Is This Bad? [3.5]

[Temotei]

How bad would it be if I allowed sorcerers to replace known spells every level instead of at 4th level and every even-numbered level after? Not bad at all? Terribad?

[arguskos]

My gut says they don't need the boost. Logically, I'm not sure precisely how to break this, but, when my gut kicks and says "NO DAMMIT" I tend to roll with it.

[Ferrin]

How bad would it be if I allowed sorcerers to replace known spells every level instead of at 4th level and every even-numbered level after? Not bad at all? Terribad?

Nah, should be fine, not like it breaks anything, just makes the spell list better at each level, the lower levels at least.

[Eldariel]

Wouldn't really increase their power in the hands of more experienced players, would make them more forgiving for newer ones. Sounds good. I mean, sure, you'll gain extra power over the low levels from being able to choose level-specific spells over ones you need to plan for the future, but seeing Wizards do that daily, not levelly and you're already a spell level behind, as long as you don't nerf Wizards this wouldn't really alter the power differential that much.

[Lycanthromancer]

I'd also allow spells with progressions (such as summon monster I-IX) to auto-scale based on the spell-slot he casts it in. So, he takes summon monster I and casts it in a level 5 slot. It casts as a summon monster V.

I'd also give him Heighten Spell and Eschew Materials (sorcerer spells only for both) at level 1.

Or just use psion. They can swap their whole list any time after level 7, and that list is far more flexible and useful than a sorcerer's from the get-go.

[Gnaeus]

How bad would it be if I allowed sorcerers to replace known spells every level instead of at 4th level and every even-numbered level after? Not bad at all? Terribad?

Still weaker than a wizard. Still stronger than a Bard or Rogue.

What will it really do? It will let sorcs take spells that are only useful at low level (Sleep, Color Spray and the like). It will make sure that they have spells that are useful against things that they expect to fight for the forseeable future (If you have telegraphed that the big bads will be fire giants, they will have cold spells. Lots of constructs will get construct spells.) It will allow them to take useless spells for crafting purposes and retrain them the following level. They could use Permanency and Contingency more effectively. None of those things scream broken to me.

[DragoonWraith]

Mostly, it will be oodles more forgiving to less optimizing players, which is a good thing. Optimizers might take those HD-limited spells that they'd never, ever take otherwise, but that's hardly the end of the world.

[Temotei]

5/6 replies say it's fine. 1/6 say not.

Alright then. Thanks much. :smallsmile:

[Darklord Xavez]

Make that 6/7.
-Xavez

[Lev]

The idea behind the spacing is that in a fast campaign it makes more sense contextually, but if you don't mind them going into a dungeon crawl and coming out with replaced spells, then sure.

[Irreverent Fool]

Sorcerers have to be extremely careful with their spell selection. A spell that rocks at level 5 may no longer be any good at level 10. This is fine as long as they only take one such spell every 4 levels, but I feel it makes the characters much less interesting to play. They're already hosed by getting their spells one level later than every other core full-caster.

It's a fine change, makes the class more forgiving without altering their power curve. I fully endorse it without reservation.

[Vizzerdrix]

Hmm... Maybe it'd be a little bad if they start making Drake Helms left and right, but those are expensive. Or Knowstones. Make a few, then swap those spells out for new ones AND keep the old ones.

[MountainKing]

My gut says they don't need the boost. Logically, I'm not sure precisely how to break this, but, when my gut kicks and says "NO DAMMIT" I tend to roll with it.

argus, you and I have seen fairly eye to eye in the past, but now I'm curious. To me, this sounds like a fine house-rule, and I don't get that same gut instinct response that you do. Shoot me a PM about why you don't think sorcerers need a boost if you could, please. I sense a fun discussion that could probably de-rail the thread. :smallbiggrin:

For me, as I said, I think it's a fine tweak to a fun class. +1 approval!

[Godskook]

Question: Would that be 'all spells' every level, or '1' spell every level?

[Temotei]

Question: Would that be 'all spells' every level, or '1' spell every level?

One spell per level.


argus, you and I have seen fairly eye to eye in the past, but now I'm curious. To me, this sounds like a fine house-rule, and I don't get that same gut instinct response that you do. Shoot me a PM about why you don't think sorcerers need a boost if you could, please. I sense a fun discussion that could probably de-rail the thread. :smallbiggrin:

For me, as I said, I think it's a fine tweak to a fun class. +1 approval!

I think that discussion would be related enough for it to be in this thread. :smallamused:

[arguskos]

argus, you and I have seen fairly eye to eye in the past, but now I'm curious. To me, this sounds like a fine house-rule, and I don't get that same gut instinct response that you do. Shoot me a PM about why you don't think sorcerers need a boost if you could, please. I sense a fun discussion that could probably de-rail the thread. :smallbiggrin:

For me, as I said, I think it's a fine tweak to a fun class. +1 approval!
Sorcerers don't need the boost, IMO. For example, what is the big divider between Wizards and Sorcerers? Versatility. This expands the sorc's versatility. While it probably won't break anything, I think it's unneeded and reduces one of the limiting factors Sorcerers have (note I said reduce, not eliminate, before someone gets tetchy about this.

It's just a gut reaction though. Likely, it won't matter overmuch in your standard game. But, it doesn't mean I personally like it. I like the classes to be different. Sorcs have lower versatility, I like that. Just a preference thing I guess.

[jiriku]

I think that discussion would be related enough for it to be in this thread. :smallamused:
Especially since the OP's got his resolution.

+1 for allowing it, BTW. I actually have implemented it as a house rule in my campaign in response to the frustrations of a novice player who was unhappy with his sorcerer. He was muchly satisfied. I can't comment on the power impact of his choice, as he took a godawful prestige class that nerfed him badly, but player satisfaction increased a great deal. I now allow all classes that cast spontaneously from a limited list of spells known to swap a spell at every level-up.

[Irreverent Fool]

Sorcerers don't need the boost, IMO. For example, what is the big divider between Wizards and Sorcerers? Versatility. This expands the sorc's versatility. While it probably won't break anything, I think it's unneeded and reduces one of the limiting factors Sorcerers have (note I said reduce, not eliminate, before someone gets tetchy about this.

It's just a gut reaction though. Likely, it won't matter overmuch in your standard game. But, it doesn't mean I personally like it. I like the classes to be different. Sorcs have lower versatility, I like that. Just a preference thing I guess.

The big divider between wizards and sorcerers is that wizards get to cast their spells a whole level earlier AND versatility. The classes will still be very different in practice.

I think the main limiting factor is how many spells they know at once, not how many spells they will cease to use (wizards tend to end up with lots of spells they might not use more than 2-3 times in their careers). I doubt you'll see sorcerers trading out to gain utility spells for a couple levels with this change. It just gives them a reason not to take spells early that won't be useful until later. Color spray for example, isn't generally long-term enough for a sorcerer to bother with. Magic missile on the other hand is fairly worthless at lower level but is an excellent use for a 1st-level "known" slot at higher levels.

I feel this change will make the character more interesting to play and would definitely make me consider playing a sorcerer rather than a wizard.

[Gnaeus]

You could probably rework the Sorcerer like the Spirit Shaman (Allowing him to repick ALL his spells known every morning) and it wouldn't do more than put them into the big 6 along with Wiz, Druid and Cleric. Spontaneous casting would give him a slight edge over the Wizard, but the fact that he was a full spell level behind for 2/5ths of levels would balance that (Assuming no loredrake/greater rite of passage cheese).

[arguskos]

I dunno, it's just a preference thing. it puts me off on a very base level. It's not a BAD rule, it's just one I don't personally like for very ephemeral reasons. *shrugs* Not like it's a deal-breaker or anything. :smalltongue:

[Tavar]

Wizard: changes spells memorized each day, can add to spells known freely.
Sorcerer: Changes one spell known per level, fixed limit.

Not seeing any change in versatility there, it's only what, 8 spells, spread out over a 20 level progression.

[Temotei]

Wizard: changes spells memorized each day, can add to spells known freely.
Sorcerer: Changes one spell known per level, fixed limit.

Not seeing any change in versatility there, it's only what, 8 spells, spread out over a 20 level progression.

There is a noticeable change in the ability of the sorcerer to pick good-early-on-but-crappy-later spells.

[Lycanthromancer]

There is a noticeable change in the ability of the sorcerer to pick good-early-on-but-crappy-later spells.It's mostly in the ability to increase character build options, rather than merely increasing power. Now you can pick what's good for THIS level, and swap it out later, rather than picking something else good that will stay good later on, but reduces your choices to 'pick this one'.

[Temotei]

It's mostly in the ability to increase character build options, rather than merely increasing power. Now you can pick what's good for THIS level, and swap it out later, rather than picking something else good that will stay good later on, but reduces your choices to 'pick this one'.

That's what I said. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

I think this is OK, but fairly minor.

Sorcerors require strategic planning at least a few levels ahead and this will help should you make a wrong a spell choice. It will help newbies who do not know the spells that well and so makes the class more accessable; which is good.

[PId6]

There is a noticeable change in the ability of the sorcerer to pick good-early-on-but-crappy-later spells.
Which is no bad thing, since it makes early levels more playable (as opposed to always being behind the wizard still) since you don't have to sacrifice future for present or present for future. And you can already switch out every even level, which is enough if you plan it well enough. I usually take Color Spray at 1st level, for example, and immediately switch it out at 4th. There aren't enough "good at a certain time" spells that this would make much of a difference on the sorcerer that plans ahead. On a less optimized sorcerer, however, this provides a very nice margin of error for fixing past mistakes.

And the idea that this change would bring sorcerers anywhere close to a wizard's versatility is ridiculous. Most spells are still not worth taking, spells that you want to cast only once or twice are still better as scrolls, and you still want your spells to be as spammable as can be. If you encounter a situation that your current spells can't solve, few people are going to say "Gimme a sec, I need to go level up first so I can get a spell to solve this problem." There's no comparison to a wizard's "Gimme a sec, I need to take 15 minutes to prepare the spell I need" or even "Gimme a sec, I need to spend a full-round action to Uncanny Forethought up an answer."

[Superglucose]

This has always been the houserule in every game I've ever played. I find it doesn't change the power level at all and pretty much the only thing it does is make the class much more forgiving for newbies, like the one in my group who's suddenly saying, "Huh, I don't seem to use Burning Hands all that much..."

[Temotei]

Another idea is to allow choosing spells one level lower to replace instead of two levels lower. That could allow you to get this feature at 2nd level instead of 4th level, although it would slightly (again) increase the sorcerer's power.

It's not that the sorcerer needs a boost, really. I'm also in no way comparing the sorcerer to a wizard. I'm just throwing around an idea (now two).

[Theodoriph]

I don`t play 4th ed, but no, it`s not bad. You should never have to suck today so you can be good tomorrow. The game is about having fun all the time, not a few levels in the future. If a class "feature" prevents that, it should be destroyed. :smallsmile:

[Temotei]

I don`t play 4th ed, but no, it`s not bad. You should never have to suck today so you can be good tomorrow. The game is about having fun all the time, not a few levels in the future. If a class "feature" prevents that, it should be destroyed. :smallsmile:

This is for 3.5. Dang. I should have tagged it. My bad. :smallsigh:

I agree with you.

[Tavar]

The sorcerer doesn't need a boost, no. But it does need a safety net. Clerics and Druids simply need to pick new spells the next day, and their fine. Wizards might need to copy more spells down, but it's still pretty easy to recover. Sorcerers can't really recover from mistakes, and that's just there to punish players. Bad design is bad.

[PId6]

Another idea is to allow choosing spells one level lower to replace instead of two levels lower. That could allow you to get this feature at 2nd level instead of 4th level, although it would slightly (again) increase the sorcerer's power.
That doesn't really change much. It's a single level after you picked those spells; there probably won't be much that you care to switch out, even if you can switch out 1st level spells (which you can with Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell).


It's not that the sorcerer needs a boost, really.
This type of change isn't so much a "power boost" but rather a "playability boost". Tier 1 or 2 classes may be quite powerful, but most of them are very easy to screw up for non-optimizers (except Druid). (ToB classes, on the other hand, have high playability due to being pre-optimized but are overall of lower power level than casters.) Things like allowing more spell switching and adding higher-level class features to full casters won't change much for optimizers, who always plan ahead and PrC out early anyway, but would make the classes more playable for those who don't optimize. There's nothing wrong with boosting playability for powerful classes, since on the highest levels of optimization, it's not going to change power at all.

[Theodoriph]

This is for 3.5. Dang. I should have tagged it. My bad. :smallsigh:

I agree with you.


I should have realized it from the talk of spells instead of powers. :smalltongue: Anyway, my groups have always pretty much ignored those rules and let sorcerors swap out spells whenever they wanted simply by informing the DM. This was subject to the principle that this would not be abused.

Sorcerors already suffer from delayed spell access and reduced metamagic unless they sacrifice their companion as per PHB II (sorry fluffy...you were a liability anyway). Adding in the restriction of swapping out spells kind of makes sense from a character background point of view, but does not work practically because players make mistakes, every DM has a different style and thus certain spells may become more useful or less useful, a story arc is occurring somewhere which favours certain spells over others etc. This could result in a Sorc feeling useless or being unhappy because they`re not really participating.

In short, I`m all for swapping out whenever a player wants...as long as I dont feel he`s trying to abuse the generosity.

[Temotei]

That doesn't really change much. It's a single level after you picked those spells; there probably won't be much that you care to switch out, even if you can switch out 1st level spells (which you can with Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell).

Two spells, actually. 2nd + 3rd = two. I was meaning to combine the two rules. I should have made that clear.


This type of change isn't so much a "power boost" but rather a "playability boost". Tier 1 or 2 classes may be quite powerful, but most of them are very easy to screw up for non-optimizers (except Druid). (ToB classes, on the other hand, have high playability due to being pre-optimized but are overall of lower power level than casters.) Things like allowing more spell switching and adding higher-level class features to full casters won't change much for optimizers, who always plan ahead and PrC out early anyway, but would make the classes more playable for those who don't optimize. There's nothing wrong with boosting playability for powerful classes, since on the highest levels of optimization, it's not going to change power at all.

I never did say power boost, but that is what I implied. :smallamused:

Still, you can't argue it's not a power boost as well as a fun boost.

[Dracons]

I already do this for my own game. The ability to swap a single spell every level is minor at best. I don't get what angus is so horrifed at the aspect of that. Maybe he just enjoys punishing players.

I also give eshew materials and heighten spell as free feats at level 1 and 2.

[Temotei]

I already do this for my own game. The ability to swap a single spell every level is minor at best. I don't get what angus is so horrifed at the aspect of that. Maybe he just enjoys punishing players.

Hey, that's not fair. If anything, arguskos is far more generous than I've seen...like ever. Indeed, you said "maybe," but you would do well not to personally pick at people--especially on these boards.

He's already said that it's a personal preference, anyway, not that it's a terrible thing.


I also give eshew materials and heighten spell as free feats at level 1 and 2.

That's been suggested, and it's a fine suggestion. I'll give Eschew Materials at 1st level, but Heighten Spell will probably be left out.

[Foryn Gilnith]

If anything, arguskos is far more generous than I've seen...like ever. Indeed, you said "maybe," but you would do well not to personally pick at people--especially on these boards.

Where'd that come from? I see no posts attacking arguskos. Only a post about angus. :smallbiggrin:

[Temotei]

Where'd that come from? I see no posts attacking arguskos. Only a post about angus. :smallbiggrin:

You guys make me laugh. :smallamused:

And life is good. :smallbiggrin:

[Vaynor]

Poor Angus didn't even post in this thread and he's still getting harassed. :smallfrown:




:smallwink:

[Temotei]

Poor Angus didn't even post in this thread and he's still getting harassed. :smallfrown:




:smallwink:

WHY DO THEY PICK ON THE BEEF?! :smallamused:

[arguskos]

I already do this for my own game. The ability to swap a single spell every level is minor at best. I don't get what angus is so horrifed at the aspect of that. Maybe he just enjoys punishing players
Wow, that's uncalled for. Also, please, I am not a side of beef (well... :smalltongue:).

Also, yeah, personal preference and irrational gut dislike. Happens. I apparently am also the only person I know who has gut reactions like that, but hey, no one's perfect, mirite? :smallbiggrin: Especially not that guy, you know, that one. You know who you are. :P

[Mongoose87]

Poor Angus didn't even post in this thread and he's still getting harassed. :smallfrown:




:smallwink:

I guess you could say they have some beef with him.

:smallcool:

YEAAAAAAAAAH!

[arguskos]

I guess you could say they have some beef with him.

:smallcool:

YEAAAAAAAAAH!
The puns duke, the puns... *dies from punnage* :smalltongue:

[sofawall]

Especially not that guy, you know, that one. You know who you are. :P

You refer, of course, to Angus.

[Lycanthromancer]

You refer, of course, to Angus.Speaking of which, where's the beef?!

[sofawall]

Reading that, immediately followed by the thread title, all I thought was "Yes."

[true_shinken]

Or just use psion. They can swap their whole list any time after level 7, and that list is far more flexible and useful than a sorcerer's from the get-go.
Oh, sure. Psions get arcane fusion, wings of cover, wings of flurry and ruin delver's fortune. Of course they do.

[Touchy]

Oh, sure. Psions get arcane fusion, wings of cover, wings of flurry and ruin delver's fortune. Of course they do.

Well not psions, but StP Erudites do, and they can preform the same trick at the same level as a psion.

[Temotei]

Or just use psion. They can swap their whole list any time after level 7, and that list is far more flexible and useful than a sorcerer's from the get-go.

I totally missed this. I'm not doing this for a character or anything, so that point is moot.

:smallamused: In fact, I'm not doing this for sorcerers at all...

[Endarire]

By default, an optimized Sorcerer picks spells that are spiffy in general. His small number of spells known is painfully confining.

In contrast, a Wizard can know spells that are spiffy in niche situations AND in general. Both can and probably will learn glitterdust, but how many Sorcerers will take phantom steed as a spell known instead of haste, slow, summon monster, or major image?

[Temotei]

By default, an optimized Sorcerer picks spells that are spiffy in general. His small number of spells known is painfully confining.

In contrast, a Wizard can know spells that are spiffy in niche situations AND in general. Both can and probably will learn glitterdust, but how many Sorcerers will take phantom steed as a spell known instead of haste, slow, summon monster, or major image?

Summon monster usually isn't a sorcerer option unless you plan on relearning that spell.

But yeah, we all know the wizard wipes the floor with the whole game. Was that a +1 to "Nah, it's okay?"

[Endarire]

My initial thought to a Sorcererr was, "If these guys know 2 spells at level 1, they should be able to cast each of them 4+ times per day!"

Go ahead and swap spells by level. Especially if psychic reformation is allowed, let 'em redo their spell lists every level.

[Dracons]

Sorry for misspelling the name. Chalk it up to my double vision.

I wasn't trying to insult anyone. There are many different ways for several different types of classes to reformat or change their spell list. The only thing arguskos did was say NOOOO. ( I haven't read any post to read where he is one of the most generous DM's ever), that it was a gut instinct. It's just one spell every level rather then every four. It would allow sorcerers to not be so careful when picking spells to last them their whole career, given them a chance to pick spells that could be more useful at lower levels.

Seriously, other then your gut reaction of OVERPOWERFUL, what is it you hate so much about it? What is so so very wrong about it?

[arguskos]

Seriously, other then your gut reaction of OVERPOWERFUL, what is it you hate so much about it? What is so so very wrong about it?
I never said it was, to quote you, "OVERPOWERFUL". I said I had a gut reaction that I didn't like it. Is it so tough to envision that I just don't like it for whatever, hard to pin down, reason? :smallconfused:

Mechanically, there is nothing wrong with it. I just don't like it, for whatever reason. It's like how some folk watch a movie, and walk out saying "eh, I didn't like it much". It's not that it was a bad movie, they just didn't like it. Same deal here.

[Temotei]

It's just one spell every level rather then every four.

At 4th level and every two levels after is the normal formula. Close enough, but eh. It helps to know that.

[Dracons]

I never said it was, to quote you, "OVERPOWERFUL". I said I had a gut reaction that I didn't like it. Is it so tough to envision that I just don't like it for whatever, hard to pin down, reason? :smallconfused:



After a lifetime of people refusing to belive me when I said I didn't like something just because, I've grown to need to give reasons and figured all people have reasons.


You don't like sorcerers having a fair chance of equality. fair enough.

[Tavar]

You don't like sorcerers having a fair chance of equality. fair enough.

That's too harsh. Sorcerer's are still pretty powerful, if in good hands. It's just easier for inexperienced players to mess it up. The proposed variant helps this, without really changing the higher levels of power.

Also, while I do feel that by posting an opinion in a debate, arguskos did open said opinion up to be questioned or criticized, I feel you've gone a bit far, and generally assume a bit much. Early on in the thread he said that he disliked the variant not because power, but because of flavor.

Now, personally I disagree with his opinion, as the versatility gained is truly minuscule, and I can't see how this makes the sorcerer and wizard too alike, especially since the sorcerer could already do this to much the same degree.

[sofawall]

You don't like sorcerers having a fair chance of equality. fair enough.

And you pull inane statements with no basis in reality out of you-know-where. Fair enough.

[Ferrin]

You don't like sorcerers having a fair chance of equality. fair enough.

Buffing each class to be like wizards is a bad idea if you ask me.

[Tavar]

Buffing each class to be like wizards is a bad idea if you ask me.
Well, this really isn't going to do anything like that. In the hands of a more experience player, you're probably going to see more situational spells, level-wize(color spray, sleep, etc), and in the hands of inexperienced players it's simply going to be more forgiving.

[arguskos]

After a lifetime of people refusing to belive me when I said I didn't like something just because, I've grown to need to give reasons and figured all people have reasons.
While I do sympathize, I really do, it's not always the case.


You don't like sorcerers having a fair chance of equality. fair enough.
I don't mind when folks question why I believe as I do. I do mind when you blow statements significantly out of proportion. If you'd like to come after me, do it with facts and things I've said and stand by, please.

Also, Tavar, because you mentioned it, I'd like to say that yeah, I did open it up to questioning, but honestly, there's not much for me to say about it. I just don't like it for my own nebulous whatevers, not cause it's BAD or anything. *shrugs* To each his own, right? :smallwink:

[Ferrin]

Well, this really isn't going to do anything like that. In the hands of a more experience player, you're probably going to see more situational spells, level-wize(color spray, sleep, etc), and in the hands of inexperienced players it's simply going to be more forgiving.

Eh, it wasn't against the OP's suggestion, but against the person who's statement I quoted. Sorry if it was vague.

[Tavar]

Oh yes. I mainly had that part to make it clear that I wasn't arguing against a debate, simply against scurrilous accusations.


@ Ferrin: Ah, yes. I agree with that. Much prefer more middle of the road.

[Dracons]

And there has to be a reason as to why. Other then just flavor reasons, because even then doing the above can still be used in game for flavor, such as a sorcerer increasing his sleep spell to deep slumber at next level, or perhaps after a very long time in artic regions, he changed ray of frost to ray of fire.

I'm just need to know what makes you think sorcerers can't have nice things.

[Ferrin]

And there has to be a reason as to why. Other then just flavor reasons, because even then doing the above can still be used in game for flavor, such as a sorcerer increasing his sleep spell to deep slumber at next level, or perhaps after a very long time in artic regions, he changed ray of frost to ray of fire.

I'm just need to know what makes you think sorcerers can't have nice things.

He can change his sleep spell to deep slumber, he just needs to give up one of his other spells known for it. Changing certain elemental spells depending on the region is flavorful, but I think you'd rather have fire in an arctic region. Cold subtypes and all. Though I agree it's a fun idea.

But really, there's a difference between changing and adding flavor and mechanical benefits. Sorcerers are allready tier 2, which is fine with most people if the group is mostly tier 1-3 anyway, but if some people are tier 4 or below it gets worse.

[arguskos]

And there has to be a reason as to why. Other then just flavor reasons, because even then doing the above can still be used in game for flavor, such as a sorcerer increasing his sleep spell to deep slumber at next level, or perhaps after a very long time in artic regions, he changed ray of frost to ray of fire.
No, there doesn't, actually. Sometimes, you just shudder and go "ugh". Happens dude.


I'm just need to know what makes you think sorcerers can't have nice things.
Who said that? *looks around* I never said I don't let them have nice things. Ask Temotei, he's playing a sorcerer in one of my games on this forum right now. I said I didn't like a proposed alteration to the Sorcerer class, and you interpreted that as I don't let them have nice things. Really dude, take a step back and see what the difference here is. :smallwink:

[Temotei]

Ask Temotei, he's playing a sorcerer in one of my games on this forum right now.

I got free bonus feats and a nice weapon when I turned to arguskos for my needs. He doesn't disappoint.

Change your DM to arguskos today! :smallbiggrin: