good reasons from many of the posters here.
This whole hang up on the "well they can potentially know every spell" is whole other issue.
I have stated I do not consider that a valid selling point since it is too much of a variable that rests squarely in the hands of the GM.
If all you want to do is harp on that or attack my stance on it (some of you through insults) rather than provide alternate reasons then you should probably just move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok... lets go with that...
How many extra spells can a Wizard "reasonably" expect? is there a rule for that?
As many as he chooses to have (or can afford). He gets scribe scroll for free. Add 5 to the spellcraft DC for not having the spell he wants. Boom. Scroll of whatever he wants. Copy scroll into spellbook. Profit.
Really, they are supposed to have bunches and bunches of spells.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that;
You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes 2 hours if its base price is 250 gp or less, otherwise scribing a scroll takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. To scribe a scroll, you must use up raw materials costing half of this base price.
Specific beats general, thus you can't pull the "increase the DC by 5" trick with scrolls.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.
Wait, people actually roll on the random tables? I don't think I've played at a table that used them since at least 2e. I honestly don't see the benefit. As the DM, the only real benefit is speed, but you give up the ability to fine tune your world to suit the players and the campaign. And as a player, it basically ensures that the available magic items will be more often than not worthless to the party. So yeah, the only benefit I see is laziness.
As for the actual topic, while I don't really agree with the OP on much of any of his points, I do have to raise an eyebrow at those in this thread who seem to think that access to scrolls and spellbooks in any given town is a complete given, and in fact part of the rules. While I don't see any sane DM completely revoking a wizard's ability to copy scrolls and spellbooks into his own, I don't think it's that unreasonable to keep the spells a wizard has access to more limited than what they can get via WBL. I don't see it as any different than restricting magic items, by saying that there are no, or very few, magic items for purchase in stores, and the vast majority have to be either found in adventuring, or personally commissioned, which is a frequent answer to the "magic item mart" problem.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.So the GM has no say what so ever to what is and is not available in his world and where?
Not everyone plays in Golarion.
Of course the GM has say in what is and is not available. No one has said otherwise. But stop pretending that a lack of magical scrolls in the marketplace is anything other than GM fiat.
The GM can make it so you never find any weapons higher than +2. There is no rule that says he can't. Your options are to play in a world where weapons never get higher than +2 or just not play the game with that GM.
Simply put, you're asking for a hard-line rule that says scrolls are available? There isn't one. Just like there isn't a hard-line rule for the availability of any magic item.
But the core rules work under the assumption that "Scroll of X" is a magic item just like any other, and you should have as much of a chance of finding that as you would any other magic item you're after.
Simply put - If your GM decides that magic scrolls are harder to find than other types of magic items, that's a houserule. Please stop pretending it's anything else.
And who determines what spells are available? The player or the GM?The dice.So the GM has no say what so ever to what is and is not available in his world and where?
Not everyone plays in Golarion.Of course the GM has say in what is and is not available. No one has said otherwise. But stop pretending that a lack of magical scrolls in the marketplace is anything other than GM fiat.
The GM can make it so you never find any weapons higher than +2. There is no rule that says he can't. Your options are to play in a world where weapons never get higher than +2 or just not play the game with that GM.
Simply put, you're asking for a hard-line rule that says scrolls are available? There isn't one. Just like there isn't a hard-line rule for the availability of any magic item.
But the core rules work under the assumption that "Scroll of X" is a magic item just like any other, and you should have as much of a chance of finding that as you would any other magic item you're after.
Simply put - If your GM decides that magic scrolls are harder to find than other types of magic items, that's a houserule. Please stop pretending it's anything else.
Never claimed it was not a house rule.
But others seem to be working under the assumption that a Wizard can just pop down to the corner store and as long as he has the money he has an unlimited supply new spells regardless of the GMs plans or designs for the campaign world.
35 years of gaming (on both sides of the gm screen) and discussions with other players from all walks of life (over that 35 years) says my experiences are the norm.
2) every single Sorcerer build I have encountered says you are stating opinion as fact.
1) It would depend a LOT on the AP we were playing... In serpent skull there was NO PLACE to get new spell scrolls... In the rest we've played... not so much an issue, but not letting the wizard collect scrolls and loot spellbooks is insane to our games. There is an entire section of the Core talking about all the different ways that Wizards can add new spells, how much it costs, how long it takes, how many pages it takes..
It's all a part of the rules. It's intended that Wizards have more spells then sorcerers... but sorcerers don't have to prepare. that's the check and balance.
2) Then your turning a SAD character into a MAD one. One of the bonuses to making a wizard, is the double use of Int. Downside of sorcerer is that they have to take a hit on other stats if they want to pump up their Int too.
Honestly, I like all my characters to have 12+ Int regardless of class... but I acknowledge that they aren't as min/maxed as they could be.
But if the question is why wizard over sorcerer... the answer is more spells and SAD. If people don't play that way in their games... then yeah, sorcerer is probably better.
35 years of gaming (on both sides of the gm screen) and discussions with other players from all walks of life (over that 35 years) says my experiences are the norm.
2) every single Sorcerer build I have encountered says you are stating opinion as fact.
1) It would depend a LOT on the AP we were playing... but not letting the wizard collect scrolls and loot spellbooks is insane to our games. There is an entire section of the Core talking about all the different ways that Wizards can add new spells, how much it costs, how long it takes, how many pages it takes..
It's all a part of the rules. It's intended that Wizards have more spells then sorcerers... but sorcerers don't have to prepare. that's the check and balance.
2) Then your turning a SAD character into a MAD one. One of the bonuses to making a wizard, is the double use of Int. Downside of sorcerer is that they have to take a hit on other stats if they want to pump up their Int too.
Honestly, I like all my characters to have 12+ Int regardless of class... but I acknowledge that they aren't as min/maxed as they could be.
But if the question is why wizard over sorcerer... the answer is more spells and SAD. If people don't play that way in their games... then yeah, sorcerer is probably better.
Ok so we have established that Wizards are supposed to have more spells than Sorcerers... This is not always the case however (in my region anyway). So what what other reasons are there?
The SAD v MAD has some merit...But honestly? I have always worked under the assumption that all classes are MAD (STR for CMB, DEX for AC, etc...)
So what what other reasons are there
Other reasons have been provided, several times over the past 6 pages. Please go back and read through those, before asking people to post "other reasons" again.
-Nearyn
So what what other reasons are thereOther reasons have been provided, several times over the past 6 pages. Please go back and read through those, before asking people to post "other reasons" again.
-Nearyn
kinda hard to see them through all the noise of the tangent conversations on specific spell/feat/ability chain tricks for the journey to teh awesome...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so we have established that Wizards are supposed to have more spells than Sorcerers... This is not always the case however (in my region anyway). So what what other reasons are there?
The SAD v MAD has some merit...
But honestly? I have always worked under the assumption that all classes are MAD (STR for CMB, DEX for AC, etc...)
Other reasons besides magic?? Gonna be hard pressed to find one. Wizards are magic... everything about them comes down to spells... nerf the selection and it gets tough.
CMB??? I've had 4 charcters now, and haven't made a CMB attack yet with one... I certainly wouldn't try with a caster. Con is always useful... but casters have way to avoid HP loss...
Dex is usually the other one I go with for the unarmored casters, but for a Sorcerer he'll now need THREE good stats if you go that route...
Personally I like the specialty school abilities. Diviner at least, never looked too closely at the rest. Those seem to be unique to the wizards. They get their spells earlier...
/shrug That's probably about it. Honestly they aren't THAT different. And I wouldn't WANT them to be... the idea that one class MUST be the immediate go-to class for a certain role annoys me. I LIKE that there are multiple ways to get to something depending on the flavor you want the guy to be.
As such... 'Arcane' bloodline is one of the most boring ones I've seen. Part demon, part fey, part something is a lot cooler then 'like a wizard but not...'
So far I've played an infernal sorcerer and an Oracle/diviner multiclass. The wizard is nice for the knowledge and spell selection. But he has to plan well to have the right ones prepared.
Personallly I HATE metamagic stuff with wizards. The whole 'plan ahead' to use up slots of +1 or +2 levels... ughhh... Sorcerers are MUCH better with the metamagic since you can decide on the fly. I'm also a fan of that 'eschew materials' that sorcerers get for free.
Pluses and minuses... depends on what your goal is.