Standards are in the eye of the beholder. Many may feel that the sorcerer or wizard needs a buff because they are falling short of totally dominating play as these players feel they should. (I'm not one of them.)Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.I don't know if sorcerers need a buff.
Let's not even talk about fighter, rogue, monk, but are sorcerers underpowered compared to magi, summoners, inquisitors, slayers, brawlers, druids, clerics, oracles, wizards, gunslingers, paladins, shamans, bloodragers, skaalds, hunters, cavaliers, and rangers?
If sorcerers are so underpowered compared to arcanist that they need a buff, sorcerer might not be the problem.
Yep, different strokes for different folks.
I have felt that the Magus, Inquisitor, Paladin, and Beast/Superstitious Barbarian are about where I would set the bar, for my sweet spot.
Give me +/- 10%-15% efficiency in some fields to boost other fields on every class and weight each field for average play time and I would say we are all good.
But, I am of the opinion we need a power band in all categories Skills, Defenses, HP damage, Magic, etc...
In short competent should be the minimum bar for everyone with all classes having something they are exceptional in.
Glaring weaknesses can be a character option if desired, but not a default assumption.
All of this said, sorcerer may or may not be worse than wizard and arcanist or perhaps even cleric or oracle or druid, however it is still a very powerful class and unequivocally does not require a buff.
Well if people want it buffed anyway it can get inline behind the Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Samurai.
The Gunslinger called and said he is a pistolero dwarf dual wielding greater reliable double barreled pistols so its all ok. I tried to tell him DPR is not everything, but he was all "What Bro? Can't hear you, busy blowing up dragons Bro!"...
Just my two cents anyway.
If sorcerers are so underpowered compared to arcanist that they need a buff, sorcerer might not be the problem.+1.
+2.
Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.
Just because sorcerers aren't the most powerful casting class doesn't mean that they need a power boost. If anything, they and the Oracle are two most balanced of the full casters. The limit on spells known, and built in flavor options from Bloodlines, Mysteries and Curses makes them infinitely more interesting and fun to me than the Wizard's "I read books and cast spells" gimmick.
Obviously from a pure power perspective they don't hold up, but I wouldn't mind if there wasn't any class as powerful as the Wizard.
I actually kind of like the current version of Paragon Surge. It gives spontaneous casters the ability to provide some of the utility their prepared caster cousins regularly use without completely outperforming the latter the way the original paragon surge did.
For example a sorcerer can use Paragon Surge to pick up (at the time high level) utility spells such as Fabricate, Teleport, or Masterwork Transformation without burning a Spell Known on situational spells - teleport is an awesome spell, but a 10th level sorcerer typically has other things on his mind.
ON a similar note the Oracle is now able to provide a lot of the same downtime support a cleric does by Paragon Surging in Remove Disease, Remove Blindness, Neutralize Poison and so on. I actually think the Oracle is better off than the sorcerer in this regard. The arcane spell list is fairly robust and flexible and with the extra spell FCB you can make reasonably flexible sorcerers. However the cleric/oracle spell list is very much written based on the idea that the cleric automatically knows all spells on his list - so it has lots of spells with really narrow applications, making it harder to make the Oracle's spells known cover all your bases. As an example wizards get Vanish, clerics get Hide From Undead - wizards get Glitterdust, clerics get Invisibility Purge and so on.
Granted, that is a lot of power contained in a 3rd level spell, and (like the Extra Spell Known FCB) it might be better if that utility entered the system in a form that wasn't limited to a handful of races. I'm going to lift my ban of the spell in an upcoming campaign and I'm curious to see how it will play out.
I think it would have been enough to limit the secondary choice to once per day. So that you could choose a different feat each time you cast it, but if you picked the same feat twice, you'd get the same choice.
That shuts down the spells known ability as much as this fix does, while still leaving flexibility for things like martial feats.
I like that suggestion better than what has happened.
. . .
Level alchemist 3, cleric 3, magus 4, paladin 4, sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 3 . . . .
So... may we discuss how this faqrata has impacted 7th level and higher alchemists, 10th level and higher magi, 13th level and higher paladins, and 5th level and higher witches? ... because there used to be other feats to borrow than expanded arcana ... and until the arcanist is officially released, there are other classes than oracle and sorcerer.
. . .
The sorcerer has a very large number of additional spells available . . . if, as a sorcerer, you cannot find a solution to any potential problem you encounter with 60 different spells available then you are probably doing something wrong.
. . .
It is worth pointing out as well that the sorcerer can also get access to a huge number of divine spells through the Razmirian Priest archetype by effectively turning divine scrolls into pages of spells knowledge at level 9.
And wands and staffs... and probably a few others. The false priest archetype also gives you a lot more spells known, as many as you can buy, steal, or find.
But then again, I agree with those specific points. If you had to have paragon surge to have the 'right' tool for the job as opposed to a useful one, that's a problem with perception. I you had absolutely no good spells to use, you picked really badly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please not automatically assume that all sorcerers use the FCB for extra spells known? It's a fantastic option, but it's only available for ~4 out of the 35+ races in the game.
It's a bit like arguing that fighters are not limited to specializing in a specific weapon because Martial Versatility is a thing, or that the bard spell list is extremely varied because Samsarans can poach the wizard spell list.
While true, it kind of misses the point.
Can we please not automatically assume that all sorcerers use the FCB for extra spells known?
No we can't. Not unless they are blaster half-orcs or gnome illusionist.
The people who are concerned about arcanist vs sorcerer are the same people that would not play a dwarf sorcerer (baring that one bloodline that makes the class wis-based)
Considering how most of the core races can use human sorcerer FCB it's not a bad assumption to make. Nor is it against flavor that some "bloodlines" of sorcerer are stronger than others.
NOTE: 2 things about the sorcerer
1. Paragon surge is in a place now that I would actually use it. Before this nerf I wouldn't touch it for being extreme cheese.
2. Sorcerers make great villains. Easier to create with spell known limits, no need to make a prepared list, strongest liches, charismatic enough to have many followers and tell convincing lies or just bind demons to attack the party.
I've always felt that the CHA-casting lends itself to feeling more powerful as the caster. You aren't casting with smarts, you are altering reality with the force of your personality and that comes with real benefits in social situations and easier binding (moment of prescience doesn't solve all problems depending on how much you are binding per day and comes significantly later than when most sorcerers start binding at level 11.)
...
The people who are concerned about arcanist vs sorcerer are the same people that would not play a dwarf sorcerer (baring that one bloodline that makes the class wis-based)Considering how most of the core races can use human sorcerer FCB it's not a bad assumption to make.
...
First part seems like somthing you make up.
And second part is wrong 3/7 is not most.
Can we please not automatically assume that all sorcerers use the FCB for extra spells known?No we can't. Not unless they are blaster half-orcs or gnome illusionist.
The people who are concerned about arcanist vs sorcerer are the same people that would not play a dwarf sorcerer (baring that one bloodline that makes the class wis-based)
That is both insulting and factually inaccurate.
Even without the bonus sorcerers will generally have more spells at the ready than archaists, since they can cast any spell they have in their repertoire on demand.
Indeed she does, but let's consider the actual numbers:
An arcanist gets a maximum of 34 spells "known" at level 20.A normal sorcerer gains 43 spells known at level 20.
A sorcerer using the FCB gains 59 spells at level 20.
If the arcanist gets a similar theoretic FCB she'd be up to 50 spells "known" at level 20 - more than a normal sorcerer.
I'm wondering if part of the reason why people disagree on the sorcerer v the arcanist is that they're arguing from different positions. If you automatically assume the sorcerer uses the FCB then she has close to twice as many spells known as the arcanist. If you decide not to use the FCB, the gap between the two is a lot closer.
If the Arcanist gets a theoretical similar FCB as the sorcerer... Well, that'd be unfortunate.
I think it's safe to assume that the arcanist knows vastly more spells than the sorcerer regardless of kind.
Arcanist prepared spont is less than sorcerer spell known which gives a well built sorcerer an edge, but the arcanist ability to adapt to the campaign is not something to be dismissed.
Like sorcerer vs wizard
A wizard has more possibilities than a sorcerer, but a sorcerer is many possibilities at once.
The arcanist falls to the same comparison but the gap is smaller. The sorcerer is still more possibilities at once than the arcanist but that is a narrow niche.
It's not rogue narrow, but it encroaches on being fighter narrow. While those two classes may deserve having narrow niches do to their quality, I doubt anyone thinks that of the sorcerer.
If I understand the argument, without this trick the sorcerer is obsoleted by the arcanist. Which is a still unreleased playtest class widely considered to be overpowered?
Isn't it at least possible that even without the trick, the sorcerer may not be so bad by comparison to the final version of the arcanist?
The arcanist preview didn't suggest any major changes to how it works and in fact suggested they are getting a larger range of potentially even more powerful exploits.
I personally don't see the arcanist as we know it currently as obsoleting the human FCB sorcerer. Having an extra 25 spells known and immediately available of levels 1-9 is a major difference. If the arcanist has ways of getting more spells prepared then I will be first in line at the sorcerers wake as at that point they wont have any real class feature advantages.
So... one specific sorcerer... that seems pretty bad to me... The Arcanist with the exploit to change spells seems to put the sorcerer to shame pretty badly honestly....
Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.I don't know if sorcerers need a buff.
Let's not even talk about fighter, rogue, monk, but are sorcerers underpowered compared to magi, summoners, inquisitors, slayers, brawlers, druids, clerics, oracles, wizards, gunslingers, paladins, shamans, bloodragers, skaalds, hunters, cavaliers, and rangers?
If sorcerers are so underpowered compared to arcanist that they need a buff, sorcerer might not be the problem.
You are right. Altho I do say that the martial/caster disparity is not what a few very loud posters claim it is, still full casters need no boost. Except maybe at the first few levels, and PF has done a decent job of doing that what with Bloodlines, unlimited cantrips and what-not.
The Favored Class Bonus does give sorcs a huge bonus, but do note it's not quite as good as some have made out, as for the first few levels it's rather silly to take that instead of more HP, since at low levels just a couple more HP can save you live, and a extra couple of cantrips are no big deal.
In any case, since generally we're free to choose our races and since humans* are just about the most common race, it's reasonable to assume a FCB Sorc vs a Arcanist.
Then there's the bloodline powers and spells, which are very nice.
*Half-elves and Half orcs are not rare either.
While it is a nerf, it's not nearly as bad of a nerf as it could have been. Yes, you can only grab new spells once per day but it's still once per day. They could have easily said making a choice with the feat (like Extra Revelation or Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane)) was permanent. The spells or revelation gained would be the same everytime you selected that feat with the spell.
Once per day is a nerf. I don't agree with it being answered as a 'FAQ', but it's what they went with and it's not a complete neuter. An errata would force a change in print, if I recall.
Not as bad a nerf as it should have been.
I came to post the same fix you did: Surging a feat that requires a choice locks that choice.
That's what I would've done, but I can live with this version.
Well Razmiran Priest Sorcerers will always be viable. Always. But yes I do worry for Sorcerers when Arcanist comes out, not because Sorcerers need a buff, but because Arcanist neatly outshines most Sorcerers at their own thing. And that's before we see Arcanists FCB, one of which will almost certainly be more spells. Heck, I'd bet a PP on it.
That's correct. Very few sorcs are going to spend their FC points on cantrips at 1-3. The default is almost always hit points for those levels.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm one of those few then because I love extra cantrips.
An arcanist gets a maximum of 34 spells "known" at level 20.
A normal sorcerer gains 43 spells known at level 20.
A sorcerer using the FCB gains 60 spells at level 20.If the arcanist gets a similar theoretic FCB she'd be up to 51 spells "known" at level 20 - more than a normal sorcerer.
These numbers do not include cantrips as spells known, nor do they include cantrips picked up via FCB.
I assumed the sorcerer used his FCB on HP or skills for the first 3 levels and only started picking up spells via FCB on level 4, so +17 spells known.
An arcanist gets a maximum of 34 spells "known" at level 20.
A normal sorcerer gains 43 spells known at level 20.
A sorcerer using the FCB gains 59 spells at level 20.If the arcanist gets a similar theoretic FCB she'd be up to 50 spells "known" at level 20 - more than a normal sorcerer.
These numbers do not include cantrips as spells known, nor do they include cantrips picked up via FCB.
I assumed the sorcerer used his FCB on HP or skills for the first 3 levels and only started picking up spells via FCB on level 4, so +16 spells known.
That would make it +17
...Damn it. I hate math. Edited the above post with the extra +1 spell.
I'm one of those few then because I love extra cantrips.
Likewise. I'll take three cantrips over three hp any day of the week.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who doesn't think the Arcanist is overpowered?
I mean let's consider this one corner case being the only thing that is discussed in this thread, that the Paragon Surge spell is only available to half-elves, and that it is the only viable choice to make a sorcerer because internet forums teach us that the only way to make an effective character is to maximize the number of options.
Let's consider the fact that only so many options are really needed. Once you get your baseline covered, you really don't need 100 extra spells available to you if the ones you already know get the job done.
If a wizard/arcanist has three different options to accomplish any given task, but only uses one, then what is the difference from the sorcerer who just used the one option that the wizard/arcanist used? Absolutely none. Zero difference other than the wizard could have done something else.
At the end of the day I feel the devs are in the right for disregarding most of these debates about Schrodinger's wizard and now Schrodinger's arcanist because the semantics of which really don't affect the game as much as internet forums say they do.
As to the actual topic, Paragon Surge really didn't need a nerf imo. Just like Magic Item Crafting, higher level spells like wish, and entire archetypes of classes, if you find something is creating imbalance to the metagame of organized play, then either you need to change the way you do organized play or just ban the spell.
I highly doubt Paragon Surge was intended to let you spam for X amount of feats or the ability to (permanently?) memorize spells when you otherwise simply wouldn't be able to.
The FAQ fixes that level of munchkinism. It's still a very powerful option. It just removed the very abusive cheese factor that would be present in all sorts of gameplay, not just organized play.
And to be fair, if you have to go one specific race with a specific spell that was non-core (didn't come until ARG released, which was a couple years and multiple books later from when Core was published) to accomplish something that is about as broken as Nature Oracle munchkinism, you weren't really going to be getting anywhere with it.
I will point out again, that even if there are really all of these "badwrongfun" options for players to choose from (9th level spellcasters are still by far better than anything a given martial or skill monkey has to offer, how Sorcerers are simply getting bad I'll never understand), [b]some players still choose those "badwrongfun" options[/url]. It's the same garbage which came from the dumpsters of the "Fighters, Rogues, and Vanilla Monks Suck" train.
If you haven't noticed, Paizo "obsoleting classes" is perhaps one of their most common tropes which is caused when the demand for new/fresh/better(/stronger) content grows and they are forced to expand the power creep, an issue they sure didn't invent. The only difference is there were no 9th level casters being obsoleted in the previous cases. In this case, now there is one (apparently, though, as stated above, they are still so much more valuable than anything that is a 6th/4th level spellcaster class or martials or skill monkeys). Why is that a big deal now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.
Sorcerers are a strong class. They can still make GM's cry if the players chooses to go that route. They are not wizards, but then again, neither is anyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who doesn't think the Arcanist is overpowered?
No, you're not. The Arcanist is pretty similar to how I've run wizards in a few of my games (I replaced Vancian casting with a spell point system, no fire and forget. Wizards could swap out spells each day). I don't think they're overpowered at all.
As to the Paragon Surge spell, it had never come up in my game. I don't use traits, so Racial Heritage isn't a thing, and if any of my players had ever even noticed the spell, they probably assumed they'd have to be a half-elf (surprisingly unpopular in my personal experience) to use it. If one had seen it and asked, I would have allowed other races to use it. What I wouldn't have allowed was that specific use of it that led to the faq. I would have ruled against it the first time it came up.
Wait, I take that back. Thinking about it now, I probably would allow the extra spell known feat (not the eldritch heritage one), but limited to a spell of level two or lower, to keep it from being too powerful an effect for a third level spell.
I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.
I'd like for some of the abuses to be closed.
Actually. I've been looking at Dreamscarred Psionics, those "casters" are far more balanced in my opinion. They aren't weaker but their defenses are more traditional (higher AC more HP save boosting) and less borked (mirror image). Certian spells aren't weaker but less prone to abuse. Astral constructs replace summoning but don't require an extra rules section restricting summons (like no teleport), they just don't give those the ability in the first place. On the whole I find the whole "magic" system a lot cleaner. There are mainly things a Psion can't do that a wizard could, but Psions can do little things like HEAL THEMSELVES.
A psion with psycic reformation could play like an arcanist just not at level 1.
If anyone is looking for "more balanced" spellcasting, I would look that way.
Yes, awakened animals and simulacrums absolutely NEED to be templated.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If the Arcanist gets a theoretical similar FCB as the sorcerer... Well, that'd be unfortunate.
I'm operating under the presumption that the arcanist FCB will look more like the wizard/witch's - get an extra spell in your spellbook.
Since spells prepared is a deliberate limiting factor on the arcanist, I can't really see expanding that using the FCB.
Yes, awakened animals and simulacrums absolutely NEED to be templated.
I think simulacrums should just be rewritten, but awaken _____ should be a template. I also think mummies should have been a template.
PS:Someone told me mummies were a template in bestiary 4, but I never checked.
I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.
How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
It's really not though, or at least not anymore then the GM determines how much of a benefit you get out of Power Attack. They clearly keep their non-HD dependent abilities and in the case of things like Efreets, this is absurdly powerful. That being said, even the *intended* use is really really powerful, as a half-HD version of yourself is going to be an incredible minion.
I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
I want an official version so that as a player no matter if I sit down with GM A or GM B, I know how the spell works. I dont care if the nerf it as long as I get consistency. I understand spells such as Wish and Miracle being open ended, but if you copy a creature you should get the same copy every time.
I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
Just to be clear it is not broken in the sense of being OP necessarily, but broken in the sense that it does not work all that well if every GM might give you a different answer. That is the broken I meant for this.
Just to be clear it is not broken in the sense of being OP necessarily, but broken in the sense that it does not work all that well if every GM might give you a different answer. That is the broken I meant for this.I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
I can't guarantee you that my hypothetical blog is going to limit it down to an exact formula (well, I can't even guarantee the blog itself, but you know what I mean) since monsters can sometimes be all over the place with how they do what they do, so an exact formula may be impossible.
I can't guarantee you that my hypothetical blog is going to limit it down to an exact formula (well, I can't even guarantee the blog itself, but you know what I mean) since monsters can sometimes be all over the place with how they do what they do, so an exact formula may be impossible.Just to be clear it is not broken in the sense of being OP necessarily, but broken in the sense that it does not work all that well if every GM might give you a different answer. That is the broken I meant for this.I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
I understand that so I will say this-->Something a lot more precise is what I would like. :)
I can't guarantee you that my hypothetical blog is going to limit it down to an exact formula (well, I can't even guarantee the blog itself, but you know what I mean) since monsters can sometimes be all over the place with how they do what they do, so an exact formula may be impossible.Just to be clear it is not broken in the sense of being OP necessarily, but broken in the sense that it does not work all that well if every GM might give you a different answer. That is the broken I meant for this.I don't really have want them nerfed, but I do want Simulacrum fixed.How is it broken? Several folks from Paizo have commented on it being the GM's job to determine exactly what the copy gets.
A somewhat elegant suggestion I've seen mentioned, but sadly can't remember by who, would be for the template to remove all SLA's that are spells that are higher leveled then half of the resulting (resulting is an incredibly important word here, like absolutely critical!) simulacrums HD. So if you made a Simulacrum of an Efreet the resulting simulacrum would have 5 HD. Half of 5 HD would be 2 (in 3.5/PF world anyway) thus any SLA's that mimic spells that are higher leveled then 2 are removed. Thus it would lose it's plane shift, wall of fire, gaseous form, permanent image and wish.
I'd also make the template take half of the targets HD and Class levels in equal portions and not permit the class levels to contribute to HD for the purpose of the above. Thus an Efreet Bard 6 would end up being a 5 HD Efreet with 3 Bard levels. But it would not have a halved HD of 4 for SLA purposes and thus pick back up Wall of Fire and Gaseous Form.
I got nothing for SUs or EX though.
Am I really so strange that I'd want the skill points over cantrips and HP? There are only so many cantrips that interest me.
All three choices are viable, but certainly at first level, I'd take HP. Assuming of course you're actually playing at 1st level.
Class design which is not organic, and say starts at 10 or even 20th level is considerably different that a PC which actually plays thru all the levels.