Late in the game here, but am I not right that all these class comparisons are context specific? Like, if a gaming group feels that the Sorcerer is overpowered compared to the Wizard, can't the GM make scrolls less available in the campaign?
...woah, calm down. Let's not bring GM's into this.
Certainly, but "information available to the party" covers a lot of content which has nothing to do with knowledge skills. Don't change the point you're focusing on with something else, hoping that I won't notice. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc. have a lot to do with "information available to the party" and Sorcerers are much better at this than Wizards are.
Not always though. While a sorcerer's charisma may well be better than a wizard as well as getting those social skills as class skills, a wizard will likely have more skill points to throw around. A wizard could pump many ranks into social skills and be solid in several without the proficency bonus where as a sorcerer has decidely fewer ranks to go around and will not always be able to cap all the social skills as well as other "arcane skills" (arcana, spellcraft). An enchanter gets a bonus to social skills as well, and a wizard will be able to feely spend a spell on some things at lower levels such as disguise self to aid in social situations, and not prepare them out of town, when a sorcerer who only has a couple of spells needs to be combat sufficent. It all depends on the wizard's particular bent. Just a bit of devil's advocate...
I've got a Chaotic Neutral 13th level Sorcerer with a 29 Cha. He's got a familiar. He adventures a lot and so is aloof. Further, nobody's perfect. He's had a failure in his past and has lost one cohort.
His Leadership score is 16. His cohort is 11th level.Compare that to a Wizard with a 29 Int, but only a 14 Cha. Like the Sorcerer, he's got a familiar, is aloof, and has had one failure where he's lost a cohort.
His Leadership score is 9. His cohort is 6th level.
If a wizard wanted his cohort to survive he would boost his leadership score. I can't see a cohort that actually goes adventuring with party stay alive if his level is that low. Now if all the cohort does is stay home and craft he will probably be ok, but many DM's will eventually harass(use other word as needed) the NPC unless he has some type of protection.
If you a player is not dedicated to keeping the NPC alive he is really just wasting a feat.I noticed you put in a lot of negatives that I don't see in games for the wizard to have a low leadership score. At the most only one of those should be in place. The wizard should in no way be that low with his leadership score assuming he is competent.
How are you getting stats of + 29 by level 13th?
Hey, if it was a human 60 years old, he'd have a 32. Don't knock it.
==Aelryinth
Sorry, but no. A wizard, no matter how many skill points he has available, can't put more skills points in a skill than he has levels. So, while the wizard may not have as many points, he will never be able to have more levels in a cha-based skill that a sorcerer focuses on than that skill will have. This is true even with the enchanter's bonus.Certainly, but "information available to the party" covers a lot of content which has nothing to do with knowledge skills. Don't change the point you're focusing on with something else, hoping that I won't notice. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc. have a lot to do with "information available to the party" and Sorcerers are much better at this than Wizards are.Not always though. While a sorcerer's charisma may well be better than a wizard as well as getting those social skills as class skills, a wizard will likely have more skill points to throw around. A wizard could pump many ranks into social skills and be solid in several without the proficency bonus where as a sorcerer has decidely fewer ranks to go around and will not always be able to cap all the social skills as well as other "arcane skills" (arcana, spellcraft). An enchanter gets a bonus to social skills as well, and a wizard will be able to feely spend a spell on some things at lower levels such as disguise self to aid in social situations, and not prepare them out of town, when a sorcerer who only has a couple of spells needs to be combat sufficent. It all depends on the wizard's particular bent. Just a bit of devil's advocate...
I wasn't implying that a wizard put more skill ranks in a skill than is allowed by the rules. I was refering to the fact that wiards have more skill ranks to use than a sorceror, so for a sorcerer to get a whole lot of skills he wouldn't be able to put them all at max ranks, while a wizard could put max ranks in a cross classed social skill and be roughly on par with a sorceror.
For example: A 7 level sorcerer with a Cha of 16 and an Int of 10 would get 3 or 4 skill ranks a level for a total of 21 to 28. He has a handful of skills he wishes to use. Bluff, Diplomacy, Perception, Arcana, Spellcraft, UMD, and whatever his bloodline skill is, assuming he wants it. Evenly divided among his skills that is 3 ranks each, or possibly 4 depending on favored class bonus, plus his Cha mod of 3, plus proficency of 3, so a bonus of 9 to 10 in social skills.
A 7 level wizard with an Int of 16 and a Cha of 10 or 12 would have 5 or 6 skill ranks a level. Say he wants Arcana, Spellcraft, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, and another knowledge. He puts max ranks in these skills. 7 plus his Cha (possibly 1, maybe more if an enchanter), plus the possible enchanter bonus of 2 (I believe, if he went that route). This gives the average wizard, if he has chosen to pick up social skills, a bonus of 7 to 10, not much worse than the potential of a sorcerer who wished to have more than 3 or 4 skills.
A sorceror who wishes to aid in situations other than direct combat or direct conversation may not max possible skill ranks in a social skill, where as a wizard has enough skill ranks to go around, letting him max his main skills and pick a handful of other that can be maxed, thus the lack of proficency was no big hindrence.
How? I mean, without gimping your Wizard in other areas - lowering his Int or killing yourself further than you already are on your WBL by buying expensive items with limited utility?
If a wizard wanted his cohort to survive he would boost his leadership score.
When I wrote this I had not noticed the -3 modifier. Another thing is that I am used to planning characters ahead of time. The familiar would not be there, and I would not play my character as being aloof. Even if the NPC dies I am only at -1 which gives a competent NPC. Assuming it is a caster he can take care of himself for the most part. That means the sorcerer's advantage is not all that great
.
At the most only one of those should be in place.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that. The character is an adventurer - and, thus, traveling around a lot - so, aloof. The Wizard has a familiar (and, while Sorcerers usually don't, I added one just to be kind). Having experienced a failure and the death of a cohort at any time over the last six levels is quite reasonable.
I was saying you assumed a lot with those negatives. I can't see a player being silly enough to take the feat without careful thought. Now I can't attest for players everywhere, but my players would not start off with a -2 penalty score(familiar and aloof).
How are you getting stats of + 29 by level 13th?
18 Cha to start + 2 for race + 3 for level + 6 for headband of alluring charisma = 29
That is a lot of wealth typed up into one item 36000/140000 = over 25%. Is it possible, sure. Is it likely, not really. As a sorcerer I am assuming you will have wand and scrolls, cloaks of protection, a metamagic rod or two, and whatever else a player might want to get. Pumping up your ability score is not as powerful as having other options IMHO. I guess the difference in play style is why I did not see the +29.
PS: I also don't put 18's in scores before racial modifiers unless the DM is being very generous with the ability points.
edit:formatting.
For example: A 7 level sorcerer with a Cha of 16 and an Int of 10 would get 3 or 4 skill ranks a level for a total of 21 to 28. He has a handful of skills he wishes to use. Bluff, Diplomacy, Perception, Arcana, Spellcraft, UMD, and whatever his bloodline skill is, assuming he wants it. Evenly divided among his skills that is 3 ranks each, or possibly 4 depending on favored class bonus, plus his Cha mod of 3, plus proficency of 3, so a bonus of 9 to 10 in social skills.My Sorcerer at level 7 had an 18 Cha and a 14 Int. He was human. So, that was 6 skills.
He didn't take Perception and he took Intimidate instead of Diplomacy and he doesn't need Knowledge Arcana.His Poor Sorcerer's Mine Detector (a charmed enemy) flushed out most enemies (not all) for him.
Hence why I put in "not ALWAYS" about sorcerers being superior on social skills. I'm not denying that they excell from having it as a class skill with Cha as a prime stat. Generally speaking the arcane caster in a group is tended to be looked toward in matters of arcane knowledge, hence as a sorcerer I generally put a few ranks into Arcana and Spellcraft, so he could understand how his own powers worked as well as counterspell, et cetera. As I stated before, it is all up to a particular character's focus and the dynamics of the group they play in. I currently have a sorcerer whose Int is higher than Cha with numerous cross-classed skills. In general I was just elaborating on the fact that more often than not sorcerers tend to suffer from having fewer skill points than most other classes.
I've removed a post in this thread. Please keep your discussions civil.
[ Generally speaking the arcane caster in a group is tended to be looked toward in matters of arcane knowledge,If you're playing with roles. But, like I said, roles are retarded. I've got a Bard in the party whose knowledge(arcane) I couldn't hope to match (even if I were playing a Wizard) .
That isn't even a matter of role for me. I'm not a fan of them either.
But in character, if a matter of the arcane popped up, such as an enemy wizard performing a strange ritual, as a non caster without arcane knowledge I would look to my ally who is also a wizard whom I may have seen performing rituals or casting spells.
What you're saying supports my post of the skills taken and focused in would vary by individual character/flavor/background, statistics, and group dynamics. You're group has a bard, thus making others focusing on knowledges unneccessary. My group does not have a bard. I'm the only one with knowledge history, though several others have Arcana as we are an arcane heavy group.
My Arcane Sorcerer has the huge Leadership score without sacrificing the familiar. It's kinda nice to be able to cast touch spells (such as cure spells) on allies at range.
If you are casting cure with the familiar it is probably in combat. If the enemy is near the ally then he is near your familiar. Why has your familiar not been killed yet. If I can't kill someone without killing the healer, then the healer(familiar) must die.
Look up the definition of that word. It doesn't just refer to emotional distance. It applies to physical distance as well. And you just said you'd leave your cohort back home.
I said
Now if all the cohort does is stay home and craft he will probably be ok, but many DM's will eventually harass(use other word as needed) the NPC unless he has some type of protection. [/b]
My point was that if he is that my levels behind the party , that may be the best thing to do, but I would never have my leadership score that low.
"careful thought" is code for "making sacrifices" if you are trying to play your character like it's a different class.
My question is what are you sacrificing? Is it WBL? Is it the freedom to actually adventure (so as not to be aloof)?
Anyone that has a cohort is giving up loot, well unless they leave him behind. Depending on the party makeup, and how I play my character it is possible to gain more than what I give up. Another thing to remember is that wizards have more feats than sorcerers so dropping a feat or two to craft items is going to hurt them that much.
That is a lot of wealth typed up into one item 36000/140000
Yes, but, as a Sorcerer, I'm getting an awful lot out of that one item. If your Wizard tried the same thing, he'd be getting substantially less out of that one item.
The wizard gets more skills, more spells per day, and a higher DC.
The sorcerer gets bonuses to social skills assuming it is made to be a party face, more spells per day, higher DC's, and UMD checks. If it has leadership then that is helped, but a sorcerer's leadership score is high enough that eventually you get to a point of diminishing returns, unless the cohorts are dying off a lot, or other bad things are happening.I think I would have to play in or observe one of your games to see your point of view.
edit:found another formatting error.
My Arcane Sorcerer has the huge Leadership score without sacrificing the familiar. It's kinda nice to be able to cast touch spells (such as cure spells) on allies at range.
IMHO, that's not really a fair comparison.
A familiar is a decent option for an Arcane Sorcerer; it's by far the weak option for any Wizard. Part of that's because Bonded Object is really, really, really good for a Wizard and doesn't mean a lot to a Sorcerer, and part of that's because various other factors such as the likelihood of a much better UMD skill give the familiar extra utility for the Sorcerer.
|
My Arcane Sorcerer has the huge Leadership score without sacrificing the familiar. It's kinda nice to be able to cast touch spells (such as cure spells) on allies at range.
IMHO, that's not really a fair comparison.
A familiar is a decent option for an Arcane Sorcerer; it's by far the weak option for any Wizard. Part of that's because Bonded Object is really, really, really good for a Wizard and doesn't mean a lot to a Sorcerer, and part of that's because various other factors such as the likelihood of a much better UMD skill give the familiar extra utility for the Sorcerer.
Unless your DM is the kind of DM who takes advantage of the possible weakness that an Arcane Bonded item is.
The reason is, as Treantmonk points out in his guide, 'Bonded items can be destroyed or lost or stolen, and you only can have one, and they take awhile to replace (1 week before you can cast a ritual that costs 200gp/level to replace the item). During that time how screwed are you? Super screwed. Every spell you cast requires a DC 20+spell level caster check. OK, EVENTUALLY this will be an auto-succeed, but that's only going to be at high levels. Until then, you have a chance (and at low levels a good chance) for every spell you cast to fail. Welcome to Hell. Rings or amulets of course are less likely to be damaged in combat, but they are even easier to steal, and they take up a valuable item slot."
Yeah, I respectfully disagree with him there.
You'll get the odd DM who will try to sunder all your crap. In my experience, these are by far in the minority. If you have one of those, don't pick bonded object. If you have one of the other 98% of DMs, you pick the bonded object.
As far as the taking a valuable item slot... no. If you find a new magic ring/amulet you want to wear, you make it your bonded object. Done.
Edited to add: the kind of DM that will more than rarely have enemies gun for your bonded object is also the kind of DM who will keep trying to murder your familiar, so you didn't really want either of them anyway.
Greater Invisibility.
The bad guys can't handle invisible creatures, and/or don't have spellcraft. I am not saying the spell should never work. That would not be fun, but you suggested using it(the familiar) on a regular basis.
My point was that if he is that my levels behind the party , that may be the best thing to do, but I would never have my leadership score that low.
The cohort would be with me. I also never liked familiars so that would not be an issue. The worst case scenario is him dying.
So, in addition to everything else, you're sacrificing loot and taking a large risk that your cohort will be killed.
Explain. My cohort is most likely a caster also, and being the casters are quiet powerful I would think that played correctly they can function in a higher level party if the difference is not more than 2 levels, at the most 3 at higher levels. Two caster combo'ing spells should take care of a lot of fights. In down time he gets to make stuff for the party.
It's true that the Wizard has more feats and, so, will have an easier time creating items - assuming he has the time in game to do so (and, let's face it, time in game is generally the biggest limitation). The Sorcerer can leave his cohort at home and take the aloof penalty. So, the cohort will have the time to make the items.
You are assuming the DM wont be interfering. You would then have to spend gold to keep him safe, probably more gold than if he was with the party.
Incidentally, the Wizard has certain stengths compared to the Sorcerer. I don't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that, when everything is considered, the Wizard isn't more powerful than the Sorcerer. It's apples and oranges.
I disagree in general. Of course the player and DM influence that greatly.
Unless your DM is the kind of DM who takes advantage of the possible weakness that an Arcane Bonded item is.
My Arcane Sorcerer has the huge Leadership score without sacrificing the familiar. It's kinda nice to be able to cast touch spells (such as cure spells) on allies at range.
IMHO, that's not really a fair comparison.
A familiar is a decent option for an Arcane Sorcerer; it's by far the weak option for any Wizard. Part of that's because Bonded Object is really, really, really good for a Wizard and doesn't mean a lot to a Sorcerer, and part of that's because various other factors such as the likelihood of a much better UMD skill give the familiar extra utility for the Sorcerer.
If I can get to the item that means I can get to the wizard, and at that point I am sure his pet item is not the first thing on his mind. If I go after the item it is me being nice.
The reason is, as Treantmonk points out in his guide, 'Bonded items can be destroyed or lost or stolen, and you only can have one, and they take awhile to replace (1 week before you can cast a ritual that costs 200gp/level to replace the item). During that time how screwed are you? Super screwed. Every spell you cast requires a DC 20+spell level caster check. OK, EVENTUALLY this will be an auto-succeed, but that's only going to be at high levels. Until then, you have a chance (and at low levels a good chance) for every spell you cast to fail. Welcome to Hell. Rings or amulets of course are less likely to be damaged in combat, but they are even easier to steal, and they take up a valuable item slot."Yeah, I respectfully disagree with him there.
You'll get the odd DM who will try to sunder all your crap. In my experience, these are by far in the minority. If you have one of those, don't pick bonded object. If you have one of the other 98% of DMs, you pick the bonded object.
As far as the taking a valuable item slot... no. If you find a new magic ring/amulet you want to wear, you make it your bonded object. Done.
Edited to add: the kind of DM that will more than rarely have enemies gun for your bonded object is also the kind of DM who will keep trying to murder your familiar, so you didn't really want either of them anyway.
I would go for them, but not all the time. In an instance where the NPC's figured the item/familiar was causing problems I think it should be targeted.
|
Just to post an old argument, since it says it better than I.
But let's get this straight: You're a 6th level Wizard. You're a 6th level Sorcerer. The Wizard has the same number of 2nd and 3rd level spells as you do, and he knows at least 4 3rd level spells and you only know 1. Even if the Wizard just has a favorite spell and spams it, he's still no worse than the Sorcerer. And if the Wizard did something awesome like take Focused Specialist, he actually has more spells per day in addition to preparing them off a bigger list. And the level before and after, the Wizard has more spells per day because he is in pretty much the same position with the lower level spells and he has higher level spells and you don't.
Wizards own you in the face if you're a Sorcerer. It's just not even a rational argument. It isn't just all the crazy crap they can do with magic item creation with the ability to prepare spells they wouldn't normally use to fulfill creation requirements. Or the free feats they get to do that with. Or any of the many tricks you can do to have a spellbook as phat as the Clerics for little or no cost. All that stuff is true, but it's not even the point. The point is that you get to 7th level and the Wizard has Charm Monster and you don't. Then you get to 8th level and you finally have Charm Monster - and the Wizard is actually casting it more times per day than you are and he has the option to swap one of those out (bringing himself down to your level) for a Minor Creation to make limitless poison for the meat shields (or whatever) each adventuring day.
+1, Yup...
-Uriel
|
Too many people here think that they should compare the number of spells per day of both classes. That's rather meaningless at a certain point. What should be compared? The wizard's spells per day vs the sorcerer's total spells known. Because the sorcerer doesn't lock himself into a certain subset of his spells known at the beginning of the day...the wizard does.
The wizard still has a slight advantage by the numbers, but again we come back to the fact that he's locked into a certain subset. Half of those spells may end up being worthless. They won't necessarily be, but they CAN be. The sorcerer offers greater flexibility past the beginning of the day (memorization/meditation time).
Overall, I'd say that they're pretty well balanced.
A Wizard's power is measured by how well he can manipulate the PCs and NPCs around him as well as the environment.
Many of the spells which do that are spells the Sorcerer can cast better than the Wizard.
I genuinely want to like the Sorcerer more, but I don't feel that "Charisma helps with Charm Person, Charm Monster, and the Planar Binding line of spells" is all that compelling an argument.
Or at least, I think "Spellcraft is important for a caster for X, Y, and Z reasons, and the Wizard will pretty much always be a little better at it" to be an equally compelling and offsetting argument.
If you're talking about spells he can actually, you know, -cast-, then the 6th level Wizard can cast 3 2nd level spells and 2 3rd level spells (plus Int). The 6th level Sorcerer can cast 5 2nd level spells (nearly twice as many) and cast 3 3rd level spells (50% more).
... assuming the wizard isn't a specialist and doesn't have bonded object.
I'm not saying the groups of people I play with are representative of everyone who plays this game, but literally 100% of the Pathfinder wizards I've yet seen were... specialists with bonded objects.
Pick an odd level for comparison and it gets a lot uglier than that, too.
|
|
No he does it long before that by fixing spells known.
Because the sorcerer doesn't lock himself into a certain subset of his spells known at the beginning of the day...
But the wizard lock himself into a VERY small subset each day. If they party needs Teleport twice, and he only memorized it once...well, that sucks. I guess they're walking...hopefully time wasn't crucial.
In regards to bonded objects...yeah, it has the nice side effect of one spontaneous spell per day. But oh my, what a glaring weakness/target. Might as well wear a big sign saying "Hit me here to turn me into a commoner...only more frail".
In your game, casters don't die?
I guess I was too vague that time. I was saying that caster's don't normally need as much gar as noncasters to stay alive so he should be ok as long as he does not draw too much attention to himself.
In your game, casters don't die?
And I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get your Leadership score so high.
It does not have to be all that high
Level 13+3(2 from character generation mod and +1 from headband).
Level 11 heroes are considered to be legends= +2
cohort died=2
16+2-2=14
14=10th level cohort.
Action economy just got better. He is pretty much a free quickened spell all the time, and a second crafter since he can take a feat I don't want the wizard to take. I don't really(as in never) use leadership, but I figure if I can get it to work for a wizard more imaginative people can get more out it.
I still think Leadership is over rated, because I have never seen it used RAW. Even RAW the amount of things the NPC's(followers) are allowed to do is up to the GM.
If all leadership is used for is crafting the the fighter and wizard can both craft magic items now.
.
..
...
....
.....
That logic is fundamentally flawed. A Wizard's power isn't measured by how many spells he can cast or how often he can change the spells he can cast. A Wizard's power is measured by how well he can manipulate the PCs and NPCs around him as well as the environment.
I'd have thought that, once you can make the best use of X spells to manipulate the PC's and NPCs around you, X+1 spells would be better..
...especially if we can change that X to a Y or Z when the need arises.
::
I get where you're coming from tho - still, a wizard can have charismatic friends who pull strings on their behalf, be they a bard, paladin or a sorcerer or simply any other character with a decent charisma score and/or the right connections...
...just as a sorcerer can have friends who can contribute that certain spell they need but don't have access to.
::
Anyhoo, personally I believe Darwin was right - adapt or die..
..as long as the wiz/sorc can adapt to the situation then.. joy!
That logic is fundamentally flawed. A Wizard's power isn't measured by how many spells he can cast or how often he can change the spells he can cast. A Wizard's power is measured by how well he can manipulate the PCs and NPCs around him as well as the environment.
.
That is a playstyle thing. IIRC your group thinks something went wrong if they have to fight, and they prefer to use sneak and use espionage. It sounds intersting, but most groups don't go through all that trouble(not saying that it is trouble). The sorc might be better a social skils, but the wizard is good at so many other skills that it more than makes up for, especially since the rogue, or cleric can handle social things. A wizard brings more to the a party than a sorcerer does. I like sorcerers better, but I know which class is really running the show, most of the time.
But the wizard lock himself into a VERY small subset each day. ...No he does it long before that by fixing spells known.
Because the sorcerer doesn't lock himself into a certain subset of his spells known at the beginning of the day...
Not really, and in a game like LT's leaving slots open is an advantage. If the guard(too many D&D monsters IMHO) is so fanatical he can't be reasoned with charm X might work.
A good group gathers as much info as possible. There will be times when the info won't be available, but that is normally the exception. Also, scrolls are your friend for any casting class.