Sorcerer the poor man's everything


Advice

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I have seen a lot of comments that amount to why play a sorcerer when you can play x - particularly for the Cleric (divine) and the Bard (occult).

Because those classes get powerful class features (composition cantrips and Channel energy etc) which the sorcerer doesn't.

Given composition cantrips are neet and Channel energy amounts 3-6 extra top level spells I can see where they are coming from.

Do you feel these criticism are fair?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh... yes and no.

Yes, it's fair to say that those other classes are cool and you'd rather play them because you like their features better than you like the sorcerer features.

But no, it's not fair to treat "I'd rather play something else" as inherently being "this option isn't good enough."

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I made my angelic sorcerer because I'm tired of prepared casters, and wanted good on-demand healing. I get the Divine list on terms I like.

At low level the divine list is a bit slow on offensive spells. But an interesting quirk of sorcerers is that they work very well with innate cantrips, because they use Charisma as casting stat. So as a gnome I grabbed Electric Arc and Ray of Frost and from the divine list I get Disrupt Undead and Holy Lance, and now I'm ready for a lot of different things.


Honestly not really. The problem specifically with cleric is that while you do get channel energy, you also get one less spell of every level, and you have to prepare spells. Personally, having (at 20th level) 5-6 extra heal spells seems worse to me than does having one extra spell of each level and being able to pick the level of heal you need for the situation. Not to mention being able to do that for *all* your other spells.

Bard's a different story, however, as there's not a real replacement for composition cantrips. Still, you could likely take Sorcerer MC into bard if you only wanted access to early cantrips.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, to a large extent the criticisms are fair in my opinion. You play sorcerer if you want the flavour but not the crunch (in particular in regards to the Bard - which leads to the question "Is the Bard overpowered overall?")

In regards to the Cleric, the problem as it relates to the sorcerer is that most of the sorcerer bloodlines powers and required spells are either dead or severely underpowered. So the "extra" spell is really knee-capped while the versatility of the cleric shines


From anecdotal experience, sorcerers are fine. We just started our campaign, about 3 sessions in, and both the Divine sorcerer and the cleric are feeling useful. They're both still feeling out their characters and both have their issues. For example, the cleric has a hard time damaging things because we've been fighting mostly neutral enemies, while the sorcerer got Produce Flame from his bloodline. Meanwhile, the sorcerer feels like he often wastes his turn due to how much he likes save or suck spells like command, but that's more to do with his playstyle than the class itself. The barbarian is also multiclassing into a divine sorcerer, but that just happened so I can't say how that's working out yet.

Side note, both of them love their focus powers (Diabolic Edict and Protector's Sacrifice). They have no complaints there.


Diabolic Edict is awkward. It doesn't work on enemies, making the debuff part mostly pointless. But it has no immunity so it can be used as better-Guidance.


Hsui wrote:
In regards to the Cleric, the problem as it relates to the sorcerer is that most of the sorcerer bloodlines powers and required spells are either dead or severely underpowered. So the "extra" spell is really knee-capped while the versatility of the cleric shines

The way to "fix" this is to MC into something that has a good focus power and take "Bloodline Focus" at 12. Bard or Champion both work pretty well for this (counter perform/lingering, lay on hands). That way, while you have a wasted spell, that ability at least granted you an additional focus point, which can be very valuable.

Also, just generally, one more spell of each level... I thought all the classes got the same number of spells/level until I looked at Sorcerer. It's a pretty big advantage even without spontaneous/heightening.

EDIT: TBH, I think Sorcerers make better healers than clerics. From a straight-up amount of HPs healed, clerics win hands down, but for being able to remove harmful conditions and cast the right heal spell for the situation, Sorcerers have a big advantage.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Huh.

This thread makes a nice change from the "ArCaNe EVoLuTiOn mAKeS WiaZaRdS OBSolEET" posts I've waded through recently.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem the Sorcerer has is that a lot of the bloodlines have some pretty questionable focus spells. Whether or not your chosen bloodline's spell is worth using can have a big impact on your playability at low level.

I think in general though people underestimate spontaneous casting as a mechanic this edition. PF2 wants you to be pretty particular with your spell selection and that makes being able to pick your spells on the fly a really meaningful advantage. Theorycrafting tends to always assume the wizard or druid or cleric has the right spell prepared at the right time but that's harder to do this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And Sorcerer has Crossblooded Evolution. It's the only class who really has access to one Tradition + one spell of another tradition which can be made into a Signature Spell. That feat is for me what makes Sorcerer excellent. All other casters have limitations, not the Sorcerer. You can go Arcane and Heal like a Divine. Go Occult and blast like a Primal. Go Primal and debuff like an Occult. By just picking the top spell of the other tradition (Heal, Synesthesia, Disintegrate, Heroism, Haste... there are not that many excellent spells you could want).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

The biggest problem the Sorcerer has is that a lot of the bloodlines have some pretty questionable focus spells. Whether or not your chosen bloodline's spell is worth using can have a big impact on your playability at low level.

I think in general though people underestimate spontaneous casting as a mechanic this edition. PF2 wants you to be pretty particular with your spell selection and that makes being able to pick your spells on the fly a really meaningful advantage. Theorycrafting tends to always assume the wizard or druid or cleric has the right spell prepared at the right time but that's harder to do this edition.

It was hard to do in the last edition as well. It was exactly like you say “theorycrafting”.

In theory the new game design should allow them to just introduce other options as focus spells for each bloodline - say to the point where everyone has 3 to choose from. I hope they do this as it would take literally a page of content and be a super easy fix

Then they can also add in class archetypes for sorcerer that trades out the bloodline focus spell as well. Two fixes there that shouldn’t be too onerous on paper

It is disappointing that the power level is all over the shop for things like sorcerer , wizard and cleric focus/domain powers. Starting the game from fresh with focus spells being a new thing should have meant that didn’t happen. Variable domain powers was a big thing in 1E and unfortunately it has stayed


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Huh.

This thread makes a nice change from the "ArCaNe EVoLuTiOn mAKeS WiaZaRdS OBSolEET" posts I've waded through recently.

Squiggit wrote:
I think in general though people underestimate spontaneous casting as a mechanic this edition. PF2 wants you to be pretty particular with your spell selection and that makes being able to pick your spells on the fly a really meaningful advantage. Theorycrafting tends to always assume the wizard or druid or cleric has the right spell prepared at the right time but that's harder to do this edition.

IMO Cleric > Sorc > Wizard

So the idea that "sorc is poor man's everything else" feels true-ish for every comparison other than Wizard.

I definitely feel that a divine sorcerer is worse than a cleric and that a bard is better than an occult sorcerer. Druid and primal sorc I don't even thing operate in the same sphere other than sharing a spell list (druids do wildshaping or animal companioning more than they rely on their spell list).

Can a divine sorcerer buff better than a cleric because they can cast the same buffs over and over and over? Sure. But that's literally the worst version of a divine spellcaster (and on healing, they're outperformed by the cleric that's using only a no-upgrades divine font) because buffs are small, single-target, and short-lived.

Sovereign Court

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Huh.

This thread makes a nice change from the "ArCaNe EVoLuTiOn mAKeS WiaZaRdS OBSolEET" posts I've waded through recently.

The forum is awash in panicky threads of people claiming class X is so hosed, for just about every possible value of X.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Huh.

This thread makes a nice change from the "ArCaNe EVoLuTiOn mAKeS WiaZaRdS OBSolEET" posts I've waded through recently.

The forum is awash in panicky threads of people claiming class X is so hosed, for just about every possible value of X.

People seem to like bards, at least


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Can a divine sorcerer buff better than a cleric because they can cast the same buffs over and over and over? Sure. But that's literally the worst version of a divine spellcaster (and on healing, they're outperformed by the cleric that's using only a no-upgrades divine font) because buffs are small, single-target, and short-lived.

Divine sorcerer can blast better than a cleric however... and that does matter. Dangerous Sorcery works with Heal AoE as well as other targetted and AoE spells. Angelic line actually makes the sorcerer's heals more powerful overall (+2 healing/max spell level makes lower level heals a lot better... vs using a d10 which is effectively +1 healing/level).

Buffs aren't really what you're looking at when you're considering a Divine Sorcerer. Sure, having one or two can help, but they're not the spells you'll be auto-heightening, and not where the advantage of going Sorcerer really figures in.


An advantage divine sorcerer has over cleric at high levels as a primary healer is not needing to know what sort of enemies they are fighting. Whether curses, high level poisons, diseases, or other conditions removed through restoration or similar, the primary healer sorcerer can choose a lot of these as signature spells and heighten them to the needed level when and if they show up. The cleric has more trouble dealing with non-damage effects thanks to the changes so that counteract checks are needed - you can only prepare a few high level debuff removals, and may not pick the right ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Can a divine sorcerer buff better than a cleric because they can cast the same buffs over and over and over? Sure. But that's literally the worst version of a divine spellcaster (and on healing, they're outperformed by the cleric that's using only a no-upgrades divine font) because buffs are small, single-target, and short-lived.
Divine sorcerer can blast better than a cleric however... and that does matter.

With a spell list nearly devoid of blasting spells.

Yes, Heal/Harm exist, but using them for this purpose is not ideal.

Quote:
Angelic line actually makes the sorcerer's heals more powerful overall (+2 healing/max spell level makes lower level heals a lot better... vs using a d10 which is effectively +1 healing/level).

Other thread did a comparison. Sorc only comes out ahead when using 3-action heals and getting maximum targets in a 15 foot radius (Angelic Halo only works at 15 feet!). Cleric otherwise ends up ahead. And oh yeah, Cleric can 3-action heal for 2 actions.

Quote:
Buffs aren't really what you're looking at when you're considering a Divine Sorcerer. Sure, having one or two can help, but they're not the spells you'll be auto-heightening, and not where the advantage of going Sorcerer really figures in.

Yes. That's why I said:

me wrote:
that's literally the worst version of a divine spellcaster


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:

With a spell list nearly devoid of blasting spells.

You don't care, you just take the best one and make a Signature spell out of it. Fireball at low level, then Cone of Cold and finally Meteor Swarm. So your blasting's fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Can a divine sorcerer buff better than a cleric because they can cast the same buffs over and over and over? Sure. But that's literally the worst version of a divine spellcaster (and on healing, they're outperformed by the cleric that's using only a no-upgrades divine font) because buffs are small, single-target, and short-lived.
Divine sorcerer can blast better than a cleric however... and that does matter.

With a spell list nearly devoid of blasting spells.

Yes, Heal/Harm exist, but using them for this purpose is not ideal.

Sure, they don't get many blasting spells.... but the ones they do get are the best in the game. Searing Light, Spirit Blast, and Sunburst are the best single target attack spell against undead, the best single target generic attack spell, and the best AoE against undead in the game respectively. NTM, they can opt into either True Strike or a solid AoE (Fireball?) via Crossblood Evolution.


SuperBidi wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

With a spell list nearly devoid of blasting spells.

You don't care, you just take the best one and make a Signature spell out of it. Fireball at low level, then Cone of Cold and finally Meteor Swarm. So your blasting's fine.

In fairness, the thing discussed here was divine Sorcerer, and that's not on their list. Totally works for Primal Sorcerer, but that's a different beast.


Draco18s wrote:
Quote:
Angelic line actually makes the sorcerer's heals more powerful overall (+2 healing/max spell level makes lower level heals a lot better... vs using a d10 which is effectively +1 healing/level).
Other thread did a comparison. Sorc only comes out ahead when using 3-action heals and getting maximum targets in a 15 foot radius (Angelic Halo only works at 15 feet!). Cleric otherwise ends up ahead. And oh yeah, Cleric can 3-action heal for 2 actions

Not sure I understand the comparison that was done here... Sorcerer single target heal with angelic halo is better than cleric single target heal with Healing Hands. Were they considering both Communal Healing and Improved Communal Healing as part of that package? In that case, cleric breaks even for their highest level single target heal spells. AoE is obviously harder for Sorcerer, so I totally grant you that. Though I do feel like the fact that the single target heal spell heals around 3x as much as the AoE makes the single target a lot more appealing in more situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

With a spell list nearly devoid of blasting spells.

You don't care, you just take the best one and make a Signature spell out of it. Fireball at low level, then Cone of Cold and finally Meteor Swarm. So your blasting's fine.
In fairness, the thing discussed here was divine Sorcerer, and that's not on their list. Totally works for Primal Sorcerer, but that's a different beast.

With Crossblooded evolution, you can take one spell from another spell list. If you feel that Divine Sorcerer lacks blasting, you just take it.

Considering the quantity of spells on all spell list, and Crossblooded evolution, a Sorcerer can heal, blast, buff and debuff with all spelllists.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Huh.

This thread makes a nice change from the "ArCaNe EVoLuTiOn mAKeS WiaZaRdS OBSolEET" posts I've waded through recently.

The forum is awash in panicky threads of people claiming class X is so hosed, for just about every possible value of X.

To be fair I feel it has a wonderful symmetry too it. We had years of people denying their was martial caster balance problem in pathfinder 1e.


HeHateMe wrote:

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.

Could you help clarify for me how it has changed ? I clearly haven’t looked closely enough


Lanathar wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.

Could you help clarify for me how it has changed ? I clearly haven’t looked closely enough

In 1e, once you learned a spell, you could cast it and it automatically scaled up to your level. Take Fireball as an example. In 2e, you need to learn Fireball again each time you gain a casting level, otherwise it never scales up. In 1e, Fireball did 1d6 damage per level, so as long as you learned it once, you never had to learn it again. Alot of blasting spells were like that.

Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.

They do have more spells learned per level... They've got an extra spell slot, so they have one extra spell learned per level than do bards. Did you mean something else by this?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.

Could you help clarify for me how it has changed ? I clearly haven’t looked closely enough

In 1e, once you learned a spell, you could cast it and it automatically scaled up to your level. Take Fireball as an example. In 2e, you need to learn Fireball again each time you gain a casting level, otherwise it never scales up. In 1e, Fireball did 1d6 damage per level, so as long as you learned it once, you never had to learn it again. Alot of blasting spells were like that.

Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.

Also in PF1e, if you wanted to cast a lower level spell using a higher level slot, you could, but that's not allowed in PF2e (for instance, if you ran out of 2nd level slots, but still had a 3rd level slot available, you could "downgrade" that slot to cast a 2nd level spell. Now you can't do that; if you want to use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, you have to heighten the spell to the level of the slot.).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.
They do have more spells learned per level... They've got an extra spell slot, so they have one extra spell learned per level than do bards. Did you mean something else by this?

Those extra spells are chosen for you by your bloodline, and they are not always ones you want. Heck, many of the spells granted by divine bloodlines require the sorcerer to be a follower of a strongly aligned deity or they are forbidden from casting it (Divine Wrath, etc.).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.

Could you help clarify for me how it has changed ? I clearly haven’t looked closely enough

In 1e, once you learned a spell, you could cast it and it automatically scaled up to your level. Take Fireball as an example. In 2e, you need to learn Fireball again each time you gain a casting level, otherwise it never scales up. In 1e, Fireball did 1d6 damage per level, so as long as you learned it once, you never had to learn it again. Alot of blasting spells were like that.

Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.

Bards can be better if you want the occult spell list and the bard playstyle but there is certainly no "consensus" that bards are better. There like 4 ppl on the forums here that claim it and assume their opinion is fact.

You seem to be leaving out Signiture spells as well when talking about highenting. You could learn Fireball as a Signature spell and then cast it using any of your higher level slots.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
It was hard to do in the last edition as well. It was exactly like you say “theorycrafting”.

This is definitely true, I just think it's even moreso in 2e because it's harder to brute force your way through encounters with ubiquitously powerful spells.

HeHateMe wrote:
In 1e, once you learned a spell, you could cast it and it automatically scaled up to your level.

Kind of a cherry picked example there.

You could also say that in 1e a spell's DC only scaled if you took a feat and cast it from a higher level slot, while in 2e that's an automatic feature of all spells. Or that heightening a spell in 1e made the spell take longer to cast (which could lead to certain spells taking multiple turns to complete).

And regarding:

HeHateMe wrote:
The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting.

Spotaneous casters in 1e spent half the campaign a spell level behind prepared casters. So uh, definitely no to this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Not sure I understand the comparison that was done here... Sorcerer single target heal with angelic halo is better than cleric single target heal with Healing Hands.

The Sorcerer is expending a spell slot to do it. The Cleric isn't. The cleric is using their class feature free bonus extra on top of their spell slots double-plus-ultra Divine Font.

The Math.

The 2 HP per target doesn't make up for the 1+CHA free casts.


Draco18s wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Not sure I understand the comparison that was done here... Sorcerer single target heal with angelic halo is better than cleric single target heal with Healing Hands.

The Sorcerer is expending a spell slot to do it. The Cleric isn't. The cleric is using their class feature free bonus extra on top of their spell slots double-plus-ultra Divine Font.

The Math.

The 2 HP per target doesn't make up for the 1+CHA free casts.

Okay... I'm referring to the amount healed by the casting of a single spell. I already stated that overall the Cleric could heal more HPs than the Sorcerer given all their slots.


tivadar27 wrote:
Okay... I'm referring to the amount healed by the casting of a single spell. I already stated that overall the Cleric could heal more HPs than the Sorcerer given all their slots.

You said "more powerful overall." Overall means the whole chassis. Is FeatA better than FeatB? Yes. But that isn't "more powerful, overall, all things considered."


Draco18s wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Not sure I understand the comparison that was done here... Sorcerer single target heal with angelic halo is better than cleric single target heal with Healing Hands.

The Sorcerer is expending a spell slot to do it. The Cleric isn't. The cleric is using their class feature free bonus extra on top of their spell slots double-plus-ultra Divine Font.

Um, just real quick; the Cleric actually is expending spell slots. Just Bonus spell slots.

Divine Font CRB pg 119 wrote:

Through your deity’s blessing, you gain additional spells that channel either the life force called positive energy or its counterforce, negative energy. When you prepare your spells each day, you can

prepare additional heal or harm spells, depending on your deity. The divine font spell your deity provides is listed in the Divine Font entry for your deity on pages 437–440; if both are listed, you can choose between heal or harm. Once you choose, you can’t change your choice short of an ethical shift or divine intervention.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem I see with divine sorcerers is the same I saw with oracles in PF1: too many highly specific spells on the list. At least if you want to be a healer.

A cleric who has an idea about what they'll be walking into can prepare ahead of time. Neutralize poison if going up against a serpent cult, remove paralysis in a ghoul nest, and so on. If they're walking in blindly, they can at least cover the bases most likely to be needed short-term and fix the more long-term stuff the next day. The sorcerer can't make that choice on a day-by-day basis, and if they want to cover all the healing bases that's:

1st - heal (duh)
2nd - remove fear, remove paralysis, restoration, restore senses
3rd - neutralize poison, remove disease
4th - remove curse
5th - breath of life
6th - raise dead
7th - regenerate

That's a very large portion of the sorcerer's arsenal, particularly at 2nd level. In addition, PF2 made the problem worse by requiring you to cast most of these spells at higher levels in order to counter higher-level threats – so you need to either relearn the spells at higher levels or use up all your signature spells on these.

The spontaneous caster paradigm works very well if you're a troublemaker caster. It's rare that putting your foes in a particular kind of trouble is the wrong choice. Some kinds of trouble are better or worse against particular foes, but it's rarely entirely wrong, and you can usually cover multiple troublemaking bases (different saves, different damage types, etc.). But the healer doesn't want to make trouble – they want to fix it. And in order to fix trouble, you need the right tool to fix it. You can't fix a leaky pipe with a saw, and you can't stop a toxin with remove curse. The cleric has a whole shed full of tools, though they're not always at their disposal at any given time. But the divine sorcerer doesn't have a whole shed of tools, they are limited to their actual tool belt.

Assuming you see this as a problem, I see two ways to fix this, neither of which was chosen by the PF2 designers:

* The 5e way, of having significantly fewer fixer spells and letting them do more. For example, the 5e lesser restoration fixes disease, poison, paralysis, blindness, and deafness.

* The 4e way of making the long-term condition fixing a ritual thing instead of a spell thing.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Not sure I understand the comparison that was done here... Sorcerer single target heal with angelic halo is better than cleric single target heal with Healing Hands.

The Sorcerer is expending a spell slot to do it. The Cleric isn't. The cleric is using their class feature free bonus extra on top of their spell slots double-plus-ultra Divine Font.

Um, just real quick; the Cleric actually is expending spell slots. Just Bonus spell slots.

Duh. I'm not an idiot. But that wasn't the point I was making.

Its a spell slot that the sorcerer does not have and cannot get. It may as well be a charge off a staff for all the difference it makes in the apples to apples comparison: the cleric has it the sorcerer does not.

Is it a consumable resource?
Yes.

But one class literally does not have that pool to draw on and has to use "standard" spell slots (the numerical count of which is effectively identical across the board*).

*Yes, sorcerers get "one more of each level" but "one more of each level" is hardly comparable to "six of the highest level."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:

The main problem I see with divine sorcerers is the same I saw with oracles in PF1: too many highly specific spells on the list. At least if you want to be a healer.

A cleric who has an idea about what they'll be walking into can prepare ahead of time.

I don't entirely agree with your analysis, but watch the condition. What if you don't know what you're walking into?

A sorcerer is going to look really good if you get into an adventure where every monster seems to spam the same status condition. The cleric runs after the Remove That spell after two encounters, the sorcerer can keep going for a while longer.

The basic idea behind sorcerers is "what if I need a lot more of one particular spell than expected".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't entirely agree with your analysis, but watch the condition. What if you don't know what you're walking into?

A sorcerer is going to look really good if you get into an adventure where every monster seems to spam the same status condition. The cleric runs after the Remove That spell after two encounters, the sorcerer can keep going for a while longer.

The basic idea behind sorcerers is "what if I need a lot more of one particular spell than expected".

That only really works if the sorcerer actually knows the spell that's needed. Otherwise, both classes are in the same boat that day, and the cleric has the advantage the next day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluescale wrote:
and the cleric has the advantage the next day.

Assuming the cleric knows any better what's happening on the following day. Which is hardly going to be a given, even though everyone seems to take that assumption for granted.

Of course, even if the Cleric does know precisely what's coming up ahead, they simply can't guess how often the players are going to fail their conditions and need to be cured, either.

The ability to flexibly accomplish that goal without having to worry about individual spell slot distribution is far too huge of an advantage to simply dismiss out of hand the way so many people seem to be content to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hence this quote:

Squiggit wrote:
I think in general though people underestimate spontaneous casting as a mechanic this edition. PF2 wants you to be pretty particular with your spell selection and that makes being able to pick your spells on the fly a really meaningful advantage. Theorycrafting tends to always assume the wizard or druid or cleric has the right spell prepared at the right time but that's harder to do this edition.

I agree with this. And the sorcerer's ability to have "almost the right thing" when the cleric (wizard, etc) don't have "anything close" is nice.

I just object to statement that "the Sorcerer is better at Heal than the Cleric."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I was very disappointed by the elemental bloodline: blasting with fire deals fire damage, every other element deals bludgeoning damage. As if cold, acid or electricity stopped existing. The only difference between the other three elements is the effect of Elemental Motion. And even then, a fly speed is infinitely less situational than a swim speed or a very slow burrow speed.


Draco18s wrote:


I just object to statement that "the Sorcerer is better at Heal than the Cleric."

That's fair. The sorcerer's advantage in flexibility doesn't matter much when the Cleric can a bunch of extra top level heals for free anyways.

Especially at low levels when Divine Font can casually double the number of spells they get to cast in a day.

FlashRebel wrote:
Personally I was very disappointed by the elemental bloodline: blasting with fire deals fire damage, every other element deals bludgeoning damage. As if cold, acid or electricity stopped existing.

I get why they did it. The acid-earth connection was always a weird one and cold/electric turned water/air into.. well, ice and lightning instead.

I can agree though having the only other option be bludgeoning and not having any way to build off of electricity or cold or acid is a mistake though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't entirely agree with your analysis, but watch the condition. What if you don't know what you're walking into?

In that case, the cleric can prep for some of the most common things, and if they need to retreat can do a lot better the next day.

Quote:
A sorcerer is going to look really good if you get into an adventure where every monster seems to spam the same status condition. The cleric runs after the Remove That spell after two encounters, the sorcerer can keep going for a while longer.

Only if the sorcerer knows the particular spell needed. If the PCs find themselves in a ghoul nest and the sorcerer knows remove fear and restore senses, they're not going to be much use. At least not as a healer.

I think it's an issue that the PF2 cleric is far and away the best healer in the game. They have top-level bonus slots for healing, and there are plenty of class feats for them that buff healing (whereas druids and bards have none). Basically, PF2 is saying "If you want to be a healer, play a cleric."

I don't think that's a good thing. Most other things can be handled equally well by different classes. You want a front-line basher, but a barbarian, a champion, a fighter, a monk, or a ranger can all fill that role admirably, with different flavors. You want something dealing AOE damage, that can be a wizard, a druid, or an arcane or primal sorcerer. But a healer? No, that pretty much has to be a cleric. Otherwise you're something else with a bit of healing on the side.

This is extra problematic because the linchpin class is the cleric, which comes with a whole heap of baggage regarding gods, worship, anathema, and stuff like that. It's a class that makes a very strong statement about how the world works, and that statement is "gods exist, and they care about what you do, and you need to pick one god in particular." Ironically, the class that has the strongest ties to the divine is the one that kills of any Faith aspect - there's no faith, there's just a question of what team you're on.

It's also a class that really isn't represented much outside of D&D/Pathfinder-based fiction. There's no cleric in the Fellowship of the Ring. Team Dresden might have a Champion, but no Cleric. Neither the first nor second Chronicles of the Unbeliever feature any religious magic. I didn't get through all of Wheel of Time, but I don't think there were any clerics there either. But in D&D/Pathfinder parties, there always has to be a holy man (or woman, for that matter) around to fix people up.

Now, PF2 has taken some strides toward making out-of-combat healing via Treat Wounds viable, but with the way combat is real swingy (at least at lower levels), and still having many monsters inflicting short- and longterm conditions, a cleric is a heck of a safety net, and one you probably don't want to leave home without.


Squiggit wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Personally I was very disappointed by the elemental bloodline: blasting with fire deals fire damage, every other element deals bludgeoning damage. As if cold, acid or electricity stopped existing.
I get why they did it. The acid-earth connection was always a weird one and cold/electric turned water/air into.. well, ice and lightning instead.

Then I guess the Elemental Wrath feat shouldn't be allowed to deal any other type of damage than fire and bludgeoning for the elemental theme to remain internally consistent. Or maybe it's based on an entirely different set of elements?


FlashRebel wrote:
Personally I was very disappointed by the elemental bloodline: blasting with fire deals fire damage, every other element deals bludgeoning damage. As if cold, acid or electricity stopped existing. The only difference between the other three elements is the effect of Elemental Motion. And even then, a fly speed is infinitely less situational than a swim speed or a very slow burrow speed.

Yeah, the elemental bloodlines are a little disappointing. I get that their distinctiveness was probably sacrificed on the altar of Page Count, but still.

I vaguely remember throwing out some ideas about more distinct elemental bloodlines over on the house rules forum. Might have been in a thread where I also posted alternatives to the divine bloodlines removing the deity-dependent spells from those.
Edit: here.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Bluescale wrote:
and the cleric has the advantage the next day.

Assuming the cleric knows any better what's happening on the following day. Which is hardly going to be a given, even though everyone seems to take that assumption for granted.

Of course, even if the Cleric does know precisely what's coming up ahead, they simply can't guess how often the players are going to fail their conditions and need to be cured, either.

The ability to flexibly accomplish that goal without having to worry about individual spell slot distribution is far too huge of an advantage to simply dismiss out of hand the way so many people seem to be content to do.

What I meant by the cleric having an advantage the next day was that if you needed a spell neither had that day, say remove curse, the cleric could prepare it the next day. The sorcerer has more flexibility with the spells they know, but need anything outside of those few spells and the flexibility advantage vanishes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I was playing a Dragonblood Sorcerer at first level. WHen I got 2nd level I had a discussion with my GM to switch to Elemental. The spell list was nice, but Dragon Claws was next to useless as I never wanted to get that close to a monster anyway. We haven't played again yet since I leveled up so I don't know if it plays any better.


Bluescale wrote:
What I meant by the cleric having an advantage the next day was that if you needed a spell neither had that day, say remove curse, the cleric could prepare it the next day. The sorcerer has more flexibility with the spells they know, but need anything outside of those few spells and the flexibility advantage vanishes.

I like referring to this as versatility versus flexibility. The prepared caster has versatility - they can meet any challenge you set against them, but have to be very deliberate in how they use their abilities. The sorcerer on the other hand has flexibility - they have a limited set of tools but can use them however they want.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Sorcerer the poor man's everything All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.