PDA

View Full Version : The Sorcerer Fix



Lin Bayaseda
2010-04-23, 09:16 AM
Ok, let's get the arguments out of the way quickly: people don't want to play Sorcerers. This is a fact. If you doubt this, please take a look at the PbP Recruitment forum; for every 10 Wizards submitted, you'll see maybe 1 Sorcerer. Maybe. To remove any doubt, this is not a thread for arguing about the merits of Sorcerer vs. Wizard. This is a thread for accepting the fact most people prefer to play Wizard over Sorcerer and trying to make them more equal in terms of appeal.

So, in my attempt to make Sorcerers more appealing, I decided to take a step back. What is the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer? Well, a Wizard takes time to learn a spell, meticulously scribes it into his spellbook, masters its rituals. The Sorcerer? He just discovers one day he has the ability to cast this spell. He's not sure why. He just can. In order to better express this difference mechanically, behold The Sorcerer Fix (TM):

Whenever a Sorcerer is entitled to add a spell to his "spells known" list, he needs not choose the spell right away. He may delay his decision and choose the spell at any time, as a free action.

Example: A level 1 Sorcerer is supposed to start with 4 0-level spells and 2 1st level spells. When the character is created, the player leaves those slots open.

At the start of his adventuring career, the player runs across a small band of orcs. Thinking quickly, he realizes his only chance is to subdue them with a Sleep spell. As a free action, he fills one of his 1st-level slots with Sleep; he can now cast the spell. After slaughtering the helpless orcs, he checks the bodies for magical treasure. To that end, he adds Detect Magic to his list of spells known. Soon afterwards, a pit opens under his feet. Undaunted, our heroic Sorcerer find it within himself to cast Feather Fall. He slowly falls into a dark cavern, and, seeking a way to exit, discovers Light at his fingertips.

So far he filled 2 1st-level and 2 0-level slots. He still has 2 0-level slots open to be decided later.

In order to avoid a situation where a Sorcerer "hoards" a huge number of spell slots to fill them as appropriate for a big boss fight, a clause may be added:

All open slots from level N must be filled before rising to level N+1.

In our sample case, the Sorcerer must fill his last two 0-level slots before rising to level 2.

All opinions are welcome.

Yora
2010-04-23, 09:18 AM
Ok, let's get the arguments out of the way quickly: people don't want to play Sorcerers. This is a fact.
I like to play sorcerers. Your argument is invalid.

Whammydill
2010-04-23, 09:18 AM
Are these spells permanent once picked?

Divide by Zero
2010-04-23, 09:20 AM
Interesting, but I'd add a more flexible retraining mechanic as well, so that you don't have players complaining about how they added some situational spell without really considering it enough, and then realized later how much it sucks in most situations.


I like to play sorcerers. Your argument is invalid.

He did change it to "most" later, or I would have brought up the same point.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 09:20 AM
So Just to clarify this is for PBP correct?


Edit: Yora ROFL

Lin Bayaseda
2010-04-23, 09:20 AM
Are these spells permanent once picked?

Yes. Because giving infinite swaps is obviously too much of a good thing. Well, not permanent... They can still be swapped as per PHB:


Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. In effect, the sorcerer "loses" the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level sorcerer spell the sorcerer can cast. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for the level.

Whammydill
2010-04-23, 09:21 AM
I like to play sorcerers. Your argument is invalid.

They said people don't like to play sorcerers; how do we know you aren't some giant mini space-hamster sent to deceive and pillage?!! ANSWER ME THAT? *Gets tinfoil hat*

Whammydill
2010-04-23, 09:22 AM
Yes. Because giving infinite swaps is obviously too much of a good thing. Well, not permanent... They can still be swapped as per PHB:


Ok, maybe they can open the slot back up when they retrain instead of taking another spell to fill it with.

FMArthur
2010-04-23, 09:22 AM
Sorcerors got their fix in the form of Sorceror-only spells that are extremely awesome. They're in either PHB2 or Complete Mage or both.

Yora
2010-04-23, 09:22 AM
The idea might have some merrit, but I once played with a warmage in our group. He took hours every time he cast a spell, to chose which spell of his fairly limited spell list he wants to use on this round.
With a sorcerer, you have thousands of spells. And you just don't want a player to make a break in the middle of combat to consult 10 books what spell he can chose, and make careful considerations which of these spells would be best to be permanently stuck with.
Filling slots later might be okay, but not in the middle of the action.

Whammydill
2010-04-23, 09:24 AM
So forcing them to pick spells that are sorcerer only, thereby taking up already limited slots fixes them? What about the poor fools who don't have those books?

Lin Bayaseda
2010-04-23, 09:24 AM
Interesting, but I'd add a more flexible retraining mechanic as well, so that you don't have players complaining about how they added some situational spell without really considering it enough, and then realized later how much it sucks in most situations.Well, at least they get to use the spell to good effect once, in the encounter they initially chose it. In face-to-face gaming, I had Sorcerer players who complained they chose a situational spell and never got to use it for good effect even once.

But, yes, you have a point, I will consider retraining.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 09:26 AM
Well, at least they get to use the spell to good effect once, in the encounter they initially chose it. In face-to-face gaming, I had Sorcerer players who complained they chose a situational spell and never got to use it for good effect even once.

But, yes, you have a point, I will consider retraining.

then they where playing poor sorcerers.

You don't pick situational spells as a sorcerer you pick spells you want to spam.

Such as magic missle, grease, invis, Orb of x, etc

Divide by Zero
2010-04-23, 09:28 AM
Such as magic missle, grease, invis, Orb of x, etc

Mindrape...yeah, that was a fun game.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-04-23, 09:28 AM
With a sorcerer, you have thousands of spells. And you just don't want a player to make a break in the middle of combat to consult 10 books what spell he can chose, and make careful considerations which of these spells would be best to be permanently stuck with.
Filling slots later might be okay, but not in the middle of the action.
I want to start this with PbP and maybe think about an upgrade to face-to-face later :smallwink:

FMArthur
2010-04-23, 09:29 AM
So forcing them to pick spells that are sorcerer only, thereby taking up already limited slots fixes them? What about the poor fools who don't have those books?

What about the poor fools who don't have this thread? To get any fix at all you have to look for it; one of the places is just in Complete Mage in the form of spells that let you cast two other spells at once that only a Sorceror may take.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-04-23, 09:31 AM
You don't pick situational spells as a sorcerer you pick spells you want to spam.

Such as magic missle, grease, invis, Orb of x, etc
Either a sorcerer sometimes picks a situational spell or he doesn't.

- If a sorcerer never picks a situational spell at all, then DividebyZero's original argument above is invalid to begin with. Therefore there's nothing for me to respond to, therefore there's no need for you to respond to my response.

- If he does, sometimes, then my fix guarantees at least one good use out of it, as opposed to possibly zero good uses.

senrath
2010-04-23, 09:32 AM
Yeah. The key to playing Sorcerers well is to, for the most part, completely ignore any situation spell. Pick only spells that you know you'll be using a lot, or spells that have a wide range of uses.

That said, I definitely prefer Sorcerers and Favored Souls over Wizards and Clerics, because of the spontaneous casting. I'm horrible at picking what spells to prepare each day.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 09:33 AM
Either a sorcerer sometimes picks a situational spell or he doesn't.

- If a sorcerer never picks a situational spell at all, then DividebyZero's original argument above is invalid to begin with. Therefore there's nothing for me to respond to, therefore there's no need for you to respond to my response.

- If he does, sometimes, then my fix guarantees at least one good use out of it, as opposed to possibly zero good uses.

mindrape is a great spell to cast repeatedly. so it doesn't invalidate his response.

Read the sorcerers hand books.. Sorcerers are great.

Never mind the awsome sauce that is the kobold sorcerer.
or the mail man...
or i belive was it jean grey build that used sorcerer.
Theres a ton of great sorc stuff out there. I've never heard of any oen compalining about there spell slection, actualy quit the opposite i see people playing them because they don't have to manage a book or pre selecting spells for the day.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-04-23, 09:38 AM
Yes, the players who actually play Sorcerers don't complain about the spell selection. However, a simple comparison, in any PbP recruitment thread, between amount of wizards submitted and amount of sorcerers submitted leaves no doubt whatsoever as to which class is more appealing.

valadil
2010-04-23, 09:39 AM
Ok, let's get the arguments out of the way quickly: people don't want to play Sorcerers.

I prefer sorcerers. Of all the 3.5 characters I played, my last sorc was my most fun build.

What makes a happy sorc IMO is rapid metamagic. Getting spell levels at the same level as wizards would make them even happier. Bonus metamagic like a wizard would be awesome too, but nobody ever goes straight sorc or wizard, so this probably isn't too relevant.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 09:39 AM
Yes, the players who actually play Sorcerers don't complain about the spell selection. However, a simple comparison, in any PbP recruitment thread, between amount of wizards submitted and amount of sorcerers submitted leaves no doubt whatsoever as to which class is more appealing.

Could that be because in a PBP style game it lends it self better to wizards then spontaneous casters?

senrath
2010-04-23, 09:41 AM
I think a better fix would be to allow easier spell retraining. I don't personally think they need a fix, but I've already said that I prefer Sorcerers over Wizards.

Ravens_cry
2010-04-23, 09:47 AM
I like the Pathfinder idea with the bloodlines. It gives flavour and some nice variety, as well as more spells.

Greenish
2010-04-23, 09:51 AM
I like the Pathfinder idea with the bloodlines. It gives flavour and some nice variety, as well as more spells.I was just going to mention that. PF Sorcerer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/sorcerer) gets cool and thematic class features and a few extra spells known from a ready list.

I still prefer beguiler/DN style classes with all spells known and spontaneous casting though. :smallcool:

QuantumSteve
2010-04-23, 10:04 AM
Letting players pick spells mid combat is almost as bad an idea as letting them pick feats mid combat.

The problem with Sorcerers isn't picking the wrong spells (which can easily be remedied via PHII retraining rules). The problem is they have to give up over 7 schools worth of spells for two extra slots. (A Focused Specialist only gives up 3).

What Sorcerers need is some kind of class feature to make up for the loss of spells. Special abilities or once-a-days. Maybe let them choose from a list of abilities. Something themed to what makes Sorcerer casting different i.e. inborn talent vs. study.

Come to think of it, that's exactly what Pathfinder does. That might be a good place to start looking for ideas.

Also, Diplomacy as a class skill wouldn't hurt (something else to do with all that Charisma) and a couple more skill points, too.

Edit: Ninja'd on Pathfinder.:smallannoyed: Like 15 minutes ago, too.

Pluto
2010-04-23, 10:05 AM
When I read the first bit, I thought this was silly and misguided.

Sorcerers are one of the most powerful classes in the game, no doubt about it. I don't see what the problem of more Wizards is; if it's what people want to play, why interfere?


But I really like the change itself, from a flavor standpoint.

This is very much the way I'd like to see in-born powers manifest: the right tool for the right job at the right time, unknown to anybody (the Sorcerer included) until the ability is used.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 10:06 AM
raly all pathfinder did was expand on the heritage feats that are out there now... they did add some as well.

If your looking for something a little less flashy then the PF stuff you could give them one of the heritage feats and a bonus heritage feat at 5,10,15,20.

Ravens_cry
2010-04-23, 10:11 AM
I was just going to mention that. PF Sorcerer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/sorcerer) gets cool and thematic class features and a few extra spells known from a ready list.

I still prefer beguiler/DN style classes with all spells known and spontaneous casting though. :smallcool:
That's. . .a bit much in my opinion. One of the advantages for me of the sorcerer is they are less confusing compared to the million and one spells of a wizard. Besides, look at it from the basic in-world perceptive. A sorcerer basically reinvents each spell they cast, pouring forth magical energy and shaping it by pure force of personality.
Sorcerers don't cast fireball, they send forth a gout of flame in a specific spot that mimics, as far as game mechanics go, fireball.

And in Pathfinder, they don't carry around no stinking piles of bat ****. +1 right there.

nedz
2010-04-23, 10:19 AM
I much prefer sorcerors.

The're probably not ideal for players who do not know the spells. And they are better if you are prepared to do your homework and plan ahead rather than change your spell list mid session.

In my experience most people who play wizards tend to choose the same old spells anyway.

It is a pain that they are nixed compared to wizards, but I'm a very strong player (in the groups I play with) an I like the challange of beating the Wizards :)

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 10:22 AM
I much prefer sorcerors.

The're probably not ideal for players who do not know the spells. And they are better if you are prepared to do your homework and plan ahead rather than change your spell list mid session.

In my experience most people who play wizards tend to choose the same old spells anyway.

It is a pain that they are nixed compared to wizards, but I'm a very strong player (in the groups I play with) an I like the challange of beating the Wizards :)

To play on what you said There also realy good for themed builds.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-23, 10:24 AM
Yeah. The key to playing Sorcerers well is to, for the most part, completely ignore any situation spell. Pick only spells that you know you'll be using a lot, or spells that have a wide range of uses.

True. I just think that when you have the ability to pick any spell at the time you happen to need it, you're more likely to pick a less useful option that just happened to be good at the time.

IonDragon
2010-04-23, 10:33 AM
The real issue is this: Sorcerers are Tier 2, Wizards are Tier 1.

"Fixing" Sorcerer has to either be done by bumping it up in power to make it more 'in line' with Wizard, or nerfing Wizard to make it more in line with Sorcerer.

While you do have to pick spells/day for Wizard, for Sorcerer, you have fewer spots to fill and have to pick spells for LIFE. (Barring retraining 1/level starting @ 4th)

That said, I too almost always decide on Sorcerer over Wizard.

Optimystik
2010-04-23, 10:36 AM
Use Pathfinder Sorcerer: problem(s) solved.

nedz
2010-04-23, 10:52 AM
To play on what you said There also realy good for themed builds.

I agree, but then Wizards can be made theamed also.
In all of the great fantasy litriture Wizards are always theamed which is why I'm thinking about the following fix in my houserules
This is mainly about flavour, but would work to help with balance.
I'm not sure Sorceror requires fixing, but any question of balance has to relate Wizard to Sorceror

Wizard
Generalist wizards do not exist.

Specialists must select 5 banned schools, ie they select their specialist school and two other minor schools.
They cannot learn Spells from their minor schools of spell levels 4-6 if that spell would be of the highest level they can cast.
They cannot learn Spells from their minor schools of spell levels 7-9 if that spell would be of the highest two levels they can cast.

Focused Specialists must have 7 banned schools.

trmptfnfr
2010-04-23, 10:54 AM
Focused Specialists must have 7 banned schools.

How does that work? :smallredface:

Seriously though, does splitting spells up into that many schools not complicate things?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 11:02 AM
I agree, but then Wizards can be made theamed also.
In all of the great fantasy litriture Wizards are always theamed which is why I'm thinking about the following fix in my houserules
This is mainly about flavour, but would work to help with balance.
I'm not sure Sorceror requires fixing, but any question of balance has to relate Wizard to Sorceror

Wizard
Generalist wizards do not exist.

Specialists must select 5 banned schools, ie they select their specialist school and two other minor schools.
They cannot learn Spells from their minor schools of spell levels 4-6 if that spell would be of the highest level they can cast.
They cannot learn Spells from their minor schools of spell levels 7-9 if that spell would be of the highest two levels they can cast.

Focused Specialists must have 7 banned schools.

What do you meen wizards always specialise in fantasy literiture.
I can think of a ton that don't.

Most from lord of the rings,
Most from Dragon lance.

Theres a ton in FR lore.

plus that would defeat elven generalist wizards which are hardly broken.

nedz
2010-04-23, 11:18 AM
LoTR
Gandalf was a fire specialist
Radagast was a druid almost
Saruman, well I'm not actually sure what his magic actually did.

Dragonlance is derived from D&D so the reference is circular.

Pluto
2010-04-23, 11:22 AM
Wizard
I'm assuming Divination can be banned here.

In Core, this seems far too restictive to allow any unique characterization in non-Conjuration/Transmutation specialists.

With SpC/CM/PHB2, this sounds interesting. Even with only three schools, the Wizard is going to have a wider diversity of effects than any other class beside the prepared spellcasters. If you use this, I'd be curious to see how it works out.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 11:24 AM
LoTR
Gandalf was a fire specialist
Radagast was a druid almost
Saruman, well I'm not actually sure what his magic actually did.

Dragonlance is derived from D&D so the reference is circular.

what gandalf wasn't a fire specalist.

Where does it say that? Mabye if you had said light or something i'd of given you that but fire?

Please prove each of those you gave as examples with passages and or examples. because i disagree.


With gandalf specificaly,
He used presidigitation at the party.
Ghost sounds mabye sugestion when speaking to froddo about the ring.
the light spell saving the gondorians from the nazgul.
so no...

saruman used telekensis... and a bunch of divining stuff.

nedz
2010-04-23, 11:31 AM
SpC is pretty much obligatory for this much specialisation, and you might need to be flexible with cantrips.

As for Gandalf He was the bearer of Nenya, the elven ring of power which was focussed on Fire. It is suprising how few spells the wizards in LoTR actually cast, though there are a lot of trials of strength (The Balrog and the Door, The Witch King at the Gate, not the mention the Red Eye). I've often wondered how to represent these. Gandalf often refrains from using fire because He thinks it will give him away.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 11:47 AM
SpC is pretty much obligatory for this much specialisation, and you might need to be flexible with cantrips.

As for Gandalf He was the bearer of Nenya, the elven ring of power which was focussed on Fire. It is suprising how few spells the wizards in LoTR actually cast, though there are a lot of trials of strength (The Balrog and the Door, The Witch King at the Gate, not the mention the Red Eye). I've often wondered how to represent these. Gandalf often refrains from using fire because He thinks it will give him away.

which i can agree with However that does not prove he is a specialist wizard just becuase Tolkien links him to fire in the unfinished tales doesn't meen he is a specialist. And that was the ring. Not his specialty.


Edit: eaither way your explination that all wizards specialise in fantasy literiture is false.

nedz
2010-04-23, 11:55 AM
which i can agree with However that does not prove he is a specialist wizard just becuase Tolkien links him to fire in the unfinished tales doesn't meen he is a specialist. And that was the ring. Not his specialty.
OK thats a fair point but its hard to tell with such a low magic setting.


Edit: eaither way your explination that all wizards specialise in fantasy literiture is false.
Actually I said Great Fantasy Literiture, which is perhaps a cop out I know :)
Non the less it does add flavour if the Great Necromancer is principly a Necromancer, rather than a batman who happens to prefer a certain kind of spell.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 12:00 PM
Actually I said Great Fantasy Literiture, which is perhaps a cop out I know :)
Non the less it does add flavour if the Great Necromancer is principly a Necromancer, rather than a batman who happens to prefer a certain kind of spell.

I guess....

Well if I where gming a game and you where playing batman and started calling your self the great necromancer i would prolly have a real necro come in and smack you around a bit... but call your self what you want thats an in game title.

Once had a kobold fight call him self king of the "horde" though there was no horde and some how his bluff was high. People knew him through out the land as the king of the horde.

Actualy you just kinda disproved your point. Gandalf is associated with fire and yet he's defiently more of a generalist wizard.

What you call your self in game and what your mechanics are are 2 different things.


Being a lover of casters in general, I would not play in a game that had your home brew. Even if i am specalised i still want to be able to grab a high level spell here and there of another school.
Some times thats good as they are similarly themed..


On a side note you should look into Ad&d(2nd ed) spheres (priests and clerics got them) I think thats pritty much what you want.

nedz
2010-04-23, 12:18 PM
I guess....
What you call your self in game and what your mechanics are are 2 different things.
Of course.


Being a lover of casters in general, I would not play in a game that had your home brew. Even if i am specalised i still want to be able to grab a high level spell here and there of another school.
Some times thats good as they are similarly themed..
You'd just have to choose your schools carefully :)
Or accept that you have a more difficult challange.

All you actually need are two or three Wizards in the party and with a bit of team work you can do anything anyway. It would stop the wizards stepping on other people toes a lot.


On a side note you should look into Ad&d(2nd ed) spheres (priests and clerics got them) I think thats pretty much what you want.
I havn't run this scheam in 3.5 as yet, and it might need a little treaking. I did run a similar scheam in 2nd edition which seemed to work OK.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 12:26 PM
Of course.


You'd just have to choose your schools carefully :)
Or accept that you have a more difficult challange.

All you actually need are two or three Wizards in the party and with a bit of team work you can do anything anyway. It would stop the wizards stepping on other people toes a lot.


I havn't run this scheam in 3.5 as yet, and it might need a little treaking. I did run a similar scheam in 2nd edition which seemed to work OK.
If i wanted to pick my spells carfully i would play a sorcerer.

I would expect a gathering of 3 or 4 mages to be powerfull, that is pritty prevalient in fantasy literature...

I've never had mages step on peoples toes, even multiple mages...

Once had a game with an elf generalist and a transmuter. no one felt over shadowed.

I would be even sadder to see that option run in 2nd ed where wizards are not god.

Primal Fury
2010-04-23, 12:39 PM
I believe the Ultimate Sorcerer (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Sorcerer) is an excellent fix for this problem. Granted, you don't get 8th or 9th levels spells, but you get to cast your favorite spam-able spells (fireball, magic missile, cloudkill, prestidigitation) at will as invocations. Plus you get totally awesome bloodline and ancestral abilities. :smallbiggrin:

nedz
2010-04-23, 12:46 PM
I would be even sadder to see that option run in 2nd ed where wizards are not god.
You've obviously never seen a wish war :)

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 12:52 PM
You've obviously never seen a wish war :)

that is correct simply because i've had more devious GMs that when you start to use wish you had better word it like you graduated from harvard with a law degree because they will try to screw you over with it.
which balances it out nicely. and prevents exactly what you said. Well it doesn't full stop it but it atleast hinders it enough

Ravens_cry
2010-04-23, 01:00 PM
that is correct simply because i've had more devious GMs that when you start to use wish you had better word it like you graduated from harvard with a law degree because they will try to screw you over with it.
which balances it out nicely. and prevents exactly what you said. Well it doesn't full stop it but it atleast hinders it enough
If you 'go over the limit', the DM is perfectly within their rights to screw you over, by simply ignoring part of what you asked for.

The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm)
So going all rules lawyer on your wish is still not a guarantee of success.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 01:05 PM
If you 'go over the limit', the DM is perfectly within their rights to screw you over, by simply ignoring part of what you asked for.

So going all rules lawyer on your wish is still not a guarantee of success.

I agree.
That was my point. I don't have a harvard law degree nor does any one i know so 90% of the time in 2nd ed we would get screwed.

my comment was in responce to have i ever "seen a wish war".

nedz
2010-04-23, 05:37 PM
I agree.
That was my point. I don't have a harvard law degree nor does any one i know so 90% of the time in 2nd ed we would get screwed.

my comment was in responce to have i ever "seen a wish war".

So you never got to see Wizards do God in 2E.

What would normally happen is that you'd be in the middle of a major high level battle when one side would realize that things were beginning to look bad. Out would come the wishes (often started by the NPCs). They would generally be simply worded tactical things. The combat would then become somewhat of a non-sequettor as wishes were exchanged (typically about 4-5) until someone mis-phrased one.

Of course in 3E wishes are somewhat more constrained to stop this kind of nonsense: shame really :smallsmile:

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 05:59 PM
So you never got to see Wizards do God in 2E.

What would normally happen is that you'd be in the middle of a major high level battle when one side would realize that things were beginning to look bad. Out would come the wishes (often started by the NPCs). They would generally be simply worded tactical things. The combat would then become somewhat of a non-sequettor as wishes were exchanged (typically about 4-5) until someone mis-phrased one.

Of course in 3E wishes are somewhat more constrained to stop this kind of nonsense: shame really :smallsmile:

No actualy for a number of reasons.
1. our gm(s) wouldn't start using wish from an npc. the only one that did followed the same rules that we did and the npc ended up dieing. well there was another time but i'd prolly get banned for saying what happend.
2. Most casters where neutralised in the first round. all of our fighters had decent ranged weapons(because they made sure they had one) and most of the time our party wizard/priest would dispell any stone skin on the enemy caster.
3. our fighters where on casters like white on rice.
It specificaly says that you can't kill any one. so don't need to worry about that, removing from combat could do a number of things.


I know my gnome fighter would decimate casters first round. it was disgusting....

So no... plus realy i meen cast more then 15 wishes in your life time as any thing but a elf and you where pritty much dead from old age.

edit:
God in 2nd ed wasn't nearly as bad as 3.5 mainly becuase spells had drawbacks and a good gm would enforce them.

nedz
2010-04-23, 06:26 PM
No actualy for a number of reasons.
1. our gm(s) wouldn't start using wish from an npc. the only one that did followed the same rules that we did and the npc ended up dieing. well there was another time but i'd prolly get banned for saying what happend.
2. Most casters where neutralised in the first round. all of our fighters had decent ranged weapons(because they made sure they had one) and most of the time our party wizard/priest would dispell any stone skin on the enemy caster.
3. our fighters where on casters like white on rice.
It specificaly says that you can't kill any one. so don't need to worry about that, removing from combat could do a number of things.


I know my gnome fighter would decimate casters first round. it was disgusting....

So no... plus realy i meen cast more then 15 wishes in your life time as any thing but a elf and you where pritty much dead from old age.

edit:
God in 2nd ed wasn't nearly as bad as 3.5 mainly becuase spells had drawbacks and a good gm would enforce them.

Its just a question of DM style, but:
I used to find that adjudicating wishes more reasonable would encouridge the players to be more relaxed about using them, which would lead to some real clangers. The player would then get the blame :smallsmile:

There was the rule about the local power being the one to grant it though, which ment that in your own temple etc. everything was pretty safe; in the evil temple you are assaulting however: they would usually be twisted.

Fighters were a lot more effective at high level.

There are several ways around the aging problem.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-23, 06:32 PM
Hmm...how about making sorcerers like the erudite, with some number of unique spells per day?

erikun
2010-04-23, 06:52 PM
I like to play Wizards because I like to play smart, bookish type characters. I do not like Sorcerers because spontaneous casting is not that interesting to me, and that Charisma casting feels inheritly silly.

I would enjoy playing Sorcerers more if they had more skills related directly to their primary ability score. Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomancy would make the Sorcerer more of a Wizard + party face, which would make them more appealing.

While your system is interesting, it wouldn't get me to play a Sorcerer over a Wizard. Mind you, I do like the system quite a bit. The Sorcerer just doesn't appeal to me either way.

nedz
2010-04-23, 06:58 PM
Hmm...how about making sorcerers like the erudite, with some number of unique spells per day?
Interesting idea, if I'm understanding it correctly. Not sure how you'd adjudicate it though?

Divide by Zero
2010-04-23, 07:12 PM
Interesting idea, if I'm understanding it correctly. Not sure how you'd adjudicate it though?

Expand the spells known considerably (I wouldn't give them access to the whole Sor/Wiz list at once, because that's one of the things that makes the erudite so broken), but they can only use a limited subset of those spells on any given day. Actually, the spirit shaman retrieval mechanic might work better - I always liked the concept, but never played one because their class spell list was so lackluster.

Eldonauran
2010-04-23, 07:16 PM
I have an idea. Alternate class feature time!

Eclectic Sorcerer:
Must be taken at level 1, replaces Familiar class Feature
Reduce the amount of spells you cast per day in each spell level by 1 (minimum 1 per day). You gain a bonus spell known from your class list for each spell level you can cast. This bonus spell may be changed once per day, requiring at least one hour of concentration. This may also been done as part of your normal rest to regain spells, taking up no additional time.

That will give a sorcerer a more flexible spellcasting approach, while maintaining his spontaneous feel.

EDIT: The reason I put in the loss of 1 spell per day is this has not been play tested yet and I am not sure how the balance would work out. Normally, I would consider the loss of your familar more than enough to get the extra spell known.

nedz
2010-04-23, 07:44 PM
The problem, as I see it, with SpSh is that you get a very narrow set of spells known per spell level; even though you can change them.
Max 3 per spell level, often 1,1 for the top two levels.
They do get fast spell level access though.

The Eclectic Sorcerer idea is really a blend of SpSh and Sorc.
To bring this inline with the SpSh progression you probably ought to lose two fixed known spells for a flexible one.
Writing the spell known progression for this would be quite difficult though. You either apply this to the first two spells known, or the last two perhaps ? The first option would annoy Sorceror players and the last option would probably be irrelevant.
Might be able to craft a feat (or spell) that allowed you to suppress access to two spells known, at a given level, for the ability to flex one.

Alternativly just replace the sorceror spell tables with the Spirit Shamen ones?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-23, 08:04 PM
Its just a question of DM style, but:
I used to find that adjudicating wishes more reasonable would encouridge the players to be more relaxed about using them, which would lead to some real clangers. The player would then get the blame :smallsmile:

There was the rule about the local power being the one to grant it though, which ment that in your own temple etc. everything was pretty safe; in the evil temple you are assaulting however: they would usually be twisted.

Fighters were a lot more effective at high level.

There are several ways around the aging problem.

hence why you had wish wars.

nedz
2010-04-23, 08:07 PM
hence why you had wish wars.

They were extreamly rare, only one or two per campaign, but also quite fun.

High level Wizards have always been able to do God, it just never used to be standard operating procedure.

Godskook
2010-04-23, 08:15 PM
I dislike Sorcerers for one reason. They're based on charisma, and I'm not. I have a hard time roleplaying someone who's able to play Catch Me if You Can (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/).

JaronK
2010-04-23, 08:30 PM
I like playing Sorcerers, and I'm sure I'm a person.

If I want more variety, I'll PrC into Mage of the Arcane Order. Done.

JaronK

Ravens_cry
2010-04-23, 09:00 PM
I dislike Sorcerers for one reason. They're based on charisma, and I'm not. I have a hard time roleplaying someone who's able to play Catch Me if You Can (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/).

That precisely what I like about them. These people are my heroes, the social hijackers, the BS'ers, the Tricksters. My favourite Norse God is Loki, and I prefer Prometheus over Atlas. The idea someone can pull a "don' throw me into the ol'briar patch" on the whole UNIVERSE, is just wonderful to me.
I like wizards too, they are the closest D&D has to scientists and nerds. But sorcerers have their own special appeal.

Shadowbane
2010-04-23, 09:03 PM
I dislike Sorcerers for one reason. They're based on charisma, and I'm not. I have a hard time roleplaying someone who's able to play Catch Me if You Can (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/).

Exactly why I love them. I myself, while not the most intelligent or even physically graceful, or, heck, even attractive person, have a ton of charisma. I think it might be my one redeeming feature.

The idea that this could possibly make the universe bend over take it is something that fills with me a special kind of glee, the type I usually reserve when I've just showed something particularly awesome to my players when I'm DMing.

Godskook
2010-04-23, 09:19 PM
@Raven's Cry and Shadowbane, I *GET* that, its just that's not exactly me. Its a hard thing for me to emulate the smooth and charismatic sorcerer, whereas the intelligent and cunning wizard is more directly up my alley. That's why *I* submit more wizards to pbp games than sorcerers. There's no 'fix' that can change that for me because if you remove the charisma-based feel, you're just a modified wizard, so what's the point.

That said, even I have tried to submit a sorcerer or two to games around here, so I don't really see anything wrong with them.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-23, 09:21 PM
Whenever a Sorcerer is entitled to add a spell to his "spells known" list, he needs not choose the spell right away. He may delay his decision and choose the spell at any time, as a free action.

All open slots from level N must be filled before rising to level N+1.

While this is a neat little fluff rule, it doesn't make me want to play a sorcerer any more than I already did.

What would make me want to play a sorcerer more? You didn't ask, but I'll show you three simple fixes that would do wonders:

1. Drop the metamagic casting time increase. Yeah, there's that option from PHB2 but there's no reason to gimp sorc metamagic in the first place.

2. Lower spell levels 2-9 on the sorcerer spell progression charts, so that they get new spell levels at odd levels like wizards do. Being one level behind the wizard chart isn't a huge deal in the long run, but all it does is turn people off to the class.

3. Change the standard Cha-booster from a cloak to...something that doesn't conflict with any of the other Big 6. A pretty ring, or a tiara would do...okay maybe not a tiara per se. You get the idea. :smallsmile:

Divide by Zero
2010-04-23, 09:38 PM
3. Change the standard Cha-booster from a cloak to...something that doesn't conflict with any of the other Big 6. A pretty ring, or a tiara would do...okay maybe not a tiara per se. You get the idea. :smallsmile:

Are you suggesting that cloaks are anything other than badass? My sorcerer wouldn't be caught dead without one.

Also, MIC fixed that anyway.

Ravens_cry
2010-04-23, 09:40 PM
While this is a neat little fluff rule, it doesn't make me want to play a sorcerer any more than I already did.

What would make me want to play a sorcerer more? You didn't ask, but I'll show you three simple fixes that would do wonders:


3. Change the standard Cha-booster from a cloak to...something that doesn't conflict with any of the other Big 6. A pretty ring, or a tiara would do...okay maybe not a tiara per se. You get the idea. :smallsmile:
Technically, you can make an item, with DM's consent, in any form you want.

ryzouken
2010-04-23, 09:48 PM
Want to bring sorcerers in line with Wizards?

Nerf Wizards.

Preferably by assigning spells gp values (using whatever method you like) and forcing them to use the magic item creation rules for learning new spells. eg.: magic missile, to be learned, would cost 1/2x gp, 1/2x xp, 1/1000x days, and y pages in the spellbook. Any way you do it, as long a wizard's WBL is negatively impacted for the spells he learns to a meaningful degree.

That should restrict the wizard's spells known or equipment, bringing them closer in power level to the sorcerer. Note that they still need further adjustment to be brought in line with other classes a fact debated in other threads elsewhere.

Rule of Thumb: if you're altering the rules, nerf first, pump second. Else power creep enters the equation and you end up with a completely useless construct eventually.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-23, 09:51 PM
Technically, you can make an item, with DM's consent, in any form you want.
That's the problem. A lot of DMs don't have the MIC, or don't know about that little tweak, or they're just stubborn and have this weird idea that EACH AND EVERY ITEM HAS A GODS-GIVEN ASSIGNED SLOT AND SWITCHING SLOTS IS A BETRAYAL OF OUR SAVIORS ARNESON AND GYGAX! You'd think the absurdity of such an idea would be self-evident, but some DMs need to have good sense spelled out for them.

nedz
2010-04-24, 07:07 AM
That's the problem. A lot of DMs don't have the MIC, or don't know about that little tweak, or they're just stubborn and have this weird idea that EACH AND EVERY ITEM HAS A GODS-GIVEN ASSIGNED SLOT AND SWITCHING SLOTS IS A BETRAYAL OF OUR SAVIORS ARNESON AND GYGAX! You'd think the absurdity of such an idea would be self-evident, but some DMs need to have good sense spelled out for them.

DMG p 285 Table 7-33 Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values
...
Special
Uncustomary space limitation Multiply Entire Cost by 1.5
No space limitation Multiply Entire Cost by 2

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-24, 07:28 AM
That precisely what I like about them. These people are my heroes, the social hijackers, the BS'ers, the Tricksters. My favourite Norse God is Loki, and I prefer Prometheus over Atlas. The idea someone can pull a "don' throw me into the ol'briar patch" on the whole UNIVERSE, is just wonderful to me.
I like wizards too, they are the closest D&D has to scientists and nerds. But sorcerers have their own special appeal.

One couldn't define both class better. I had two players, once, one with a Wiz and on with a Sorc. The RPG behind their approach toward things and their relationship with Magic itself was... great.

The Scientist and the Artist. Deduction and Intuition. The Sniper and the Machine gun.

Another one on Pathfinder Sorcerer, BTW. More spells, cool class features, and casting time increase does not hampers quicken spells.

Toliudar
2010-04-24, 08:25 AM
The best thing about the sorcerer mechanic is finding a set of spells and sticking with it, so that you're doing a fraction of the book-keeping that prepared casters do. If I had an empty slot available, then every encounter would become an agony of "do I need to commit now in order to have the perfect spell?" Not worth it.

Instead, how about a "buyer's remorse" agreement with the DM - if a sorcerer doesn't use a spell for a certain period of time (in game or out of game time, depending on the nature of your game), the player can select another spell of the same level in that slot. It might help against those spells that seemed great when you picked them, but then have never proven useful in play.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-24, 08:55 AM
DMG p 285 Table 7-33 Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values
...
Special
Uncustomary space limitation Multiply Entire Cost by 1.5
No space limitation Multiply Entire Cost by 2
I'm glad you see my point. The rules tell DMs to punish players who want bonuses in non-standard slots: not only do such items never appear on treasure charts, PCs have to pay extra to buy such items.

Fitz10019
2010-04-24, 11:00 AM
I've played with the idea of Sorcerers having A slots and B slots, each set having their own spells known and spells per day. The A slots function normally, but the B slots require a minimum of 10 minutes to cast. The intent is that Sorcerers would choose utility spells for their B slots. The party benefits from the utility spells, and the Sorcerer can devote all of the A slots to combat.

Perhaps lack-of-utility spells is a misperception on my part.