PDA

View Full Version : Spontaneous vs Prepared casting



shadow_archmagi
2010-08-21, 08:29 PM
So, people often bring up Wizards as being vastly superior to Sorcerers, because they get more spells. However, I can't help but notice that the wizard gains 2 spells per level.

That leaves the wizard, in theory, with 4 spells of each level they know, plus 8 9th level spells and 10 first level spells (assuming you have 18 INT and took Grey Elf)

The sorcerer winds up with one spell fewer on each level, except for ninth, where admittedly he gets a bit screwed.

The thing is, I really have a lot of trouble seeing how this is HUGE INFERIORITY.

I guess I have three questions, really


1. Does your DM shower you with scrolls? Do you wind up with double or triple the spells, rather than 25% more?

2. Do you actually play games at 18th-19th level, where the wizard REALLY pulls ahead in numbers?

3. Does your DM actually allow you to abusive divination/metagaming/just being too **** smart/etc so that you can predict what is coming on a routine basis?


In my experience, I've always preferred sorcerer, simply because it was a lot harder to predict what was coming and what the best method of killing it would be.

That is, generally my DM preferred to say "AND THEN SUDDENLY SHARKS" than "You'll be playing against sharks tomorrow. You might want to prepare water breathing or something."

When random scrolls HAVE shown up, 90% of them are worthless anyway. Cure light wounds? Hide from plants?

TaintedLight
2010-08-21, 08:35 PM
One of the really nice things about having a spellbook is that you can scribe spells from captured spellbooks into it. That's potentially a wealth of knowledge you paid nothing for in terms of character resources other than gold and time, which everyone can have anyways. Plus, there's always Elven Generalist for even more spells known/level.

TheThan
2010-08-21, 08:40 PM
Because spontaneous and prepared magic both use the Vancian casting system there is very little difference between them. The only real difference is that wizards have to prepare their spells and sorcerers don’t.

The thing about wizards is that they have access to a lot more spells than sorcerers do. They have no set limit to the number of spells they can know. A wizard cherry picks his spells from a huge list daily, a sorcerer cherry picks his spells from the same list, but he can’t do it daily so he has to be much more discerning in which spells he picks.

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-21, 08:43 PM
The thing about wizards is that they have access to a lot more spells than sorcerers do. They have no set limit to the number of spells they can know. A wizard cherry picks his spells from a huge list daily, a sorcerer cherry picks his spells from the same list, but he can’t do it daily so he has to be much more discerning in which spells he picks.

That's what I'm asking. Although there is no MAXIMUM, they have to acquire all the spells, and I was wondering if the rate of spell acquisition was really that amazing.

I was also wondering if being able to say

"I knew we were going to fight batman, so I prepared my bat-repellent spray!"

is more valuable than

"I had no idea this army was coming! I thought it was going to be a pleasant day at the markets. Luckily, there's no reason I can't spend all my spells per day on Fireball!"

rokar4life
2010-08-21, 08:44 PM
glasscannon vs batman

TaintedLight
2010-08-21, 08:46 PM
That's what I'm asking. Although there is no MAXIMUM, they have to acquire all the spells, and I was wondering if the rate of spell acquisition was really that amazing.

I was also wondering if being able to say

"I knew we were going to fight batman, so I prepared my bat-repellent spray!"

is more valuable than

"I had no idea this army was coming! I thought it was going to be a pleasant day at the markets. Luckily, there's no reason I can't spend all my spells per day on Fireball!"

With a very carefully selected set of spells? Yes, the sorcerer can outshine the wizard. It is totally possible, especially when combined with things like summoning that grant access to other SLAs. It's just really hard to make that happen.

DementedFellow
2010-08-21, 08:50 PM
One of the things that always bothered me was that Spontaneous casting is almost always based off another stat besides INT. Wizards get INT + 2 skill points, so do Sorcerers, which leads to a huge difference in terms of how many ranks are spent in each skill.

It's as if the game makers LOVE prepared casting even though it is cumbersome, easily breakable, and a pain to divine what spells you'll use throughout the course of the day.

Also you can cast multiple versions of the same spell in a round when you're a wizard, but if you are a sorcerer even if it is the same empowered Magic Missile then it will take you a full round.

Sorcerers are way more fun to play in terms of Pew-Pew-Pew. Which is, I'm told, the way the game designers wanted the spellcasters to be, instead of battlefield controllers. But if this is the case, why limit what someone can do when it comes NATURALLY?

Vangor
2010-08-21, 08:53 PM
In my experience, I've always preferred sorcerer, simply because it was a lot harder to predict what was coming and what the best method of killing it would be.

Why do you prefer the sorcerer? Lack of prediction is worse for the sorcerer who cannot alter spell slot selection day to day. You need to select the broadest spells possible to be at least reasonably effective in the coming career. For the wizard, they can select spells which are moderately effective in most encounters, just as a sorcerer, but have the benefit of after identifying an enemy, gaining information, or similar and adjusting for the next day.

The advantage the sorcerer has is if combat encounters are more general, which won't hamper the wizard but allow the sorcerer to handle more of somewhat. If we are not specifying combat, any issues involving puzzles, social interaction, movement, etc., which are not as immediate or may be prepared for in advance will tend to favor the wizard.

Do not forget, either, the sorcerer has a slower spell level progression by one level. All they truly have is, assuming a specialist wizard, one additional spell per day per level. Not bad, by any stretch, but I would rather have my spells somewhat earlier.


When random scrolls HAVE shown up, 90% of them are worthless anyway. Cure light wounds? Hide from plants?

You should have about a 50/50 of a scroll being arcane or divine, and you can use the vast majority of arcane spells besides those specific to bards. A few scrolls are pretty common to find among any decent area of loot, and any sizable town should contain a store to purchase some additional scrolls. As well, any enemy should employ arcanists if not primarily arcanists themselves which can lead to extensive versatility for the wizard.

Gorgondantess
2010-08-21, 09:00 PM
One of the things that always bothered me was that Spontaneous casting is almost always based off another stat besides INT. Wizards get INT + 2 skill points, so do Sorcerers, which leads to a huge difference in terms of how many ranks are spent in each skill.

It's as if the game makers LOVE prepared casting even though it is cumbersome, easily breakable, and a pain to divine what spells you'll use throughout the course of the day.
Actually, yeah, one of the head developers on 3rd edition actually said that he hated the sorcerer.

TaintedLight
2010-08-21, 09:03 PM
One of the things that always bothered me was that Spontaneous casting is almost always based off another stat besides INT. Wizards get INT + 2 skill points, so do Sorcerers, which leads to a huge difference in terms of how many ranks are spent in each skill.

It's as if the game makers LOVE prepared casting even though it is cumbersome, easily breakable, and a pain to divine what spells you'll use throughout the course of the day.

Also you can cast multiple versions of the same spell in a round when you're a wizard, but if you are a sorcerer even if it is the same empowered Magic Missile then it will take you a full round.

Sorcerers are way more fun to play in terms of Pew-Pew-Pew. Which is, I'm told, the way the game designers wanted the spellcasters to be, instead of battlefield controllers. But if this is the case, why limit what someone can do when it comes NATURALLY?

This is why my houserule is that sorcerers automatically gain the benefits of the Rapid Metamagic feat at first level. There is absolutely no good reason in my mind why someone specialized in spellcasting should be inadequate at metamagic to the same degree as a bard or a paladin.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-21, 09:07 PM
Sorcerers are way more fun to play in terms of Pew-Pew-Pew. Which is, I'm told, the way the game designers wanted the spellcasters to be, instead of battlefield controllers. But if this is the case, why limit what someone can do when it comes NATURALLY?
Because they thought sorcerers who can quicken spells would be broken; or rather, more broken than prep casters who can quicken.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-21, 09:07 PM
Divination spells can help considerably toward the problem of knowing what to prepare. A wizard who makes extensive use of divinations to have a decent idea of what she will be facing can prepare an appropriate array of spells. And their spell list theoretically includes every wiz/sorc spell ever, because they can scribe all of them.

And as noted, a wizard can prepare the same spells as a sorcerer, and prepare them one level earlier, if she doesn't know what she's going to face. The sorcerer will be able to cast a few more spells. The wizard, on the other hand, can adjust to anything if given the time to prepare, which she should have against major threats. After all, a random encounter shouldn't be that difficult either way, but the big bad is someone the characters will know a great deal about before they face her, so the wizard will have plenty of knowledge which to draw upon for her spell selection when they go to bring down their enemy.

As for obtaining new spells, if the DM doesn't like to give them out as treasure they can always be purchased. Scrolls aren't all that expensive, and buying a scroll then scribing it gets a wizard a permanent addition to her spell repetoire.

NelKor
2010-08-21, 09:08 PM
On the note of scrolls there's no reason a Dm can't mix in Knowstones with loot for Sorcerers, actually if Knowstones are available Sorcerer casting gets a bit more delicious.

TaintedLight
2010-08-21, 09:11 PM
On the note of scrolls there's no reason a Dm can't mix in Knowstones with loot for Sorcerers, actually if Knowstones are available Sorcerer casting gets a bit more delicious.

I would be HIGHLY cautious about the inclusion of knowstones myself. Where does the reasonable limit exist? Why not have a sorcerer who just crafts a bunch of knowstones once he's had a chance to study one?

Vangor
2010-08-21, 09:29 PM
On the note of scrolls there's no reason a Dm can't mix in Knowstones with loot for Sorcerers, actually if Knowstones are available Sorcerer casting gets a bit more delicious.

Knowstones won't generally be allowed due to being from Dragon Magazine. I think they violate the concept of spontaneous versus prepared spellcasting which is the spontaneous caster does not learn more spells, therefore adaptability is limited. One or two is not bad, especially for spells which may be quite relevant to the campaign which a sorcerer probably has not selected.

My personal preference for helping sorcerers is to return spell progression to the same level as wizards, provide them wizard bonus feats at the same levels, give scribe scroll at first level as a wizard has, and give an Int (yes, Int) to spells known bonus similar to Cha to spell slots bonus. However, the spell known has to be learned in a manner identical to how a wizard would. This means a sorcerer with a 28+ Int could have an additional 9th level spell, permitting they find a 9th level arcane scroll the sorcerer wants to learn.

Wonton
2010-08-21, 09:53 PM
You can discuss Tiers until you're blue in the face, but in terms of practical gameplay, the prepared caster often ends up being "The best man for the job, tomorrow.", and if your DM is as secretive as mine, it can be very hard to avoid that paradigm.

oxybe
2010-08-21, 09:58 PM
the main difference between the wizard and sorc is versatility. the wizard has versatility in choice, while the sorceror has versatility in use.

a sorceror picks a handfull of spells, and while he doesn't have a large library, he's probably not as boned as a wizard who prepared his spell list expecting ed a day of carousing with nobility and is now... SURPRISE! facing an undead hoard.

the wizard however, can theoretically handle a much larger scope of situations if he has advance knowledge of what he's up against that day. a sorc picks his poison and then he's stuck with it whether he's fighting zombies, chatting up nobility or stuck in a dwarven mine.

a wizard with a big enough repetoire can tailor his spell list for the situation. one day he's blasting as an evoker, the next he's a master at divination, the third he's conjuring up houses for the homeless...

on wednesdays we play pathfinder. we're level 4 and based out of a large enough city. GM said pretty much all level 1-2 spells from the corebook & his companion guides are available. i've sunk a good part of my level 1-3 money grabbing scrolls and learning spells.

right now my wizard has:

Level 0
All

Level 1
Magic Missile
Burning Disarm
Grease
Color Spray
Comprehend Languages
Feather Fall
Identify
Disguise Self
Mount
Protection VS chaos/evil/good/law
Floating Disk
Silent Image
Enlarge Person

Level 2
Admonishing Ray
Locate Object
Invisibility
Glitterdust
Levitate
Knock

we found a spellbook last session as part of a treasure hoard. i don't know if it was from the module the GM was running or as part of his "i'll give you more magic items" promise (we're almost level 5 and we have what... a single magic weapon and one magic armor between the 6 of us? though to be honest half the group is casters and the rest rogues. also, we found like, 4 +1 with enchantment shortswords as part of the treasure). it contained these spells:

Level 1
Break
Burning Disarm
Burning Hands
Cause Fear
Detect Undead
Mage Armor
Magic Missile
Magic Weapon
True Strike
Unseen Servant

Level 2
Alter Self
Arcane Lock
Darkness
Flaming Sphere
Fog Cloud
Glitterdust
Gust of Wind
Pyrotechnics
Shatter
Whispering Wind

Level 3
Fireball
Halt Undead
Magic Circle against Law
Phantom Steed
Stinking Cloud
Tiny Hut
Versatile Weapon

Level 4
Fire Shield
Lesser Globe of Invulnerability
Locate Creature

...and a scroll of Contagion.

you'll notice VERY little overlap between the two lists as well as spells i can't even use yet, and once i add these to my spellbook the power of the wizard will go up. not because i can cast more spells or more powerful spells, but because i can better tailor my spell list to the situation we will be facing.

that's why the wizard is generally considered more powerful then the sorc. generally speaking the wizard is better equipped to face a wider array of challenges.

dextercorvia
2010-08-21, 10:05 PM
you'll notice VERY little overlap between the two lists as well as spells i can't even use yet, and once i add these to my spellbook the power of the wizard will go up. not because i can cast more spells or more powerful spells, but because i can better tailor my spell list to the situation we will be facing.

that's why the wizard is generally considered more powerful then the sorc. generally speaking the wizard is better equipped to face a wider array of challenges.

Don't add them! Use the Attunement Rules from CArc. DC X+highest level spell in the book spellcraft check, and the whole book becomes yours for free!

I have to look X up, but I believe it is 25.

Edit: Yep, it's 25+highest level spell in the book. (Don't forget you can take 10). If you think you'll have trouble, don't forget you can prepare from a 'borrowed' book with a 15+spell level check -- that's in the SRD.

This is where the wizard gets all the candy. A captured spellbook is honest to goodness gold.

Goonthegoof
2010-08-21, 10:06 PM
That one wouldn't work properly, a sorcerer could easily just use PaO on herself and permanently become a 28+ int creature. When that happens the only difference between a sorcerer and a wizard becomes 5 bonus feats vs spontaneous casting.

dextercorvia
2010-08-21, 10:10 PM
That one wouldn't work properly, a sorcerer could easily just use PaO on herself and permanently become a 28+ int creature. When that happens the only difference between a sorcerer and a wizard becomes 5 bonus feats vs spontaneous casting.

What won't work properly?

Goonthegoof
2010-08-21, 10:30 PM
My personal preference for helping sorcerers is to return spell progression to the same level as wizards, provide them wizard bonus feats at the same levels, give scribe scroll at first level as a wizard has, and give an Int (yes, Int) to spells known bonus similar to Cha to spell slots bonus. However, the spell known has to be learned in a manner identical to how a wizard would. This means a sorcerer with a 28+ Int could have an additional 9th level spell, permitting they find a 9th level arcane scroll the sorcerer wants to learn.

I was referring to this, I replied half an hour later and forgot there would be other replies. I also misread it, I thought he was basically giving them the scribe spell feature =P

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-21, 10:31 PM
Why do you prefer the sorcerer? Lack of prediction is worse for the sorcerer who cannot alter spell slot selection day to day.

I have this scenario in my mind

DM: suddenly a canyon
Wizard: I cast fly and go over to the other side and secure a rope
DM: Suddenly bats
Wizard: Oh god! My other prepared spell is Haste! That can't help me here!
*later*
DM: suddenly another canyon
Wizard: Oh no, I don't have a second Fly prepared!



Divination spells can help considerably toward the problem of knowing what to prepare.

And as noted, a wizard can prepare the same spells as a sorcerer, and prepare them one level earlier, if she doesn't know what she's going to face.

I havn't found Divination to be very helpful, to be honest. Scrying just gives you a 20 ft sphere of vision. Contact Other Plane risks lies and mental failure.

Vangor
2010-08-21, 10:32 PM
That one wouldn't work properly, a sorcerer could easily just use PaO on herself and permanently become a 28+ int creature. When that happens the only difference between a sorcerer and a wizard becomes 5 bonus feats vs spontaneous casting.

The difference between both would not be the bonus feats, since I include them, but spontaneous casting versus vastly more spells known, unless the same DM houseruling in the new additions to the sorcerer also shafts the party wizard on available scrolls to learn, which seems rather unlikely. But, you are speaking about using a broken spell in order to abuse a houserule meant to help a sorcerer. If anything in all of D&D should not be abused, houserules meant to help you are it.

Besides, you know who uses sorcerers in all of the groups I have played in? Newer players wanting to try spellcasting without the bookkeeping and preparation of a wizard. They are not attempting to abuse PaO.


I have this scenario in my mind

DM: suddenly a canyon
Wizard: I cast fly and go over to the other side and secure a rope
DM: Suddenly bats
Wizard: Oh god! My other prepared spell is Haste! That can't help me here!
*later*
DM: suddenly another canyon
Wizard: Oh no, I don't have a second Fly prepared!

Sorcerer: Oh no, a canyon and I am only level 5.
Sorcerer at level 6: Oh no, a place where fly is useless but gaseous form is useful.
Sorcerer at level 7: Hey DM, can I deal 7d6 damage to the group of Drow with my gaseous form?

dextercorvia
2010-08-21, 10:33 PM
I have this scenario in my mind

DM: suddenly a canyon
Wizard: I cast fly and go over to the other side and secure a rope
DM: Suddenly bats
Wizard: Oh god! My other prepared spell is Haste! That can't help me here!
*later*
DM: suddenly another canyon
Wizard: Oh no, I don't have a second Fly prepared!

I'm confused as to why your Wizard only has two spells prepared, period?

TaintedLight
2010-08-21, 10:42 PM
Alacritous Cogitation? That one helps the wizard out quite a bit. Not to mention that your DM is being a jerk if he's constantly throwing you curveballs just to mess with you. Challenges shouldn't be designed FOR the players, but they should be designed such that the players can overcome them in one form or another.

Wonton
2010-08-21, 10:45 PM
Alacritous Cogitation? That one helps the wizard out quite a bit. Not to mention that your DM is being a jerk if he's constantly throwing you curveballs just to mess with you. Challenges shouldn't be designed FOR the players, but they should be designed such that the players can overcome them in one form or another.

Uncanny Forethought is better in every way than AC. As for challenges, it comes down to style of DM-ing. My DM's idea of challenge is "you're caught unprepared, now you get to improvise"... which fits a Sorcerer's playstyle better, IMO.

TaintedLight
2010-08-21, 11:04 PM
Uncanny Forethought is better in every way than AC. As for challenges, it comes down to style of DM-ing. My DM's idea of challenge is "you're caught unprepared, now you get to improvise"... which fits a Sorcerer's playstyle better, IMO.

That's actually the one I meant.

Andion Isurand
2010-08-21, 11:06 PM
I dont like Uncanny Forethought because it reads like they left out a few details.

Kalrik
2010-08-21, 11:59 PM
I play pathfinder and I am very pleased with the fluff that the sorcerer gets.

In any case, Wizards have to sink loads of money into their spellbooks, which can be taken away. While not something I tend to do as a gm, if the Big Bad is something that is highly intellectual, trying to capture the wizards spell book isn't a bad idea if killing the wizard isn't easy...not that any good wizard will allow his spell book to be captured easily. Point: it can be taken away.

I have always viewed the sorcerer as a highly specialized caster with a theme or a niche'. Past that, sorcerers should have tons of scrolls, potions, wands, rods, one shot wonderous items, etc. They have to be even more prepared than a wizard if they want to keep up. That is my personal view...I have rarely seen anyone else play the way I do.

For the Record; my favorite classes are the batman wizard and clerics...not nescessarily CoDzilla.

TaintedLight
2010-08-22, 12:01 AM
I play pathfinder and I am very pleased with the fluff that the sorcerer gets.

In any case, Wizards have to sink loads of money into their spellbooks, which can be taken away. While not something I tend to do as a gm, if the Big Bad is something that is highly intellectual, trying to capture the wizards spell book isn't a bad idea if killing the wizard isn't easy...not that any good wizard will allow his spell book to be captured easily. Point: it can be taken away.

I have always viewed the sorcerer as a highly specialized caster with a theme or a niche'. Past that, sorcerers should have tons of scrolls, potions, wands, rods, one shot wonderous items, etc. They have to be even more prepared than a wizard if they want to keep up. That is my personal view...I have rarely seen anyone else play the way I do.

For the Record; my favorite classes are the batman wizard and clerics...not nescessarily CoDzilla.

Leomund's Secret Chest for that extra spellbook that you keep because you're smart, right?

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-22, 12:10 AM
I've always wanted to try a Sorcerer with the major Divinations, the Planar Binding chain and the spells needed to dominate the Planar Binding cycle, filling later levels with the Sorcerer-only big guns like Wings of Cover/Flurry and the Arcane Fusions.

Those spells alone give access to pretty much every ability in the game; I'd be curious how it worked out alongside the prepared-casting powerhouses.

[Yes, it would obviously have fewer options; but it might be able to play the same game].

Wonton
2010-08-22, 12:17 AM
Leomund's Secret Chest for that extra spellbook that you keep because you're smart, right?

People often forget that a spellbook costs 100 gp per page. A 9th level Wizard making a back-up spellbook with only 3 of her favourite spells from each level would have to pay 4,500 gp... not exactly cheap.

TaintedLight
2010-08-22, 12:23 AM
People often forget that a spellbook costs 100 gp per page. A 9th level Wizard making a back-up spellbook with only 3 of her favourite spells from each level would have to pay 4,500 gp... not exactly cheap.

Or tattoo them on your body. Alternatively, since you are probably 17th level with a WBL of 340,000 GP, you can suck it up. Seriously, barely 1.3% of your wealth?

Wonton
2010-08-22, 12:57 AM
Or tattoo them on your body. Alternatively, since you are probably 17th level with a WBL of 340,000 GP, you can suck it up. Seriously, barely 1.3% of your wealth?

... No, a 9th-level Wizard is not 17th level. :smallconfused:
For a 9th-level Wizard, this would be exactly 12.5% or exactly 1/8 of his WBL. Not gonna bankrupt you, but still a sizeable chunk of your gold.

TaintedLight
2010-08-22, 01:02 AM
... No, a 9th-level Wizard is not 17th level. :smallconfused:
For a 9th-level Wizard, this would be exactly 12.5% or exactly 1/8 of his WBL. Not gonna bankrupt you, but still a sizeable chunk of your gold.

Whoops, I read "9th level" and my mind added "spells". That changes it a bit, but still. That's hardly an investment you won't recover from.

Zaq
2010-08-22, 02:28 AM
One big advantage of prepared versus spontaneous is the whole concept of spells that you need pretty much exactly once per day. The key example is Overland Flight. Generally speaking, you only really need OF once per day. A wizard who just got access to 5th level spells (assuming bonus spells and/or extra slots from specialization, neither of which is an unreasonable assumption) can cast OF and still have another 5th level spell that day. A sorcerer who just got access to 5th level spells can cast OF... and then has several 5th level slots that he can only use to cast lower-level spells (maybe with metamagic, if he's lucky), no matter how many bonus spell slots he gets. The sorc only needed the spell once, and doesn't benefit from having extra slots. (Lots of sorcs will take OF anyway, because it's that useful to have an all-day fly speed, but that's kind of the point.) Granted, once a sorc has more spells of any given level, this drops off a bit, but it further delays his access to good utility spells compared to the wizzie. He has a much higher opportunity cost associated with spells that you are likely to want exactly once or maybe twice.

Wonton
2010-08-22, 02:36 AM
Which reminds me... is there any reason to not houserule the sorcerer such that he gets level 2 spells at level 3, and so on? I always thought that that was an unfair disadvantage the designers gave the sorcerer because they thought Spontaneous Casting would be way too powerful.

TaintedLight
2010-08-22, 02:39 AM
Which reminds me... is there any reason to not houserule the sorcerer such that he gets level 2 spells at level 3, and so on? I always thought that that was an unfair disadvantage the designers gave the sorcerer because they thought Spontaneous Casting would be way too powerful.

There's a good flavor reason for it more than a balance reason I think. If it's natural progression, it's more difficult to teach yourself magic than to study it in a formal way. You could just as easily say the "blood instructs you", though. I don't think it would negatively impact game balance too much, but the sorcerer hardly needs the boost anyways.

Wonton
2010-08-22, 02:45 AM
There's a good flavor reason for it more than a balance reason I think. If it's natural progression, it's more difficult to teach yourself magic than to study it in a formal way. You could just as easily say the "blood instructs you", though. I don't think it would negatively impact game balance too much, but the sorcerer hardly needs the boost anyways.

Speaking from personal experience, it makes playing a sorcerer in a party with any other caster really un-fun though. They'll always get their interesting tricks before you. Hell, the Bard gets 2nd level spells same time as you and it's not even a full caster! :smallmad:

tyckspoon
2010-08-22, 02:48 AM
Which reminds me... is there any reason to not houserule the sorcerer such that he gets level 2 spells at level 3, and so on? I always thought that that was an unfair disadvantage the designers gave the sorcerer because they thought Spontaneous Casting would be way too powerful.

Balance wise, you may want to leave it alone just to make the Sorcerer that little bit less powerful compared to everything that isn't a full caster. If you're comfortable comparing it to Wizards/Clerics/Druids instead, then no, there's no satisfactory balance reason not to rule the Sorcerer back to the standard progression.

TaintedLight
2010-08-22, 02:48 AM
Speaking from personal experience, it makes playing a sorcerer in a party with any other caster really un-fun though. They'll always get their interesting tricks before you. Hell, the Bard gets 2nd level spells same time as you and it's not even a full caster! :smallmad:

Yeah, those first three levels suck pretty bad. And the bard thing isn't too much of an issue, seeing as how you'll always outpace them from that point forward. Precocious Apprentice is actually a good feat for Sorcerers for this very reason.

W3bDragon
2010-08-22, 02:53 AM
Which reminds me... is there any reason to not houserule the sorcerer such that he gets level 2 spells at level 3, and so on?

Intended fluff reason: Wilders are not as adept at learning as wizards. They may channel more raw power than wizards do, but their techniques leave them a bit behind those that are being instructed.

Balance reason: Sorcerers would be given wizard casting to catch up to wizards, whom are generally regarded as the most overpowered class to begin with. Perhaps they are then not a good measure for benchmarking.

Campaign-specific reason: Wizards gain their biggest edge on sorcerers from the ease of availability of new spells to learn. That is not something that is set and indeed varies wildly from DM to DM. If the campaign doesn't make new spells readily available, the difference in power shrinks significantly. In which case, the spontaneous casting and spontaneous metamagic plays enough of a role to even things up a bit.


Those seem to be valid reasons not to alter the sorcerer. Assuming that what you want to do.

Reis Tahlen
2010-08-22, 05:29 AM
Following my opinion, this depends GREATLY on your GM: how much scrolls you will find on your way, how much Divination is nerfed, ...

Everybody knows that a good wizard is a prepared one, and the basis of preparation is information. Therefore, if your GM thinks that Divination can break his game, or if he gives ubber-cryptical informations that no one but him understands, forget about the Wizard. You could rely on the Bard, if there is one, or on some good old fashioned "investigating the tavern", but this one is entirely up to the GM ("Yes, I know they told you there was only one canyon, but nobody has been there for decades, so no one knew there was a second one.")

DementedFellow
2010-08-22, 05:55 AM
Intended fluff reason: Wilders are not as adept at learning as wizards. They may channel more raw power than wizards do, but their techniques leave them a bit behind those that are being instructed.

Balance reason: Sorcerers would be given wizard casting to catch up to wizards, whom are generally regarded as the most overpowered class to begin with. Perhaps they are then not a good measure for benchmarking.

Campaign-specific reason: Wizards gain their biggest edge on sorcerers from the ease of availability of new spells to learn. That is not something that is set and indeed varies wildly from DM to DM. If the campaign doesn't make new spells readily available, the difference in power shrinks significantly. In which case, the spontaneous casting and spontaneous metamagic plays enough of a role to even things up a bit.


Those seem to be valid reasons not to alter the sorcerer. Assuming that what you want to do.

Considering that these are the most often cited reasons not to alter the sorcerer can we agree that they seem bogus?

The Sorcerer has a familiar and diminished spellcasting. He doesn't get the nice feats like the Wizard, nor the ability to throw metamagics around willy-nilly. Let's not forget that you cannot take Rapid Metamagic at first level. Hell I even had one DM say that I couldn't take Rapid Metamagic at all because it's "too overpowered."

Even some PrCs require you to prepare spells. This causes the Sorcerer to blow an already precious feat on an entry requirement.

And if that isn't enough of a slap in the face, might I mention that certain wizard players can manage to get more spells per day than the sorcerer through specialization.

The Sorcerer doesn't get nice things and there is no real reason at all for this disparity.

BladeofOblivion
2010-08-22, 06:03 AM
Which reminds me... is there any reason to not houserule the sorcerer such that he gets level 2 spells at level 3, and so on? I always thought that that was an unfair disadvantage the designers gave the sorcerer because they thought Spontaneous Casting would be way too powerful.

Funny, I do the opposite. I take every other full caster and drag them back a level. It does WONDERS for game balance.

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-22, 08:53 AM
Out of curiosity

I hear

"DIVINATION" tossed around as a cure-all. Which spells specifically are you using? When I was thinking of making a Diviner I was looking through them all for that magic spell that lets me always have a great idea of what is coming so that I can specialize to meet it and...



Clairvoyance would work as an effective scouting spell, except that it has a 400 foot range so you probably can't see anything that you wouldn't be encountering until tomorrow.

Scry only reveals a 10 ft radius around a chosen creature, so at best you'll get... the big bad's bedroom? Of course, he's probably shielded against that. You could scry one of the guards, except you don't KNOW any of them, and besides, that'd still just get you a chunk of hallway.

I suppose your DM could decide you get really lucky and scry on him just as he turns to his illithid-troll hybrid and says "REMEMBER NOT TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR BRAIN BLEACH; IT IS YOUR ONLY WEAKNESS"


Contact Other Plane gives you one-word answers that arn't true half the time and has a chance to incapacitate you for a week or more. That hardly seems like a reliable way to glean enough plot information that you can always be prepared.

Legend Lore offers legends and myths about the target, but only if the target is, in fact, legendary. I suppose that could be helpful for preparing against the BBEG, but it seems kinda mean to just replace the Bard like that.

Foresight DOES let you always take the appropriate action, but only about one round in advance, which doesn't let you prepare spells ahead of time.


Foresight is a 9th level spell; I made this list scrolling down through the SRD's list so it's the last one. What gives?

Vangor
2010-08-22, 11:28 AM
Clairvoyance would work as an effective scouting spell, except that it has a 400 foot range so you probably can't see anything that you wouldn't be encountering until tomorrow.

To be specific, Clairvoyance/audience has a 400+40ft/level range, with the minimum level to cast being wizard 5 for 600ft. Difference of 50% at least, but the primary use will be for campaigns with active areas, usually cities, since you need to be familiar with the location. Plus, at 7th minimum you can Enlarge Spell to give you a distance of 800+80ft/level, or 1360ft, which is distant enough to allow next day gathering if you can become familiar with the spot through other means such as Arcane Eye.


Scry only reveals a 10 ft radius around a chosen creature, so at best you'll get... the big bad's bedroom? Of course, he's probably shielded against that. You could scry one of the guards, except you don't KNOW any of them, and besides, that'd still just get you a chunk of hallway.

You don't actually have to know any specific target, but the more you know the easier scrying is. Secondhand knowledge is easy to acquire, and you have a long while to gather. Find anyone with a name and with a station and you will likely gather invaluable information.

A fantastic spell is Arcane Eye which will allow you about unrestricted access through dungeons and the like. You have the ability to explore and somewhat inspect about triple the amount of rooms as you have minutes, which is a minimum of 7 as a wizard. This can be used to later Clairvoyance/audience a spot of particular interest.

Perhaps the greatest in any campaign where you are facing any hierarchical group, which is usually always, is Chain of Eyes from SpC. Simply use the vision of the next higher ranking enemy to see layouts, what you'll be facing, etc.. Has to make physical contact, but select well enough the first time and who cares, plus you have a minimum of three hours.

I think people underestimate mundane or magical interrogation, too. Incapacitate a foe with authority and delve what they know. Or ignore the interrogation and pay attention the composition of the enemy you face. Are they employing priests or arcanists? Are they predominantly of one group or another? Do they have a theme which can exploited?

Finally, the last part of information gathering is coming to the obstacle and waiting. As I said previously, the canyon is not going to move. The wizard may not be able to cross today, but tomorrow they will. And when they hear a banquet is happening tomorrow, don a magical disguise and be prepared to steal what information you want.

Arillius
2010-08-22, 01:18 PM
I'd say spontaneous casting is useful for specific kinds of casters. You focus on debuffing and evocation spells, dealing damage and making the enemies pitiful little things, you only need one or two spells and a hell of a lot of spells/day.

From a Pathfinder player, The new oracle class also works out as a better healer, especially if you take the proper mystery and revelations.

But they lose the versatility a wizard and clerics have with options.

Roderick_BR
2010-08-22, 02:49 PM
"I knew we were going to fight batman, so I prepared my bat-repellent spray!"

is more valuable than

"I had no idea this army was coming! I thought it was going to be a pleasant day at the markets. Luckily, there's no reason I can't spend all my spells per day on Fireball!"

More like "I had no idea I was going to fight batman... but I don't have any bat-repellent spray, because I had to choose between it and fireball, and now I need to wait whole new leverl to add it... and if I do, I won't be able to add flight, that may be needed later".

No, I don't think that picking wizard will magically (hehe) increase the "drop rate" on scrolls. But a wizard will gain much more power with his scrolls found than a sorcerer finding the same treasure (and spellbooks will be fully useless to a sorcerer)

Anyway, what screws the sorcerer are more than one thing:
- less spells known (a fairly good hit. At 6th level, the wizard can prepare an average of two 3rd level spells, from a list of a minimum of 4 spells. A 6th level sorcerer can cast an average of three 3rd level spells, but only one single 3rd level spell known).
- 1 late spell level (not really as bad, but you know, people here take losing a caster level as a huge sin, even if you are more powerful than the rest of your group combined...)
- less metamagic feats (wizard gains them as bonus)
- slow metamagic (you can't chain several spells in a round as a wizard can because of the "delay" metamagic causes to sorcerer spells)

So, it's not one thing, it's several things. Then again, wizards are just overpowered.

GoatToucher
2010-08-22, 03:52 PM
What makes Wizards so powerful is the assumption that they can get whatever spells they want in short order. To my sensibilities as a DM, this is a big assumption. One of the most effective ways to control the power level of wizards in your campaign is to simply not have certain spells show up in treasure or be available from merchants.

From a fluff standpoint, what kind of powerful wizard is going to let you, some guy he has never met, look at his most powerful spells just because you wave a little money at him? That's quest fodder, right there, as a best case scenario. The whole party works their ass off just so the wizard can get a powerful spell that they might not use very often.

I think that big reasons that the Wizard's requirement for planning to be effective isn't considered a drawback by certain gamer cultures are that A: players are often familiar with all the strengths and vulnerabilities of the big boss monsters they will face (knowledge transferred to characters through a variety of means, sometimes kosher, sometimes not), and B because casters are so powerful at high levels, high level fights tend to be caster fights. Add to this the fact that certain elements of the optimizer community have put together a selection of effective spell combination and tactics, and you have high level wizards who are able to put together spell combinations of a breadth that sorcerers can't match that will be effective against opponents drawing from the same playbook.

I am often struck at how far divorced the attitudes and play styles of the optimizer community are from the games that I have been playing for the long time that I have been playing. Our games have sorcerers and evocation spells aplenty. The Tier system is a concept developed by optimizers for optimizer games. It doesn't have very much context for the games I play, so I don't get too wound up in what classes are ranked in what way arbitrarily by some guy I don't know from Adam.

Sorcerer is a great class. So is wizard.

Wonton
2010-08-22, 05:24 PM
What makes Wizards so powerful is the assumption that they can get whatever spells they want in short order. To my sensibilities as a DM, this is a big assumption.

Also, when people talk about their power in TO, there's always an assumption that they always have the perfect spells prepared... which, unless your DM is very predictable, never happens.

BladeofOblivion
2010-08-22, 05:29 PM
One of the nicest thing about the sorcerer for me is not mechanical, but the mindset it encourages. You take spells that are useful in any situation. If a wizard is prepared for political Intrigue, and takes a lot of enchantment spells for manipulating government officials, he is going to have a hard time against the Undead army that the necromancer sends to wipe out the aristocracy in one fell swoop. A well-built sorcerer, on the other hand, likely has SOMETHING he can do.

onthetown
2010-08-22, 05:31 PM
Wizard: Unlimited spells (so long as you have the means to acquire them), but you need them with you to prepare them and you only have 4 of each level per day.

Sorcerer: Limited spells (automatically acquired), and you don't have to prepare them and you get 6 of each level per day.

Despite the sorcerer not having to buy spells and casting more per day, I always go for wizard. Once you buy the scrolls and scribe them, you can have a ton of different ways to kill things at each level, no matter how many per level you have.

Sorcerers are great for elemental themes, though. I like playing ice sorcerers.

Ormur
2010-08-22, 06:03 PM
I think the primary benefit of the sorcerer and prepared casting in general is how much easier bookkeeping is compared to the wizard. The Wizard is superior in flexibility and you know being the batman but if I'd place about equal value on the playability of those two primary arcane casters because of that out-of-game difference.

Jacob Orlove
2010-08-22, 06:13 PM
The sorcerer winds up with one spell fewer on each level, except for ninth, where admittedly he gets a bit screwed.

The thing is, I really have a lot of trouble seeing how this is HUGE INFERIORITY.

Compare any random level, the Wizard is way ahead on higher level spells known.

On even levels, the Wizard is way ahead:
Level 4 Wizard: Four level 2 spells
Level 4 Sorcerer: One level 2 spell

On odd levels, the Wizard is way ahead:
Level 7 Wizard: Four level 3 spells, two level 4 spells
Level 7 Sorcerer: Two level 3 spells

In terms of actual spell slots available, a specialist Wizard often has as many or more high level spell slots as a comparable level sorcerer, and high level spells are the ones that win encounters.

Crow
2010-08-22, 09:45 PM
Regarding Divinations;

Contact other plane doesn't get really good until your wizard is very high level and has INT in the stratosphere.

But Arcane Eye and Prying Eyes is an excellent spell for scouting ahead and seeing what you might run into. In most cases, your group can set up a hide site far enough away, but close enough to let your eyes get where they need to be.

As for clairaudiance/clairvoyance, I disagree with the idea that it's good if you slap metamagic on it. Really that's a waste of higher level slots you could use for the eye spells above. This spell is better as a quick peek around before you go into the place you scouted out with your eyes earlier, or as a last peek before you bust into that throne room or whatever. Not to mention, it's an excellent political intrigue/spy spell.

Marnath
2010-08-22, 10:14 PM
I like to solve this by giving sorceror the favored soul spells known chart and free rapid metamagic. Either that, or upping Warmage's HD to d8 and BAB to medium and calling it a blaster sorc.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 10:48 PM
So, people often bring up Wizards as being vastly superior to Sorcerers, because they get more spells. However, I can't help but notice that the wizard gains 2 spells per level.

That leaves the wizard, in theory, with 4 spells of each level they know, plus 8 9th level spells and 10 first level spells (assuming you have 18 INT and took Grey Elf)

The sorcerer winds up with one spell fewer on each level, except for ninth, where admittedly he gets a bit screwed.

Ninth level is big, tho. He also gets screwed on 1st and 0th, where the wizard knows "a lot" and "all" respectively. Plus, at any given point, his highest spell level is going to either be one lower than the wizards, or he'll be just getting it, while the wizard is on the second level of that progression.

So, he's always way behind the wizard on the best spells available at the time. And that's without the wizard learning ANY.


The thing is, I really have a lot of trouble seeing how this is HUGE INFERIORITY.

Well, basically, with spells, a full caster is like unto a god. Without spells, they are inferior to commoners. Thus, more spells is a good thing.


I guess I have three questions, really

1. Does your DM shower you with scrolls? Do you wind up with double or triple the spells, rather than 25% more?

Er, not really. Though scrolls are really common according to the random loot table. I've never seen DMs go higher than randomly rolling loot, but sometimes lower. It's a common method, though, and scrolls are not uncommon in general.

However, I prefer to learn spells when in large civilizations. It's not uncommon to occasionally get a coupla days of downtime, during which I can pick up something new. Everyone likes hitting town occasionally, to spend their newly found wealth. Take advantage of those stops. Sure, availability varies, but most spells are worth knowing.

If you end up stranded in some god-forsaken hole for a while...research new spells. On rare days, you may be able to get another wizard's spellbook. Sure, it'll be trapped to high heaven. Make a side deal with your party rogue.

In rare campaigns where DMs are known to be very harsh on loot(most will tell you this, as if poverty is a badge of honor), take collegiate wizard. Yay, double spells per level. Problem mostly solved.


2. Do you actually play games at 18th-19th level, where the wizard REALLY pulls ahead in numbers?

Occasionally. Most games start at level 1 though, so quite a few campaigns never get that high. Some never survive rocket tag levels. I value the power differential at all levels.


3. Does your DM actually allow you to abusive divination/metagaming/just being too **** smart/etc so that you can predict what is coming on a routine basis?

I see divination as a waste of spell slots, and Id drop the school if I could. Metagaming is typically frowned upon. However, this is for everyone...metagaming is not just a wizard trick. Being smart? Well, hell, you're a wizard. Not being smart would be like a fighter too weak to hold a sword. It'd be insane, and wouldn't make sense. Im SUPPOSED to act intelligent.


In my experience, I've always preferred sorcerer, simply because it was a lot harder to predict what was coming and what the best method of killing it would be.

Oh, I *like* playing sorc. I just don't enjoy firing off level three spells, while the wizard is debating which level four spells to prepare. The concept is great, they just balanced poorly.


That is, generally my DM preferred to say "AND THEN SUDDENLY SHARKS" than "You'll be playing against sharks tomorrow. You might want to prepare water breathing or something."

Oh, as a sorc, I'd be screwed. I never considered water breathing to be worth one of my limited spells known. I don't typically prepare it as a wizard, either, but it's absolutely perfect as a scroll. This is why I write up scrolls frequently. Thus, when I see "oh god, a pit of sharks", I bust out water breathing.

This is an example in an un-optimized environment. More typically, my wizards run all four heart spells, with a 24 hr duration, so I merely ignore the water as I charge the sharks, casting fireball centered on myself.


When random scrolls HAVE shown up, 90% of them are worthless anyway. Cure light wounds? Hide from plants?

Cure light wounds? Those are the kind my party socks away in joy. Have you ever been in a party that didn't need healing? Have the rogue UMD it.

Sure, the random loot generator is a fickle mistress. Some scrolls will suck. That's life. Those get sold off when you hit civilization.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 10:51 PM
You should have about a 50/50 of a scroll being arcane or divine, and you can use the vast majority of arcane spells besides those specific to bards. A few scrolls are pretty common to find among any decent area of loot, and any sizable town should contain a store to purchase some additional scrolls. As well, any enemy should employ arcanists if not primarily arcanists themselves which can lead to extensive versatility for the wizard.

This is incorrect. By raw, 70% of the scrolls are arcane. So...you get the lions share.

Vangor
2010-08-22, 11:01 PM
One of the nicest thing about the sorcerer for me is not mechanical, but the mindset it encourages. You take spells that are useful in any situation. If a wizard is prepared for political Intrigue, and takes a lot of enchantment spells for manipulating government officials, he is going to have a hard time against the Undead army that the necromancer sends to wipe out the aristocracy in one fell swoop. A well-built sorcerer, on the other hand, likely has SOMETHING he can do.

Due to the nature of magic, a few spells are usually capable of handling a situation, and the more specific those spells the more capable each will be. Thus, the wizard should not be considered to be investing entirely in political intrigue, especially since this can fail and, as mentioned, situations change. Nothing but spell availability is stopping the wizard from preparing a few more general spells as well as those specific to the situation.

On the other hand, the sorcerer could never have prepared for political intrigue, at least to the same degree and specificity as the wizard. Not having a spell which can assist is unlikely for either caster, though, but foreknowledge empowers the wizard while lack of foreknowledge means the wizard prepares general spells as a sorcerer would select.


As for clairaudiance/clairvoyance, I disagree with the idea that it's good if you slap metamagic on it. Really that's a waste of higher level slots you could use for the eye spells above.

I am not suggesting you prepare an Extended Clairvoyance all the time nor generally, merely this is a possible method for preparing via scrying when Arcane Eye is limited due to terrain and needing to travel. Not often, but the idea was more talking about the limitations of range or scope on divination spells, and that those can be overcome.


This is incorrect. By raw, 70% of the scrolls are arcane. So...you get the lions share.

You are correct. From my experience, though, random generation stops at assuring everyone gets a spread of the wealth.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 11:11 PM
From a fluff standpoint, what kind of powerful wizard is going to let you, some guy he has never met, look at his most powerful spells just because you wave a little money at him? That's quest fodder, right there, as a best case scenario. The whole party works their ass off just so the wizard can get a powerful spell that they might not use very often.

That is one of the main reasons for existence of almost every magical organization, order, or temple worshiping magic in every published sourcebook.

Go forth, and read about them. They are huge, powerful, and they exist solely for the discovery and distribution of magical power. Also, that's how domains work. Mystra WANTS people to use magic. So, her people can promote her by distributing magical knowledge. Going against that requires entirely redoing the way that dieties work in every published official 3.5 setting Im aware of.

GoatToucher
2010-08-23, 10:13 PM
That is one of the main reasons for existence of almost every magical organization, order, or temple worshiping magic in every published sourcebook.

And how many adventuring type wizards actually put the time in with these organizations in order to engender the kind of trust that will earn them spell copying privileges?

Again, a fairly anonymous Wizard approaching these organizations is (to my sensibilities) lucky if he is told "I will let you copy Spell A if you perform Task B." He is much more likely to be told to get on his bike. Mystra wants you to cast spells, but Mystra is a good goddess,and she doesn't want you to have powerful spells unless she is confident that you will not use them to further the cause of naughtiness and puppy-kicking. The more amoral magic gods tend to have an ethos that sets forth that the only worthwhile knowledge is -earned- knowledge.

As for random magic drops: I (and this is 100% personal opinion) find the idea ridiculous. In any encounter involving sentient opponents,they are going to have magic that is tailored to their own tactics and needs. Stuff they don't need will be sold to buy stuff they can use. This means that your crew will have a pile of bracers of armor and headbands of intellect, but those things are very useful, and thus more common than an apparatus of Kwalish or what have you.

As a result, to my sensibilities, enemy casters will have the same utility scrolls lying around that your party would have. Using random rolls for treasure cedes control of an important factor in the game: what magic items the party has access to. Me no likee.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 08:17 AM
That is, generally my DM preferred to say "AND THEN SUDDENLY SHARKS" than "You'll be playing against sharks tomorrow. You might want to prepare water breathing or something."


Also, when people talk about their power in TO, there's always an assumption that they always have the perfect spells prepared... which, unless your DM is very predictable, never happens.

This is really an advantage to the wizard, not the sorcerer.

The sorcerer is unlikely to have spent one of his precious spells known on water breathing. The wizard, with more spells known, is somewhat more likely to. He may also have gotten a chance to learn it from a captured spell book or in a spell exchange with an NPC.

The wizard has Scribe Scrolls as a class feature. That means that he has a very good chance of having a scroll of any utility spell that he has in his spellbook but does not usually memorize sitting at the top of his Handy Haversack. If the DM at some point dropped a scroll of Water Breathing, the sorcerer can deal with sharks....once. The wizard scribed it into his spellbook, then made a new scroll. If he uses it, he scribes another scroll next time he is in town.

Oslecamo
2010-08-24, 08:26 AM
The sorcerer is unlikely to have spent one of his precious spells known on water breathing. The wizard, with more spells known, is somewhat more likely to. He may also have gotten a chance to learn it from a captured spell book

Like already pointed out, a wizard who lets his spellbook be captured is a very lousy one, and at best will have a collection of magic missiles, fireballs and the like.



or in a spell exchange with an NPC.

So, there are NPCs ready and willing to sell secrets to the wizard, risking their own extra-precious spellbooks in the process, but there aren't any willing to sell some scrolls for the sorceror? Fishy at best.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 08:28 AM
Out of curiosity I hear
"DIVINATION" tossed around as a cure-all. Which spells specifically are you using? When I was thinking of making a Diviner I was looking through them all for that magic spell that lets me always have a great idea of what is coming so that I can specialize to meet it and...

Commune.

Evil wizards get it for free from their Imp or Quasit. Others get it for free (after their permanent summoning circle is set up)...by lesser planar binding an Imp or Quasit. I find that 6 questions per week is usually adequate to keep me on target in the campaign while still asking a couple of questions like "am I likely to be fighting (energy resistant/flying/undead/whatever) monsters within the next few days.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 08:36 AM
Like already pointed out, a wizard who lets his spellbook be captured is a very lousy one, and at best will have a collection of magic missiles, fireballs and the like.

Don't be silly. My wizard usually has a traveling spellbook on or near him. After all, keeping someone from reading my spellbook when they are looting my corpse isn't really a priority. And I usually have scrolls of common utility spells or spells I use a lot. If the wizard gets all the common spells from dead enemies, and then has 4 uncommon ones from leveling up, that is a lot of spells.

Heck, it isn't impossible to capture enemy casters and coerce their cooperation, although this may be risky if they are higher level than you. I've been in parties where it has worked.



So, there are NPCs ready and willing to sell secrets to the wizard, risking their own extra-precious spellbooks in the process, but there aren't any willing to sell some scrolls for the sorceror? Fishy at best.

I hate to dignify that with a response. Spells in a spellbook are not a 0 sum game. I am delighted to share my traveling spellbook with another wizard if we both get a new spell out of it. Heck, I'll trade down (A 3rd level spell for a second, etc.) it costs me nothing extra, and maybe it will generate some goodwill. If I am doing it in a city, with an established NPC, the chances of losing my spellbook from it are virtually nil. If he is super paranoid, I suppose we could always trade equal level scrolls that we scribed the day before. That is still half what it would cost on the market.

The sorcerer can probably buy the same spell, as a scroll, at full price. The wizard can often get it for the cost of scribing, and then gets as many half price scrolls as he has time and xp to make.

Oslecamo
2010-08-24, 08:54 AM
Don't be silly. My wizard usually has a traveling spellbook on or near him. After all, keeping someone from reading my spellbook when they are looting my corpse isn't really a priority. And I usually have scrolls of common utility spells or spells I use a lot. If the wizard gets all the common spells from dead enemies, and then has 4 uncommon ones from leveling up, that is a lot of spells.

If the DM is throwing weakling wizards to feed you with free spellbooks every other ecounter, then yes wizard is definetely stronger than sorceror.

What if instead of weakling wizards, other NPCs show up and automatically pledge their loyalty to the super-charismatic sorceror? :smallwink:



I hate to dignify that with a response. Spells in a spellbook are not a 0 sum game. I am delighted to share my traveling spellbook with another wizard if we both get a new spell out of it. Heck, I'll trade down (A 3rd level spell for a second, etc.) it costs me nothing extra, and maybe it will generate some goodwill.

Yes, because in D&D you can really trust random people you've just met. No wonder the BBEG is at large, the forces of good must have handed him the super-powerfull artifact of Doom for free in the name of goodwill. :smallamused:



The sorcerer can probably buy the same spell, as a scroll, at full price. The wizard can often get it for the cost of scribing, and then gets as many half price scrolls as he has time and xp to make.

Except that you're by now spending thousands of GP with all your extra spellbooks. And burning exp at the same time. Not to mention all the extra time the BBEG has to set up his plans while you write down your personal library.

Crow
2010-08-24, 09:14 AM
Dude, when was the last time you saw a wizard build posted in TO forums that had Water Breathing in their spell book???

Whatever guys. :D

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 09:18 AM
If the DM is throwing weakling wizards to feed you with free spellbooks every other ecounter, then yes wizard is definetely stronger than sorceror.

Who said anything about weakling? Our parties fight enemy casters, sometimes full enemy parties. Those are hard fights. It is true that this is harder if you never fight enemy arcanists, but hey, the game as a whole is easier if you never fight enemy arcanists.


What if instead of weakling wizards, other NPCs show up and automatically pledge their loyalty to the super-charismatic sorceror? :smallwink:

What if the DM has relevant, challenging encounters, and the results that flow from them are the logical results of winning those encounters? Your strawman is a strawman.



Yes, because in D&D you can really trust random people you've just met. No wonder the BBEG is at large, the forces of good must have handed him the super-powerfull artifact of Doom for free in the name of goodwill. :smallamused:

Your super-Gargantuan strawman +20 is just that. The NPC wizard in an established city COULD try to steal the spellbook every time someone wants to trade spells with him, and he would get a few free spells, at the cost of creating hard feelings with upcoming rivals. If your wizard bothered to join the wizard's guild, he could even get in trouble with HIS superiors. Or he could trade spells with every established wizard who wants to, maybe with some security precautions, get a BUNCH of free spells, the goodwill of his peers, maybe some favors from adventurers that he can send to do things for him, at 0 cost. Gosh, I don't have a 25 int, but that isn't hard to figure out.

And what if he killed a rival wizard at some point? Or bought the spellbook of someone who died? After he plundered his rival's spellbook for what he wanted, he isn't going to burn it. He is going to sell glimpses at it to visiting suckers, at 0 personal risk/cost.

And that is a guy with 0 reason to help you. Your cleric's temple? Probably does business with some wizards, if it doesn't employ them directly. The merchant house you work for? Same. The lord of the city that you just rescued from whatevers? Same. Those guys have a strong incentive to want your goodwill, a disincentive to cheat you, and then you go up to them and ask them to do a mutually beneficial trade? That seems...likely to work. Yes, if you are psychotic and burn down or rob every shop you enter, you may have problems.

Lets extend your logic. What if every time your fighter paid to have an enchantment added to his magical sword, or went to buy a new one, the NPC took his money and his sword and teleported off laughing. That is just as likely as the spellbook stealer, maybe more likely, since the fighter probably can't scry the NPC and kill him later. Well, it sucks for the players, and it doesn't make much sense from the perspective of the NPC if he has an ongoing business selling magic items or enchanting them.


Except that you're by now spending thousands of GP with all your extra spellbooks. And burning exp at the same time. Not to mention all the extra time the BBEG has to set up his plans while you write down your personal library.

Compared to significant item crafting, this really doesn't take that much time. Not every game is on a clock. The cost is cheaper than what it would cost the sorcerer to get similar results. The XP cost for scrolls is minimal. It is really hard to craft yourself down even one level, and if you manage to do it then you get more XP for being a level behind.

But wait, there's more! Other arcanists in your party? Thats an easy source for extra spells. Leadership? More spells. Can you planar bind a caster type? Spells. At really high levels, the wish/gate/GPB economy can easily get you scrolls.

If your wizard can't get way more spells than his 2 per level, he either isn't trying or your DM is deliberately nerfing you.


Dude, when was the last time you saw a wizard build posted in TO forums that had Water Breathing in their spell book???

Whatever guys. :D

A wizard posted in a TO forum has had no opportunity to trade for spells, acquire spells from adventuring, etc. By the nature of the post he will have less spells than a wizard organically leveled in a campaign. He is also probably built to demonstrate a trick, and isn't worried that he might have to investigate a sunken pirate ship next game.

Vangor
2010-08-24, 09:52 AM
If the DM is throwing weakling wizards to feed you with free spellbooks every other ecounter, then yes wizard is definetely stronger than sorceror.

Chances are whatever organization you may be facing has a few wizards if not simply being a largely arcanist organization. Any group which is causing trouble is likely to have fought with an arcanist or two before trying to do exactly what the adventuring group is now doing. The DM does not need to flood the world in scrolls and spellbooks for the highly adventurous wizard to have a significant advantage for spell selection.


Except that you're by now spending thousands of GP with all your extra spellbooks. And burning exp at the same time. Not to mention all the extra time the BBEG has to set up his plans while you write down your personal library.

We often play sessions which are bridges between campaigns, and the campaign is not always able to be progressed at all times by the party. No one would ever be able to use craft skills, craft feats, housing/stronghold rules, or similar without time to do what they want. Fortunately, by nature of being a gaming world, too, the DM does not need to let the world be destroyed because the decided after slaying the dragon he should get a few more spells.

Without all of this, the world is hardly worth saving.


And how many adventuring type wizards actually put the time in with these organizations in order to engender the kind of trust that will earn them spell copying privileges?

If they belong to an organization, they often do place forth the effort. Arcane Order is a pretty straightforward one, and actually via class features you have a couple of chances to simply copy a spell from the book of a fellow order member with nothing given in return. Besides, assisting, working with, or correcting the mistakes of magical organizations is fairly common, and this earns trust fairly quickly.


As for random magic drops: I (and this is 100% personal opinion) find the idea ridiculous. In any encounter involving sentient opponents,they are going to have magic that is tailored to their own tactics and needs.

Provided those sentient opponents crafted/purchased those possessions themselves, certainly, and we are assuming those sentient opponents never thought preparing for other situations was a good idea. Perhaps you come upon bandits who slew a wizard, or perhaps you attack a wizard who was not going for a dungeon crawl today? Randomization helps with this, plus the DM has less to do.


As a result, to my sensibilities, enemy casters will have the same utility scrolls lying around that your party would have. Using random rolls for treasure cedes control of an important factor in the game: what magic items the party has access to. Me no likee.

Why would they have the same utility scrolls? My adventuring wizard has different obstacles to overcome than they do. Besides, if the assumption is the enemy is preparing for a variety of situations in a similar manner to my character, well then they have a pretty sizable collection of scrolls, and I have no complaints there.

-----

Yes, if you assure your wizard can never join and maintain membership with a magical organization, never meets an enemy arcanist, never meets an enemy who has slain an arcanist, never enters a magical library, and never enters a magical shop the utility of the wizard will drop. Would hate to see a campaign world when the party has a wizard and an archivist.

Hawriel
2010-08-24, 11:39 AM
Dont know if this was mentioned. A sorc if she has access to an arcane spell not on the sorc/wizard list, can learn it as one of her spells known. Granted she needs a scroll or spell book to learn it. This gives a sorc the ability to learn arcane spells a wizard would not be able to.

However any arcane player should be able to create their own spells with DM aproval. Even if its just a copy of another spell such as command on the divine list.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 11:52 AM
Dont know if this was mentioned. A sorc if she has access to an arcane spell not on the sorc/wizard list, can learn it as one of her spells known. Granted she needs a scroll or spell book to learn it. This gives a sorc the ability to learn arcane spells a wizard would not be able to.


1. That passage can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. What exactly the RAI is there is going to be subject to the DM, and I haven't really known any that let you abuse it. YMMV.

2. The Sor/Wiz list is probably the best list in the game. Given how few spells sorcs know, you aren't going to get a lot of mileage out of those extra few off list spells. Sorcs DO have a couple of Sorc-only spells that wizards don't get that are quite good. Now, if your DM lets you plunder Bard or PRC lists (trapsmith!) to get spells at below wizard levels, more power to you, but I will call that unlikely.

In contrast, wizards have a number of good ways to expand their spell lists. For example, a wizard (or a spontaneous caster with all spells on list known, like a Warmage or a Beguiler) can take Arcane Disciple to add select divine spells to their list. A sorcerer can do this too, but since those spells count against the sorcerer's spells known, it isn't usually a good choice for them.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-24, 12:00 PM
And how many adventuring type wizards actually put the time in with these organizations in order to engender the kind of trust that will earn them spell copying privileges?

This is like saying I have to put in time to earn trust from McDonalds before buying a burger. Unless it's some highly unusual spell, it is treated like a commodity. By RAW, spells are terribly available, and having a high reputation within these agencies isn't for the purpose of getting access to spells as such, it's for getting superior benefits. For instance, the arcane order lets you get spellpool access and FREE spells known.


Again, a fairly anonymous Wizard approaching these organizations is (to my sensibilities) lucky if he is told "I will let you copy Spell A if you perform Task B." He is much more likely to be told to get on his bike. Mystra wants you to cast spells, but Mystra is a good goddess,and she doesn't want you to have powerful spells unless she is confident that you will not use them to further the cause of naughtiness and puppy-kicking.

This does not match up with the actual history of Mystra. She hooked up Azuth with magic, and godhood, and the guy's LN, while she's NG. That was the very first mage. She doesn't enforce "only good guys get to use magic" at all. Plenty of evil people have magic aplenty, and thats not a problem.


The more amoral magic gods tend to have an ethos that sets forth that the only worthwhile knowledge is -earned- knowledge.

So, this somehow means they won't let you scribe spells?

Wee Jas is purely concerned with law. If it's legal, go nuts. Evil people do tend to be inherently selfish, and will probably charge you as much as they think they can for spellbook access, but the idea of a greedy evil person trading power for gold isn't exactly unusual.


As for random magic drops: I (and this is 100% personal opinion) find the idea ridiculous. In any encounter involving sentient opponents,they are going to have magic that is tailored to their own tactics and needs. Stuff they don't need will be sold to buy stuff they can use. This means that your crew will have a pile of bracers of armor and headbands of intellect, but those things are very useful, and thus more common than an apparatus of Kwalish or what have you.

Random rolling will generally get you reasonable stuff, even if it's not stuff that's immediately useful. If every NPC has only gear for the fight with the PCs, that seems a bit...off. It's even worse if they all use the same items.

In real life, plenty of treasure stashes include the loot of previous fallen adventurers, merchants, etc. Magic items are valuable enough to be kept around, even if they aren't perfect for you. And not every NPC out there focuses on only combat. Perhaps that decanter of endless water is a lot more useful to a village than a +1 sword.


As a result, to my sensibilities, enemy casters will have the same utility scrolls lying around that your party would have. Using random rolls for treasure cedes control of an important factor in the game: what magic items the party has access to. Me no likee.

Adventurers are the minority in the world. It's an affront to verisimulitude to assume that everyone is a copy of your party.

At last we come to the real reason you don't like it....control. Why is this is important?

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 12:12 PM
This is like saying I have to put in time to earn trust from McDonalds before buying a burger.

More like saying that you have to put in time to use the photocopier at a library. I mean, if you buy the burger, the clown has to pay for more mystery meat and a new pickle slice. The wizard has no costs attached.:smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-24, 12:12 PM
Dude, when was the last time you saw a wizard build posted in TO forums that had Water Breathing in their spell book???

Whatever guys. :D

I do TO. As already mentioned, I use all four heart spells. This completely negates the water issue. Along with things like fire damage, crits, grappling and so forth. Dealing with water is...remarkably easy. There are many ways, almost none of which are expensive. It's not a sorc advantage at all. You'll note that highly optimized wizards submitted for actual use in games tend to have an incredibly wide spectrum of options, and are crafted in much more detail than "generic wizard 205 discussed in passing in a thread".

Getting spellbooks might be rare, but assuming your wizard is about average in spells known, a single spellbook found will roughly double spells available. Sure, there's some overlap in the common ones, but the whole point is that it's such a mother lode that even one occurance is quite significant to the wizard. The only thing a sorc gets out of such an encounter is a spellbook he can sell to help out a wizard.

A scroll can help a sorc too...but it helps a wizard more. And wizards get scribe scroll for free, which is a significant availibility boost.

Vantharion
2010-08-24, 12:22 PM
Got to about page 2 and raised some points:
Sorcerers can learn spells from scrolls, libraries and spellbooks.
In Core 3.5 books, it details that he can learn spells the sorcerer gained some sort of arcane understanding of.
The reason why this is overlooked is its subject to DM discretion.
DMs don't really share a whole lot in common except that every single DM is different.
I create on the fly, make my own items, monsters, races and more. I honestly don't like Divination because I feel it would be better if the PCs just said "Tell me a story where I kill everything". I feel the adventure is in NOT knowing what is just around the corner. I subscribe to the 'Crazy Prepared Paranoid' category, but I don't fall to Divination because I enjoy the challenge and the surprise of the situation.
I like Wizards, I like Sorcerers.
I will reward a sorcerer who tries to learn a spell. A wizard makes a performance by reciting and practicing till it works. A sorcerer wings it on the fly. Reading a book on the material they're presenting will help either of them.

This is not to say that I won't cater to a Divination player who enjoys prediction. I just prefer not to.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 01:23 PM
Got to about page 2 and raised some points:
Sorcerers can learn spells from scrolls, libraries and spellbooks.
In Core 3.5 books, it details that he can learn spells the sorcerer gained some sort of arcane understanding of.
The reason why this is overlooked is its subject to DM discretion.

The reason why this is overlooked is that the example suggests that what they are actually learning are Sor/Wiz spells that are rare, little known, just researched, etc. I mean, in theory, any caster can research any spell, but we don't discuss how some wizard might make some weird new spell, because there is no RAW on exactly how it will work.

And again, those spells count against the sorcerer's known spells limit, so unless they are BETTER than the 3-5 most powerful Sor/Wiz spells of that level, he isn't actually gaining anything from having access to them. If the homebrewed spell IS better than the strongest spells of that level from the strongest list in the game, it is pretty clearly broken. If not, he might as well have taken whatever the strongest normal spells are. If I am a 6th level sorc leveling up to 7th, and I know about this awesome new spell, if it isn't better than Rope Trick, Alter Self or Glitterdust, it isn't worth my time.

The Wizard, OTOH, does gain something from being able to know dozens of spells of roughly the same power level, and choosing the one he feels is most likely to help him that day.


I feel the adventure is in NOT knowing what is just around the corner. I subscribe to the 'Crazy Prepared Paranoid' category, but I don't fall to Divination because I enjoy the challenge and the surprise of the situation.

O.K. taking Divination off the table for just a moment, do most people actually play in games where they have no idea what they are fighting from one day to the next?

I mean, in my game, our group raided a warehouse for a rival guild, and when we did, we were prepared for guards. When we raided the abandoned temple, we were prepared for undead. When we tracked the frost giants to their lair, the cold subtype creatures didn't surprise us. You can bet that when we leave there and go to the red dragon's cave in the middle of the desert, we will be ready for fire creatures, and when we finally track the evil golem making wizard back to his lair, we will be ready to kill some constructs. 98% of the time, we know if we will be in a city, a dungeon, or a wilderness on a given day.

Occasionally we guess wrong, and we do prep some utility spells just in case, but what are these games where people have no idea what is coming up? Is your DM just rolling a dice to see which monster manual he will flip open to a random page? If we DO guess wrong, unless a clock is ticking, we jump in a Rope Trick and pop out the next morning with the correct spells prepared.

Fiery Diamond
2010-08-24, 02:14 PM
The problem is that wizards are the most powerful (in any terms you care to mention) class in the game. Sorcerers are better able to fit in with non-optimized groups than wizards unless you deliberately gimp your wizard. On the other hand, a wizard who is gimped by lack of player expertise is almost certainly less powerful than a sorcerer played by someone who has decent D&D spellcasting gaming skills.

Poor player playing sorcerer => fits in with non-optimized group, and may outshine a group of other poor players
Poor player playing wizard => can easily be outshone by a melee character, and definitely is worse than a poor player playing a sorcerer

Decent player playing sorcerer => fits in with non-optimized group of non-newbies, but can outshine other decent players playing other classes
Decent player playing wizard (without access to forums like these) => probably close to on par with the sorcerer, possibly more or less powerful than the sorcerer depending on player strengths

Excellent player playing sorcerer => Outshines pretty much all core classes except excellently played clerics and wizards
Excellent player playing wizard => like unto a god, unless the DM deliberately thwarts him

This is why I prefer sorcerers, since I tend to play in/DM for non-optimized groups of decent players, and sorcerers are simpler.


If I am a 6th level sorc leveling up to 7th, and I know about this awesome new spell, if it isn't better than Rope Trick, Alter Self or Glitterdust, it isn't worth my time.

O.K. taking Divination off the table for just a moment, do most people actually play in games where they have no idea what they are fighting from one day to the next?

Occasionally we guess wrong, and we do prep some utility spells just in case, but what are these games where people have no idea what is coming up? Is your DM just rolling a dice to see which monster manual he will flip open to a random page? If we DO guess wrong, unless a clock is ticking, we jump in a Rope Trick and pop out the next morning with the correct spells prepared.

First quoted paragraph: That's pretty much because Alter Self is almost as broken as polymorph, Rope Trick (barring someone there to expertly counter what you're doing) is pretty much a "ha ha, I'll be back!" button - which in my mind is the same thing as being broken (you show that in the third paragraph I quoted), and ... well, Glitterdust is just a regular old good spell.

Second quoted paragraph: Yes. About 80% of the time.

Vantharion
2010-08-24, 02:16 PM
First off,
I was referring to the fact that he can LEARN normal spells, not research them. A sorcerer is not necessarily limited to ONLY what he gains as he levels up.

Second off in regards to Knowing vs Not Knowing.
I'm not talking about complete spontaneity of rolling percentages. I'm talking about not having a garage full of tools. I feel the fun of it comes from not having the best tools for the job and improvising. I don't like going back into the garage every different challenge and coming back out with the perfect weapon for the job.
I do optimize, but I'm not the heaviest optimizer. I like dealing with what gets thrown my way even when there is probably a better way of doing it. Yes Abjuration isn't the most powerful school, but I enjoy it nonetheless.
Sorry if my way of enjoying things is a little different from yours.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 02:20 PM
First off,
I was referring to the fact that he can LEARN normal spells, not research them. A sorcerer is not necessarily limited to ONLY what he gains as he levels up.


SRD says you are wrong:
"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however."

Sorcerers can know more spells than their level chart...by taking certain feats, PRCs, or magic items. They can't just learn more spells.



First quoted paragraph: That's pretty much because Alter Self is almost as broken as polymorph, Rope Trick (barring someone there to expertly counter what you're doing) is pretty much a "ha ha, I'll be back!" button - which in my mind is the same thing as being broken (you show that in the third paragraph I quoted), and ... well, Glitterdust is just a regular old good spell.

Thats the point. There are enough broken to the point of awesome spells in Sor/Wiz core, that an unusual spell has to be supremely broken to be enough better than what they get by default to make any impact on their power curve at all.

AmberVael
2010-08-24, 02:22 PM
To put things much more bluntly:


A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way.

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-24, 02:34 PM
I mean, in my game, our group raided a warehouse for a rival guild, and when we did, we were prepared for guards. When we raided the abandoned temple, we were prepared for undead. When we tracked the frost giants to their lair, the cold subtype creatures didn't surprise us. You can bet that when we leave there and go to the red dragon's cave in the middle of the desert, we will be ready for fire creatures, and when we finally track the evil golem making wizard back to his lair, we will be ready to kill some constructs. 98% of the time, we know if we will be in a city, a dungeon, or a wilderness on a given day.


In my game, the guards included a drill sergeant and a captain (debuff-focused yelling-based Bard and a Marshall) and they also had a pile of attack dogs.

The abandoned temple turned out to have oozes and constructs in addition to the undead.

The frost giants had a pet fire dragon that they'd used to dominate all the surrounding tribes

The desert is full of sandworms and bullettes

The wizard commands a dozen elementals; the golem is his messenger boy.

Gnaeus
2010-08-24, 04:37 PM
In my game, the guards included a drill sergeant and a captain (debuff-focused yelling-based Bard and a Marshall) and they also had a pile of attack dogs.


Predictable, discoverable with mundane scouting, and most importantly, not things that require radically different spells.


The abandoned temple turned out to have oozes and constructs in addition to the undead.

The frost giants had a pet fire dragon that they'd used to dominate all the surrounding tribes

So the wizard who prepared mostly anti type (cold, mindless) spells, with a few utility spells for the outlying encounters, is at least 50% more effective than the Sorc with his all purpose spell selection.

If they had dominated all the surrounding tribes with a pet dragon, your party shoulda known about the pet dragon. That isn't exactly a secret.



The desert is full of sandworms and bullettes

And the desert contains...things that live in deserts! Yes!

Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Most of the time, the wizard has a general idea of the common types of monsters he will be fighting. The outliers either get dealt with with multi use spells, or the wizard takes a back seat or buffing role in those fights, and contents himself with utterly dominating the 3/4ths of the encounters that he has the exact right spell for.

Morithias
2010-08-24, 05:02 PM
I take spontaneous mainly because you don't have to be paranoid, if you're breaking a game with a spontaneous caster it's a lot harder for a DM to just take your powers away.

Group: "We go to bed so the wizard can regain his spells."
DM: "Ok, the next morning his spellbook is gone, because none of you took enough ranks in listen to overcome the -10 pen for being asleep, and the wizard did not cast alarm."

Paranoia fuel, knowing you have to take perfect care of keeping yourself covered or you're going to have to spend thousands of gold pieces to get all your spells back.

Ryuk01
2010-08-24, 06:14 PM
glasscannon vs batman
Batman > Glass Cannon

Morithias
2010-08-24, 07:24 PM
Batman > Glass Cannon

And yet although the batman has stopped the joker time and time again who has the better record?

Bruce Wayne is dead, and never actually stopped the joker. The Joker killed Jason Todd, crippled Barbara Gordan, and probably has killed thousands of civilians over the years.

Seriously, Batman has gotten creamed by an insane clown who isn't even physically fit over the years.

Endarire
2010-08-24, 07:24 PM
Balance-wise, in 3.5 at least, there are spells you know are useful in niche situations, and spells you know are useful in general.

Wizards can have both with little resource investment. Sorcerers need to choose well.

I've played Conjurers and a Transmuter. I've noticed that, once I have web, glitterdust, and grease, I don't need that many more crowd control spells. I can prepare mirror image, alter self, or shield and not feel gimped.

What happens if I need a grease when I only have glitterdust prepared? I deal. Sometimes, I won't cast glitterdust. Sometimes I will, and hope that it works.

Morithias
2010-08-24, 07:51 PM
Of course I believe the main problem is that DM's tend not to have the NPC's USE the scrolls and items.

Ok if the enemy has a scroll of fireball or some super-spell, then you can assume one of them has UMD or is a spellcaster. Why aren't they casting the scroll.

Secondly, If I was a wizard about to lose my spellbook to a guy trying to kill me? I'd acid/fire orb the thing and destroy it. It isn't going to do me any good in the afterlife, and I might as well keep the guy killing me from getting any stronger.

Stone Heart
2010-08-24, 08:05 PM
I think its really based on peoples experiences, the level of the campaign and influence from other sources.

For example in my group, I am sometimes considered overpowered, I often am one of the strongest members of the group, and my list of characters with this group has been Paladin, Swashbuckler, Warblade, and Barbarian.

Our group really isn't familiar with optimization, and our Sorcerors and wizards are pretty much even.

oxybe
2010-08-24, 08:14 PM
And yet although the batman has stopped the joker time and time again who has the better record?

Bruce Wayne is dead, and never actually stopped the joker. The Joker killed Jason Todd, crippled Barbara Gordan, and probably has killed thousands of civilians over the years.

Seriously, Batman has gotten creamed by an insane clown who isn't even physically fit over the years.

note that batman takes steps so he doesn't just kill the clown.

anyone else, however, would probably try to solve the joker problem via a lead slug between a few lobes. or a few well placed bat-C4 charges. or have superman chuck him through the moon and into the sun.

or something.

Andion Isurand
2010-08-24, 08:17 PM
Dont know if this was mentioned. A sorc if she has access to an arcane spell not on the sorc/wizard list, can learn it as one of her spells known. Granted she needs a scroll or spell book to learn it. This gives a sorc the ability to learn arcane spells a wizard would not be able to.

However any arcane player should be able to create their own spells with DM aproval. Even if its just a copy of another spell such as command on the divine list.

Yeah, I'd allow a few crossovers here and there... although I'd likely enforce an increase in spell level whenever a player reaches to recreate aspects of a spell from another class's spell list.

JoshuaZ
2010-08-24, 09:29 PM
Don't forget bonus feats either which are very nice. My general method of illustrating the difference between the two is trying to pick up various PrCs and the advantages they get from them.

Let's stick to PrCs from core. Let's assume also that everything else is core only to minimize noise and simplify the analysis.

So first let's get the Dragon Disciple out of the way. A sorcerer can take that but a wizard has no way of taking it. But your magic will be much weaker by the end.

The two PrCs most geared to arcane spellcasters are the Loremaster and the Archmage. Many wizards will simply fall into this class at a fairly low level without trying. The only possible expense is the Skill Focus. Sorcerers have a lot of trouble though. They are down on the necessary feats (they need to spend four feats as opposed to the wizard who gets a lot of these for free), and they don't have two knowledge skills as class skills normally. And sorcerers would need to have many divination spells which hurt a lot. A wizard can just have those divination spells in the spellbook and then not prepare them.

What about archmage? Well, the wizard needs to work a little bit but can easily qualify at 13th level with a small amount of work on feats. A sorcerer can qualify at 14th level and only if they pick their spells very carefully (they have exactly the minimum number of spells needed). The three necessary feats for both are a lot but it doesn't hurt the wizard as much because the wizard already has lots of other bonus feats. A core sorcerer trying to become an archmage when they can has a very limited build option. The wizard has a lot of flexibility and an easier time overall.

What about the Eldritch Knight? Here again the wizard does better. A sorcerer needs to qualify after 6 levels in sorcerer and 1 in something else. But the wizard needs only 5 wizard and 1 something else. And then the wizard has an easier time since the loss of a caster level at level 1 hurts them less.

What about the Mystic Theurge? Here's an interesting one. The easiest way for a wizard to qualify is wiz 3/clr 3 and then start taking MT levels. Not great, because the default hybrid classes often sort of stink, but it isn't awful. And you still get 9th level spells before epic on whichever side you choose. The sorcerer requires sorc 4/clr 3 and can't get 9th level spells on either side before epic. A sorc 4/clr 3 is just getting 3rd level spells at 10th level.

The story of the Arcane Trickster is very similar to that of the Mystic Theurge. Harder for the sorcerer to qualify and overall ends up being a bit weaker.

The Arcane Archer is about as easy for both a sorcerer and a wizard to qualify. That's partially because it really isn't a spellcasting class in any substantial fashion.

So aside from the weak PrC that's restricted to sorcerers just on fluff, in general, it is easier for wizards to qualify for PrCs, they have more flexibility about how they can do so, and in many cases get more of an advantage from doing so.

That said, given the choice between the two, I'm likely to play a sorcerer simply because I don't have hours of time in real life to think about what spells to prepare. In fact, for many people the real constraint on playing a wizard effectively is lack of real life time to plan it out. This also becomes a roleplaying issue because an int 17 wizard really is going to spend hours planning that out. So one can play a sorcerer and not have that issue.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-24, 09:33 PM
Just to say, rather than being a good 'Glass Cannon' equivalent, I always saw the Joker as a pathalogically insane Batman, at the end of the day. :smallwink:

Vangor
2010-08-24, 09:37 PM
I think its really based on peoples experiences, the level of the campaign and influence from other sources.

For example in my group, I am sometimes considered overpowered, I often am one of the strongest members of the group, and my list of characters with this group has been Paladin, Swashbuckler, Warblade, and Barbarian.

Our group really isn't familiar with optimization, and our Sorcerors and wizards are pretty much even.

Same amount of optimization is the point, especially when discussing tiers or relative power levels in any way. However, what is noteworthy is with low optimization the first and second tiers are essentially identical since the second tier compensates a lack of utility with sheer force, whereas the first tier will simply ignore utility for sheer force. Not to say optimization levels of or within the group are not important, but we have to establish some basic assumptions in order to discuss potential power, and this is why we are discussing availability of scrolls and spellbooks since on one end you can have either everything you want with no hassles or one where you never find a single scrap of parchment.

Gnaeus
2010-08-25, 05:59 AM
Same amount of optimization is the point, especially when discussing tiers or relative power levels in any way. However, what is noteworthy is with low optimization the first and second tiers are essentially identical since the second tier compensates a lack of utility with sheer force, whereas the first tier will simply ignore utility for sheer force.

With low optimization, the sorcerer, having picked bad spells, is weaker than the party archer, and will be for a very long time. With low optimization, the wizard starts out just as bad, but improves much more quickly, as by random chance the player will discover that some spells are better than others and will then memorize the better spells.

Vizzerdrix
2010-08-25, 08:22 AM
More like saying that you have to put in time to use the photocopier at a library. I mean, if you buy the burger, the clown has to pay for more mystery meat and a new pickle slice. The wizard has no costs attached.:smallwink:

Hey! I've done the pickle quest six times before That Damn Clown would sell me burgers :smallfurious:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-25, 08:27 AM
Of course I believe the main problem is that DM's tend not to have the NPC's USE the scrolls and items.

Ok if the enemy has a scroll of fireball or some super-spell, then you can assume one of them has UMD or is a spellcaster. Why aren't they casting the scroll.

Depends. It may not be the best tactic at the time. Realistically, it's best to roll up items pre-combat, and use them if appropriate, but a caster with fireball 2/day and a scroll of fireball...he aint gonna use the scroll till he's dry.


Secondly, If I was a wizard about to lose my spellbook to a guy trying to kill me? I'd acid/fire orb the thing and destroy it. It isn't going to do me any good in the afterlife, and I might as well keep the guy killing me from getting any stronger.

Why? If you knew you were going to lose, and had opportunity to cast one more spell, why would that not be either an attempt to take someone down with you, or better yet, an escape spell?

Your way doesn't come off as realistic, it comes off as the DM trying to deny loot.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-25, 08:39 AM
why wizards are considered more powerful:fast spell level progression, potential adaptability, more feats to use on compensating fr fewer spells like crafting of spell trigger and access to greater variety of spells to offer more utility items to the party

what sorcs have going for them: a few more spell slots that will be catch up or exceed the wizard in more casts per encounter.

what other sponts have:bonus feats, class features, armored casting, focused spell lists that have some degree of specificity but would give either a strong run for their money in that range.

the game is not an exact science some classes excel in other places. not every campaign has a caster better off for throwing away evocation. and warmages dont always hve their place in every campaign.

Gnaeus
2010-08-25, 08:53 AM
Secondly, If I was a wizard about to lose my spellbook to a guy trying to kill me? I'd acid/fire orb the thing and destroy it. It isn't going to do me any good in the afterlife, and I might as well keep the guy killing me from getting any stronger.



Why? If you knew you were going to lose, and had opportunity to cast one more spell, why would that not be either an attempt to take someone down with you, or better yet, an escape spell?

Your way doesn't come off as realistic, it comes off as the DM trying to deny loot.

Or offer to give the guy your spellbook if he lets you go. Seriously, Morithas, if 2 guys rob you at gunpoint in the subway, would you set your wallet on fire to prevent the criminals from getting your money? Even if you would, do you think everyone would take such an extreme course? I wouldn't eat a bullet for my wallet, (or my car if I were carjacked, which might be closer in value to a spellbook) and my casters wouldn't die in order to destroy their spellbook. Both are replaceable.

As a low-mid level wizard or sorcerer (i.e. before I was immortal via clone or astral projection or greater resurrection from a friendly cleric) if I was about to be killed by enemies and had no plausible escape route, you can bet I would be offering to teach their wizard some spells and make scrolls for him if they let me live and didn't remove any body parts of which I am fond. Why would a typical NPC not do the same (unless all your enemies are so fanatical that they would rather die than bargain with the enemy).

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-25, 09:05 AM
Why would a typical NPC not do the same (unless all your enemies are so fanatical that they would rather die than bargain with the enemy).

especially if they are low level evil wizards they may have a backer and either a spare spell book or a group with which one could be regained.

or mug lower level npcs of their spellbooks. and the cycle of book theft contiues.

people forget the plus and minus of being a class based on preparation means that in so many cases there is some way to get a backup spell book hidden or some other contingency. if an opposing wizard lets you have his spellbook to let him live:keel him as that means he will be back with better spells and this time a better idea of how to trap you all and less likely to fail.

liquid150
2010-08-25, 09:34 AM
I havn't found Divination to be very helpful, to be honest. Scrying just gives you a 20 ft sphere of vision. Contact Other Plane risks lies and mental failure.
COP doesn't really risk much for a wizard. At level 9 you've got 22 INT, most likely, and you auto-pass the ability check when you take 10 to contact the most reliable sources.

People often forget that a spellbook costs 100 gp per page. A 9th level Wizard making a back-up spellbook with only 3 of her favourite spells from each level would have to pay 4,500 gp... not exactly cheap.
Boccob's Blessed Book, anybody?

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-25, 09:39 AM
a point I realized as looking at someoen who had mentioned stronghold builders guidebook in best stuff from worst book thread


there are plenty of semi useful spells for the act of construction that with a sorc you dont want to devote an actual spell known slot for.

Gnaeus
2010-08-25, 11:10 AM
if an opposing wizard lets you have his spellbook to let him live:keel him as that means he will be back with better spells and this time a better idea of how to trap you all and less likely to fail.

Or let him live on the theory that if he comes back later he will have another spellbook with higher level spells in it. :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-25, 11:24 AM
Or let him live on the theory that if he comes back later he will have another spellbook with higher level spells in it. :smallbiggrin:

Xp, spells, recurring villian...yeah, there's no part about this scenario not to like.

Only foolish parties kill everything on the basis that it will "cause less trouble". The DM is going to send things against you regardless. So, the interesting ones, let them make deals and buy their way out. You get cool stuff, and the DM gets to actually reuse material. It works out for everyone.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-25, 02:52 PM
This is like saying I have to put in time to earn trust from McDonalds before buying a burger. Unless it's some highly unusual spell, it is treated like a commodity.
A better example might be the background check and waiting period before being permitted to purchase a firearm, the (locally accepted) license necessary to drive a car, or any other measures taken before people are allowed access to potentially destructive and extremely deadly things in reality. They can be purchased or obtained, but it often takes some additional measures.


This does not match up with the actual history of Mystra. She hooked up Azuth with magic, and godhood, and the guy's LN, while she's NG. That was the very first mage. She doesn't enforce "only good guys get to use magic" at all. Plenty of evil people have magic aplenty, and thats not a problem.
Depends on which Mystra we're talking about. Since the Time of Troubles, Midnight/Mystra does in fact prefer that magic spreads to good people. She can't restrict evil people from using it (as I recall, she was actually either trying or planning to do that for a bit but got in trouble for it) but from what I've read she for the most part encourages her followers and such to favor good over evil when spreading magic.

I've always found the idea of spells being freely available silly. Doesn't mean it should be exceedingly difficult to get them, but just paying money? Mmmno. Probably not. That would be like if you could just go out and buy heavy weaponry in real life without a considerable amount of licensing and such.

On the other hand, captured spellbooks, absolutely. Enemy wizards should definitely have spellbooks you can capture in logical places. Enemy casters of all types should have a reasonable amount of scrolls, and so on.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-25, 02:56 PM
I've always found the idea of spells being freely available silly. Doesn't mean it should be exceedingly difficult to get them, but just paying money? Mmmno. Probably not. That would be like if you could just go out and buy heavy weaponry in real life without a considerable amount of licensing and such.

In the feudal world, this is pretty much how it worked. Buying a sword or bow was actually quite easy in most of the source cultures for D&D, provided you weren't a slave of some kind. Weaponry WAS mostly limited by money.

And I've yet to hear of fantasy systems that strictly limit access to swords and such. This is probably a good thing, but the idea that magic would be treated significantly differently than any other form of weaponry available is curious.

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-25, 02:59 PM
COP doesn't really risk much for a wizard. At level 9 you've got 22 INT, most likely, and you auto-pass the ability check when you take 10 to contact the most reliable sources.



Er, wha-?



TAKING 10
When your character is not being threatened....




If you fail this check, your head will explode...


Does your DM let you take 10 on saves vs poison, too?



EDIT: @ spells not being freely available:Admittedly, you do need a permit for weapons in real life, but the idea of restricting ALL magic on that basis seems a bit...


Wizard: Hello! I'd like to purchase a scroll of Daylight?

Guild Representative: Ah, I'm afraid you'll have to prove you mean us no harm. After all, who knows what untold havoc you could wreak.

Wizard: Like WHAT?

Guild Representative: You could shine it in my eyes! It'd be unpleasant.

Wizard: Can I have a Whispering Wind, then?

Guild Representative: Nope! What if you used to send pornagraphic messages to nuns?

Wizard: Protection from Fire?

Guild Representative: You could steal the bread from my oven!

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-25, 03:19 PM
In the feudal world, this is pretty much how it worked. Buying a sword or bow was actually quite easy in most of the source cultures for D&D, provided you weren't a slave of some kind. Weaponry WAS mostly limited by money.

And I've yet to hear of fantasy systems that strictly limit access to swords and such. This is probably a good thing, but the idea that magic would be treated significantly differently than any other form of weaponry available is curious.
Swords and bows are limited in their ability to cause destruction and devastation. It doesn't hold a candle to magic in its ability to cause widespread destruction and lethality. The lack of restriction therefore makes sense - if a man with a sword goes on a rampage, it takes a few other men to bring him down and he might kill a few people. If a mage goes on a rampage, he may well level the city.

Therefore, magic being more difficult to obtain the more ability to do widespread damage it has is entirely logical. Having to become a member of the arcane guild, pay dues, and be generally trustworthy and such before they'll sell you the big guns is a pretty reasonable restriction.

Gnaeus
2010-08-25, 03:44 PM
A better example might be the background check and waiting period before being permitted to purchase a firearm, the (locally accepted) license necessary to drive a car, or any other measures taken before people are allowed access to potentially destructive and extremely deadly things in reality. They can be purchased or obtained, but it often takes some additional measures.

You know, that is a good argument in certain kinds of societies. In a lawful good society, it is very reasonable that a PC might not be able to walk in off the street and learn any spell he wants. In the same society, a flaming sword or a necklace of fireballs would likely also be regulated, so it really hampers all PCs. It isn't RAW, exactly, but it does make sense and is realistic to certain kinds of real world societies.

On the other hand, if a PC is a member of the Wizard's guild, that is probably the licensing body, and membership probably includes the permission to buy common spells. If the PC's have been working with the local lord or an established temple, they probably have the political clout to cut through the red tape. If a PC is a member of the thieves guild, he certainly knows where the black market is. In many evil societies, if you have the mojo to bribe or threaten the boss, the laws really don't apply to you. So it is a realistic limitation, but not actually one that prevents wizards from learning spells. At best it slows them down a little.

Also, it stops being a factor at all after about level 9. I mean, here in my home in the U.S., I can't buy explosives or guns without a permit. But if I could teleport to certain cities in Africa or Central Asia etc. I'm pretty sure I could buy all the guns I had money to afford. Once the party can teleport or plane shift to a neutral or chaotic civilization, it becomes really difficult to reasonably restrict their purchases at all.

Also, if the wizard can buy non-violent spells (fly, greater mage armor, stone shape, teleport, wall of stone, rope-trick, etc) then he can cover his utility needs with those, and spend his free spells from leveling on the fight winners. And none of this includes all the many other ways of acquiring spells we discussed earlier in the thread, which are unlikely to be stopped by legislation.

Wonton
2010-08-25, 04:09 PM
Boccob's Blessed Book, anybody?

... costs 12,500, almost three times more than the example I provided. So it's not exactly an optimal option for a back-up spellbook.

And even for your main spellbook, it's not great either. 12,500 is a lot of money, your WBL doesn't allow you to buy that until level 6. Except, of course, no character spends all their WBL on a single item, and if we're going by the common "no more than 25% on any single item" houserule/guideline, you can't get a Blessed Book until some point after level 10. And in my experience, at least 50% of campaigns never reach this level.

liquid150
2010-08-25, 04:21 PM
Er, wha-?





Does your DM let you take 10 on saves vs poison, too?



Misquoting the SRD intentionally doesn't exactly help you make your point.

Doug Lampert
2010-08-25, 04:59 PM
You should have about a 50/50 of a scroll being arcane or divine, and you can use the vast majority of arcane spells besides those specific to bards. A few scrolls are pretty common to find among any decent area of loot, and any sizable town should contain a store to purchase some additional scrolls. As well, any enemy should employ arcanists if not primarily arcanists themselves which can lead to extensive versatility for the wizard.

You purchase scrolls to learn spells? How bizarre, that destroys a perfectly good scroll. You purchase scrolls so you'll have a scroll.

The PHB LISTS THE PRICE to borrow another caster's spellbook to learn a spell. And for every spell-level above first it's cheaper to do it that way. People claiming wizards won't do this are flatly ignoring the rules. Maybe no one will sell you lunch either, or buy that +1 sword you looted last advenure and no one needs.

And note that scribing a second spellbook is HALF the price of your primary, the person your borrowing from can have you pay in advance and the main cost of the backup he's loaning you is the fee he's already got from you! No real downside for him and he gets a backup for his secret chest.

If he's already got a backup then he loans you that. Refusing to trade spells is behavior NEVER observed in PCs, one of the most notoriously suspicious groups in the world. Yet NPC wizards are going to refuse?

Any decent sized town will have several local wizards, pay them off, borrow their books, and go to town. It's expensive but spells are your main thing, and if you take some craft feats with your bonus feats then the rest of the party will pay for it (pst... hey little fighter, wanna buy some wondrous items for 80% of book price?). Astonishing how many spellbooks that +4 con device pays for at those rates.

Gnaeus
2010-08-25, 05:10 PM
It's expensive but spells are your main thing, and if you take some craft feats with your bonus feats then the rest of the party will pay for it (pst... hey little fighter, wanna buy some wondrous items for 80% of book price?). Astonishing how many spellbooks that +4 con device pays for at those rates.

I find that when I say things like "I just don't have the money to learn (haste, fly, greater magic weapon, any other utility or combat buff that the fighter wants me to cast on him), the fighter will often buy the spell for me. I mean, it is for his benefit after all. We don't make the cleric buy his wand of lesser vigor either.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-25, 08:15 PM
Refusing to trade spells is behavior NEVER observed in PCs, one of the most notoriously suspicious groups in the world. Yet NPC wizards are going to refuse?
Depends on the campaign, and the DM, and the players in my experience. In a campaign where players fighting each other is forbidden through out of character fiat, the players will usually have their characters trade spells.

On the other hand, in games where players are allowed to and sometimes work at cross-purposes, and have to be concerned about the other player characters attack them, I tend to see a lot more caution about what spells are traded around freely. There's a lot of weighing pros and cons, consideration of whether the benefit for the entire group will be greater if the other mage can cast this too, or whether it's too risky since the mage might someday turn on you. This is how characters in the world should think.

Gnaeus is correct that higher level characters can most likely track down a location where their spells are freely available, though. Even then, it will mean additional work, time, and cost in tracking down the right mage in the right place, which is all I'm saying should be required - some additional effort.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-25, 08:29 PM
Misquoting the SRD intentionally doesn't exactly help you make your point.
Okay, how about some slightly more relevant quotes, then:
Using Skills, Taking 10 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help. (Emphasis added)
Note that this is under skills. Contact Other Plane (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm) doesn't ask for a skill check, but an "Intelligence check", which is not the same thing. You're contacting foreign powers, who "resent such contact", and if you don't roll well, "your Intelligence and Charisma scores each fall to 8 for the stated duration, and you become unable to cast arcane spells".

So you can't take ten for two reasons:
1) It's an Ability check, not a skill check.
2) You're under a threat.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-25, 08:33 PM
Or let him live on the theory that if he comes back later he will have another spellbook with higher level spells in it. :smallbiggrin:

bah! you assume too much on your survival. nowhere in the rules does it say that a recurring villain must be destined to fail each time and drop a better spell book.

first of of d&d: don't die.
second rule: dont do anything stupid that may lead to your death
third rule: you do not talk about fight club, I am sick of that being brought up in discussions of rules.

liquid150
2010-08-25, 09:26 PM
So you can't take ten for two reasons:
1) It's an Ability check, not a skill check.
2) You're under a threat.

1. You may take 10 on ability checks. This is explicitly stated in the SRD.
2. "Threatened" is a defined adjective in D&D. It represents when you can be struck in combat by an AoO, or defines a square that an opponent may attack in melee. Defined terms have a very concise meaning in this game.


Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks

The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.


Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

This situation specifically fits the exact reasoning to take 10.


In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

So, you may decide to call it that way, but by RAW, you are incorrect. Following your logic, you may never take 10 because you are always threatened with the negative consequences of failure.

Crow
2010-08-25, 10:53 PM
It says distractions or threats. Nothing about threatened squares or what-not.

Seriously dude, are you kidding?

I'd say having to make sure I don't get my brain wiped by entities that resent my popping in on them is a pretty big distraction, and the possibility of it happening is a pretty serious threat.

Going by RAW can lead to some RAWtarded outcomes. Which is why the game has a DM, and he gets to interprit the rules. In this case, it seems pretty clear that most DM's would say RAI beats RAW in this case.

Besides, if you really want to go by RAW, then COP requires an "Intelligence check", not an "Ability check". SO what now? Guess you have to make an interpritation.

Vangor
2010-08-25, 11:47 PM
1. You may take 10 on ability checks. This is explicitly stated in the SRD.
2. "Threatened" is a defined adjective in D&D. It represents when you can be struck in combat by an AoO, or defines a square that an opponent may attack in melee. Defined terms have a very concise meaning in this game.


When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10...Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.

While you are correct about taking 10 or 20 on ability checks, an entity resenting your intrusion would probably be at best a distraction. Further, taking 10 or 20 tends to represent an abundance of time to perform a check, and considering the duration and concentration limits of Contact Other Plane, the spell does not offer you enough time to properly perform the check. For the threat aspect, which is established with the "such as combat" notation as not being strictly "threatened" in the melee sense, consider the greater the power of the deity the higher the chance for ability damage, and this would appear a direct threat to the caster.

The biggest problem is the DCs to Intermediate Deity could be fulfilled by taking 10 with a level 1 wizard. Who has the ability to cast for 10min and concentrate in the middle of anything which might constitute more of a distraction or threat than the spell itself? Who has this time but not the ability to take a 20? Seems absurd to place such low DCs for the random scenario of monsters attacking just as the spell is completed. Of course, rules can have odd wordings, but you have to incorporate an overly friendly DM interpretation on taking 10/20 and distractions into a spell which requires DM input while using RAW method to bypass the DCs and thus ignore the obvious logic of the extremely low DCs.


You purchase scrolls to learn spells? How bizarre, that destroys a perfectly good scroll. You purchase scrolls so you'll have a scroll.

All good points on the availability of spells for wizards, though I was trying to place hefty emphasis on "a store to purchase some additional scrolls." At least a couple scrolls should be available or the DM is trying to hinder the wizard. No real argument from me though that a wizard should probably become available who is willing to let you copy for a fee.

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-26, 08:37 AM
spells are where you get them not every town has a mages academy or a helpful wizard. sometimes a scroll is all you have access to and you pay for it.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 08:41 AM
... costs 12,500, almost three times more than the example I provided. So it's not exactly an optimal option for a back-up spellbook.

And even for your main spellbook, it's not great either. 12,500 is a lot of money, your WBL doesn't allow you to buy that until level 6. Except, of course, no character spends all their WBL on a single item, and if we're going by the common "no more than 25% on any single item" houserule/guideline, you can't get a Blessed Book until some point after level 10. And in my experience, at least 50% of campaigns never reach this level.

No, that rule is for starting items with your wealth, to ensure a somewhat realistic starting kit of gear. Once you start play, you can of course save your pennies. I've never heard of not allowing someone to spend more than 25% of their wealth on a single item post-creation.

dextercorvia
2010-08-26, 10:34 AM
Regarding taking 10 on the CoP check, do you not allow a Rogue to take 10 on a disable device check? Consequence of failure does not eliminate the ability to take 10, only 20.

Vangor
2010-08-26, 11:41 AM
Regarding taking 10 on the CoP check, do you not allow a Rogue to take 10 on a disable device check? Consequence of failure does not eliminate the ability to take 10, only 20.

No one is discussing simply the consequence of the ability damage as being a reason you cannot take 10. Instead, when the spell is completed you are contacting a being of immense power and trying to withstand an assault on your mind. Were the trap ticking and about to spring the rogue would need to disable immediately and thus be unable to take 10/20. Same rationale, greater threat.

dextercorvia
2010-08-26, 12:17 PM
No one is discussing simply the consequence of the ability damage as being a reason you cannot take 10. Instead, when the spell is completed you are contacting a being of immense power and trying to withstand an assault on your mind. Were the trap ticking and about to spring the rogue would need to disable immediately and thus be unable to take 10/20. Same rationale, greater threat.

Taking 10 doesn't take any longer than rolling. Also, see below.


You send your mind to another plane of existence (an Elemental Plane or some plane farther removed) in order to receive advice and information from powers there. (See the accompanying table for possible consequences and results of the attempt.) The powers reply in a language you understand, but they resent such contact and give only brief answers to your questions. (All questions are answered with “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” “never,” “irrelevant,” or some other one-word answer.)

You must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions at the rate of one per round. A question is answered by the power during the same round. For every two caster levels, you may ask one question.

Contact with minds far removed from your home plane increases the probability that you will incur a decrease to Intelligence and Charisma, but the chance of the power knowing the answer, as well as the probability of the entity answering correctly, are likewise increased by moving to distant planes.

Once the Outer Planes are reached, the power of the deity contacted determines the effects. (Random results obtained from the table are subject to the personalities of individual deities.)

On rare occasions, this divination may be blocked by an act of certain deities or forces.

d% is rolled for the result shown on the table:

Nowhere does it state that you are in any sort of mental assault, or even that the beings are hostile. If I had to make an interpretation, I would say the intelligence check represents your ability to comprehend the intelligence you have contacted -- thus the DC scaling with likelyhood of knowledge.

The resent line includes the consequence, one word responses.


The DC depends on how tricky the device is. Disabling (or rigging or jamming) a fairly simple device has a DC of 10; more intricate and complex devices have higher DCs.

If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.

Again, you can take 10 on these checks, unless you are in combat or another similar situation. Just because the 'clock is ticking' doesn't remove your ability to put out your average performance.

liquid150
2010-08-26, 12:21 PM
No one is discussing simply the consequence of the ability damage as being a reason you cannot take 10. Instead, when the spell is completed you are contacting a being of immense power and trying to withstand an assault on your mind. Were the trap ticking and about to spring the rogue would need to disable immediately and thus be unable to take 10/20. Same rationale, greater threat.

Taking 10 has nothing to do with time. Taking 20 assumes utilizing time to your advantage, taking 10 does not. A rogue is allowed to take 10 on a disable device check, even if they only have a certain number of rounds to accomplish their goal.

I'm not sure where this concept of "an assault on your mind" comes from. There is nothing in either the SRD or the PHB that references anything of this sort. It is something that people have made up in their own minds. You are not in mental combat. Instead, you are checking to see if you have the breadth of mind able to contact a plane far removed from your own and comprehend the intelligence of that plane.


Contact with minds far removed from your home plane increases the probability that you will incur a decrease to Intelligence and Charisma
It says nothing about an assault on your mind, at all, ever. It never states anything remotely close to this imaginary concept.

You are not in combat (threatened) and you are concentrating (not distracted). You may take 10 on this ability check.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, will most likely not have the luxury of doing this due to a lower INT score. A sorcerer attempting to use Contact Other Plane has a good chance of failing their INT check, and thus why the rules were even written for this mechanic in the first place.

Vangor
2010-08-26, 01:00 PM
Taking 10 doesn't take any longer than rolling. Also, see below.

This is correct, but "time pressure" is mentioned at the beginning of Checks Without Rolls talking about normal checks. You may have other favorable conditions, but time is not one of them, which is the point.


Nowhere does it state that you are in any sort of mental assault, or even that the beings are hostile. If I had to make an interpretation, I would say the intelligence check represents your ability to comprehend the intelligence you have contacted -- thus the DC scaling with likelyhood of knowledge.

If you're going to take intelligence and charisma damage, this is an assault on your mind whether done deliberately by the being, directly caused by contact with the being, or due to the nature of accessing far removed planes via your mind. Whatever the rationale, and I do agree with yours, your mind is being assaulted.

Nowhere do I mention the beings being hostile, only, as the spell describes, they "resent" this, and this is included as to why the spell is at least a distraction since they are not exactly helping you maintain contact.


Again, you can take 10 on these checks, unless you are in combat or another similar situation. Just because the 'clock is ticking' doesn't remove your ability to put out your average performance.

Time is a part of the issue, as is the immediacy of the trap springing. Anxiety is a major distraction and can cause manual problems pretty simply. I don't want you to get stuck on time since really I was trying to turn the scenario you gave into a closer parallel to the one being discussed.


You are not in mental combat.

You are walking through the desert without water or shade. Your body is under a physical assault by the elements. Don't get thrown by the word "assault" as this is only meant to imply "threat" which is what we're talking about. Fairly certain people would not have a chance if a greater deity decided to actually mentally attack a person.


You are not in combat (threatened)

Combat is not the only way for there to be a threat. This is established right in my previous comment and in the rules for taking 10.


Sorcerers, on the other hand, will most likely not have the luxury of doing this due to a lower INT score. A sorcerer attempting to use Contact Other Plane has a good chance of failing their INT check, and thus why the rules were even written for this mechanic in the first place.

Your rationale for the DCs is they don't want sorcerers to be able to use this? I can understand why the check is Int based, but if the assumption is wizards would simply pass, why the Int damage, or did they figure to just steal a rank in Spellcraft while they were at it? The only other reason would be to screw with wizards who don't know they can take 10 with COP and thus never cast or to screw over wizards who didn't know and fail the check.

Jolly
2010-08-26, 01:06 PM
Thats the point. There are enough broken to the point of awesome spells in Sor/Wiz core, that an unusual spell has to be supremely broken to be enough better than what they get by default to make any impact on their power curve at all.


Assuming your DM looks at severely broken spells and then throws up their hands and says "This will break my campaign and be no fun for anyone but the RAW says it so what can I do."

Seriously, what kind of DM's do you people have that let in broken stuff just because it's RAW? My DM is a professed munchkin and even he understands the need to nerf the broken stuff.

dextercorvia
2010-08-26, 01:06 PM
If you're going to take intelligence and charisma damage, this is an assault on your mind whether done deliberately by the being, directly caused by contact with the being, or due to the nature of accessing far removed planes via your mind. Whatever the rationale, and I do agree with yours, your mind is being assaulted.

This is actually why I chose traps. They are dangerous, they can hurt you, some of them even deal ability damage.

There is no harm if you succeed in either case, and harm if you fail (or fail by a certain amount. There is no wording in either case, that you are unable to take 10 because of impeding danger.


In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

Ie. taking 10 keeps you safe from the consequences of failure, so long as 10 is sufficient.

liquid150
2010-08-26, 01:23 PM
This is correct, but "time pressure" is mentioned at the beginning of Checks Without Rolls talking about normal checks. You may have other favorable conditions, but time is not one of them, which is the point.
That part of the entry is in reference to both taking 10 and 20, and is more fluff than crunch. Taking 10 is specifically allowed in the rogue situation you have put on the table. You may take 10 when not threatened or in combat. You may take 20 when you have 20 rounds to dedicate to the task AND failure has no consequence.


If you're going to take intelligence and charisma damage, this is an assault on your mind whether done deliberately by the being, directly caused by contact with the being, or due to the nature of accessing far removed planes via your mind. Whatever the rationale, and I do agree with yours, your mind is being assaulted.
There is nothing in the text to support this argument.

Nowhere do I mention the beings being hostile, only, as the spell describes, they "resent" this, and this is included as to why the spell is at least a distraction since they are not exactly helping you maintain contact.
So concentrating on a spell is distracting? This is neither logical nor supported anywhere.


Time is a part of the issue, as is the immediacy of the trap springing. Anxiety is a major distraction and can cause manual problems pretty simply. I don't want you to get stuck on time since really I was trying to turn the scenario you gave into a closer parallel to the one being discussed.
So a character with an anxiety disorder would never be allowed to take 10? Again, this claim is not supported anywhere in the rules. Just because YOU might be distracted by something doesn't mean that a conditioned professional would.


You are walking through the desert without water or shade. Your body is under a physical assault by the elements. Don't get thrown by the word "assault" as this is only meant to imply "threat" which is what we're talking about. Fairly certain people would not have a chance if a greater deity decided to actually mentally attack a person.
This is a metaphor, and not a reliable comparison.

As I stated before, "threatened" is a defined term.


threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own.
As a defined term in D&D, when used in rules it must be used within the context of the definition.


Combat is not the only way for there to be a threat. This is established right in my previous comment and in the rules for taking 10.
The rules of the game disagree with you.

Your rationale for the DCs is they don't want sorcerers to be able to use this? I can understand why the check is Int based, but if the assumption is wizards would simply pass, why the Int damage, or did they figure to just steal a rank in Spellcraft while they were at it? The only other reason would be to screw with wizards who don't know they can take 10 with COP and thus never cast or to screw over wizards who didn't know and fail the check.
Because if the check didn't have any repercussions for stupid wizards, they wouldn't make sense if it affected sorcerers. Yes, an OOC stupid wizard that doesn't know he can take 10 deserves to suffer the penalty (the previous statement was in no way directed at any specific person on these boards, they were only meant to describe an imaginary player).

If you follow the logic that the ability check for this spell should always be rolled, it rationally follows that nobody would ever cast the spell. Thus, there would be no point to even having printed it in the first place. Taking 10 makes the spell able to be used, and hence not a complete waste of ink, page space, and writing/editing time.

Crow
2010-08-26, 09:23 PM
You don't make an "ability check", you make an "Intelligence check"! That's RAW!!!!

But seriously, where do you keep getting this "threatened" stuff from? It says "threats". Then it says "such as combat" as an example. It doesn't read "standing in a threatened square" or anything near what is used in any other part of the book to describe being under threat of opportunity attack.

"Threatened" is not the same as "threats". I mean jeez, one is an adjective and one is a plural noun.

Wonton
2010-08-26, 10:35 PM
No, that rule is for starting items with your wealth, to ensure a somewhat realistic starting kit of gear. Once you start play, you can of course save your pennies. I've never heard of not allowing someone to spend more than 25% of their wealth on a single item post-creation.

Well, I know. What I wanted to say was that it's unlikely that a character would spend a long time saving up for an item that is more than 25% of their WBL. If you're wearing 37,500 gp of equipment, having 12,500 unspent cuts into your character's power somewhat. But, hey, maybe that's just me, I don't like hoarding gold and would rather spend every last penny on cheap magic items. YMMV.

P.S. Course, there's the spellshard from Eberron. Much more reasonably priced, and it'll still take a while to fill 500 pages.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 11:20 PM
Assuming your DM looks at severely broken spells and then throws up their hands and says "This will break my campaign and be no fun for anyone but the RAW says it so what can I do."

Seriously, what kind of DM's do you people have that let in broken stuff just because it's RAW? My DM is a professed munchkin and even he understands the need to nerf the broken stuff.

It's less broken than people describe it as. The int penalty basically only serves as a way to restrict access to the highest levels, and thus, keep the wizard on a level where he still has a significant chance of a wrong/no answer.

Lets look at downsides of CoP.

1. 5th level spell slots. These are a significant resource at any point prior to epic. The tradeoff between being more prepared with your remaining spells and just having less spells period is obvious.

2. One word answers depend on the question. If you ask a question like "will we fight undead today", a yes answer may be quite helpful. A no answer still doesn't tell you what to prepare. A yes answer also does not give you a quantity of undead you'll fight, so it still leaves questions open.

3. Lies/no answer. Even the best level of deity has a 12% failure chance. It's also not usually immediately obvious that you failed, casting doubt on correct answers. As a result, your information may actually hurt more than help.

You can somewhat mitigate both 2 and 3 by asking a lot of questions, but that only amplifies problem #1. Yeah, I'd rather save my 5th lv spell slots for general purpose spells, like wall of force or hold monster, that are applicable in a wide variety of situations. Sure, bias preparations a touch towards what you reasonably expect to be coming, and pack scrolls everywhere, but forget about div. It's a trap.

Gnaeus
2010-08-27, 05:27 AM
Lets look at downsides of CoP.

3. Lies/no answer. Even the best level of deity has a 12% failure chance. It's also not usually immediately obvious that you failed, casting doubt on correct answers. As a result, your information may actually hurt more than help.

This is why commune from a familiar or outsider is better.

liquid150
2010-08-27, 08:20 AM
You don't make an "ability check", you make an "Intelligence check"! That's RAW!!!!

But seriously, where do you keep getting this "threatened" stuff from? It says "threats". Then it says "such as combat" as an example. It doesn't read "standing in a threatened square" or anything near what is used in any other part of the book to describe being under threat of opportunity attack.

"Threatened" is not the same as "threats". I mean jeez, one is an adjective and one is a plural noun.

You might want to check text before saying something incorrect.


being threatened

When a word has a definition within a rule set, uses of that word must conform to the definition given.


An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier.

An intelligence check is a roll of 1d20 + the appropriate ability modifer (in this case, INT).

Logic 101:
A is defined as X.
B is X.
B = A
It does not necessarily follow that A = B, however.

liquid150
2010-08-27, 08:24 AM
You can somewhat mitigate both 2 and 3 by asking a lot of questions, but that only amplifies problem #1. Yeah, I'd rather save my 5th lv spell slots for general purpose spells, like wall of force or hold monster, that are applicable in a wide variety of situations. Sure, bias preparations a touch towards what you reasonably expect to be coming, and pack scrolls everywhere, but forget about div. It's a trap.

Why do you assume that a wizard can't spend a whole day, if not more than one day, preparing for an adventure by casting COP from a safe place such as a stronghold? It is reasonable under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are not universally applicable.


This is why commune from a familiar or outsider is better.

This is true, but Contact Other Plane serves well enough until you obtain the ability to cast Planar Binding.

Malbordeus
2010-08-27, 08:40 AM
I got bored of most of the random one-upmanship contest somewhere in the middle of page 3...

both clases are just as good in my opinion.
wizards get a vast bredth of spells, and can afford to learn the odd specialist spell that is unlikely to turn up, and even qualify for more prc's

Sorcerors dont prepare their spells, but are initially limited in their selection - but have more fun with runestaves, knowstones and if they feel particularly silly, the draconic, celestial and fiendish sorceror feats amongst others. also the prc's specificly designed for sorcerors like fiend-blooded from HoH. also the sorceror works awsomely in social settings

however they both smell. play a druid instead.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 08:43 AM
Why do you assume that a wizard can't spend a whole day, if not more than one day, preparing for an adventure by casting COP from a safe place such as a stronghold? It is reasonable under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are not universally applicable.

I do not have a problem with the idea of a wizard casting from safety...in fact, it's the only time casting COP makes sense.

Spending days not adventuring is still an expenditure of resources. People act as though spending days in preparation and then utilizing a 5 minute adventuring day isn't a problem...and in some instances, it may not be. However, most of the time, you don't have the leisure of infinite time to deal with a problem.

Plus, asking "will I fight undead three days from now" is more likely to generate an answer like "maybe" than "yes", since events further in the future are less certain. Because you get to alter your actions based on the information given.

liquid150
2010-08-27, 08:55 AM
however they both smell. play a druid instead.
Druids smell worse. All that not bathing and hanging around with monkeys, you know.

I do not have a problem with the idea of a wizard casting from safety...in fact, it's the only time casting COP makes sense.

Spending days not adventuring is still an expenditure of resources. People act as though spending days in preparation and then utilizing a 5 minute adventuring day isn't a problem...and in some instances, it may not be. However, most of the time, you don't have the leisure of infinite time to deal with a problem.

Plus, asking "will I fight undead three days from now" is more likely to generate an answer like "maybe" than "yes", since events further in the future are less certain. Because you get to alter your actions based on the information given.
I definitely wouldn't say a 5 minute adventuring day is okay, so I agree with you on that. One would hope that a caster utilizing this technique would be prepared properly to mow down encounters with one or two spells, extending that day's resource expenditure.

As far as the events in the future being less certain, that is highly dependent on the campaign in which you're playing (as is having the time to even use this tactic). Personally, I tend to restrict my uses of COP to cover surprise attacks, as these are the most deadly to any party and, therefore, wizard. Knowledge of the time, place, and type of enemy that could have surprised you eliminates the factor of surprise, allowing the party to prepare just ahead of time for combat. Other questions I like to ask are whether I will be facing any potent spellcasters, and asking about their specialties. Of course, a potent spellcaster will likely employ the same tactic against the party, so it becomes another practice in "who goes first?"

Crow
2010-08-27, 09:28 AM
You might want to check text before saying something incorrect.

It says threatened the first time, then the second time it reads "threats" and then says "such as combat" as an example, implying that combat is not the only possibility. If it was as you say it is, it would read "Being distracted or threatened makes it impossible for a character to take 10."

Besides, it is hard to believe that trying to make sense of minds and thoughts from the far realms wouldn't be at least little distracting (If you don't subscibe to the threat side of it), especially as it seems the wizard is in danger of losing his sanity (albeit temporarily).

Does "distracted" have a defined meaning within the rules? Because if not, then why would it be in there? The spell very much requires DM interaction, and cannot be taken as RAW. I mean, nobody even brings up the part about intervention from dieties or other forces causing it to outright fail.


An intelligence check is a roll of 1d20 + the appropriate ability modifer (in this case, INT).

Logic 101:
A is defined as X.
B is X.
B = A
It does not necessarily follow that A = B, however.

Oh my god, no kidding? Wow! So we're supposed to go by RAI now?

Vangor
2010-08-27, 09:31 AM
You might want to check text before saying something incorrect.



When a word has a definition within a rule set, uses of that word must conform to the definition given.

This is why you took mental assault too literal, now I understand. What I and Crow referred to is this portion of the Taking 10 explanation: "Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10." Notice, "such as combat" implies threats beyond those in combat. See the swim skill rules on a swim speed permitting you to take 10 which says, "can choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered when swimming." Endangered is not specific language and fits "threats (such as combat" fairly well.


So a character with an anxiety disorder would never be allowed to take 10? Again, this claim is not supported anywhere in the rules. Just because YOU might be distracted by something doesn't mean that a conditioned professional would.

An extreme enough anxiety disorder which constantly hit at the slightest pressure, which is fairly implausible, sure. I could see this being a UA flaw, though potentially has a 20% chance of being unable to take a 10. As for being a professional, this is irrelevant to the mechanics of the game. Having a massive amount of ranks in climb never bestows the ability to take 10, you need alternate rules such as a climb speed.


That part of the entry is in reference to both taking 10 and 20, and is more fluff than crunch.

Unless we find time being a factor in other rolls, such as the rules for climb speeds, "but it always can choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing." Rushed? Why would being rushed not permit another character to take 10 unless time could be a factor.


So concentrating on a spell is distracting? This is neither logical nor supported anywhere.

Actually, concentrating on a spell would be a distraction to trying to comprehend the intelligence of the being contacted.


If you follow the logic that the ability check for this spell should always be rolled, it rationally follows that nobody would ever cast the spell.

Except by this notion, the idea of potentially receiving ability damage is meant to assure no one ever casts the spell, thus the point of having an actual DC is irrelevant since no one would ever not make the DC since all of those who might fail would never cast the spell. Instead, the spell should be simply your amount of Int determines the intelligence of the being you can contact in a manner identical to requisite casting stat to cast spells of certain levels.

And this is interesting because without having a 15 Int (or Cha), you have no capacity to actually cast the spell. If we ignore all of the people with a potential for failure who would never cast this spell anyway, the 5 of the 8 entries on the table are worthless because you always have at least a +2 Int while casting COP, thus you take 10 and get a 12 to successfully contact a lesser deity. Why would you ever not contact at least the lesser deity?

liquid150
2010-08-27, 09:40 AM
It says threatened the first time, then the second time it reads "threats" and then says "such as combat" as an example, implying that combat is not the only possibility. If it was as you say it is, it would read "Being distracted or threatened makes it impossible for a character to take 10."

Besides, it is hard to believe that trying to make sense of minds and thoughts from the far realms wouldn't be at least little distracting (If you don't subscibe to the threat side of it), especially as it seems the wizard is in danger of losing his sanity (albeit temporarily).

Does "distracted" have a defined meaning within the rules? Because if not, then why would it be in there? The spell very much requires DM interaction, and cannot be taken as RAW. I mean, nobody even brings up the part about intervention from dieties or other forces causing it to outright fail.
Look at it this way, the way I read it allows the spell to be at least marginally useful for a few levels. The way you read it, it is not useful at all, ever. It only encourages players to abuse the Improved Familiar feat to get Commune for free, or to abuse planar binding to accomplish the same. Would you rather have a player using Contact Other Plane with no chance to fail (and also having a chance to obtain wrong information) or would you rather have them abuse Commune with no chance for wrong information?

The spell was published to be used, not to be completely ignored because it wasn't designed very well.



Oh my god, no kidding? Wow! So we're supposed to go by RAI now?
There's nothing interpretive about what I said.

Jolly
2010-08-27, 10:03 AM
It's interesting. I'm new to the world of tiers and optimization, so it's easy to look at certain statements and accept them without knowing the underlying assumptions. It seems like a lot of people base their assumptions on: all spells are allowed no matter how broken, most if not all splat books (and their spells, feats, PrC's etc) are allowed, most if not all rules legal exploits are allowed, your DM is clear in responding to divination, you generally have huge swathes of time to prep for adventures etc. While I'm sure that is often the case (and one can only go by RAW as there's no accounting for DM interpretation and allowance) it does give a certain context to these discussions that I have been lacking up to this point.

JoshuaZ
2010-08-27, 12:09 PM
It's interesting. I'm new to the world of tiers and optimization, so it's easy to look at certain statements and accept them without knowing the underlying assumptions. It seems like a lot of people base their assumptions on: all spells are allowed no matter how broken, most if not all splat books (and their spells, feats, PrC's etc) are allowed, most if not all rules legal exploits are allowed, your DM is clear in responding to divination, you generally have huge swathes of time to prep for adventures etc. While I'm sure that is often the case (and one can only go by RAW as there's no accounting for DM interpretation and allowance) it does give a certain context to these discussions that I have been lacking up to this point.

Actually, if you are using such standards then the difference between a wizard and sorcerer becomes a lot smaller. Once one starts moving down the cheese factor and other sources they can both do so much that it almost becomes irrelevant. And there are a few sorcerer-only spells which also help narrow the gap (the Arcane Fusion line is the obvious set). The difference between the two classes might be most stark when one is restricted to core. I'd also suggest that the difference is still very severe even if one restricts to any single splatbook.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:25 PM
It's interesting. I'm new to the world of tiers and optimization, so it's easy to look at certain statements and accept them without knowing the underlying assumptions. It seems like a lot of people base their assumptions on: all spells are allowed no matter how broken,

In fairness, most of the truly broken stuff is in core. Wish alone is startlingly abusable and powerful, far beyond anything I can think of in splatbooks.


most if not all splat books (and their spells, feats, PrC's etc) are allowed,

Most splatbooks are mostly irrelevant. And, everyone gets boosted by splatbooks, so if everything is allowed, everyone gets a bit more powerful, but class balance isn't horribly upset. There are some minor exceptions, such as bard, that is traditionally considered boosted more by splatbooks than many classes, but they weren't tier 1 anyhow. No real worries there.

Also, all sorc-only spells are non-core. So, if you want to use that arguement for sorcs, you need to assume at least some non-core is being used.


most if not all rules legal exploits are allowed,

How do you define an exploit? Traditionally, anything that involves infinite loops and the like is avoided as crazy cheese, but merely using divination to divine things is...exactly what you're supposed to do with it. That's no more an exploit than using fireball to burn your enemies.


your DM is clear in responding to divination,

I assume that the DM cracks open the book to the appropriate spell, and answers based on that. I can't really account for "DM wildly makes stuff up".


you generally have huge swathes of time to prep for adventures etc. While I'm sure that is often the case (and one can only go by RAW as there's no accounting for DM interpretation and allowance) it does give a certain context to these discussions that I have been lacking up to this point.

Sometimes you will have time, sometimes you won't. No guarantee. We've addressed both situations so far, and the wizard has the edge in both.

Gnaeus
2010-08-27, 12:56 PM
There are corner cases in which sorcerer is better.

I am going into a convention game next week. The party will be determined when you sit down at the table (so no spell selection based on who needs what buffs.) The game will consist of an endless series of rooms, with essentially random inhabitants, all CRed at or above party level, so no preparing spells for what you are facing. There will be a random chance that any ongoing spell expect expires between each room (so sometimes, you will need to recast your hour/level buffs, but you won't know which ones). There will be no trading for spells. Wizards have the option of buying scrolls at full cost and adding them to the spellbook, but it is more efficient under those conditions just to keep the scrolls. There will be no chance to rest, as the rooms mostly run on timers, so swapping out spells in game won't happen.

Under those conditions, the arcanist I built for my friend is a sorcerer. Their flexibility and extra spells per day are real advantages, and all the wizards advantages are neutralized by the nature of the game. But those circumstances are as far from a normal game as I can imagine and still call it D&D. In any campaign I have seen , wizards have a sizeable edge.

Hallavast
2010-08-27, 01:08 PM
I guess I have three questions, really


1. Does your DM shower you with scrolls? Do you wind up with double or triple the spells, rather than 25% more?

2. Do you actually play games at 18th-19th level, where the wizard REALLY pulls ahead in numbers?

3. Does your DM actually allow you to abusive divination/metagaming/just being too **** smart/etc so that you can predict what is coming on a routine basis?



1. The DM does not shower me with scrolls. He gives me about 1 or 2 that I can use per adventure on average. I, however, make it a point to obtain as many scrolls/spellbooks as I can (what wizard wouldn't? A lazy one, that's what). This means I am effectively a "scroll-whore". While the DM has a vague idea about bad it is for me to have all the scrolls I want, he isn't inclined to spend as much time preventing me from gathering them as I am in succeeding. The result is that I get about double as many spells known that the book says. I tend to help him out by sticking to party buff spells and blaster damage to compensate for this power gap. As a result, my wizard character is probably closer to tier 2.5 as actually played.

2. The wizard I've played off and on for ... I'm 23 now... 5 years just hit lvl 14. That should tell you how often I play high level campaigns. YMMV.

3. Define abusive. I make extensive use of at least 3 different high rank knowledge skills (results are about 30-40 on the checks), so my character knows a lot more about stuff than I do as a player. I'm divination spec, so I make frequent use of scrying, prying eyes, arcane sight (and greater), detect thoughts, and others. These uses tend to enhance the "plot" rather than detract from it. I avoid overusing spells like planar binding, divination, and augury except for special occasions (these occasions are for story purposes rather than preparing for specific encounters).

I've also played a few sorcerers. My experience is they adapt easier to encounters, so I find myself allowed to change plans from my original expectations quite often. As a result, I tend to plan less per encounter while playing sorcerers. Which is an easier fight? Trying to figure out the variables in the haste, fly, dispel magic formula swapping out for specials as needed or just knowing that you'll mostly only need those spells and relying more on charged items like scrolls and wands for specials? A wand of wand modulation (complete scoundrel) is good for that kind of thing.

Also, I've found that sorcerer metamagic is a lot sexier than posters on this forum would have you believe. It's the difference between using natural equipment instead of relying on rods all the time :smallwink:. I find I get a lot more pleasure out of it that way. I don't even use quicken spell that much at the level I play. Between the Spell Matrix tree, Imbue familiar, and contingency, you'll have more than enough action-economy available even without quicken spell.

That said, I like the pathfinder sorcerer a lot better than the 3.5 generic one. Unlike the wizard, I find the power boost to be justified.

Jolly
2010-08-27, 01:32 PM
In fairness, most of the truly broken stuff is in core. Wish alone is startlingly abusable and powerful, far beyond anything I can think of in splatbooks.


Wish would be an example of a broken spell I'm always surprised to see allowed. ;)

Crow
2010-08-27, 01:34 PM
I agree on the point of this forum underestimating sorcerer metamagic. With a sorcerer, you can use metamagic on the fly to enhance the spells you do know, instead of having to learn a new spell entirely. Plus, with all the extra slots, you can meta multiple spells anytime you want without worrying too much about having to make room for essentials.

Sometimes you find a spell that is really making a difference, or is more effective than you had anticipated, and want to cast it more, or twin it, or at a higher level, or you want it to repeat, etc...

Sometimes those buffs you knew you needed might get dispelled, and you need to bring them up again fast. Chain 'em (or whichever metamagic I am thinking of).

Heighten, which is very limited in respect to wizards, is a spell multiplier when sorcerers use it. Low level spells not getting it done anymore? Any spell's save scales as much as you want to heighten it. Used all your 4th level slots today, but would like to cast that 4th level spell? Heighten it to 5th. You lose a little, but hell, you've got the slots to spare.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 01:36 PM
Agreed. Yet, while I've seen all sorts of things banned, that spell is almost always allowed. In fact, I can't recall a single P&P game in which it was specifically banned, even those that were core only.

tyckspoon
2010-08-27, 01:39 PM
Wish would be an example of a broken spell I'm always surprised to see allowed. ;)

If it's being hardcast- that is, the XP cost was paid for in some way, either straight up by the caster or by equivalent GP spent- it's actually pretty weak (with the exception of taking it RAW-literally and letting you make an arbitrarily-costed magic item instantly.) The safe effects list of Wish doesn't justify a quarter-level's worth of XP; the most powerful one is actually 'transport travelers', because of the vagueness of the "ignore local conditions" clause. Otherwise, you're spending significant resources on effects you probably could have achieved much cheaper. It's good for a panic button, but it's a very, very costly one. Sure, you can Wish for greater effects, but those are entirely on the DM to adjudicate.. if you break the game with one of those, it's explicitly because the DM approved you doing it, not because the written rules were broken.