PDA

View Full Version : Sorcerer Spell list, were the developers lazy?



Popertop
2010-12-28, 12:24 AM
Why don't Sorcerer's get their own spell list?
It seems like they would be a lot more unique
and interesting to play if they had an entirely
different list all to themselves.
Did the developers just cop out when they gave
them the wizard list, or was there a valid reason
for it?

Sarakos
2010-12-28, 12:52 AM
I see Sorcerer and Wizard as two separate variants on the general "Mage" theme than an two different classes. One learns their spells by memorization and study and the other masters his magical talent more by intuition than anything else.

Theodoriph
2010-12-28, 01:15 AM
Because flavourwise, the difference between Sorcerors and Wizards is not supposed to be their magical powers, but instead how those powers are acquired.

Edit: What the guy above me said.

Edit, Edit:

Realistically it was probably done because Wizards are only good at spellcasting...and people have playing preferences. The split between the preferences (spellbook casting v. spontaneous casting) was likely large enough to warrant having two similar classes whose difference is primarily based on how they acquire and use their powers.

I don't know much about 2e, but I do know Sorcs weren't brought in until 3rd, so I imagine Wizards heard from Wizards who preferred spellbook free casting.

Magdela
2010-12-28, 01:23 AM
Hello, you must be new to D&D.

The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is one of the most broken things in the game. Of course, it is your opinion that Sorcerer's are boring simply because they are charisma based characters that use the same class as (arguably) the best class in D&D.

The difference, as stated before, is simply in the manner that they attain their spells. Sorcerers gain it through sheer arcane talent and in some books, having the blood of a dragon. This brings me to my next point.

There are some sorcerer only spells. The biggest two are Wings of Flurry and Wings of Cover. I do believe they are found in one of the Dragon books, not the magazine. It allows quite a few neat tricks that the wizard can't do due to his "constricted" manner of preparing spells instead of the spontaneousness that a sorcerer has.

I do not see the developers being lazy at all, they are adding diversity and flavor. But thats my opinion.

tiercel
2010-12-28, 01:42 AM
If you mostly prepare the same spells day after day as a Wizard, you're probably better off as a Sorcerer -- after all, at least then you get the flexibility of how many of 2nd-level-spell A vs 2nd-level-spell B to cast, plus metamagic on the fly.

Those are the upsides: (1) you can decide how many fireballs you need vs hastes (2) as a consequence, you can decide to spam fireball if you really want to (and more times than a wizard can) and (3) you can apply metamagic when you want to, not have to guesstimate it in advance.

If you're really going to play to a Wizard's strengths, it's going to be in having a larger number of spells to choose from and in actively customizing daily spell lists to deal with the specific challenges of the day... hence the popularity of the so-called "Batman" Wizard. A Sorcerer may have to apply fireball and haste to every problem, but Batman always has the right Bat-tool for the job.... with preparation.

Alternatively, though they are non-Core, there are "flavored Sorcerer" variants -- the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer have Sorcerer-esque casting but with fixed, flavored spell lists.

Another_Poet
2010-12-28, 03:36 AM
Why don't Sorcerer's get their own spell list?
It seems like they would be a lot more unique
and interesting to play if they had an entirely
different list all to themselves.
Did the developers just cop out when they gave
them the wizard list, or was there a valid reason
for it?

You might find Pathfinder to your liking, then. In PF, wizards and sorcerers still use the same spell list, but sorcerers choose a bloodline from which they draw their powers (draconic, fey, elemental, etc) and gain special magical abilities at different levels based on their bloodline.

It's pretty fun.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 03:55 AM
Did the developers just cop out when they gave them the wizard list, or was there a valid reason for it?

Well, the sorcerer was intended as the wizard, only easier to play because you don't memorize. Because they overestimated how much more powerful that would be, they delayed the sorcerer's access by one level, and gave a rather limited maximum of spells known.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-12-28, 11:50 AM
Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, note that Sorcerers are the only class who draw their spells primarily from a list. This has no explicit meaning, but its an easy enough justification for working with your DM to create a Sorcerer list that you think is more appropriate. Actually, even without that line you could probably at least ask if you're unhappy with sharing the Wizard's list.

Personally, I think that it's not really a cop out. What annoys me is that Sorcerers are placed a level behind for their only useful class feature, that they have strict limits on spells known, that specialisation allows a Wizard to have almost as many spells per day (or as many, or more, depending on how willing they are to work for it) - usually the Sorc's only advantage -, they get no bonus feats - even though it would be thematically appropriate -, and their skill list is much smaller - despite having time to study other things becuase they don't need to study magic all the time. And all because they don't need to prepare spells. And because at least one of the designers hated the very idea of them.

Tyrrell
2010-12-28, 12:43 PM
Here's a story I've heard. It's probably not true.

When 3.0 was being developed back in 1998-2000 the developers felt it was a waste to devote such an incredibly large portion of the PHB (i.e. the wizard spells) to material that could only be used by one class. So it turns out that some of the thinking behind the sorcerer class was to get more use out of the wizard spell list. It wasn't laziness, it was design.

Keinnicht
2010-12-28, 01:05 PM
Here's a story I've heard. It's probably not true.

When 3.0 was being developed back in 1998-2000 the developers felt it was a waste to devote such an incredibly large portion of the PHB (i.e. the wizard spells) to material that could only be used by one class. So it turns out that some of the thinking behind the sorcerer class was to get more use out of the wizard spell list. It wasn't laziness, it was design.

"Making this long list for only one class is a waste of space."

That sounds like laziness. Although I do think it makes sense - there's only so many arcane spells, and Sorcerers and Wizards are much closer than Druids and Clerics.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-12-28, 01:20 PM
"Making this long list for only one class is a waste of space."

That sounds like laziness.
No. That sounds like economics. Needing an additional list of whole new spells increases the number of pages that need to be printed, which raises the cost of production, which raises the price of the finished product, which reduces the size of the customer base.

The aforementioned Pathfinder had to cut out even d20-based spells for room in the core rulebook. Fortunately, however, they were able to release them in a free PDF.

Reynard
2010-12-28, 03:06 PM
If you want to increase the differences between Sorcerers and Wizards, try the following steps.

Ignore the Sorcerer class.
Take the Psion and Wilder classes, and call them the Sorcerer and the Wild Sorcerer (Or something less stupid, I guess).
????
Profit.

eggynack
2010-12-28, 03:45 PM
Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, note that Sorcerers are the only class who draw their spells primarily from a list. This has no explicit meaning, but its an easy enough justification for working with your DM to create a Sorcerer list that you think is more appropriate. Actually, even without that line you could probably at least ask if you're unhappy with sharing the Wizard's list.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is meant to denote the three or four sorc only spells like wings of cover.

Flickerdart
2010-12-28, 03:51 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that is meant to denote the three or four sorc only spells like wings of cover.
The Wizard has a number of exclusive spells as well, and doesn't have that language in the class.

Bang!
2010-12-28, 03:56 PM
I always thought the 'primarily' thing was in reference to specific monsters like dragons, which are generally sorcerers with access to non-Sorc/Wiz spells. I can't recall any Core parallels involving another spellcasting base.

Koury
2010-12-28, 04:00 PM
The Wizard has a number of exclusive spells as well, and doesn't have that language in the class.

Also, if I recall correctly, at the time that line was written, there weren't any Sorc only spells (though the Wiz only still existed).

Popertop
2010-12-29, 01:47 AM
how does a sorcerer develop his own spells if he can't do research and has a spells known cap?

Marillion
2010-12-29, 02:00 AM
how does a sorcerer develop his own spells if he can't do research and has a spells known cap?

Personally, I'd say sheer force of will forcing the magic in his blood to do something else.

ffone
2010-12-29, 02:05 AM
Why don't Sorcerer's get their own spell list?
It seems like they would be a lot more unique
and interesting to play if they had an entirely
different list all to themselves.
Did the developers just cop out when they gave
them the wizard list, or was there a valid reason
for it?

cuz if they had different lists, you'd have people asking about how to design a spontaneous wizard and prepared sorcerer.

(See also: Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman.)

HunterOfJello
2010-12-29, 02:09 AM
Sorcerers were an experimental wizard variant. Simple as that.

You have to view Sorcerers vs. Wizards from the perspective of 2nd edition d&d, not 3.5e or 4e.

Popertop
2010-12-29, 02:21 AM
The only thing I found in the srd about a sorcerer learning a new spell is this:

"With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of."

And that's it. There can be many different interpretations of "some understanding". Is there any other source that gives a more developed guideline for this sort of thing?

eyelessgame
2010-12-29, 03:05 AM
The thing sorcerers can do that wizards cannot, really, is metamagic (which is made much better with more 3.5e splatbooks). Not having to prepare metamagic ahead of time gives a sorcerer much more flexibility, if she chooses spells and metamagic strategically so that they combine as imaginatively as possible.

IME only, of course.

Goonthegoof
2010-12-29, 03:11 AM
Nope, but the wording of primarily in describing their spell list opens them up to using Extra Spell from Complete Arcane to learn spells from other spell lists.

Eldan
2010-12-29, 03:12 AM
However, they have to increase casting time to use metamagic (without additional support from splats), which means they can't use the most important of all, Quicken.

InaVegt
2010-12-29, 03:12 AM
Wasn't the Witch spell list from the DMG meant to be an alternate sorcerer spell list? I mean, it's listed as a class and all, but it's not gotten anything but a spell list.

I, at least, don't see any problems replacing a sorcerer's spell list with that one.

AtomicKitKat
2010-12-29, 03:31 AM
Alternatively, though they are non-Core, there are "flavored Sorcerer" variants -- the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer have Sorcerer-esque casting but with fixed, flavored spell lists.

Can probably lump the Duskblade/Hexblade in there as well. All 5 are basically "Specialist Sorcerers" with varying degrees of martial proficiency.

Development of Sorcerers came about sometime in late AD&D, with Player's Options: Spells and Powers being a contributing source, I think(that and I still have that book). Essentially, it listed different options(with varying "point costs/offsets") for modifying your spellcasters. Including Dark Sun-esque Channelers(taking mana from the environment), and probably no-preparation as one of the available ones. If I were to remake Sorcerers, I'd probably just let them get the same rate of spell acquisition as Wizards, with a Metamagic Feat at 5th and every 5-6 levels after. Or something.

As a side-note, I prefer Generalist to Specialist Wizards myself. While some schools are less powerful than others in varying circumstances, you're not being true to being a Batman Wizard unless you have everything available to you.:smallamused: IMNSHO, of course.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-29, 03:41 AM
I would be a horrible Wizard. Everytime I look at their spell list I immediately think about banning Conjuration and Evocation and specializing in Illusion.

Anyway, if you want a Sorcerer that is more dragon oriented then the core on use the Dragon Fire Adept. It gets an awesome fire breath and relatively different casting mechanics which are Charisma based. Its less powerful, but more interesting.

Greenish
2010-12-29, 08:01 AM
If I were to remake Sorcerers, I'd probably just let them get the same rate of spell acquisition as Wizards, with a Metamagic Feat at 5th and every 5-6 levels after.And free Eschew Materials so that if your burning dragon blood packs to your head and calls for you to burninate something, you don't have to waste time looking for bat poo. :smallamused:


As a side-note, I prefer Generalist to Specialist Wizards myself. While some schools are less powerful than others in varying circumstances, you're not being true to being a Batman Wizard unless you have everything available to you.:smallamused: IMNSHO, of course.But, but, think of the sweet spellslots!

Besides, if you can't solve everything with a sculpted solid fog, you're not trying. :smallwink:

Runestar
2010-12-29, 09:31 AM
But, but, think of the sweet spellslots!

Besides, if you can't solve everything with a sculpted solid fog, you're not trying. :smallwink:

Yeah, with the advent of the focused specialist variant in complete mage, I don't think I can ever go back to playing a generalist wizard ever again. :smalleek:

Popertop
2011-01-01, 07:39 PM
is there any mechanic for combining spells?
like two of equal level, or two of different level, anything?

I've heard of sorcerers with spell slots leftover, are there other ways to cast lots of spells?

umbrapolaris
2011-01-02, 12:40 AM
is there any mechanic for combining spells?
like two of equal level, or two of different level, anything?

lost empire of faerun (FR setting): Arcane Manipulation feat, a poor, limited and out of flavour way to emulate the netherese Arcs (spellpoints) while keeping the spell slots system.

FMArthur
2011-01-02, 03:36 AM
Certain similar classes really should be grouped together as variants. Most such things are at least from different dates, but these two weren't. :smallfrown:

I thought Crystalkeep did a decent job of consolidating class variants, ACFs and racial substitutions. 3.5 might have been better for it if most classes came with variants even at their time of creation, so that different fantasy character archetypes that would use similar mechanics could build off each other, content-wise. I should really get PF some time, since I hear it does this.

Leon
2011-01-02, 09:08 AM
is there any mechanic for combining spells?
like two of equal level, or two of different level, anything?

I've heard of sorcerers with spell slots leftover, are there other ways to cast lots of spells?

Arcane Fusion Spell allows you to cast a Higher level spell and a lower level spell together

AtomicKitKat
2011-01-02, 11:22 AM
And free Eschew Materials so that if your burning dragon blood packs to your head and calls for you to burninate something, you don't have to waste time looking for bat poo. :smallamused:
But, but, think of the sweet spellslots!

Besides, if you can't solve everything with a sculpted solid fog, you're not trying. :smallwink:

Really, I would rather be able to have that knife that I need(thanks to Divination, I will know exactly what knife I need when I need it), rather than 10,000 spoons. Apologies to Ms Morissette.:smallbiggrin:

ffone
2011-01-11, 03:28 AM
IMO sorcerers should get a free Eschew Materials just for verisimilitude: it's odd that they 'innately' learn spells that require various objects you'd have no reason to carry around before learning the associated spell. It would never work if DMs actually made PCs declare what's in their 'spell components pouches' (except for PCs who plan ahead carefully, and/or say 'everything, b/c it's all free anyway'). Also it really gives them that niche over wizards - "even when the baddies put us in the Easily Escapable Trap With Our Gear Two Rooms Away, I can cast, since I need no spellbook or nuthin'"

It can be fluffed - they dream/feel intuitive desires to carry around certain objects before understanding why, they buy standard issue wizards' pouches that have all the free component in Core, or they actually do learn of the existence of the spells from wizards and other sorcerers and then 'mimic' them from innate abilities - but it belies the classic fluff (one day Mary Sue got so angry/afraid of the boys chasing her that WHOOSH sleep spell...guess she was holding sand, roses or a cricket at that moment). And where/why did dragons, the original sorcerers, keep spell components on their persons? Them tucked under scales? Do they have kangaroo pouches? In between their teeth from whatever they happened to eat last?

Popertop
2011-01-11, 04:37 AM
yeah thats my issue with it too.
just feels sort of tacked on without any real effort from the game system.
If they really were "different" then they would have different rules for learning spells altogether.

I like how pathfinder does it too though. Makes bloodlines important enough to have dramatic effect on your character, and helps set them apart from other arcane casters.

Escheton
2011-01-11, 05:25 AM
Yeah, with the advent of the focused specialist variant in complete mage, I don't think I can ever go back to playing a generalist wizard ever again. :smalleek:

except of course an elf generalist, that loses nothing but gains a slot nonetheless.

lesser_minion
2011-01-11, 05:33 AM
The Wizard has a number of exclusive spells as well, and doesn't have that language in the class.

The rules provide for spells that can be cast by members of a given class -- e.g. cleric -- without being treated as part of that class' spell list. Mainly it's there for homebrew spells, where only the inventor and people who are exposed to the spell through magical writings are permitted to cast the spell, although I'm pretty sure the intent was for it to extend to every non-core spell.

Essentially, the sorcerer just has a more pedantically-phrased version of the exact same deal given to every other casting class.

Malachei
2011-01-11, 06:20 AM
Why don't Sorcerer's get their own spell list?
It seems like they would be a lot more unique
and interesting to play if they had an entirely
different list all to themselves.
Did the developers just cop out when they gave
them the wizard list, or was there a valid reason
for it?

Yes. Because in a standard party, Sorcerer and Wizard are both meant to fill the same (primary arcane caster) spot. They are like to actors competing for a role in a movie. One is more of a studious actor, who prepares the role well, whereas the other is great in improvisation.

hangedman1984
2011-01-11, 12:26 PM
except of course an elf generalist, that loses nothing but gains a slot nonetheless.

it gets A slot, a specialist gets a slot each spell level, two slots each level for a focused specialist. And hell, conjuration can burninate just as well as evocation these days anyway, as well as do everything else.