Spontaneous Casters: why so much shaftage?

[Azernak0]

Choosing between "a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches" is a legitimate choice. Sure, someone can clearly point out that the spice rack is better because "you only need so much spice and you usually need different things rather than just salt or pepper."

Choosing between "a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches and you get them later" is an easy choice.

Choosing between ""a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches and you get them later and it takes you longer to modify how you put the spice in" is an incredibly easy choice.

I can kind of understand the full round action with metamagic because you can throw it out at will, though it could just be written as a benefit from being more "attuned with your magic." But getting spells slower? This does not make any sense to me. Why do spontaneous casters get slower spell progression and vastly inferior metamagic?

Too sleepy to think for myself. Honestly.:smallfrown:

[Big Fau]

Because Skip Williams has stated he hated the Sorcerer class.

[Lactantius]

Easy tweaks:

- same spellcasting progression as wizards;
- eschew materials as bonus feat at level 1;
- heritage feat (fey or dragon etc) at level 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
- 4 + INT skill points
- spells known +2 per spell level to give a sorceror more versatility (just compare the spells known with DN)


Done.

[Pyromancer999]

Because Skip Williams has stated he hated the Sorcerer class.

Where'd he say that?

[Talya]

Easy tweaks:

- same spellcasting progression as wizards;
- eschew materials as bonus feat at level 1;
- heritage feat (fey or dragon etc) at level 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
- 4 + INT skill points
- spells known +2 per spell level to give a sorceror more versatility (just compare the spells known with DN)


Done.

These are all good ideas (and I'd definitely institute them in my games), but I need to play Devil's Advocate for a moment: the Sorcerer and Wizard do not exist in a vacuum. The Sorcerer is certainly not "shafted" in comparison to classes other than Wizard/Cleric/Druid. Keep that in mind when buffing the sorcerer.

Also, "Same spellcasting progression as wizards" needs clarification. You don't want to put them on the same "spells per day" schedule as wizards.

I would, instead, start their spellcasting progression at sorcerer level 2, and continue advancing from there (at level 3, they'd get the same spells known and spells per day as a 4th level sorcerer, etc.) Of course, that leaves level 20 a bit dead...

[Vladislav]

I just apply the Charisma bonus to Sorcerer's spells known. That seems to help with some versatility, without being overpowered.

[Malachei]

Because Skip Williams has stated he hated the Sorcerer class.

Source, please?

To the OP:

Actually, WOTC believed spontaneous casting to be very powerful, and probably seriously overestimated the impact it had on the game.

Note that outside core, they've addressed and often fixed many issues with:

ACF (Metamagic Specialist)
Feats (Rapid Metamagic)
Spells (Arcane Spellsurge)
Sorcerer-only spells (Wings of Cover, Arcane Fusion, etc.)
New classes (spontaneous set-list casters)

[shortbow]

The PF Sorcerer (and Fighter for that matter) have come a long way to fixing the class, while still keeping them in Tier 2. I would recommend porting one over and giving it a whirl.

[NeoSeraphi]

The spontaneous caster is vastly easier to play and is much more casual-friendly. The wizard is supposed to reward "system mastery" by making you a swiss army knife, and also someone who is able to prepare for a situation readily.

The thing is, having all those nice spells available to you but not having them prepared kind of shafts you. Waiting 8 hours because you didn't prepare a knock spell today and you're facing an arcane lock is kind of annoying. Now, the sorcerer probably doesn't even know knock, but if he does, he can bust it out no problem.

To me, prepared casting is annoying. It's entirely too restrictive, it basically clamps you into what you're going to cast for the day rather than allowing you some basic flexibility. Also, wizard blasting is pretty lame, since blasting usually requires more than one shot to end someone's life without min-maxing.

I don't see any problem with the sorcerer unless you compare the sorcerer to the wizard. And I don't, because I don't consider the wizard as a class to play ever (personally), and every time that I have played a wizard, it was incredibly disappointing.

Sorcerers also are not tied to a spellbook. Another extreme advantage, coming from someone who had to spend two 4 hour sessions without his spellbook after it was snatched away by DM fiat, leaving me with only two pages (so I had two first level spells for those two 4 hour sessions. One of them was charm person, and we didn't run into a single humanoid).

[Malachei]

I just apply the Charisma bonus to Sorcerer's spells known. That seems to help with some versatility, without being overpowered.

I find that a good solution. It costs a feat in my game, though.

[BShammie]

Because Skip Williams has stated he hated the Sorcerer class.
I've heard people say this before, but I've never seen proof of it. Would you mind sharing it if you can?


The Sorcerer got shafted because WotC overestimated how powerful spontaneous magic is in comparison to prepared magic, while managing to underestimate how powerful magic is in comparison to everything else.
Sorcerers aren't really shafted; magic is overpowered, so when compared to many other classes the Sorcerer really comes out ahead.




I just apply the Charisma bonus to Sorcerer's spells known. That seems to help with some versatility, without being overpowered. I find that a good solution. It costs a feat in my game, though.
This isn't a bad idea actually.

[Talentless]

Honestly, the fix* I like to use is to reverse Wizard and Sorcerer Spell progression.

I mean seriously, the Sorcerer is about a quick n dirty instinctual grasp of magic, while Wizardry is the long hard study slog to rewrite the universe... Why should the Wizard learn new ways to rewrite reality before the Sorcerer based on the fluff given?

*It isn't really a fix because it does little to change the end game aspect of the Wizard having a solution to everything while the Sorcerer has a limited spell list, but it makes thematic sense to me, and some of my players have decided that they actually think being a Wizard over a Sorcerer is a choice that actually requires thinking with the change.

[Hirax]

The spontaneous caster is vastly easier to play and is much more casual-friendly. The wizard is supposed to reward "system mastery" by making you a swiss army knife, and also someone who is able to prepare for a situation readily.

The thing is, having all those nice spells available to you but not having them prepared kind of shafts you. Waiting 8 hours because you didn't prepare a knock spell today and you're facing an arcane lock is kind of annoying. Now, the sorcerer probably doesn't even know knock, but if he does, he can bust it out no problem.

To me, prepared casting is annoying. It's entirely too restrictive, it basically clamps you into what you're going to cast for the day rather than allowing you some basic flexibility. Also, wizard blasting is pretty lame, since blasting usually requires more than one shot to end someone's life without min-maxing.

I don't see any problem with the sorcerer unless you compare the sorcerer to the wizard. And I don't, because I don't consider the wizard as a class to play ever (personally), and every time that I have played a wizard, it was incredibly disappointing.

Sorcerers also are not tied to a spellbook. Another extreme advantage, coming from someone who had to spend two 4 hour sessions without his spellbook after it was snatched away by DM fiat, leaving me with only two pages (so I had two first level spells for those two 4 hour sessions. One of them was charm person, and we didn't run into a single humanoid).

I understand the sentiment, but there are a couple glaring omissions from your comparison. Wizards can leave some spell slots unprepared, which would fix your arcane lock example in 15 minutes. They also get scribe scroll, and the exp costs for scrolls are small enough that the whole exp is a river thing is actually true with scrolls, and low level scrolls only take a day to make. If you have heward's bedroll, it's even easier to find the 8 hours to scribe a scroll. Or you can get a quill of scribing from Complete Mage, which for a small price reduces the time actively spent scribing to 0 on all scrolls that you make. Sure the DM can screw with you by taking your spellbook, but the DM can screw with anyone by simply casting bestow curse on them.

[ericgrau]

Choosing between "a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches" is a legitimate choice. Sure, someone can clearly point out that the spice rack is better because "you only need so much spice and you usually need different things rather than just salt or pepper."

Choosing between "a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches and you get them later" is an easy choice.

Choosing between ""a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches and you get them later and it takes you longer to modify how you put the spice in" is an incredibly easy choice.

I can kind of understand the full round action with metamagic because you can throw it out at will, though it could just be written as a benefit from being more "attuned with your magic." But getting spells slower? This does not make any sense to me. Why do spontaneous casters get slower spell progression and vastly inferior metamagic?

Too sleepy to think for myself. Honestly.:smallfrown:
It's not about the spells per day nor slower metamagic. As you suspect the first is not an advantage and the second only matters for quicken. As big as that may be it doesn't get big until the teens in levels.

The above wizard must select only 2 spices before seeing the recipe. He can cheat, sneak in to take a peak, bribe the select few who know the recipe ahead of time, or etc. but it takes tremendous effort and success is not guaranteed. Furthermore he gets exactly one of each. The sorcerer may have two of either or one of each, however the recipe demands. And the smart sorcerer chooses sugar and salt rather than salt and pepper, so he is ready for all main course, all dessert, or half and half. All without any foreknowledge. So while in theory the wizard could potentially have more options, in practice the sorcerer tends to have more. This is 10 times as true in 90% of casual games where players know nothing of the encounter beforehand. Really in those games the wizard needs better spices just to keep it from being unfair. In extra high optimization, sure, go wizard. But those games tend to be less fun IMO.

However I am not opposed to tweaks to encourage certain classes in gaming groups where they have fallen out of favor, whether the reasons for such are legitimate or not. I am opposed to dramatic rewrites which are destined to fail without a genius behind them.

[Invader]

Where'd he say that?

From what I've been able to find he was quoted as saying "Sorcerers weren't worthy of being called a spell casting class" on the WotC forums but I haven't been able to find the actual thread.

He's also the author of Tome and Blood which from the general consensus I've seen is really just horrific supplement for Sorc's which makes people think he doesn't like the class even more because it looks like he didn't spend a lot of thought on it.

This is just what I could find quickly though.

[Vladislav]

To be honest, WotC did drop the ball on making the Sorcerer look like an independant class. They don't even get their own spell list, for crying out loud - it's called "the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list". It's basically "take a Wizard and apply changes X, Y and Z to it".

Later supplements added some options to make the sorcerer a bit more interesting, but in core ... meh.

(I have a nagging suspicion that the Warlock is in fact what the Sorcerer should have been)

[navar100]

Though I'm playing Pathfinder, I chose Sorcerer over Wizard for a couple of reasons independent of the new class features and applicable to 3E.

1) For my particular playing style, such as playing a cleric, I will have a standard operating procedure of spells prepared all the time every time. Though with prepared casting I have the luxury of changing a spell prepared here and there and have done so playing clerics in two earlier campaigns with my current group, it was rare enough as to not matter. Since I know me and will be casting the same spells over and over anyway, I don't need the wizard's ability to know as many spells as possible and switch them around as possible.

2) Not having to prepare spells frees me to choose what spells I do cast often. I'm able to spam Glitterdust to my heart's content yet still be able to cast Invisibility or Scorching Ray should I need to. Every spell I have I know I want. I don't always know when I need them, and I like the freedom to cast them when I need them. All credit to the wizard who can change his spells if he needs a different one, but usually that's game-day tomorrow. For the current game day, he's like the sorcerer and stuck with what he has.

3) Being able to cast more spells per day is a boon. While even the wizard isn't going to run out of spell slots played wisely, I enjoy the extra cushion.

4) Choosing metamagic when you cast is fun. With a wizard, you have to know you want to cast it ahead of time, and if you don't, it's a waste. With a sorcerer, I can do it when I want. People talk like not being able to move more than 5 ft because of it is the death of you. It's not such a catastrophic liability you're dead Jim. You don't need to move every round of combat. Personal experience even when playing a cleric I have been in the same spot for nearly the entire combat. Advantage wizard he can move 30 ft and still cast a metamagic spell. Hooray for the wizard. The sorcerer is not such a clusterfudge of suckitude because he can't.

[Eldest]

The idea, when they originally designed the classes, was that a wizard would spend all his spells on fireball and lightning bolt. Sure, they'd throw in a haste once or twice for the fighter, but really it was direct damage. Now, the sorcerer can cast the spells way more often, and can choose whenever he wants to fire off a fireball or a lightning bolt, and maybe even haste more often. Hence the nerfing. For the play-style WOTC originally designed for, it was balanced.
At least, that's the best explanation I read, somewhere.

[grarrrg]

Easy tweaks:

- same spellcasting progression as wizards;
- eschew materials as bonus feat at level 1;
- heritage feat (fey or dragon etc) at level 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
- 4 + INT skill points
- spells known +2 per spell level to give a sorceror more versatility (just compare the spells known with DN)

Interestingly enough, Pathfinder did exactly half of that.

Eschew Materials IS a 1st level bonus feat.
Bloodlines take care of your Heritage feat suggestion (while throwing in 3.5 Bloodline Spells known on top).
And if you spend your Favored Class bonus on Skill points, they have 3+INT Skills per level.

[Lactantius]

Interestingly enough, Pathfinder did exactly half of that.

Eschew Materials IS a 1st level bonus feat.
Bloodlines take care of your Heritage feat suggestion (while throwing in 3.5 Bloodline Spells known on top).
And if you spend your Favored Class bonus on Skill points, they have 3+INT Skills per level.

Yeah, but honestly, that's just the lesser half they have improved.
The decisive, other half is: spellcasting progression and spells known.
Here is the fundamental need of change; skills and bonus feats are just the icing on the cake.


The spontaneous caster is vastly easier to play and is much more casual-friendly. The wizard is supposed to reward "system mastery" by making you a swiss army knife, and also someone who is able to prepare for a situation readily.

The thing is, having all those nice spells available to you but not having them prepared kind of shafts you. Waiting 8 hours because you didn't prepare a knock spell today and you're facing an arcane lock is kind of annoying. Now, the sorcerer probably doesn't even know knock, but if he does, he can bust it out no problem.

Yes and No.
I agree with you that it is way more user-friendly if you can write down your final spells known list instead of managing the prepped. spells/day for wizards.
(bty, did anyone realize that there is no real good preparation sheet out there? All sheets I see just give you some lines to fill out).

But:
I also like to play a mage (lets just call it mage insteatd of wizard or sorcerer to get the general idea, not the class itself).
Well, I like to play a mage which can solve problems with his spells. Since problems are vast and broaf, you need a certain range of different spells.

A range of 1-2 dozen spells for your whole mage career is just not enough for me.
That's why I would give a sorc more spells known. Maybe I would play him under such circumstances.
But honestly, I think I still would stay with a wizard.

I like major versatility.
For example, I like spells such as anticipate teleportation. Or dispelling screen. Or plane shift. Or shadow walk.

A sorcerer cannot afford such a luxury of "spell-hopping".
A wizard can do so. The only limits are gold (to buy new spells) and time (to learn spells). Both shouldn't be a problem if you have a DM who does not nerf wizards (just because he wants to).

Preparing spells is not even a limit for wizards in such a case. The can recall spells with 15 minute refill, with rarys mnemomic enhancer, with specialized class features such as spellpool or uncanny forethought.
Or they just scribe scrolls for utility and circumstancial spells.

All in all, the package of a wizard required more preparing, more character building, more spell and magic knowledge and more organizing your sheet.

But in the end, they can do the job better which was supposed to be a sorcerer domain: versatility.

[chaos_redefined]

My problem with the sorcerer is sorta related to the delayed spell access thing, but takes it one step further.

When a wizard first gains the ability to cast Xth level spells (X between 2 and 9), the sorcerer cannot.

The level after that, the sorcerer can cast one spell of that level. Sure, he can spam it better than the wizard can, but the wizard ends up with more options simply because he can talk about 4 different Xth level spells. (This ignores metamagic, admittedly)

Then, the level after that, the sorcerer finally gains the ability to spontaneously cast from his spell slots, because he knows two different spells of that level! But... the wizard is now casting stronger spells.

So, when it comes to the top notch spells, the sorcerer is behind all the time, not just half. If they gave at least 2 spells known of their new highest level when they first got that level, then I'd be happy to talk about it. As stands, I'm gonna pass.

Even when I'm playing my preferred style, which emphasizes one particular spell out of all spells of a given level (summoner, summon monster), I go wizard so that I get that spell a level earlier. I have a rough idea of what spells I'm gonna cast over a given day, and I've never gone "God, I wish I still had that spell prepared, rather than using it earlier."

[Mithril Leaf]

Well, they pretty much fixed the sorceror with the psion. It is a spontaneous caster with proper progression, bonus feats, and more powers known. A spell to power psion (not erudite), or something along those lines would bring the sorceror up to where it probably should be.

[lianightdemon]

A spell to power psion (not erudite), or something along those lines would bring the sorceror up to where it probably should be

Not really
psion would still be better
The spells lack the augmentation that make psionics good. For sheer versatility without having to learn 100 spells the psion beats both the wizard and sorcerer if your creative enough.

Especially if your DM allows you to research/buy powers from other discipline allowing you access to every psionic power. With psychic reformation, just need a little xp to swap to what you need in special situations.

Like if your switching to build a stronghold taking powers like fabricate, and stuff for item creation (if your DM lets you homebrew current magic items as psionic items)

[Benly]

Interestingly enough, Pathfinder did exactly half of that.

Eschew Materials IS a 1st level bonus feat.
Bloodlines take care of your Heritage feat suggestion (while throwing in 3.5 Bloodline Spells known on top).
And if you spend your Favored Class bonus on Skill points, they have 3+INT Skills per level.

If you're human, you can spend that favored class bonus on more spells known instead, which addresses one of the more important ones.

[sonofzeal]

Choosing between ""a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches and you get them later and it takes you longer to modify how you put the spice in" is an incredibly easy choice.
Ah, but it doesn't get ridiculous until you're choosing between ""a spice rack but only three pinches" and "salt and pepper but five pinches and you get them later and it takes you longer to modify how you put the spice in and the spice rack actually has five if it's a Focused Spice Rack".



Edit: I've tried tracing down the "Skip Hates Sorcerers" comment, and got this:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3416565&pagenumber=2#post392637981

I remember I was in a chat with Skip Williams once and I asked him why they thought the sorcerer was balanced when they get the short end of every stick and the answer was basically "if you want to play a wizard you should have to play a wizard." Then someone else asked him why he hates sorcerers so much, he threw a tantrum, and ended the chat.

So it wasn't so much that they were clueless, it's just that their lead designer belonged in grognards.txt rather than being in charge of anything.

1d4chan.org claims he also said it on the WotC forums, so that's probably gone too.

[Saph]

So just to summarise:

Spontaneous casters are still full casters. "Slightly less powerful than a wizard or druid" does not mean "weak". Complaining because they're not as powerful as the most overpowered classes in the game strikes me as missing the point a bit.
Spontaneous casters lose out on strategic flexibility, but they're better when it comes to tactical flexibility. When you don't have advance warning of the details of every encounter (which is most games I've played in) being able to adjust your spells on the fly is a big plus.
If you just need to spam something, a spontaneous caster can keep it up for longer. Sometimes you really DO need seven Dispel Magics, or ten Scorching Rays.
Last but not least, spontaneous casters are less bookwork and faster to play, which translates into more time actually doing stuff.

[Hirax]

So just to summarise:


Spontaneous casters lose out on strategic flexibility, but they're better when it comes to tactical flexibility. When you don't have advance warning of the details of every encounter (which is most games I've played in) being able to adjust your spells on the fly is a big plus.


My quibble with the emphasized word is that it is generally only applicable in combat. The amount of discussion combat receives is vastly disproportionate to how often it actually takes place in games. Going back to the locked door example, more often than not you're going to have the 15 minutes to prepare knock in an empty slot.

[Saph]

My quibble with the emphasized word is that it is generally only applicable in combat. The amount of discussion combat receives is vastly disproportionate to how often it actually takes place in games. Going back to the locked door example, more often than not you're going to have the 15 minutes to prepare knock in an empty slot.

Honestly, I don't count locked doors as a challenge in the first place. :smalltongue:

[Hirax]

Honestly, I don't count locked doors as a challenge in the first place. :smalltongue:

Heh, point.

[Benly]

Honestly, I don't count locked doors as a challenge in the first place. :smalltongue:

I've played a WotC-published module (I forget which one - I think Barrow Of The Forgotten King?) that throws an Arcane Locked door that's required to progress the plot at a level 3 party. Just a nice little "you must have at least this much wizard in your party to ride" moment.

[Saph]

I've played a WotC-published module (I forget which one - I think Barrow Of The Forgotten King?) that throws an Arcane Locked door that's required to progress the plot at a level 3 party. Just a nice little "you must have at least this much wizard in your party to ride" moment.

Honestly, it's pretty unlikely that a wizard's going to have knock memorised at level 3, or even in his spellbook. Just get the fighter to hack the door down.

[Little Brother]

Honestly, it's pretty unlikely that a wizard's going to have knock memorised at level 3, or even in his spellbook. Just get the fighter to hack the door down.Wizards have Scribe Scroll for a reason. It is one of those spells that is nifty to have around at low level, even if not worth memorizing. If playing a caster, I try to have at least one scroll of each of the low level nifty-ish spells.

[Jack_Simth]

I've played a WotC-published module (I forget which one - I think Barrow Of The Forgotten King?) that throws an Arcane Locked door that's required to progress the plot at a level 3 party. Just a nice little "you must have at least this much wizard in your party to ride" moment.
Arcane Lock doesn't do anything for the hardness or HP of the hinges. It adds a bit to the strength check break DC, and it shafts the rogue's solution, but that's pretty much it.

[Grim Reader]

Spontaneous Casters: why so much shaftage?

Have you seen their Cha-scores? Of course they can have all the shaftage they want!

[Benly]

Honestly, it's pretty unlikely that a wizard's going to have knock memorised at level 3, or even in his spellbook. Just get the fighter to hack the door down.


Arcane Lock doesn't do anything for the hardness or HP of the hinges. It adds a bit to the strength check break DC, and it shafts the rogue's solution, but that's pretty much it.

It was a thick stone slab door, but yeah, we ended up having to brute force it due to a shortage of wizard. It was just kind of tedious and dumb.

[DigoDragon]

In my group, the proportion of players taking levels in Sorcerer versus Wizard is usualy 4 to 1. It would seem that in practice (at least for my group) players prefer the ability to spontaneously spam a select few choice spells then have a more limited number of slots with a more flexible spell list.

[Ashtagon]

I've always thought of the warlock as the official 3e sorcerer fix.

[Little Brother]

Have you seen their Cha-scores? Of course they can have all the shaftage they want!Aaand, the thread is won.

I've always thought of the warlock as the official 3e sorcerer fix.So a massively inferior class is the "Fix?":smallconfused:

[sonofzeal]

I've always thought of the warlockWilder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/wilder.htm)as the official 3e sorcerer fix.
Fixed that for you. ;)

[Morty]

WoTC overestimated the value of not having to prepare their spells. Most of balance problem in 3rd stem from underestimating or overestimating something.

[Malachei]

Edit: I've tried tracing down the "Skip Hates Sorcerers" comment, and got this:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3416565&pagenumber=2#post392637981


1d4chan.org claims he also said it on the WotC forums, so that's probably gone too.

Apart from an ad hominem not supporting the argument, I think it is inappropriate to base an ad hominem on hearsay.

[NeoSeraphi]

Fixed that for you. ;)

The Wilder? Come on, the wilder only gets 11 powers known! Even the sorcerer has four times as much versatility as that. (Also magic is generally just more varied and useful than psionics).


My quibble with the emphasized word is that it is generally only applicable in combat. The amount of discussion combat receives is vastly disproportionate to how often it actually takes place in games. Going back to the locked door example, more often than not you're going to have the 15 minutes to prepare knock in an empty slot.

Fair enough, but some of us prefer playing combat-based characters to utility-based ones. And that's why people prefer the sorcerer, which is why people complain so much about the sorcerer being so "Like a wizard, but much worse".

The wizard can be his Batman utility belt all he wants. The sorcerer is supposed to be the gatling gun, but because he is a gatling gun, WotC makes the player choose four or five different types of bullets and then hands that player all the magazines s/he'll ever need, while the focused specialist wizard chooses twenty different types of bullets and gets a huge magazine for each of them.

[Ashtagon]

Aaand, the thread is won.
So a massively inferior class is the "Fix?":smallconfused:

A class that is massively better able to play with non-caster classes without making them feel useless is the fix.

[sonofzeal]

The Wilder? Come on, the wilder only gets 11 powers known! Even the sorcerer has four times as much versatility as that. (Also magic is generally just more varied and useful than psionics).
Yes, it's less powerful. However, it holds a more distinct niche. Psion->Wilder makes a whole lot more sense than Wizard->Sorcerer. It stands in an interesting place, gaining 9th level powers without really being a "full caster" like Psion. It loses out on some power, but unlike Sorcerer it gets things back in return. It enshrines the chaotic aspects they seem to have tried and failed to get in Sorcerers, to counter the implicit lawful tendencies of Wizards/Psions.

It's not a stronger class than Sorcerer. But it's a better-designed class in almost every way, while still obviously being intended as a Sorcerer-analogue. If I was going to redo 3.5, I'd take Sorcerer inspiration heavily from Wilder.

[Ashtagon]

Aaand, the thread is won.
So a massively inferior class is the "Fix?":smallconfused:

A class that is massively better able to play with non-caster classes without making them feel useless is the fix.

[NeoSeraphi]

Yes, it's less powerful. However, it holds a more distinct niche. Psion->Wilder makes a whole lot more sense than Wizard->Sorcerer. It stands in an interesting place, gaining 9th level powers without really being a "full caster" like Psion. It loses out on some power, but unlike Sorcerer it gets things back in return. It enshrines the chaotic aspects they seem to have tried and failed to get in Sorcerers, to counter the implicit lawful tendencies of Wizards/Psions.

It's not a stronger class than Sorcerer. But it's a better-designed class in almost every way, while still obviously being intended as a Sorcerer-analogue. If I was going to redo 3.5, I'd take Sorcerer inspiration heavily from Wilder.

Hmm...you have a point there. Still, I'd rather just give the sorcerer/wilder its own spell/power list and be done with it. Make them their own classes.

Perhaps the game would be better if wizards were utility-only and sorcerers were power-only. Then they'd probably both be pretty solid tier 3s, with the wizard being on the low end because he'd probably have to work hard to be useful in combat situations.

[sonofzeal]

Perhaps the game would be better if wizards were utility-only and sorcerers were power-only. Then they'd probably both be pretty solid tier 3s, with the wizard being on the low end because he'd probably have to work hard to be useful in combat situations.
That would be a fun thing to see. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of altering spellslots so one class gets a few high-level effects and the other gets a whole bunch of lower level effects, which works out something like what you're saying without all the difficulty of repackaging spell lists. I never really got anything satisfactory though.

And really, it's the spell lists that are the problem. There shouldn't have to be thousands of spells. I'd much rather see a small number of fairly flexible spells, perhaps something like the Psi Augmentation system but taken even further.

But that's a discussion for homebrew.

[Little Brother]

A class that is massively better able to play with non-caster classes without making them feel useless is the fix.You have a very odd definition of "Better."

[Asheram]

You have a very odd definition of "Better."

It's the whole "Power" vs "ability to play in a party without outshining everyone else".

We could push the sorcerer up to Tier 1, but why should we ruin another class? ((Not saying that Tier 1 classes are ruined, but once you've played along a Clericzilla or the Batman Wizard, you start to appreciate the lower tiers more when it comes to game balance.))

[Hiro Protagonest]

You have a very odd definition of "Better."

I don't like your definition of better. From what I've seen, you always think more powerful, short of TO, is better. I have seen you telling someone to not play half-Orc unless they take Headlong Rush, and act resistant or confused (I forget which) when people tell you it's for fluff. Yes, I know half-orc sucks, but seriously, it's a RACE. It's much more important what class they're playing. Oh, and it is possibe to have a competitive fighter build.

Seriously, if I went to my RL group with a fighter tricked out with all the tripping and fighter feats and Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim, I would be way more powerful than the others. I once played a half-optimized warblade in that group, and by the end of the first session (there wasn't a second, the group is slow since two of the members, including the DM, are in a demanding private school during the school year), I had decided I would either use my maneuvers very rarely, or just switch to a fighter. If I ever play with that group again, I'm either going with an optimized commoner, or a control wizard, because everything else would be too powerful in an overt way.

[ryu]

Wait what? How is a well done control wizard on the same level as an optimized commoner let alone lower than a mostly fighter build? What the sense make?! No this isn't criticism or any form of attack. I'm just confused.

[NeoSeraphi]

Wait what? How is a well done control wizard on the same level as an optimized commoner let alone lower than a mostly fighter build? What the sense make?! No this isn't criticism or any form of attack. I'm just confused.

I don't believe JD is going for Control Wizard because he thinks it's weak, but rather because a control wizard is a great way to blend your power in. You end encounters, but your party members actually get the kills. It's a team effort, and while you are actually keeping the party alive, it's more subtle and gives other people a chance to shine than an optimized warblade that just tears through encounters.

Control wizard is certainly one of the strongest builds you can make, if done properly. But the key is that you shut creatures down without actually killing them. Makes the character much more group-friendly.

[ryu]

Eh fair enough.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wait what? How is a well done control wizard on the same level as an optimized commoner let alone lower than a mostly fighter build? What the sense make?! No this isn't criticism or any form of attack. I'm just confused.

I said overtly more powerful. Haste on the beatstick and Slow on the enemy isn't overt. Polymorphing the fighter and rogue into celestials for the natural armor and flight is a power boost, but it's not gamebreaking and they still do stuff. At lower levels, Grease and Enlarge Person, giving the rogue Sneak Attack dice and the fighter a minor attack boost. Probably the most overt thing I'd have on a regular basis is Fiery Burst, and possibly Abrupt Jaunt (at higher levels, a Contingent Dimension Door in case I lose initiative, but I probably won't due to my hummingbird familiar and Improved Initiative, maybe Nerveskitter if I buy the SpC). Plus, if I ever get back with my group, I'd be giving the fighter tips on how to defend the party with a lockdown build, either an intimidate build or a tripper with Stand Still (but both combined would be too much. If I direct him towards Zhentarim, I'd also be suggesting a shield bashing style).

[Zaq]

For what it's worth, I love the challenge of making characters that end up being pretty complex (I don't intentionally go out of my way to make them complex, but it happens naturally). One of my favorite characters I ever played had three or four pages of cheat-sheets to keep track of his abilities (ASIDE from his actual sheet). At level 3. Not joking. The point is that I'm no stranger to characters with lots of decisions and fiddly bits—and I hate prepared spellcasting. I can't have fun with it. It's too much work to actually feel like a fun character. Powerful as hell, no argument. But I can't find it fun.

I once played a high-level (15ish) Spirit Shaman. Hands down the most powerful character I've ever played. Solved party problems left and right, had a fun personality, had a solution for anything, and could make solutions where nobody expected them to be. I stopped playing him when I realized that I was taking longer to pick my spells every day OOC than I was IC, even with a basic list of favorites that I usually went with.

The point is not that the annoyingness of prepped casters makes them worse or weaker than spontaneous casters, and if I believed for one second that this were the case by design (I do not), it would be a grave insult to WotC's game design philosophy. I'm not trying to say that. I am, however, saying that to me, the drop in power spontaneous classes have compared to prepped casters is still less noticeable than the boost in convenience. I don't think that spontaneous casters SHOULD be less powerful, but I'm saying that I don't MIND much that they're less powerful on a practical level. (Also, the fact that spontaneous casters are still the second most powerful breed of characters in the bloody game kinda makes it all a moot point, but we've gone over that already.)

I'm repeating myself a bit, but I want to be absolutely clear: I don't think that WotC intended prepped casters to be so much harder to play, and I don't think that they SHOULD have intended it as such. Balance through frustration is not a good design goal. But the fact remains that prepped casters ARE annoying to play, and that makes me look more favorably on spontaneous casters anyway, regardless of relative power levels.

[ryu]

Yeah I get it now. Also I finally understand why the term swordsaged is more common than ninjaed here. People swordsage not just answers to the thread itself but individual points within those threads. It's one of the most active and diligent forums I've ever seen.

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[sonofzeal]

Uh, no. I don't think anyone should play a half-orc because, by far, it is the worst race in core. And, yeah, any orc should take Headlong Rush. Not doing so is intentionally crippling your build. And I fail to see what a fighter has to do with this.
See, categorically dismissive comments like these simply aren't going to win you any friends around here.

Also, I'd rather play a Half-Orc than a Half-Elf in most games. If you're in Eberron, they're a great choice for Gatekeeper Druid since unlike full-Orc they have a normal Wis score, and if your group uses Shapechange or similar Wildshape variants then a high starting Str is an asset. Yes, there's still mechanically better choices. But it's hardly "crippling" . I've played it before, didn't take Headlong Rush, didn't wildshape once, and was still the most effective character in my party.

Sweeping generalizations fail. Dismissing everything except your own pet favorites as "crippled" is flat out wrong. You come of as overbearing and a little condescending, which I'm sure is not your intent but is still how your comments end up getting read by me and others.

I highly suggest modifying your approach. Honey and vinegar, y'know?

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[sonofzeal]

Then I must have miscommunicated. Allow me to rephrase: Half orcs suck. Okay. If you still want to play one(Or ANYTHING, for that matter), gimping your build intentionally is...how to say... at the very least rude to your group.
Hardly. And if you were the type of player who would take offence to what someone else does with their character, then I would not want you at my table. Calling another player rude, just because they're not optimizing the way you would? That's so far beyond the bounds of social behaviour that I honestly think kicking from the group is justified.


:smallconfused:
I took a lot of feats to boost my summoning, and prepared utility spells. Nearly every fight my summons contributed meaningfully, and I contributed to every single non-combat encounter because of my vast array of utility spells. I had a few buff spells, but mostly used them on others rather than myself. I wasn't getting much mileage out of Half-Orc, true, but I was still the most potent member of the group.

Far from being "rude" to take Headlong Rush, it would have been rude for me to optimize any more than I did, since I would simply have left the rest of the group further behind.


Again, I appear to have miscommunicated. If one is building a concept, intentionally gimping it is rude.
No, you are rude for presuming to dictate to other players how they should play the game. You have no such authority. If you did, fine, it'd be rude of them to defy you. But you don't.


Yup. (http://xkcd.com/357/) :smalltongue:
I'm aware. That's why I didn't mention the flies.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't know why Sorcerers were shafted, but I know that Eidetic Spellcaster, Uncanny Forethought, Alacritous Cogitation, and Spontaneous Divination shaft them even harder, to the point where the Wizard can (practically) spontaneously use his "what-if" spells on a regular basis without worrying about a spellbook or familiar. That's why, when I want to play a Sorcerer, I play a Wizard instead :smallcool:

[Little Brother]

Hardly. And if you were the type of player who would take offence to what someone else does with their character, then I would not want you at my table. Calling another player rude, just because they're not optimizing the way you would? That's so far beyond the bounds of social behaviour that I honestly think kicking from the group is justified.No. It is simply insulting for someone in the group to pull punches. It implies the group is inferior enough that they can't handle even the most basic bits of obvious optimization, which is, well, rude.

I took a lot of feats to boost my summoning, and prepared utility spells. Nearly every fight my summons contributed meaningfully, and I contributed to every single non-combat encounter because of my vast array of utility spells. I had a few buff spells, but mostly used them on others rather than myself. I wasn't getting much mileage out of Half-Orc, true, but I was still the most potent member of the group.How?

Far from being "rude" to take Headlong Rush, it would have been rude for me to optimize any more than I did, since I would simply have left the rest of the group further behind.Meh. If you weren't in combat(Which why weren't you), then it isn't a really gimping your build. If you were building a melee character, it would have been.

And you can assist them. You are quite good at optimization(Seriously, Bubs is a work of art), so I fail to see why its difficult to nudge them a bit in the right direction.

No, you are rude for presuming to dictate to other players how they should play the game. You have no such authority. If you did, fine, it'd be rude of them to defy you. But you don't.No, not really. It's basically patronization. It's insulting. Do I lack "authority" to say that belittling/insulting/patronizing is rude? :smallconfused:

[Jack_Simth]

Then I must have miscommunicated. Allow me to rephrase: Half orcs suck. Okay. If you still want to play one(Or ANYTHING, for that matter), gimping your build intentionally is...how to say... at the very least rude to your group.
:smallconfused:
Again, I appear to have miscommunicated. If one is building a concept, intentionally gimping it is rude.

Ah... I don't think most people on these forums will agree with you.

Here's why I don't think most people on these forums will agree with you:

When most people play D&D, most people are playing it as a game, rather than as a competition. As such, the point is "fun" for as many people involved as possible.

Constantly playing second or third fiddle is not "fun" for most people (although it is for some players). If one person is playing a PHB-only fighter, and another is playing a CoDZilla to its fullest, the fighter player is usually going to feel left out. For the most part, this is no "fun" for the fighter's player. It's also no fun for the DM - the DM is left with an annoying choice between building encounters that will challenge the fighter while being a cakewalk for the CoDZilla, building encounters that will challenge the CoDZilla and paste the fighter, or specifically slanting things towards the weaker player (be that by specifically nerfing the CoDZilla, or dropping really powerful treasure that only the Fighter can use). This is not usually "fun" for the DM (although it is for some DM's). With three people noted, this is not usually "fun" for two of them.

At most gaming tables where this comes up, the problem is not that the CoDZilla is optimized. At most gaming tables where this comes up, the problem is not that the fighter is not optimized. At most gaming tables where this comes up, the problem is that one is optimized and the other is not; it's the power discrepancy that's the problem. If you've got a group with a core-only Bard, a core-only Monk, a Core-only Fighter, and a Core-only rogue, the party is usually going to be relatively balanced, and "fun" can be had for all (the DM doesn't need to slant encounters towards or away from any one specific player, no one player has a shortage of limelight time). If you've got a group with a batman-wizard, a Druid-zilla, a DMM(Persistent Spell) Cleric-zilla, and an Ubercharger Barbarian build, the party is usually going to be relatively balanced, and "fun" can be had for all (the DM doesn't need to slant encounters towards or away from any one specific player, no one player has a shortage of limelight time).

If you have one person that has fun with a high-powered game, and one person that has fun with a low-powered game, that's not a problem of itself; both are ways to have fun, and are perfectly valid because of it. You do, however, have a problem when both are in the same party.

[sonofzeal]

No. It is simply insulting for someone in the group to pull punches. It implies the group is inferior enough that they can't handle even the most basic bits of obvious optimization, which is, well, rude.
How?
Meh. If you weren't in combat(Which why weren't you), then it isn't a really gimping your build. If you were building a melee character, it would have been.

And you can assist them. You are quite good at optimization(Seriously, Bubs is a work of art), so I fail to see why its difficult to nudge them a bit in the right direction.
No, not really. It's basically patronization. It's insulting. Do I lack "authority" to say that belittling/insulting/patronizing is rude? :smallconfused:
*sighs*

In my IRL group, I am the most rules-savvy and book-savvy person around. But I don't own Races of Faerun, I've never used "Headlong Rush", and it's not something I generally think about for my characters. I've played orcs on at least six occasions, and the feat never came up - either because I didn't think about it, because it didn't fit with the build, because I didn't have the spare feat, or because I already had options like the Rhino Rush Paladin spell for dealing double damage on a charge without the drawbacks. And yet you say "any orc should take Headlong Rush. Not doing so is intentionally crippling your build" and later call that "rude"?

Excuse me?!? Not everything is about you. Not every sub-optimal choice on my part is a deliberate sneer of condescension. You're taking everything way too personally, and it's downright toxic. People like that kill gaming groups, not to mention friendships.

And frankly, it's worse than that. You're basically claiming that every optimizer has to pull out their most powerful character in every campaign (because everything else is obviously "pulling punches"), and that attitude is precisely why there's so many people who think optimization is bad. People like Gamer Girl meet people like you, or read your comments, and get rightfully horrified. And then the rest of the community has to try to explain over and over that, no people like you don't speak for the community, and no we're not all like that.

If nobody pulls punches, then everybody's playing Pun-Pun, except the newer players who have Mr McFighter with Weapon Focus. Does that seriously sound like a fun game, or a respectful social experience? Don't you think, just maybe, it's rude to deliberately overshadow your fellow players and render all their contributions superfluous? That perhaps it's more respectful to balance yourself closer to what they're doing, and then work to bring the group to success within that limitation? That maybe, just maybe, the game is more fun if someone doesn't insist on bringing Pun-Pun to the table every session?

[DarkEternal]

I like sorcerers, honestly. Especially if you go into the Malconvoker or some other summoning class. You can summon like crazy all day long and get a lot of your bases covered. But even if that was not the case, it depends what kind of a gamer you are. A sorcerer is good for those that don't want to keep a whole myriad of books and know exactly the kind of abilities they wield. That and some of the sorcerer spells are pretty damn sweet(Wings of Cover being probably the sweetest of them all)

I was usually in the "wizard is awesome" camp, and still am. But over the last few years I can see the appeal of a sorcerer much more then before.

[nedz]

Wizards are awesome, but Sorcerors are more fun to play.

I can be a little irksome that Wizards get so many advantages, but just put yourself in the position of the Fighter.

I view Sorcerors as being like Cybermen: not so bright, but relentless.

[Kazyan]

No. It is simply insulting for someone in the group to pull punches. It implies the group is inferior enough that they can't handle even the most basic bits of obvious optimization, which is, well, rude.

The implication here is that a group should be able to handle optimization, because...something. Thinking that it would be rude not to "pull punches" assumes that being able to handle optimization is something that the group values to some degree for whatever reason. If it's not, then pulling punches is not rude.

[Waker]

Honestly playing Spontaneous casters is a much more fun experience for me than using prepared casters. It feels like too much work for a game when I need to lug around a book to keep track of all the spells that I can cast.
Bards and Sorcerers (and by extent the other spontaneous casters) embody my gaming mantra, "Show up, be awesome."

[Essence_of_War]

Honestly playing Spontaneous casters is a much more fun experience for me than using prepared casters. It feels like too much work for a game when I need to lug around a book to keep track of all the spells that I can cast.
Bards and Sorcerers (and by extent the other spontaneous casters) embody my gaming mantra, "Show up, be awesome."

I very much agree with this sentiment.

DocRoc said something about this that I felt captured my feelings here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872258/Sorcerers_Guide._Your_help_wanted.):


So why this mini-guide?
For a sorcerer, however, dirty tricks are often the name of the day as you struggle to keep your party alive against all odds. Did the warrior's player come late and miss the part where the GM mentioned that the sword was cursed? Did he grab it anyway?

It will be your job to keep the roof from caving in. No use in recriminations, just move, just act. Unlike your cousin the wizard, you can't say you didn't have the spell prepared. Your only refuge is absolute competence. Remember, the game mechanics are there to act as your crutch, your enabler as you struggle to be the master of arcane power you most certainly are not in real life. Best make sure you lean on a steady shoulder. That's when I'll be there to help you, the black-clad patron saint of desperate casters.


Emphasis mine. :smallsmile:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Little Brother, why does a game have to be tier 2-3 to be fun? I would have lots of fun as a commoner. Why? Because I like riding around on a flying mount, shooting things with my crossbow, while my three warbeast eagles (and later, warbeast dinosaurs of the flying variety, since we play in Eberron) attack stuff along with me.

Although actually, if I'm using a crossbow, I might just switch to a fighter. Crossbow fighter is weak enough. And I still have ride and handle animal as class skills, so I'd do that on top of Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot, and the Weapon Focus line all the way up to Ranged Weapon Mastery, after I get Mounted Archery. I'd also carry around a magic adamantine gauntlet and use Superior Unarmed Strike in melee, probably Ride-By Attack as well. Is it a lockdown/charger? No. Is it fun? Well, it's a flying skirmisher, can break through walls with its trusty gauntlet, can fight without any weapons in a pinch, and has four pets (one of which it rides), so in my book, that's a yes. I'd play human, but only because I like to play human, not because it adds yet another feat (although I do appreciate the extra skill points on a 2+int skill point class. But if I play fighter, I'd probably take a self-made variant similar to Thug, since I prefer light armor anyway).

Would I have more fun playing a warblade? I doubt it. There are ways of covering my weak saves. The optimal strikes to take just seem like "I attack it, but I ignore [something]" or "I attack it, but with a bonus" or. The counters all seem like "I get a bonus to my saves/AC". The boosts are basically just extra bonuses on full attacks. Warblade is very faceroll, I don't feel like a decision between two maneuvers really matters. Does this make it bad? No. It's very good for games that fighters can't keep up in. Does it make it more fun? No.

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[sonofzeal]

Whoa, calm down there. I'm taking things personally, coming after that reaction? :smallconfused:
Yes. You're taking things personally. You're interpretting every sub-optimal choice on their part as an insult against you. That's pretty much the definition of taking things personally.

I'm not taking things personally. I think your attitude is antisocial, harmful to the game, and harmful to the community, but it's nothing against me personally. That doesn't mean I should tolerate it.


Holy NotWhatISaid, Batman! I said pulling punches in a build is the problem, not running a weaker build. Difference. Use fighter instead of warblade, and calm down.
The two are effectively the same thing.

I've been on these boards for ages, I know dozens and dozens of horrifyingly powerful build. Yet you demand that I don't pull punches, and that necessitates playing everything to the hilt, and doing what I just described.

I know PazuzuPazuzuPazuzu, and Candle of Invocation, but I pull those punches because my table can't support it. To a lesser extent, I know that Rangers can take SotAO and Mystic Ranger for some serious power, but I pull that punch because half the players at my table are still taking Weapon Specialization and Fireball. I know tricks for a Sneak Attacker to get literally dozens of attacks against Touch AC at mid levels, but I don't play them that way because it wouldn't be fun for anyone else. I know how to gain massive amounts of Turning attempt to fuel DMM:Persist and be Clericzilla, but I'd rather not warp the game balance too much.

I pull my punches, because the alternative would be to ruin everyone's fun, and likely ruin the campaign itself. D&D is collaborative, and the whole point is the communal enjoyment of it, not our collective ability to win.


Suggesting better builds and talking about basic gaming etiquette is horrifying? You'd feel better if, say, you're playing baseball with a couple of your friends, and one of your better friends decides to, say, not use his dominant hand, 'cuz otherwise he'd crush you? Really?
Suggesting better builds is fine. Mandating specific builds, and decrying anyone who doesn't choose your specific favorite options? That's what gets my ire up.

If I play golf against Tiger Woods, I do expect him to take a handicap. That's the gentlemanly thing to do. I expect him to play well within that handicap, but there's no point in me playing if he doesn't take it.

D&D even more so. In Golf at least I might get some practice. In D&D, if someone else is demolishing every encounter in the surprise round, I'm not even getting that. I don't participate, and if I'm not participating it's pretty unlikely that I'm going to have fun.

There's nothing insulting about someone giving themselves a handicap if they have ages more experience. If someone's teaching me the game, I'd expect them to hold back until I'm up to speed. With D&D that's a gradual process that takes years, but so be it.

If I'm in an explicitly low-op game, bringing in a high-op character is rude. Can you at least admit this much?

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[enderlord99]

:smallconfused:
No. I think more useful is better.

...And you consider Pun-pun the most "useful" build of all.

EDIT: Okay you don't. What about the Twice-betrayer of Shar?

[Titomancer]

I would like to point out an old internet adage: "Don't feed the troll."

That being said, spontaneous casters getting less options than prepared casters. Yes, this is true, but to me, it seems like Sorcerer is more the "Intro to Wizard" class. It's a great (fantastic!) entry point for people wanting to try out spellcasting. My first experience as a caster (admittedly, I don't play them much. Too much homework, and WAY too many spells to sift through) was a Halfling Sorcerer. I had a BLAST with that character. I had no idea what I was doing, but I was having fun doing it all day long. I sacrificed versatility for the ability to do what I do for much longer times. So, sustainability + fun instead of versatility. Seems like a fair trade. You can take this further by looking at the ultimate in sustainability + fun (Spellcasting wise) by looking at Dragonfire Adept and Warlock. Much weaker tiers than both Wizard and Sorc, but infinitely sustainable and oh so much fun. It's a progression. Warlock/DFA: Focused, but can go all day long, and very little learning/ nonexistent learning curve, but can be optimized as you grow in experience (as a player, not using XP). Then comes Sorc, less sustainable, but still can go for a long time, has a lot of flavor, and a bit more versatility (the sorc/wiz spell list is ginormous), and has a gentle learning curve, and can get to levels of amazing optomization as player experience grows. And then you have Wizard, the master class of arcane spellcasting, infinite versatility, but a vicious learning curve (maybe a cliff), but can reach levels of "You can do what?!"

Just my opinion. As more and more options were released, the sorc and wiz still grew in options, just in different ways, and at different speeds, according to their ease of use. If you look at it that way, it's not that they are getting "shafted", they just progress at a different speed that's more leyman-friendly. I hope that made sense.

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[enderlord99]

And I think we have a winner for lowest reading comprehension on the thread!
:smallsigh:
Seriously?

I think the Twice-Betrayer is a gorgeous build. Fantastic. I also wouldn't touch it. Seriously, bro?

...And yet a sorcerer is "way too weak" for you most of the time.:smallconfused:

Also, you couldn't be my brother: you're too annoying. Congratulations. I didn't think it was possible.

Now, if you're going to continue insulting people and threatening murder on this forum, may I state that you are not waffling on your position. Waffles aren't floppy enough. You're pancaking.

I mean, it's possible that since noone can tell what you thinnk they "must" play, you're merely bad at communication. We also are, but only when it's with you. (http://xkcd.com/1028/)

Also, sorry about the pm's.



I would like to point out an old internet adage: "Don't feed the troll."

There's no trolls here. Only people who can't communicate. "Trolls" are mean on purpose. Little Brother is just confusing without meaning to be.

[ryu]

I think he's saying there's a noticeable difference between a wizard who only takes blasty spells and all feats as toughness, and say... a fighter who's taking the feats and other such options most relevant to his build. Now consider the above situational choice is happening in a low op group. I know which would annoy me more at any rate. I'll offer a hint. It's the one who isn't obviously making intentionally bad choices. Are they on a somewhat even playing field? Yes. Are they both going to be about the same power as the group they're in? Yes. Are people at the table going to look at them the same way? I wouldn't.

[sonofzeal]

Zeal, seriously, it's obvious you haven't given any of my recent posts anything more than a cursory glance. Never did I say it's a good idea to bring Pazuzu in. Your Tiger Woods example is EXACTLY what I was saying. :smallsigh:

There's a difference between intentionally making a crappy build, and making a strong build under a strict set of restrictions. It is NOT that complicated :smallsigh:
Then stop making sweeping categorizations about what options people must use. And don't universally denigate everyone who chooses not to use those options.

Seriously. It's that easy. Otherwise people are going to interpret you the way I have been.

[ryu]

As a person who has no investment in this conversation besides my own personal amusement, I point out that I did in fact interpret him a different way.

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[sonofzeal]

Once again, I was fairly specific in my, what, last five posts here? It helps to read posts, you know. Having to respond to the same false criticism once is mildly irritating. Five times? Full-blown annoying.

Not that complicated, this whole English language thing.
Your previous five posts have not modified or retracted your sweeping generalizations and denigations earlier here and in other threads. If you want to tell me that your words were ill-chosen and that what you really meant was something else, I'll accept that.

Let's get a list.

- "Any orc should take Headlong Rush", and not doing so is "rude".

- Anyone playing a Half-orc, for any reason, in any campaign is "at the very least rude (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13360861&postcount=57)".

- "Why Ranger? They're, like, trash." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13358743&postcount=3)

- "Alternative Spell Source: You are taking this. PERIOD." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224999) Note that in the same guide you have a system for marking stuff that may not fly in every group, but don't use it there despite several comments in the ensuing threat.

- From the same thread, "laugh at anyone who suggests" Dread Necromancer, and "revoke/deny any relationship with anyone who suggests" Warmage.



I'm not saying your advice is wrong. Generally I agree with your conclusions. But your presentation of that advice is arrogant, dismissive of or insulting towards anyone who might have other priorities, and generally results in sweeping categorizations that fail to capture the nuance of the situation.

Earlier in this thread, I presented a whole list of reasons why I personally have passed on putting Headlong Rush on an Orc. Did you admit that there are exceptions? Did you rephrase the statement to better reflect the reality of the situation?

You insist I'm reading you incorrectly, but your posts themselves have led me to those conclusions, and I've consistently quoted your exact words on the matter. You say anyone who chooses inferior options is "rude", but then agree with me when I talk about Golf and taking a handicap, when the two amount to the same thing. One statement or the other is flawed.

Which is it?

[ryu]

At what point did he say they amounted to the same thing? I think you said that not him. I'm just saying if you want to change his mind actually taking the time to not descend into sarcasm and bile might help. As it stands neither of you are making any headway, because neither side wants to listen. How could either of you expect the other to when all you do is dismiss and belittle each other? I really don't want this to descend into levels where mods need to come in for cleanup duty.

[Little Brother]

Your previous five posts have not modified or retracted your sweeping generalizations and denigations earlier here and in other threads. If you want to tell me that your words were ill-chosen and that what you really meant was something else, I'll accept that.

Let's get a list.

- "Any orc should take Headlong Rush", and not doing so is "rude".

- Anyone playing a Half-orc, for any reason, in any campaign is "at the very least rude (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13360861&postcount=57)".I didn't think of casters. Huh, should have. They even have an ACF for druid. So I was in error, I made an oversight. I apologize.

- "Why Ranger? They're, like, trash." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13358743&postcount=3)Followed up with suggestions and help. Admittedly, I should haveput a bit more detail, but what I said is correct, and you are cutting an important part out.

- "Alternative Spell Source: You are taking this. PERIOD." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224999) Note that in the same guide you have a system for marking stuff that may not fly in every group, but don't use it there despite several comments in the ensuing threat.Uh, I specifically stated that DMs might not let it fly. Read the guide again.

- From the same thread, "laugh at anyone who suggests" Dread Necromancer, and "revoke/deny any relationship with anyone who suggests" Warmage.It's called hyperbole, my friend. Very nice little tool, it is.

I'm not saying your advice is wrong. Generally I agree with your conclusions. But your presentation of that advice is arrogant, dismissive of or insulting towards anyone who might have other priorities, and generally results in sweeping categorizations that fail to capture the nuance of the situation.Explain further, please.

Earlier in this thread, I presented a whole list of reasons why I personally have passed on putting Headlong Rush on an Orc. Did you admit that there are exceptions? Did you rephrase the statement to better reflect the reality of the situation?Yes, I did. A caster that is not in combat does not need that feat. I was incorrect, I stupidly overlooked the possibility of a Half-Orc Caster.

You insist I'm reading you incorrectly, but your posts themselves have led me to those conclusions, and I've consistently quoted your exact words on the matter. You say anyone who chooses inferior options is "rude", but then agree with me when I talk about Golf and taking a handicap, when the two amount to the same thing. One statement or the other is flawed. Anyone who intentionally chooses options to gimp the build is rude. Anyone who creates a well-built build that works with the party is a polite gamer. See my previous comment. Poorly done crusader, a swordsage, a barbarian, so I chose to build a knight. I worked a lot on the knight, and it turned out to be at the perfect level in the party. Between the weak challenges, some WBLMancy, a dip in Bard, and some wrangling for feats, it ended up functioning quite well.

I chose no inferior options, I built this thing to its fullest, it worked great, and cooperated with the above party. As a knight.

Which is it?Both

[sonofzeal]

It's called hyperbole, my friend. Very nice little tool, it is.
Actually, I think this is exactly where we disagree. You seem to use hyperbole a lot ("trash", "cripple", "gimp", "PERIOD", "all"). And I suppose that's defensible if other people are interpreting it as such. Your Warmage/DreadNecro comments did seem fairly evidently hyperbolic, but most of the others didn't.

Unfortunately, this is the internet. In a text-only medium, hyperbole suffers the same trap that sarcasm does in that it rarely comes across very clearly. I think that's why so many people are reading your posts incorrectly and coming to the wrong conclusion, myself included (I'll admit it). We read your hyperbole and parse it as an actual claim. I'll try to keep that in mind when I read more of your posts, but I would recommend trying to keep the hyperbole in check precisely because it's so easily misinterpreted.



Anyone who intentionally chooses options to gimp the build is rude. Anyone who creates a well-built build that works with the party is a polite gamer. See my previous comment. Poorly done crusader, a swordsage, a barbarian, so I chose to build a knight. I worked a lot on the knight, and it turned out to be at the perfect level in the party. Between the weak challenges, some WBLMancy, a dip in Bard, and some wrangling for feats, it ended up functioning quite well.

I chose no inferior options, I built this thing to its fullest, it worked great, and cooperated with the above party. As a knight.
Well, I entirely agree with your example. I've done similar things playing Truenamers, Monks, and Healers.

But what about this? When I played a Cleric in my last IRL campaign, I voluntarily passed by DMM:Persist. To me that's the same thing - out of respect for the group, I chose less-effective options and then tried to play well within those limits. In one case it was choosing less-effective class levels, and in the other it was choosing less-effective feats. I don't see a difference.

That's where I'm stuck with your claim. I can't think of an example of "intentionally choosing options to gimp the build" that isn't, to my eyes, the same as "creating a well-built build that works with the party" in any situation where there's wildly disparate optimization skills at work. The better player intentionally chooses weaker options, and by doing so creates a character that works with the party. From my perspective, what you call rude is exactly the same as what you call being a "polite gamer".

Can you see where I'm having trouble there?

[ryu]

I hope the example of wizard only taking blasty stuff and toughness feats as opposed to a pretty well optimized fighter serves to show the perceptual difference Little Brother is talking about. I see a marked difference there. I think that's the idea he's trying to get at anyway. My apologies if I'm wrong.

[Little Brother]

Actually, I think this is exactly where we disagree. You seem to use hyperbole a lot ("trash", "cripple", "gimp", "PERIOD", "all"). And I suppose that's defensible if other people are interpreting it as such. Your Warmage/DreadNecro comments did seem fairly evidently hyperbolic, but most of the others didn't.

Unfortunately, this is the internet. In a text-only medium, hyperbole suffers the same trap that sarcasm does in that it rarely comes across very clearly. I think that's why so many people are reading your posts incorrectly and coming to the wrong conclusion, myself included (I'll admit it). We read your hyperbole and parse it as an actual claim. I'll try to keep that in mind when I read more of your posts, but I would recommend trying to keep the hyperbole in check precisely because it's so easily misinterpreted.Ah, okay. Sorry 'bout that, then.

Well, I entirely agree with your example. I've done similar things playing Truenamers, Monks, and Healers. Healers? :smalleek: Really?

But what about this? When I played a Cleric in my last IRL campaign, I voluntarily passed by DMM:Persist. To me that's the same thing - out of respect for the group, I chose less-effective options and then tried to play well within those limits. In one case it was choosing less-effective class levels, and in the other it was choosing less-effective feats. I don't see a difference.That depends on the rest of your build and how it played, is the real difference.

That's where I'm stuck with your claim. I can't think of an example of "intentionally choosing options to gimp the build" that isn't, to my eyes, the same as "creating a well-built build that works with the party" in any situation where there's wildly disparate optimization skills at work. The better player intentionally chooses weaker options, and by doing so creates a character that works with the party. From my perspective, what you call rude is exactly the same as what you call being a "polite gamer".

Can you see where I'm having trouble there?I think I might.

[sonofzeal]

I hope the example of wizard only taking blasty stuff and toughness feats as opposed to a pretty well optimized fighter serves to show the perceptual difference Little Brother is talking about. I see a marked difference there. I think that's the idea he's trying to get at anyway. My apologies if I'm wrong.
Well, that's precisely it.

You see "Wizard who took horrible spells" and "Optimized Fighter". I see "Optimized Evoker Wizard" and "Optimized Fighter", and there's no real line between them. If I play the former, and then someone says that taking evocation is an insult to your group, I hope you can see how I might get offended.


Ah, okay. Sorry 'bout that, then.
Glad we sorted that out. :)

Healers? :smalleek: Really?
Yeah, it actually worked pretty well. We had a few houserules that helped, but mostly it's just that the character led to great RP, and the Healer can easily be made sufficiently good at in-combat healing to keep up in lower-op groups.


That depends on the rest of your build and how it played, is the real difference.
Well, I was certainly much less effective than a "proper" Cleric. But I was effective, and ended up in a sort of a party leadership position.


I think I might.
:smallsmile:

My philosophy is that it's a big world out there, and just about any character combination has its place. There's certainly times when a sword-and-boarder is inappropriate. But sometimes, hey, that might be an interesting concept to run with, see what you can make of it. Everything has its place.

[legomaster00156]

Say, does anybody else think we should get back to the actual topic of this thread, instead of yelling at each other about different levels of optimization and who is or isn't rude?

[Little Brother]

Well, that's precisely it.

You see "Wizard who took horrible spells" and "Optimized Fighter". I see "Optimized Evoker Wizard" and "Optimized Fighter", and there's no real line between them. If I play the former, and then someone says that taking evocation is an insult to your group, I hope you can see how I might get offended.:smallconfused:
He said toughness. I see bad wizard and optimized fighter.

Glad we sorted that out. :)Agreed. That was pretty confusing.

Yeah, it actually worked pretty well. We had a few houserules that helped, but mostly it's just that the character led to great RP, and the Healer can easily be made sufficiently good at in-combat healing to keep up in lower-op groups.Healer. Healer! I thought my runs with Truenamers were interesting.

Well, I was certainly much less effective than a "proper" Cleric. But I was effective, and ended up in a sort of a party leadership position.Fair enough.

:smallsmile:

My philosophy is that it's a big world out there, and just about any character combination has its place. There's certainly times when a sword-and-boarder is inappropriate. But sometimes, hey, that might be an interesting concept to run with, see what you can make of it. Everything has its place.I was following until you said sword and board....
:smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Say, does anybody else think we should get back to the actual topic of this thread, instead of yelling at each other about different levels of optimization and who is or isn't rude?

Sounds good to me.

[candycorn]

To answer the question, let's take a billionaire, three millionaires, and a bunch of people in debt.

Sorcerors complaining about being shafted is like a millionaire complaining how he's too poor.

The fighter in the corner is the one who really has the shaftage. The sorceror is just slightly less flexible in the ways he can shatter the world.

[Acanous]

A Sorceror CAN get into a PrC that gives him a spell pool to pull from, it fixes the "What if" situation while retaining his gatling-gun ability. Of course, that's not core.

A Sorceror who focuses on Conjuration actually fills conan-style sorceror themes (With a little transmutation to turn into a snake with >.>) and the Planar Binding line (In conjunction with some Knowledge: The Planes and Circle of Protection spells) make the sorceror just as versatile as a wizard, given knowledge and prep time.

It's really the focused blastcasters that get shafted in comparison.
Sorcerors start a little ahead of the wizard, then fall behind at 3, stay behind 'till 12, then catch back up again.
Oddly, I personally feel Pathfinder shafted Sorcerors more than the origional 3.5 version, because the PF "Normal" XP chart takes much longer to level with than the 3.5 XP chart. So you're stuck behind for longer.

More feats and such is cool and all, but not if you're delayed from your next spell level by an additional 3 sessions.

[Rejakor]

@ Littlebrother; Saying that 'you may not play a wizard unless it is the most optimized wizard, or a wizard that comes to a standard of optimization that I think acceptable, and if you don't, you suck' is not only not hyperbole, it's incredibly insulting, passive aggressive, and trolling.

Hyperbole would be saying 'people who take toughness on a wizard are missing the point of the class', since a) you're generalizing and b) you're making a sweeping statement about the point of the class that you haven't proved.

sonofzeal had a really good reason for taking issue with both your statement and your way of making it, and if I was you, i'd learn from this about means of communicating with others and methods of thinking about things logically/from the other person's point of view.

[Little Brother]

@ Littlebrother; Saying that 'you may not play a wizard unless it is the most optimized wizard, or a wizard that comes to a standard of optimization that I think acceptable, and if you don't, you suck' is not only not hyperbole, it's incredibly insulting, passive aggressive, and trolling.[citation needed]

Hyperbole would be saying 'people who take toughness on a wizard are missing the point of the class', since a) you're generalizing and b) you're making a sweeping statement about the point of the class that you haven't proved.No. That'd be a true statement of fact.

sonofzeal had a really good reason for taking issue with both your statement and your way of making it, and if I was you, i'd learn from this about means of communicating with others and methods of thinking about things logically/from the other person's point of view.Ah, yes, the "I'm mad, you suck" argument. Don'cha love it?
:rolleyes:

[sonofzeal]

:smallconfused:
He said toughness. I see bad wizard and optimized fighter.
Toughness I'll grant. It might be used as a prereq or somesuch though, so I wouldn't categorically deny it either.


I was following until you said sword and board....
:smalltongue:
Here's where we part again. I mean, sure, Sword and Board is a weak style. But if someone wants to play it, I wish them all the best! There's some nice shield-specific feats out there. "Agile Shield Fighter" and "Improved Shield Bash" give a nice foundation that bypasses several of the weaknesses of TWF, and can be built upon with "Shield Charge" and "Shield Slam" for some actual payback. I won't say the resulting character is necessarily good, but the concept can certainly be played with an optimized, and might fit into a lower-op game.

And I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather not deny the legitimacy of anything. Even if it's not the most powerful choice available (nothing is short of Pun-Pun), it might still find a home in the right sort of game. Or heck, it's the sort of thing I might have fun playing around with and choose out of preference! And I find it absolutely incomprehensible that someone would take offence if I wasn't going purely for mechanical power and optimum choices.

[candycorn]

A lot of people bag on sword and board, but let's stop for a moment and think about the following scenario:

Low level game (level 1-4).

Now, the reasons for 2 hander over sword and board primarily lie with the advantage of power attack to leverage damage.

Take an 18 strength fighter with a greatsword vs the same fighter with a longsword and a heavy shield.

At level 1: +5 to hit, 2d6+6 vs +5 to hit, 1d8+4.
Damage difference: 4.5 average.
AC Difference: +2

Assuming breastplate and a 14 dex, that's AC 17 vs AC 19. At level 1, the increased survivability of a higher AC is arguably worth it.

Further, prior to level 5, power attack gains aren't significant enough to really pull 2 handed away from sword/board. Yes, it will fall behind, but it has its place.

As for rude? I personally consider it rude to not build with the party and playstyle preferences of your group in mind. If you build an ubercharger when everyone else is running basic characters, you're being rude. If you build an evoker when the rest of the party is ur-priest and incantatrix? You're being inconsiderate.

Both paths are well and good to play, as long as you are in harmony with the playstyle preferences of your group.

[Little Brother]

Toughness I'll grant. It might be used as a prereq or somesuch though, so I wouldn't categorically deny it either.I admit, I don't normally get to play wizards, but I cannot think of a half-decent arcane class or feat that requires toughness.

SnipThe :smalltongue: meant it was a joke. I actually think there is a decent build that involves massive amounts of Tiger Claw. I did some shield bashing with my deceased knight, to tell the truth. I figured it was the best way to improve my DPR without losing much, or violating the aesthetics of the European fighting styles I was going for. I figured my DPR was only slightly inferior to the DPR of using a greatsword(Thanks to my Gauntlet of Heartfelt Blows), and left me with superior AC(Especially with Chahar-Aina and Dastana). My build was basically along the lines of Bard 1/Warblade 1/Knight X. Worked out great.

[sonofzeal]

The :smalltongue: meant it was a joke.
See, and I didn't catch that at all, even knowing what to look for. :smallamused: Might want to keep that kind of humour under wraps on the internet.

[Little Brother]

See, and I didn't catch that at all, even knowing what to look for. :smallamused: Might want to keep that kind of humour under wraps on the internet.On the topic of shields: Do they, without spikes or what have you, qualify as weapons for bashing people?

EDIT:Wow, I really hate this keyboard. Shift+up ate most of my post. DERP.

Makes sense. I had thought the :smalltongue: was the typical smiley for light-hearted humor.

[sonofzeal]

On the topic of shields: Do they, without spikes or what have you, qualify as weapons for bashing people?
Yes. PHB lists them right on the table for Martial Weapons.

[Little Brother]

Yes. PHB lists them right on the table for Martial Weapons.HA! I was right. DM made me add that stupid enhancement before using it with maneuvers :smallannoyed:.

Still, loved that knight, even if I had to waste a couple thousand GP on an unnecessary enhancement.

And I REALLY hate this tiny keyboard and the damnable up+**** combo.

[candycorn]

On the topic of shields: Do they, without spikes or what have you, qualify as weapons for bashing people?

EDIT:Wow, I really hate this keyboard. Shift+up ate most of my post. DERP.

Makes sense. I had thought the :smalltongue: was the typical smiley for light-hearted humor.

Yes. Granted, enhancements for the shield side and enhancements for the weapon side must be done seperately.

[Hecuba]

No. That'd be a true statement of fact.
Or not. If you're looking at a game you don't expect to get past level 2 or 3, toughness can be decent for a Wizard, especially if you're looking at . Not great, but decent and inordinately better than it if the game lasts to 10 or 20.

Moreover, even at 20, it's quite possible that the player of the Wizard in question is actively choosing to waste a feat as a way to pull their punches. (I'm with Sonofzeal on not understanding why you view a player optimizing a Tier 4 or 5 up for a Tier 3 table to be different than toneing a Tier 2 or 1 down for a Tier 3 table).

Admittedly, I would probably take something a bit more flavorful for my useless feat (Aftersight's a favorite), but toughness can work if you swing it.

[Little Brother]

No. Toughness is invalidated completely by Bear's Endurance. By any number of TempHP spells. It takes 1.5 BAB off a power attack. It eats the Edge of a warmage. It is the epitome of trash. Basically as bad as Skill Focus Speak Language.

And if you are worried about HP as a wizard, urdoinitwrong.

[Ashtagon]

No. Toughness is invalidated completely by Bear's Endurance. ...

That's kind of the point. It's called intentional de-optimisation to help balance the party. She even said as much.

[candycorn]

No. Toughness is invalidated completely by Bear's Endurance. By any number of TempHP spells. It takes 1.5 BAB off a power attack. It eats the Edge of a warmage. It is the epitome of trash. Basically as bad as Skill Focus Speak Language.

And if you are worried about HP as a wizard, urdoinitwrong.

I would propose that if you think there is only one acceptable way to play the game, that you are.

Personal playstyle preferences are just that. Personal. You may not agree with them, and that is fine. But choice of optimization level is a valid playstyle preference, and if people wish low optimization, then that is their choice. And there is nothing wrong with that.

You can argue that it's suboptimal. That's fine.
You can argue it's an unoptimized build. That's fine.

But when you argue that it's not an acceptable way to play, that's not fine. Just because you do it one way, does not mean that's the One True Way, and all other ways must be looked down upon.

That's not civil.

[Saph]

To answer the question, let's take a billionaire, three millionaires, and a bunch of people in debt.

Sorcerors complaining about being shafted is like a millionaire complaining how he's too poor.

This is a good way to look at it.

I played a Sorcerer from levels 9 through 14 in our old Seven Kingdoms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139572) game, that I wrote up on these boards. The rest of the party consisted of (over the course of the campaign) a Ranger, an Assassin, a Druid, an Arcane Hierophant, an Archivist, a Warlock, a Cleric, a Fighter, a Warblade, and a Dragon Shaman.

Could I have played a more powerful build? Yes. But given that I was probably the most powerful character in the party anyway, there was absolutely no good reason to do so.

[Hecuba]

No. Toughness is invalidated completely by Bear's Endurance. By any number of TempHP spells. It takes 1.5 BAB off a power attack. It eats the Edge of a warmage. It is the epitome of trash. Basically as bad as Skill Focus Speak Language.

And if you are worried about HP as a wizard, urdoinitwrong.

Really? Let's say you're a level 1 PHB wizard with 22 pb. You can still afford to get, say 14 Con, but that means that Toughness is 1/2 again your HP. And at level 1, 1/2 again your XP is something-- it moves you from, say, 2 sling hits getting you on the ground to 4. (While you can avoid caring about HP as a level 1 wizard, that's not something I would feel comfortable bringing out at most tables, though I understand we have different ideas of what minimum optimization is).

You can get better from spells (though at level 1 and 2, you don't have an unlimited selection), but I said decent not good (and certainly not great, or best). Just decent-- as in my friend Bob is a decent casual bowler. I wouldn't invite him to my league team and I'll pick his wife Anne as a partner instead if I can, but he's also not bad enough that I feel the need to comment on his performance when we go to the alley. After all, he certainly isn't rolling constant gutter balls (which is how I would characterize Toughness for anyone with more than 10 hp).


That's kind of the point. It's called intentional de-optimisation to help balance the party. She even said as much.

Actually, with that part, I wasn't. The part he was refering to was actually an aside noting that, at low enough level, toughness isn't as bad as it is when you have to consider the fact that it effectively scales negatively with total HP.

[Theroc]

I think people are getting far too sidetracked bagging on Little Brother.

I didn't interpret his statements as Sonofzeal did, but I did see it as somewhat harsh, but I was also assuming he meant that: Playing an Optimized Wizard who 'carries' the rest of the party(Monk, Paladin, Fighter, Truenamer) through the adventures is a jerk(unless the rest of the party WANTS the wizard to carry them). By the same token, a player selecting to play a Truenamer and taking toughness as every feat in a group with a Druid, Cleric, Wizard and Psion is, also a jerk, as they are skewing the average party optimization level enough to make things difficult on the DM.

If he meant: "Taking this feat means you should literally be taken out back and shot even though the 'wasted' feat slot allows you to keep your wizard closer to tier 3 along with the rest of your party."

I could see why everyone would be attacking him. Additionally, while the side-discussion is slightly related to the Original topic, it's off topic enough to be it's own discussion, so we should likely let bygones be bygones.

For an on-topic note of my own: I like the fix of inverting the Wizard/Sorcerer tables, as having magic in my blood should make me innately better at magic rather than inferior to someone who has to study for years to learn the same thing.

[Pyromancer999]

I'd say the sorcerer didn't really get shafted. Sure, you've got to wait a level more to get another level in spells, and don't have as many spells as options, but it's fun. You can do what you like, and do it longer. You're still powerful, and as I've seen it, the sorcerer is actually a lot better for most parties than a wizard. Why? The limitedness of the spell list allows the sorcerer to specialize in a thing or two, while still leaving room for others in the party to do stuff. Also, whatever the sorcerer does choose to do, he can do it longer and more often, making him a bit more reliable.

Also, Draconic Heritage sorcerer is one of my favorite builds. It's fun to play, despite some people moaning about how it's not the best build. But it's fun.

[Garan]

Back on the original thread of discussion:

I solved the wizard's versatility issue by using the UA Spell Point system, only the non-spontaneous still prepare their spells instead of those being the pool they "know" for the day. A wizard can give up some of his 4th or 5th level spells for 7 or 9 1st level spells when preparing, and then use those for utility spells. When they have over 200 spell points, they would not mind giving 20 of those to always having a knock spell or maybe detect magic.

Of course, how does this affect the sorcerer, who doesn't prepare spells anyway? Well, he still has the capability to cast any spell he knows (without preparing). Not to mention that while he learns spells later, they are more powerful because their base caster level is higher. For example, while the sorcerer learns 3rd level spells a level later, they'd do an extra die of damage without any extra cost. This, combined with the already larger pool of points, makes them much more heavy-hitting.

[Gurgeh]

But a Wizard will also be casting third-level spells with a CL of 6 when they're at sixth level - only they'll know four times as many and will be able to cast just as many if they're a specialist. :/

[sonofzeal]

But a Wizard will also be casting third-level spells with a CL of 6 when they're at sixth level - only they'll know four times as many and will be able to cast just as many if they're a specialist. :/
Under this variant, each spell is by default cast at the minimum CL for that spell, just like Scrolls. This means that classes who gain spells later cast it at a higher base CL.

Flame Strike is a 4th level spell for Druids, so they'd be casting it at CL 7. But it's a 5th level spell for Clerics, so they start at CL 9. The access is later, but the spell is more potent as a result.

[Gurgeh]

Interesting. It'd seem that a few spells (Shield, Bull's Strength, etc) get unnecessarily shafted by that change, but it certainly shakes things up.

[Greyfeld85]

To me, prepared casting is annoying. It's entirely too restrictive, it basically clamps you into what you're going to cast for the day rather than allowing you some basic flexibility.

That's why you leave a handful of spell slots open when you prepare your spells for the day. That way you can just spend 15 minutes to prepare what you need when the situation comes up.

[Pyromancer999]

That's why you leave a handful of spell slots open when you prepare your spells for the day. That way you can just spend 15 minutes to prepare what you need when the situation comes up.

The way it's read, it seems to me that you need to prepare them all at once. Doesn't seem to be a "some now, some later" approach.

[tyckspoon]

The way it's read, it seems to me that you need to prepare them all at once. Doesn't seem to be a "some now, some later" approach.


When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

You'd be wrong.

[nedz]

Under this variant, each spell is by default cast at the minimum CL for that spell, just like Scrolls. This means that classes who gain spells later cast it at a higher base CL.

Flame Strike is a 4th level spell for Druids, so they'd be casting it at CL 7. But it's a 5th level spell for Clerics, so they start at CL 9. The access is later, but the spell is more potent as a result.

By which point the Druid should also be casting it at CL9. Besides the oppenents will likely have fewer HP when the party was ECL 7.

So earlier access is better, which is how its ment to work.

[sonofzeal]

By which point the Druid should also be casting it at CL9. Besides the oppenents will likely have fewer HP when the party was ECL 7.

So earlier access is better, which is how its ment to work.
....no. Again - variant.

The Druid gets it earlier, which is definitely an advantage. But their version stays at CL7 default no matter what their level is unless they pay extra spellpoints to raise it. The Cleric's defaults to CR9.

For Sorc vs Wiz, this means the delayed Sorc casting actually works out to a marginal advantage as far as blasting is concerned. Every Sorc blasting spell is treated as having a higher base Caster Level by 1. This means that your average d6-per-CL spell deals an extra d6 of damage, or alternatively that blasting spells are just simply cheaper for the Sorc to max out. It's kind of like Psionic Augmentation, except the Sorc gets one free point of augmentation on any blasting spell.

Of course, the whole system kind of nerfs direct damage, which was already generally sub-optimal, but it does exactly what Garan said. Wizards become the masters of utility even more than they already were, and Sorcs are a heck of a lot better than them at blasting.

[nedz]

....no. Again - variant.

The Druid gets it earlier, which is definitely an advantage. But their version stays at CL7 default no matter what their level is unless they pay extra spellpoints to raise it. The Cleric's defaults to CR9.

For Sorc vs Wiz, this means the delayed Sorc casting actually works out to a marginal advantage as far as blasting is concerned. Every Sorc blasting spell is treated as having a higher base Caster Level by 1. This means that your average d6-per-CL spell deals an extra d6 of damage, or alternatively that blasting spells are just simply cheaper for the Sorc to max out. It's kind of like Psionic Augmentation, except the Sorc gets one free point of augmentation on any blasting spell.

Of course, the whole system kind of nerfs direct damage, which was already generally sub-optimal, but it does exactly what Garan said. Wizards become the masters of utility even more than they already were, and Sorcs are a heck of a lot better than them at blasting.

Ah, missed that. (Note to self: improve reading skills:smallredface:)

Still, unless you are in danger of running out of spell points, you just pony them up.

Will the caster's ever run out of spellpoints ?
Well, at low level - perhaps, but later - probably not.

This could devolve into a game style debate (To adventure for 15 minutes a day or not); but thats probably not a rule thing, unless the DM is choosing this varient with stopping the 15 minutes of fame thing in mind as well ?

[Pyromancer999]

You'd be wrong.

Interesting. Suppose I was wrong after all. I was just going on the SRD. Where is your quote from? Just wondering because I haven't seen it before.

[Greyfeld85]

Interesting. Suppose I was wrong after all. I was just going on the SRD. Where is your quote from? Just wondering because I haven't seen it before.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellSelectionandPreparatio n

[Pyromancer999]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellSelectionandPreparatio n

Ah, I see. Haven't really looked at that part before.

Still, the sorcerer is more on-the-fly, because the 15 minutes option doesn't really work for battle spells, and for utility spells, there's no guarantee they'll have the 15 minutes they need to fill the slot(s).

[Greyfeld85]

Ah, I see. Haven't really looked at that part before.

Still, the sorcerer is more on-the-fly, because the 15 minutes option doesn't really work for battle spells, and for utility spells, there's no guarantee they'll have the 15 minutes they need to fill the slot(s).

No more on-the-fly than the wizard is.

The wizard can prepare the same variety of spells per day, plus leave slots open for the above-stated reasons. The only situation in which the sorcerer has the edge on the wizard is when the repeated casting of a specific spell is required, which is why they're considered superior for blasting builds.

That said, sorcerers are also easier to play (which has already been pointed out), due to their relatively streamlined spell preparation.

The problem with sorcerers isn't that they're underpowered in any way; it's that they sit in the shadow of the wizard, which is more powerful and more versatile than the sorcerer in almost every conceivable way.

[Pyromancer999]

No more on-the-fly than the wizard is.

Could you explain? Think there's something I'm not getting.


The problem with sorcerers isn't that they're underpowered in any way; it's that they sit in the shadow of the wizard, which is more powerful and more versatile than the sorcerer in almost every conceivable way.

What about dragonpacts? Those things aren't the most versatile options for a sorcerer out there, but they're sort of versatility in a can.

[enderlord99]

I would propose that if you think there is only one acceptable way to play the game, that you are.

Personal playstyle preferences are just that. Personal. You may not agree with them, and that is fine. But choice of optimization level is a valid playstyle preference, and if people wish low optimization, then that is their choice. And there is nothing wrong with that.

You can argue that it's suboptimal. That's fine.
You can argue it's an unoptimized build. That's fine.

But when you argue that it's not an acceptable way to play, that's not fine. Just because you do it one way, does not mean that's the One True Way, and all other ways must be looked down upon.

That's not civil.

Don't be reasonable like that any more if you value you life! Little Brother has made repeated death threats against people who say stuff like that!

[Arcane_Secrets]

Well, they pretty much fixed the sorceror with the psion. It is a spontaneous caster with proper progression, bonus feats, and more powers known. A spell to power psion (not erudite), or something along those lines would bring the sorceror up to where it probably should be.

I always really liked psions and was kind of surprised they never got much use.

[Pyromancer999]

I always really liked psions and was kind of surprised they never got much use.

They are pretty nice, but the one reason I know some people don't like psionics is that for some lower-level powers, psions have to expend more energy than magic-users do in order to get the same result.

[Greyfeld85]

Could you explain? Think there's something I'm not getting.

Assume a level 6 sorc and wizard each with 18 in their primary casting stat. The sorcerer has a "spells known" array of 7/4/2/1, the wizard has a "spells prepared" array of 4/4/4/3.

Even if you take into account that a sorcerer can cast those spells more times per day, he's still stuck with that list of spells every single day. The wizard, on the other hand, can prepare that exact same spell list, and still have slots left over for extra spells.

So, in the end, the wizard can respond to any situation the sorcerer can. The only edge the sorcerer has is in situations where it's required to spam the hell out of a specific spell.

[Vladislav]

Assume a level 6 sorc and wizard each with 18 in their primary casting stat. The sorcerer has a "spells known" array of 7/4/2/1, the wizard has a "spells prepared" array of 4/4/4/3.

Even if you take into account that a sorcerer can cast those spells more times per day, he's still stuck with that list of spells every single day. The wizard, on the other hand, can prepare that exact same spell list, and still have slots left over for extra spells.

So, in the end, the wizard can respond to any situation the sorcerer can. The only edge the sorcerer has is in situations where it's required to spam the hell out of a specific spell.

To add, if the Wizard happens to be a Specialist, he casts the same number of spells-per-day of his two most powerful levels as the Sorcerer. If he happens to be a Focused Specialist, he casts more spells-per-day than the Sorcerer.

So even in the spam-the-Fireball department, the Wizard can do better, if he wants to.

[Pyromancer999]

So, in the end, the wizard can respond to any situation the sorcerer can. The only edge the sorcerer has is in situations where it's required to spam the hell out of a specific spell.

Even if the wizard has a larger spells known and leaves slots open, though, if a certain spell is required in the midst of battle, or they do not have 15 minutes to fill the empty slots, then the spell needed cannot be used. So, while technically the wizard can respond to any situation the sorcerer can, the situation needs to be one that gives plenty of time to switch out and can't be in the middle of battle. So, if both a sorcerer and wizard each know a few spells needed for a situation, it's more likely the sorcerer will be able to respond than the wizard.

[Greyfeld85]

Even if the wizard has a larger spells known and leaves slots open, though, if a certain spell is required in the midst of battle, or they do not have 15 minutes to fill the empty slots, then the spell needed cannot be used.

And if a sorcerer doesn't have that spell on their spell-known list, they can't use it either. Which puts them on the exact same footing.

Except a wizard also has the advantage of being able to conjure up more spells outside of crunch-time to fit specific, niche situations.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind if Sorcerer had Wizard spell progression... but honestly, they're both sitting in their extraplanar limousine knocking back cosmos while the Monk is taking the bus, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

[Pyromancer999]

And if a sorcerer doesn't have that spell on their spell-known list, they can't use it either. Which puts them on the exact same footing.

Except a wizard also has the advantage of being able to conjure up more spells outside of crunch-time to fit specific, niche situations.

True.


I wouldn't mind if Sorcerer had Wizard spell progression...

That would actually be pretty horrible. Without the spellbook, the Wizard only learns 2 spells/level for a total of 40, whereas the Sorcerer gets more than that on its own. It's just that the wizard has infinite capacity to learn spells. It really depends on just how much downtime the players get(which most DMs grant as much as the wizard needs), and if the Wizard can carry all the spellbooks he can handle(or get someone else to do it).


but honestly, they're both sitting in their extraplanar limousine knocking back cosmos while the Monk is taking the bus, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

That's true.

[BShammie]

That would actually be pretty horrible. Without the spellbook, the Wizard only learns 2 spells/level for a total of 40, whereas the Sorcerer gets more than that on its own. It's just that the wizard has infinite capacity to learn spells. It really depends on just how much downtime the players get(which most DMs grant as much as the wizard needs), and if the Wizard can carry all the spellbooks he can handle(or get someone else to do it).

I think he meant that Sorcerers should gain access to new Spell Levels at the same time as Wizards, not that they should learn the same amount of spells.

[tyckspoon]

That would actually be pretty horrible. Without the spellbook, the Wizard only learns 2 spells/level for a total of 40, whereas the Sorcerer gets more than that on its own.


?? The only point the Sorcerer has an advantage is 2nd level spells. Wizards get *all* the cantrips, 3+ Int mod 1st level spells to *start* (and can select 2 more at 2nd level), and then 4 spells/level of each higher level assuming they always select spells from their highest available level. 6 spells of level 9. How does the Sorcerer get more?

[Vladislav]

?? The only point the Sorcerer has an advantage is 2nd level spells. Wizards get *all* the cantrips, 3+ Int mod 1st level spells to *start* (and can select 2 more at 2nd level), and then 4 spells/level of each higher level assuming they always select spells from their highest available level. 6 spells of level 9. How does the Sorcerer get more?
Eight. He gets a pair of 9th level spells on level 17, 18, 19, and 20.

[Pyromancer999]

?? The only point the Sorcerer has an advantage is 2nd level spells. Wizards get *all* the cantrips, 3+ Int mod 1st level spells to *start* (and can select 2 more at 2nd level), and then 4 spells/level of each higher level assuming they always select spells from their highest available level. 6 spells of level 9. How does the Sorcerer get more?

Okay, table I referenced did not correspond to the SRD. My apologies for getting that wrong. Discounting cantrips and the +Int mod for the 1st wizard, we get a total of 41 spells for the wizard and 34 for the sorcerer. Hm. Perhaps it would be good if the Sorcerer progressed that way. No matter what, though, the Sorcerer is a powerful class and remains my favorite class, aside from a few homebrew ones.

In the end, however, I don't really think the Sorcerer got shafted. It's a pure caster, and it's really hard to say that any of the like have ever been shafted. It's a fun class to play. It may not be as versatile, but I like it. I think it's just that Sorcerer and other spontaneous casters are for more casual gamers who've got their own thing they like to stick to, and wizards are more for people who like to optimize and/or want it all. Are there exceptions? The answer, as always, is yes. There are casual gamers who just like wizards, and optimizers who are willing to pull out all stops to enhance the awesomeness of the Sorcerer class.

So, I maintain that no one got shafted, it's just a matter of what kind of character you like to play.

[Psyren]

That would actually be pretty horrible.

I was actually referring just to rounding up for maximum spell level rather than rounding down. (i.e. 2nd-level spells at 3 instead of 4.) Not the other stuff like spells/day or spells learned.


I think he meant that Sorcerers should gain access to new Spell Levels at the same time as Wizards, not that they should learn the same amount of spells.

Yep, that.

Note also that Sorcerers don't even really hold the edge in spells/day, thanks to Focused Specialist Wizards.

[Pyromancer999]

I was actually referring just to rounding up for maximum spell level rather than rounding down. (i.e. 2nd-level spells at 3 instead of 4.) Not the other stuff like spells/day or spells learned.


Ah. That would be quite good indeed. Agreed.


Yep, that.

Note also that Sorcerers don't even really hold the edge in spells/day, thanks to Focused Specialist Wizards.
Don't specialists just get +1 slot for each spell level for their specialty each day? Still, true, 5 vs 6 is not that much of an edge.

[Waker]

Specialists get one extra spell from their chosen school, but Focused Specialists (introduced in Complete Mage) get two extra spells at the expense of banning another school.

[sonofzeal]

Ah. That would be quite good indeed. Agreed.

Don't specialists just get +1 slot for each spell level for their specialty each day? Still, true, 5 vs 6 is not that much of an edge.
Well, 5 vs 6 is not that much. Once you add in bonus spells from Int/Cha, it's often more like 7 vs 8, which is even narrower. And then Wizards have a whole new tier of spells, including all bonus spells, about half the time. At lvl 7, a Wizard might have four 3rd level and three 4th level, against the Sorcerer's five 3rd level. At any odd level, the Wizard dominates in higher level spell slots, and at even levels they're only slightly behind.

And then there's Focussed Specialist, which brings them right back to par at even levels and even further ahead on odd levels.

It's kind of sad, really...

[Psyren]

And having tons of Int is generally better than having tons of Cha. Except for PF Sorcerers, who at least get UMD.

[Pyromancer999]

And having tons of Int is generally better than having tons of Cha. Except for PF Sorcerers, who at least get UMD.

Or Dragonblood sorcerers. Sounds like except dragon-wise, sorcerers have not received much love from WoTC.

[only1doug]

Without the spellbook, the Wizard only learns 2 spells/level for a total of 40, whereas the Sorcerer gets more than that on its own. It's just that the wizard has infinite capacity to learn spells. It really depends on just how much downtime the players get(which most DMs grant as much as the wizard needs), and if the Wizard can carry all the spellbooks he can handle(or get someone else to do it).


Please don't ask me about the Gish I played from L12 to 18 who only ever gained access to one spell book (and that only really had the repair construct line of spells in it). That kinda sucked. (but not too bad as I mainly used casting to buff anyway).

[Blackknife]

The Rapid Metamagic feat fixes one problem, as for the slower spell progression, it is only one level behind, and sorcerers really do have a lot more staying power than wizards do, especially when one realizes one can use higher level spell slots on lower level spells. When you need a whole lot of one spell, sorcerer can't be beat.

[Jack_Simth]

The Rapid Metamagic feat fixes one problem,
A feat tax, which wizards don't suffer from...

as for the slower spell progression, it is only one level behind, and sorcerers really do have a lot more staying power than wizards do, especially when one realizes one can use higher level spell slots on lower level spells. When you need a whole lot of one spell, sorcerer can't be beat.
Not so much when the wizard uses some of those bonus feats for crafting things like wands of low-levels spells they need a lot of at once, scrolls for those spells that they use only rarely, and staffs for the spells that they use a lot of at once, but that benefit from a higher caster level and save DC.

[Pyromancer999]

A feat tax, which wizards don't suffer from...

Seconded, although not much metamagic is ever used and I personally don't like it.


Not so much when the wizard uses some of those bonus feats for crafting things like wands of low-levels spells they need a lot of at once, scrolls for those spells that they use only rarely, and staffs for the spells that they use a lot of at once, but that benefit from a higher caster level and save DC.

This is all true, although to be fair, the magic items do require XP. Still done though, and put to good use.

[eggs]

...sorcerers really do have a lot more staying power than wizards do, especially when one realizes one can use higher level spell slots on lower level spells. When you need a whole lot of one spell, sorcerer can't be beat.
Except by focused specialist wizards...

Or, in a way, by Wizards who use their built-in crafting to supplement lost slots or their extra feat slots to buy a reserve feat or two.

[Little Brother]

The Rapid Metamagic feat fixes one problemA feat tax? Yeah, on a class that doesn't have bonus feats, unlike, say, the wizard?

as for the slower spell progression, it is only one level behind, and sorcerers really do have a lot more staying power than wizards do, especially when one realizes one can use higher level spell slots on lower level spells. When you need a whole lot of one spell, sorcerer can't be beat.So wizards don't focus specialize? Don't scribe/craft scrolls/wands/etc to make up for low level spells(Which are only useful at high levels as utility which the sorcerer doesn't have room for at low levels)? And don't end encounters in one or two spells? :smallconfused:

[Pyromancer999]

A feat tax? Yeah, on a class that doesn't have bonus feats, unlike, say, the wizard?

Not entirely clear what you're trying to say here.


So wizards don't focus specialize?

They do. It's sort of been mentioned repeatedly in recent posts.


Don't scribe/craft scrolls/wands/etc to make up for low level spells(Which are only useful at high levels as utility which the sorcerer doesn't have room for at low levels)? And don't end encounters in one or two spells? :smallconfused:

They do, but they still cost XP to make. Meaning that a wizard that relies too much on self-crafted items could well be left behind.

Most DMs I know, myself included, don't let magic items permeate their campaigns too much. Still, I can see that most people are fans of those, so I'm just bringing up that they do have XP costs, although this becomes more negligible at higher levels, where more XP is available to spare.

[ryu]

Used properly the xp cost can leave you lower level for a higher cr encounter than before. This means more xp in that encounter based on cr rules. Do it really well and you actually have a net gain. What penalty now?

[Pyromancer999]

Used properly the xp cost can leave you lower level for a higher cr encounter than before. This means more xp in that encounter based on cr rules. Do it really well and you actually have a net gain. What penalty now?

Hmmm....true, although tricky.

[sonofzeal]

Used properly the xp cost can leave you lower level for a higher cr encounter than before. This means more xp in that encounter based on cr rules. Do it really well and you actually have a net gain. What penalty now?
This is what happened to me the only time I made a craft-heavy character. I ended up leapfrogging a full level ahead of the rest, it was kind of hilarious. The DM ended up having to houserule to compensate.

[nedz]

Except by focused specialist wizards...

Or, in a way, by Wizards who use their built-in crafting to supplement lost slots or their extra feat slots to buy a reserve feat or two.

Except that the money that Wizards have to spend on buying spells, and copying them into their spellbooks, the Sorceror can spend on Wands and Scrolls.

Its fairly marginal I'd admit, but it is a small mitigating factor. It doesn't do anything about the free feats Wizards apparently need.

[ryu]

You mean those scrolls or wands that the wizard can make easily at little to no penalty? Or really dedicated at a nice profit?

[Jack_Simth]

Hmmm....true, although tricky.
Even if you don't get it exactly... being constantly one level behind (which is as far as you'll get without getting VERY heavily into crafting), and the Wizard is still not behind the spell level access of the Sorcerer.

[Pyromancer999]

Even if you don't get it exactly... being constantly one level behind (which is as far as you'll get without getting VERY heavily into crafting), and the Wizard is still not behind the spell level access of the Sorcerer.

Okay. I personally don't mind being one level behind, but I can see your point.

[Blackknife]

A feat tax? Yeah, on a class that doesn't have bonus feats, unlike, say, the wizard?

Sorry for the essay, I guess I like to write. :)

It's one feat and it let's you basically double-bypass the one truly significant limiting factor of metamagic, the fact that you have to prepare them beforehand. Besides, for arcanists in general there aren't a whole lot of truly quality feats, especially if you are optimizing for a specific role. There are also metamagic rods that aren't subject to the whole full-round action bs. As for the wizard bonus feats, they get spell mastery, metamagic feats, or item creation feats to pick from.

Spell mastery is beyond worthless, item creation is merely worthless, and once you get to the higher-end of levels you can pick up metamagic rods which are a better option than metamagic feats. The only bonus feats that are worthwhile for a wizard to take are the reserve feats in the complete mage, and it isn't for the extra staying power, it is for the situational caster level increase. Before I get accused of QQing, I have absolutely no problem with this situation and have multiple specialized and potent builds on file that stick with those rules because I find it interesting. :)



So wizards don't focus specialize?

Depends on what the wizard is designed to do. Troubleshooter/problem-solver wizards should not specialize. When building for a specific role, wizards should specialize, and this cuts them off from two schools (and they can't choose the most worthless school in the game which is a kick in the groin.) to the point that they can't even use spell trigger or spell completion items of their forbidden schools. Specializing on a wizard is tricky business if you are going for maximum effectiveness. And the sorcerer still has a higher total spells per day.



Don't scribe/craft scrolls/wands/etc to make up for low level spells(Which are only useful at high levels as utility which the sorcerer doesn't have room for at low levels)? And don't end encounters in one or two spells? :smallconfused:

Unless one is working with a variant crafting system that doesn't cost xp, it is a bad idea. You strengthen yourself in the short-term to weaken yourself in the long-term. The xp hit just isn't worth it. Not all encounters end in one or two spells, and even for the ones that do, one typically (in my own experience anyway) goes a long time before they are able to rest, and as a sorcerer one can literally throw out the same spell 4-5 times as much as the wizard can.

If the wizard has perfect knowledge of a coming encounter then they can almost equal the amount of applicable spells a sorcerer can bring to bear. Almost. The nice thing about sorcerers is that their flexibility within their given role is huge, making them incredible at whatever it is they have decided to do. The nice thing about wizards is that they can contribute, but not necessarily shine in, multiple potential situations. I personally have never seen these two classes as anything other than two sides of the same idea.

[Psyren]

Depends on what the wizard is designed to do. Troubleshooter/problem-solver wizards should not specialize. When building for a specific role, wizards should specialize, and this cuts them off from two schools (and they can't choose the most worthless school in the game which is a kick in the groin.) to the point that they can't even use spell trigger or spell completion items of their forbidden schools. Specializing on a wizard is tricky business if you are going for maximum effectiveness. And the sorcerer still has a higher total spells per day.

There's a few misconceptions here that I'll try to address.

1) I assume that by "most worthless school" you mean Divination. Most folks who say that are coming into D&D from Neverwinter Nights/Baldur's Gate etc. where the school was truly useless, but in tabletop it's far more valuable unless your DM is out to cheat you. No, the most useless school in practice is actually Evocation, because everything it can do can be done better by other schools (generally Conjuration and Illusion.) Enchantment is similarly weak because all the spells tend to target one save - a save that again is targeted by Illusion. Focused Specialists must drop a third school, which can indeed hurt a bit, but if you have a cleric in the party then you're pretty safe dropping either Necromancy or Abjuration as they can typically bring the essentials from these to the table in your stead.

2) Wizards can absolutely troubleshoot/problem solve even with three banned schools. Conjuration and Transmutation can solve every problem in the game between them (one school giving you monsters and one school making you into monsters) because the monsters themselves are designed to be able to solve any problem in the game, so as long as you keep these two around you are set for high levels. And Illusion ensures you live long enough to get there, plus being able to pull double duty for both Evocation and Enchantment at higher levels.

3) If you really, really need a specific spell from one of your banned schools, then typically you can eke it out from the right summon, or failing that a Limited Wish. The summon has the added benefit of giving you more actions too.

4) As discussed above, specialists are not far behind sorcerers, and focused specialists actually surpass them in spells/day (at odd levels) because they also get the spells and bonus spells of the next level up to play with.

A great article for you to read on the subject is "Focused Specilaist is Better Than You Think" (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think) by Treantmonk.

[Little Brother]

Not entirely clear what you're trying to say here.So, you are suggesting that Sorcerers need to spend a feat. This is called a feat tax. Feat taxes are normally mitigated by bonus feats. Now, guess what the sorcerer doesn't have, but the wizard does? Oh, yeah, everything, including *drumroll* bonus feats.

They do. It's sort of been mentioned repeatedly in recent posts.Which totally does away with the idea of sorcerers being able to out-stay or whatever, a wizard.

They do, but they still cost XP to make. Meaning that a wizard that relies too much on self-crafted items could well be left behind. XP is a river. I, personally, once built an artificer. It was high-level, and I think I was somewhere near 3 levels down due to crafting stuff. Within three-ish sessions, I was same-level.

Most DMs I know, myself included, don't let magic items permeate their campaigns too much. Still, I can see that most people are fans of those, so I'm just bringing up that they do have XP costs, although this becomes more negligible at higher levels, where more XP is available to spare.Really? My policy is limit magic-mart in-game(And NO stupid used wands), but during creation, just run potentially stupid things like me. I like magic items.

This is what happened to me the only time I made a craft-heavy character. I ended up leapfrogging a full level ahead of the rest, it was kind of hilarious. The DM ended up having to houserule to compensate.Sounds awesome. Do tell.

It's one feat and it let's you basically double-bypass the one truly significant limiting factor of metamagic, the fact that you have to prepare them beforehand. Besides, for arcanists in general there aren't a whole lot of truly quality feats, especially if you are optimizing for a specific role. There are also metamagic rods that aren't subject to the whole full-round action bs. As for the wizard bonus feats, they get spell mastery, metamagic feats, or item creation feats to pick from. So? Preparation is not that hard. Gather information, scrying, reading the DM(That's the fun bit), and not prepping every single slot means you're always ready. Spontaneousness is not that great. The on-the-fly metamagics? Not that great, either. And, yeah, the wizard's bonus feats mean that they don't notice any feat tax anywhere near as bad.

Spell mastery is beyond worthless, item creation is merely worthless, and once you get to the higher-end of levels you can pick up metamagic rods which are a better option than metamagic feats. The only bonus feats that are worthwhile for a wizard to take are the reserve feats in the complete mage, and it isn't for the extra staying power, it is for the situational caster level increase. Before I get accused of QQing, I have absolutely no problem with this situation and have multiple specialized and potent builds on file that stick with those rules because I find it interesting. :)Wut?

Okay, let's go one at a time. Spell mastery: You've obviously never heard of Uncanny Forethought. Crafting is FAR from useless, especially with price-reducers, and the fact that you aren't dependent on the MagicMart, and its cheaper. Metamagic rods are mediocre at best. They're expensive, and any good build (ab)using metamagics shouldn't care anyways. Look up the Mailman.

And reserve feats are pretty...uh...not that great...

Depends on what the wizard is designed to do. Troubleshooter/problem-solver wizards should not specialize. When building for a specific role, wizards should specialize, and this cuts them off from two schools (and they can't choose the most worthless school in the game which is a kick in the groin.) to the point that they can't even use spell trigger or spell completion items of their forbidden schools. Specializing on a wizard is tricky business if you are going for maximum effectiveness. And the sorcerer still has a higher total spells per day.Okay, let's go one by one here, too. The illusion school has everything Evocation has. Conjuration and Transmutation are the best schools in the game. Basically, for a normal wizard, you ban Evocation, Necromancy, and either Abjuration or Enchantment.
Divination is the most powerful school outside of Trans and Conj, and gives them good run. Knowledge equals power, and when you can play a couple games of 20 questions with the universe each morning? Yeah, no. Plus, you can convert any slot, even a specialist slot, to a divination slot with the right ACF.
Focus specialist means you give up 3 schools to laugh in the sorcerer's face, then mix its sweet, delicious tears into said wizard's delicious More spells/earlier access/spontaneity latte as a sweetener, while listening to the "Anything you can do" song.
Specializing a wizard is easy. The only reason NOT to do it is if you're running a pansy elf.

Unless one is working with a variant crafting system that doesn't cost xp, it is a bad idea. You strengthen yourself in the short-term to weaken yourself in the long-term. The xp hit just isn't worth it. Not all encounters end in one or two spells, and even for the ones that do, one typically (in my own experience anyway) goes a long time before they are able to rest, and as a sorcerer one can literally throw out the same spell 4-5 times as much as the wizard can. XP is a river. A huge, fast-flowing river that carriers Wizards down it at terrifying speeds(For mere mortals, anyways).

If the wizard has perfect knowledge of a coming encounter then they can almost equal the amount of applicable spells a sorcerer can bring to bear. Almost. The nice thing about sorcerers is that their flexibility within their given role is huge, making them incredible at whatever it is they have decided to do. The nice thing about wizards is that they can contribute, but not necessarily shine in, multiple potential situations. I personally have never seen these two classes as anything other than two sides of the same idea.You're joking, right?

Sorcerers only have one role. Ever. That roll is to nuke things(Well, excluding Sorcadins, anyways). There is no room, as they are absolutely and totally outclassed everywhere else. They cannot take utility spells, for the most part. Their lists all look pretty much the same with reason.

Wizards have every single spell. Wizards can know what is coming, leave things unprepped(And be ready fifteen minutes before hand), cast things unprepped, and otherwise make the sorcerer cry. Because the only thing more delicious than innocent virgin's blood(Chilled) is sorcerer tears. Or a mix of the two(Shaken, not stirred).

I know you're knew here, so let me tell you rule one in ChaOp: Wizards win.

EDIT:Swordsaged by a Psion//Cleric? How did I manage that?

[Blackknife]

1) I assume that by "most worthless school" you mean Divination. Most folks who say that are coming into D&D from Neverwinter Nights/Baldur's Gate etc. where the school was truly useless, but in tabletop it's far more valuable unless your DM is out to cheat you.


Divination is useful for the occasional mystery-solving at low levels and determining how to prep spells at higher levels, but beyond that it serves no purpose but flavor.



No, the most useless school in practice is actually Evocation, because everything it can do can be done better by other schools (generally Conjuration and Illusion.)

All of conjuration's damage spells deal less damage per spell level than evocation, and illusion's spells have their own set of problems. They are less likely to work than straight evocation spells, and are vulnerable to more shut-down methods than standard evocation spells.



Enchantment is similarly weak because all the spells tend to target one save - a save that again is targeted by Illusion. Focused Specialists must drop a third school, which can indeed hurt a bit, but if you have a cleric in the party then you're pretty safe dropping either Necromancy or Abjuration as they can typically bring the essentials from these to the table in your stead.

Enchantment's effects are more direct and potent than illusions, and enchantment can be tweaked to effect undead and constructs, whereas using illusions effectively against those types is much trickier.



2) Wizards can absolutely troubleshoot/problem solve even with three banned schools. Conjuration and Transmutation can solve every problem in the game between them (one school giving you monsters and one school making you into monsters) because the monsters themselves are designed to be able to solve any problem in the game, so as long as you keep these two around you are set for high levels.

There isn't a combination of any three schools that can solve every conceivable encounter a party could face, let alone a combination of any two. The list of summon monsters available via summon monster is intentionally narrow, and transmutation only gets truly versatile at incredibly high levels, which you won't live to if you don't have solid fighting ability.



And Illusion ensures you live long enough to get there, plus being able to pull double duty for both Evocation and Enchantment at higher levels.

Illusion cannot pull double-duty for both of those schools, and without the ability to kill something, all illusion will do is ensure your escape.



3) If you really, really need a specific spell from one of your banned schools, then typically you can eke it out from the right summon, or failing that a Limited Wish. The summon has the added benefit of giving you more actions too.

Limited wish is what the generalist who fails at his task resorts to. If you are faced with a variety of situations in rapid succession, limited wish is a bad, bad idea. As for the monsters, maybe at the highest levels when your variety of summon monsters increases, you can accomplish troubleshooting/problem-solving on the generalist, but not before, and if you need that versatility before then, and you don't have it, you are checkmated.



4) As discussed above, specialists are not far behind sorcerers, and focused specialists actually surpass them in spells/day (at odd levels) because they also get the spells and bonus spells of the next level up to play with.

Focused specialists still don't have the versatility within the role that sorcerers do. They cannot just dump slot after slot into the same spell on the fly when they need to excel in a specific situation. And that third school loss does hurt. Say you are a conjurer, and you drop evocation, enchantment, and necromancy. You have shaky and unreliable cc and damage with illusion, you have limited damage and other application spells in the form of transmutation, you can see things other people can't with divination (yay) So you have the defenses of abjuration, (which are always strong and amazing) the lackluster damage of conjuration, and the summoned creatures.

While the summoned creatures have a nice variety of abilities, they are rarely strong enough stat-wise to have a real impact at an appropriate cr level for the party. For example, a 17th level wizard can cast summon monster IX, an call...a Hezrou demon, a cr 12 monster. By spending a full round action. A better option would be Gate, but that carries its own risks.



A great article for you to read on the subject is "Focused Specilaist is Better Than You Think" (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think) by Treantmonk.

I've read that article in the past, and all it did was convince me that it's writer relied to much on skewed anecdotal experience and did not actually look at hard numbers and ability effects.

[Little Brother]

Divination is useful for the occasional mystery-solving at low levels and determining how to prep spells at higher levels, but beyond that it serves no purpose but flavor.How to prep is plenty important. It lets you find things without DM help, for another. It has huge uses. Look up Contact Other Plane.

All of conjuration's damage spells deal less damage per spell level than evocation, and illusion's spells have their own set of problems. They are less likely to work than straight evocation spells, and are vulnerable to more shut-down methods than standard evocation spells.Uh, Orb series? Also, Shadow Evocation

Enchantment's effects are more direct and potent than illusions, and enchantment can be tweaked to effect undead and constructs, whereas using illusions effectively against those types is much trickier.No, not really. A mix of illusion and conjuration can totally cover those(Though I really do like Ench.

There isn't a combination of any three schools that can solve every conceivable encounter a party could face, let alone a combination of any two. The list of summon monsters available via summon monster is intentionally narrow, and transmutation only gets truly versatile at incredibly high levels, which you won't live to if you don't have solid fighting ability.What? Polymorph isn't stupidly versatile? Buffs aren't? There aren't other easy ways to shut down whole encounters with a single slot?

Illusion cannot pull double-duty for both of those schools, and without the ability to kill something, all illusion will do is ensure your escape.Uh, bro? Orbs and Shadow Evocation.

Limited wish is what the generalist who fails at his task resorts to. If you are faced with a variety of situations in rapid succession, limited wish is a bad, bad idea. As for the monsters, maybe at the highest levels when your variety of summon monsters increases, you can accomplish troubleshooting/problem-solving on the generalist, but not before, and if you need that versatility before then, and you don't have it, you are checkmated.Uh, 300 XP? No, this is why WotC gave us Exemplars of Evil.

Focused specialists still don't have the versatility within the role that sorcerers do. They cannot just dump slot after slot into the same spell on the fly when they need to excel in a specific situation. And that third school loss does hurt. Say you are a conjurer, and you drop evocation, enchantment, and necromancy. You have shaky and unreliable cc and damage with illusion, you have limited damage and other application spells in the form of transmutation, you can see things other people can't with divination (yay) So you have the defenses of abjuration, (which are always strong and amazing) the lackluster damage of conjuration, and the summoned creatures. No. Sorcerers have no versatility. Shaky and unreliable? Illusion? Then what else? Are you going to say Black Tentacles sucks? You have everything you really need with Conjuration, Illusion, and Transmutation. Now you get to choose between Enchant and Abjuration. Dumping slots is both A) Dumb, and B) A wizard can do it too, with Uncanny Forethought.

While the summoned creatures have a nice variety of abilities, they are rarely strong enough stat-wise to have a real impact at an appropriate cr level for the party. For example, a 17th level wizard can cast summon monster IX, an call...a Hezrou demon, a cr 12 monster. By spending a full round action. A better option would be Gate, but that carries its own risks.Summon Monster 9 is better used for the summon 8 and 7 list. But you can still throw around 9th-level sorcerers. But what do you mean "Risk" and "Gate?" Gate is like, the ultimate risk-free power spell.

I've read that article in the past, and all it did was convince me that it's writer relied to much on skewed anecdotal experience and did not actually look at hard numbers and ability effects.And hard numbers. It had plenty of hard numbers. What part of it was too soft?

The only time a generalist should be played(From a power perspective, not a fluff one), is an elf.

[Blackknife]

So, you are suggesting that Sorcerers need to spend a feat. This is called a feat tax. Feat taxes are normally mitigated by bonus feats. Now, guess what the sorcerer doesn't have, but the wizard does? Oh, yeah, everything, including *drumroll* bonus feats.

Insignificant bonus feats. Everything you can get with those bonus feats is either useless or you can find better elsewhere, until you get to the reserve feats. By then, both classes can have everything they need for an optimal build. In fact, there is one feat that shines that the sorcerer gets that the wizard doesn't, the draconic heritage feat, which opens the way for draconic power.



Which totally does away with the idea of sorcerers being able to out-stay or whatever, a wizard.

No it doesn't. The wizard still cannot dump slot after slot into the same spell, which is often what you need in a fight-or-die situation.



XP is a river. I, personally, once built an artificer. It was high-level, and I think I was somewhere near 3 levels down due to crafting stuff. Within three-ish sessions, I was same-level.

That is due to either variant rules when crafting gear, poor handling of the standard rules, or poor adventure structure that causes the player to not have to pay any cost when crafting items. While your saying sounds wise, xp and gold are the two elements that the DM uses to regulate the power of the players. Somehow you managed to get more bang for your buck than you should have.



Really? My policy is limit magic-mart in-game(And NO stupid used wands), but during creation, just run potentially stupid things like me. I like magic items.

I like magic items too, but unless you want your game balance to spiral out of control that is the element you need to maintain the tightest of tight leashes on. Crafting as it stands now isn't worth it in a balanced and leveled game, because you fall behind. The same reason why even an 8 ECL base race isn't worth it in the long run, because you fall so far behind and what you get now isn't enough to make up for it later. I personally believe that crafting needs to be fixed, but it sounds like there are some DMs that let it go the other way which is just as bad.



So? Preparation is not that hard.

That sir, is entirely situation-dependent.



Gather information, scrying, reading the DM(That's the fun bit), and not prepping every single slot means you're always ready.

Gather information is a cross-class skill and its ability score is the wizard dump stat. Not to mention it can take so long that by the time you figure out what to do the opportunity for effectiveness has passed you by. Not prepping every single spell slot means you are not fully ready. This is the prime opportunity to shut a wizard down.

Re-prepping a few spell slots takes the same amount of time as preparing a couple unprepared spell slots, and leaves you in a position to be more effective when it matters. Scrying a spell that once used, is gone for the day. Less spells for other stuff. You're seriously under-valuing the preparation aspect of the wizard class.



Spontaneousness is not that great. The on-the-fly metamagics? Not that great, either. And, yeah, the wizard's bonus feats mean that they don't notice any feat tax anywhere near as bad.

Those bonus feats are so useless they basically don't exist, because the bonus feat list for wizards is laughable. Spontaneous casting ensures you are ready for any threat within your given role. There is an element of surety there that the wizard lacks. On-the-fly metamagic is so useful that I buy metamagic rods on wizards and take the sudden metamagic feats on them. The on-demand extra effectiveness and level-requirement dodging is just too good.



Wut?

Okay, let's go one at a time. Spell mastery: You've obviously never heard of Uncanny Forethought. Crafting is FAR from useless, especially with price-reducers, and the fact that you aren't dependent on the MagicMart, and its cheaper. Metamagic rods are mediocre at best. They're expensive, and any good build (ab)using metamagics shouldn't care anyways. Look up the Mailman.

I am familiar with the mailman build, the guaranteed damage delivery. I laugh at it. I have builds on file right now that are literally capable of killing a red dragon great wyrm, at level 16, with fire damage, in one shot. It's a sorcerer build. I have a reliable, playable, realistic non-cheese build that can crit for 2000+ damage before level 20. Mailman does not impress me. I am indeed unfamiliar with uncanny forethought. Crafting, until it loses the same problem that ECLs have, is indeed worthless.

So I just looked up uncanny forethought. Spell mastery is so bad that having it as a pre-req for the feat makes me skittish. After reading uncanny forethought, I have decided that it has the same problems spell mastery suffers from, just to a lesser degree. Too limited to waste a feat on. I will say that the spontaneous casting is attractive, but they would have to be spells that I would use in almost every situation, and that full-round cast time plus 2 cl reduction hurts in ways I cannot talk about on this forum. :)



And reserve feats are pretty...uh...not that great...

For the most part you're right. Those reserve effects are pretty terrible. But that caster level increase makes all the difference. As a caster, everything you are is measured by your caster level. That determines ranges, durations, damage values, everything. The more of it you have, the better.



Okay, let's go one by one here, too. The illusion school has everything Evocation has.

It pretends to. Shadow evocation is not a viable substitute. I cannot disbelieve evocation's spells into doing less damage. I cannot shut down a standard cone of cold with true seeing. Then there are all of the other ways a typical evocation spell can be stopped that they are still subject to.



Conjuration and Transmutation are the best schools in the game. Basically, for a normal wizard, you ban Evocation, Necromancy, and either Abjuration or Enchantment.

If you have played a high-level magic user, either arcane or divine, you know that they are the real threat at higher levels, and the ultimate weapon against magic is Mordenkainen's Disjunction, which is an abjuration spell. necromancy and enchantment have one save or die spell each at 7th level, finger of death for fort save, final rebuke for will save. Having both in your back pocket pretty much gaurantees that anything you fight dies. Evocation has the highest damage output in the game, straight-up. Why would someone not go for that?



Divination is the most powerful school outside of Trans and Conj, and gives them good run. Knowledge equals power, and when you can play a couple games of 20 questions with the universe each morning? Yeah, no. Plus, you can convert any slot, even a specialist slot, to a divination slot with the right ACF.

Seriously considering running a test between a diviner character and a evo/abj build wizard and seeing if things actually get beyond the first round.



Focus specialist means you give up 3 schools to laugh in the sorcerer's face, then mix its sweet, delicious tears into said wizard's delicious More spells/earlier access/spontaneity latte as a sweetener, while listening to the "Anything you can do" song.
Specializing a wizard is easy. The only reason NOT to do it is if you're running a pansy elf.
XP is a river. A huge, fast-flowing river that carriers Wizards down it at terrifying speeds(For mere mortals, anyways).

:) Have you ever seen Codemonkeys, appeared on G4 a while back? There was this character named Todd, and when he started talking really really crazy, there was this crazy meter that slowly filled until it burst. This part of your post here just kind of reminded me of that.



You're joking, right?

Sorcerers only have one role. Ever. That roll is to nuke things(Well, excluding Sorcadins, anyways). There is no room, as they are absolutely and totally outclassed everywhere else. They cannot take utility spells, for the most part. Their lists all look pretty much the same with reason.

Sorcerers, and wizards, have which ever role they build for. Sorcerers can be excellent battlefield shapers, controller-hinderes, or support boosters. Once tested a sorcerer in a four-person party in a variety of encounters that drew nearly exclusively from transmutation and abjuration schools. It was pretty awesome.



Wizards have every single spell.

If they are willing to spend trillions and trillions of gold on the books and inks required for that, and the years (1 day per spell level) it would take to scribe them all into their spellbooks, then yes, they have every spell. Sorcerers will always, invariably, have access to their spells as they aren't dependent upon a set of books. No one can take their power away from them.



Wizards can know what is coming,

Unless something misleads his divinations, which is pathetically easy to accomplish, and that is also if he casts them before the information becomes irrelevant.



leave things unprepped(And be ready fifteen minutes before hand), cast things unprepped, and otherwise make the sorcerer cry. Because the only thing more delicious than innocent virgin's blood(Chilled) is sorcerer tears. Or a mix of the two(Shaken, not stirred).

If this is a taste of sorcerer tears then I happen to think they taste pretty foul. You're throwing around a lot of things wizards can seemingly do, like they matter. Wizards can only cast things unprepared if they take a couple of useless feats. See, the wizard that counts on knowing what is coming 15 minutes before hand is easily a dead wizard. It doesn't take much to screw with divinations.

The earliest semi-reliable one they get is Contact Other Plane, which all it takes is one bad roll to leave you without your spells for a week. When you are expecting a threat soon, the last thing you want is to be useless for a week. When you can finally start reliably predicting the future is with foresight. Don't think I am willing to wait that long to make it my mainstay for spellcasting.



I know you're knew here, so let me tell you rule one in ChaOp: Wizards win.

EDIT:Swordsaged by a Psion//Cleric? How did I manage that?

I may be new to these forums, but I am an old hand when it comes to D&D, and the math is on my side on this one. I have been here long enough to know that it is smart players and DMs that win, not specific classes.

[Little Brother]

No. Wizards are just as spontaneous. They can do EVERYTHING a sorcerer can do, but better. I fail to see where you're getting this idea that a sorcerer beat them.

Orbs are the best damage spells. They are conjuration.

The basic ECL rules prove XP is a river.

Preparation is easy. Period. No situation involved. It is simply easy, given that they can, you know, cast every single Wiz/Sorc spell spontaneously, and have, you know, divination.

ACFs mean spellbooks don't matter.

Also, you're claiming to have a lot of math proving sorcerer's superiority. Let's see it. Furthermore, your anecdote complaint applies to your argument more than the Specialist article, which is backed up with fact perfectly.

[Blackknife]

How to prep is plenty important. It lets you find things without DM help, for another. It has huge uses. Look up Contact Other Plane.

I'm not saying divination doesn't have its uses. Contact Other Plane is something I used recently in fact. I just think it's far less useful than a fireball when a white dragon is in your face. And even less useful than the many abjurations out there when dealing with an angry anything.



Uh, Orb series? Also, Shadow Evocation

The Orb spells are low damage for their level, and they scale poorly as one gets to higher levels. I can do much more damage by using specialized spells and forcing energy-type weaknesses onto targets and granting energy types to spells with snowcasting and energy substitution. I can take it a step farther with the Archmage prestige class. Ever shot a red dragon with a cold damage disintigrate after magicing down its fort save to nothing? I have. :) Waaay more damage than those orbs, and way more damage than the mailman build. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the mailman build use at least one of those orbs?



No, not really. A mix of illusion and conjuration can totally cover those(Though I really do like Ench.

Illusion can't make that Iron Golem my best friend in the whole world. With Illusion, you need to make sure you are confounding the directions the golem is under, otherwise it is no good. Without knowing those directions, which you typically won't, then you are shooting in the dark on illusion and may not hit your mark. With enchantment and low construct will saves, all I have to do is cast say, charm monster, or hold monster, or something like that, and there is a much higher chance of neutralizing the threat.Conjuration gets left in the dust on damage by evocation.

The orb spells are nice for not reducing damage on save and not allowing spell resistance, but keeping caster level high, and picking up arcane mastery (which shuts down a whole bunch of other problem tactics and opens up a whole bunch more for you to use) deal with spell resistance almost as well, and lower level spells with either metamagic or equivalent level evo spells from other sources can do more damage in an area at a greater range.



What? Polymorph isn't stupidly versatile? Buffs aren't? There aren't other easy ways to shut down whole encounters with a single slot?

I never said polymorph wasn't versatile. But it won't break that wall of force that is in your way. It won't enlarge your melee line all at once and give them +enhancement bonus beyond what they would have normally at that level. It won't freeze an enemy in it's tracks on demand. There is no spell, or even a school, in the game, that is a fix-all to every problem in a campaign or even an adventure. I never said buffs weren't versatile. In fact I have a whole build designed around magically enhancing a group's overall effectiveness.



Uh, 300 XP? No, this is why WotC gave us Exemplars of Evil.

No idea what Exemplars of Evil is, but that is 300 xp you don't have toward a level. It will put you behind. Not by much for just one use, but if your group is ever on the line of a level, you will fall behind, and that is for just one use. Use it five, ten, twenty times in a campaign? An adventure? that adds up.



No. Sorcerers have no versatility.

Oh really? See that blaster sorcerer over there? He has spells of all energy types, can target all saving throws and the touch ac, has spells that target specific types of monsters, like that necro spell in the spell compendium for killing plants, and ray of deanimation for pesky constructs. He is so versatile that there is no threat he cannot explode into a small pile of dust. And they can hit the softest target of a monster over and over again.

Being able to hit all available targets, and having the power to slam one target repeatedly at the same time is huge. This is a concept known as versatility within a role. The same applies to magical support. Size buffs, speed buffs, damage buffs, save buffs, hp buffs, ac buffs, the list goes on. A dedicated sorcerer still has strong versatility within their given role. I should know, I have used sorcerers like that.



Shaky and unreliable? Illusion? Then what else?

I will say this; In concept, I agree with the idea of a mailman build, a guaranteed damage delivery system. Illusion has more chance of not delivering its damage than evocation does, so i don't like it. For dealing damage. I love it for shaping the battlefield. Having a triple-concealed illusory terrain spell that has a contingent on it to cast a second one that appears closer to the real terrain while your party has true seeing active is all kinds of useful. This does not mean illusion is the be all end all all you need is this and conjuration school.



Are you going to say Black Tentacles sucks?

Yes, it does suck...for dealing damage, when compared to evocation. It is great for controlling enemy movements and locking them up. In fact there is a build I have that uses a higher level version of those tentacles that is extra negative energy damage, and I combo that with whatever massive AoE I am in the mood for.

Some of my favorite builds are builds that mix two archetypes. I think conjuration is an awesome school. I just don't think it is as good at evocation as dealing damage. To take all of this a step further, I don't think it is a good idea to try and shoehorn schools of magic into roles that they weren't designed for.



You have everything you really need with Conjuration, Illusion, and Transmutation.

Unless you need really high damage for sure on demand, or you really need to take the bite out of that nasty wizard. Evo and Abj are your go-to schools for those situations.



Now you get to choose between Enchant and Abjuration.

Between Mass Hold Monster and Disjunction I kind of like them both. For different roles.



Dumping slots is both A) Dumb, and B) A wizard can do it too, with Uncanny Forethought.

When you're a 14th level sorcerer and a pack of nasty constructs is coming at you, spending the next few rounds casting two rays of deanimation per turn via quickened spells is not dumb. The three problems I have with trying that with uncanny forethought, is that a build has to suffer from one super-useless feat to pick it up, then the wizard has to be aware that this is coming and leave the feats open (he would also have had to take ray of deanimation when he picked spell mastery up, which would indeed be a stroke of luck) and if he knows that is coming, why not just prep multiple rays anyway?

I suppose if one is willing to spend a full round action at -2 cl to cast the spell you could do it even if it wasn't your spell mastery spell, but that is such a massive reduction in damage I can't see why one would do that.



Summon Monster 9 is better used for the summon 8 and 7 list. But you can still throw around 9th-level sorcerers.

At the levels at which you could actually cast them, the summoned creatures would get steamrolled by equivalent level threats.



But what do you mean "Risk" and "Gate?" Gate is like, the ultimate risk-free power spell.

There are ways for powerful entities to retain their free will even with a gate summon. Granted the risk isn't as bad as wish, but it is there. If anything breaks your control, that creature may not take kindly to being summoned. There is also a costly 1000 xp component for calling creatures. Plus, that turn spent summoning a potent creature to fight for you is a turn that could have been spent atomizing something.



And hard numbers. It had plenty of hard numbers. What part of it was too soft?

The opening part of the article where he says in his own experiences, that the non-specialists weren't that great. If you want I can send you a detailed PM that covers why he is incorrect about a few things.



The only time a generalist should be played(From a power perspective, not a fluff one), is an elf.

You have been advocating for a generalist character this whole time. You have just been saying that conjuration, illusion, and something else can fulfill that role. Btw, why elf? Humans are superior in almost every role because of the extra feat, skill points, and ease of multi-classing.

[demigodus]

No. Wizards are just as spontaneous. They can do EVERYTHING a sorcerer can do, but better. I fail to see where you're getting this idea that a sorcerer beat them.

Orbs are the best damage spells. They are conjuration.

The basic ECL rules prove XP is a river.

Preparation is easy. Period. No situation involved. It is simply easy, given that they can, you know, cast every single Wiz/Sorc spell spontaneously, and have, you know, divination.

ACFs mean spellbooks don't matter.

Getting a wizard to be as spontaneous as a sorceror takes a lot of optimization.

Using ACFs to void a spellbook is something most played playing wizards don't do.

Preparation isn't easy if you don't know what situation to prepare for. Unless you can cast spontaneously, or are pretty skilled at using divinations. Most people don't fall into either category when playing wizards.

[Little Brother]

@Blackknife: That'd be nice. I can't quite figure out where you're coming from, so the PM would help.

Demi: People don't know how to use basic divinations? It seems like the obvious thing to figure out and use.

And Uncanny Forethought is pro.

[Blackknife]

No. Wizards are just as spontaneous. They can do EVERYTHING a sorcerer can do, but better. I fail to see where you're getting this idea that a sorcerer beat them.

Orbs are the best damage spells. They are conjuration.

The basic ECL rules prove XP is a river.

Preparation is easy. Period. No situation involved. It is simply easy, given that they can, you know, cast every single Wiz/Sorc spell spontaneously, and have, you know, divination.

ACFs mean spellbooks don't matter.

Also, you're claiming to have a lot of math proving sorcerer's superiority. Let's see it. Furthermore, your anecdote complaint applies to your argument more than the Specialist article, which is backed up with fact perfectly.

Okay then. Let's do this. Five categories, Blaster, Support, Sabetour(screws with the battlefield) Controller (Debuff/cc) and generalist. You provide a wizard build for each, I provide a sorcerer build for each. Builds will consist of magic items, feats, and spells.

Total xp count will be limited to what is required to reach 20, and total character wealth will be limited to the actual level we end up having our characters at. Rules will be all defaults, and all supplements, including third-party material, is allowed. Then once the builds are up, the rest of the posters in this thread decide on three combat situations, and we run each build through them to see what we get.

[demigodus]

Demi: People don't know how to use basic divinations? It seems like the obvious thing to figure out and use.

And Uncanny Forethought is pro.

In the games I have played? No, I haven't seen our casters use divinations to figure out ahead of time what challenges we will be facing.

[Blackknife]

@Blackknife: That'd be nice. I can't quite figure out where you're coming from, so the PM would help.

Demi: People don't know how to use basic divinations? It seems like the obvious thing to figure out and use.

And Uncanny Forethought is pro.

I will send that pm out soon, I will be using the same format as a quoted post so it will take me a bit but I have time. Yay for being out of college! :) I have never had a problem with using divinations, but it really sucks when you're all set to use divinations and you get ambushed while you are using them, just because you didn't use them beforehand. The problem with diviniations, is that you never know when it is safe to use them, which is why I prefer to be ready for as many encounters as I can.

As for Uncanny foresight, all of my builds would suffer pretty hard in effectiveness for taking it. I just don't think it is worth a caster level or the ability to change energy types, or an extra metamagic feat to be able to cast 4-8 spells on the fly by not preparing spell slots. Anyway, PM time, back in a while.

[Little Brother]

Okay then. Let's do this. Five categories, Blaster, Support, Sabetour(screws with the battlefield) Controller (Debuff/cc) and generalist. You provide a wizard build for each, I provide a sorcerer build for each. Builds will consist of magic items, feats, and spells.

Total xp count will be limited to what is required to reach 20, and total character wealth will be limited to the actual level we end up having our characters at. Rules will be all defaults, and all supplements, including third-party material, is allowed. Then once the builds are up, the rest of the posters in this thread decide on three combat situations, and we run each build through them to see what we get.Are we allowed prebuffs? How many rounds? Are we assumed to have 16 hour+(All day) buffs up?

Cuz I have my builds ready right now, if you need them(Except for skills, because who cares?)

[Mithril Leaf]

I am familiar with the mailman build, the guaranteed damage delivery. I laugh at it. I have builds on file right now that are literally capable of killing a red dragon great wyrm, at level 16, with fire damage, in one shot. It's a sorcerer build. I have a reliable, playable, realistic non-cheese build that can crit for 2000+ damage before level 20. Mailman does not impress me. I am indeed unfamiliar with uncanny forethought. Crafting, until it loses the same problem that ECLs have, is indeed worthless.


I feel obliged to point out that as a level 5 psion I can regularly do 5 attacks per round which each deal 400 constitution damage at the cost of 6 PP. This in no way proves that such a build is superior to a wizard. Wizards get nearly everything they want. Specific tricks that are based on a certain class do not raise the class to a higher position overall.

[TuggyNE]

Illusion can't make that Iron Golem my best friend in the whole world. With Illusion, you need to make sure you are confounding the directions the golem is under, otherwise it is no good. Without knowing those directions, which you typically won't, then you are shooting in the dark on illusion and may not hit your mark. With enchantment and low construct will saves, all I have to do is cast say, charm monster, or hold monster, or something like that, and there is a much higher chance of neutralizing the threat.

You may or may not have known, but constructs are triply-immune to hold monster — mind-affecting, living targets only, paralysis. This is one of the typical reasons enchantment is so terrible. (Charm monster also only targets living creatures; surprisingly, dominate monster doesn't, so if you can get past construct immunity to mind-affecting, you're home free! At 17th level. Congrats.)


Oh really? See that blaster sorcerer over there? He has spells of all energy types, can target all saving throws and the touch ac, has spells that target specific types of monsters, like that necro spell in the spell compendium for killing plants, and ray of deanimation for pesky constructs. He is so versatile that there is no threat he cannot explode into a small pile of dust. And they can hit the softest target of a monster over and over again.

Being able to hit all available targets, and having the power to slam one target repeatedly at the same time is huge. This is a concept known as versatility within a role. The same applies to magical support. Size buffs, speed buffs, damage buffs, save buffs, hp buffs, ac buffs, the list goes on. A dedicated sorcerer still has strong versatility within their given role. I should know, I have used sorcerers like that.

While I can't and won't speak for Little Brother, the classic difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is massive versatility, not just in how to deal damage, but in doing all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with damage. Claiming top-of-the-line versatility, when all you have is lots of ways to kill things, is disingenuous.


There are ways for powerful entities to retain their free will even with a gate summon.

Now this, I am genuinely interested in, because I am not aware of any such methods.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I wouldn't mind if Sorcerer had Wizard spell progression... but honestly, they're both sitting in their extraplanar limousine knocking back cosmos while the Monk is taking the bus, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

It's even worse: Poor Monk has to walk. Why do you think they gave him so many on-foot movement abilities?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Blackknife]

I feel obliged to point out that as a level 5 psion I can regularly do 5 attacks per round which each deal 400 constitution damage at the cost of 6 PP. This in no way proves that such a build is superior to a wizard. Wizards get nearly everything they want. Specific tricks that are based on a certain class do not raise the class to a higher position overall.

I won't argue that. I was just making the point that the mailman build is comparatively low-powered compared to my standard builds. To properly represent one of my builds, I would have to provide the details, and I have been posting quite a lot for my first day.


You may or may not have known, but constructs are triply-immune to hold monster — mind-affecting, living targets only, paralysis. This is one of the typical reasons enchantment is so terrible. (Charm monster also only targets living creatures; surprisingly, dominate monster doesn't, so if you can get past construct immunity to mind-affecting, you're home free! At 17th level. Congrats.)

Yeah, I remember having a really hard time trying to find spells that would work for that, but the machine master feat in Ultimate Feats really helps with that, along with enchantment spells found in the Ultimate Arcane Spellbook.


While I can't and won't speak for Little Brother, the classic difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is massive versatility, not just in how to deal damage, but in doing all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with damage. Claiming top-of-the-line versatility, when all you have is lots of ways to kill things, is disingenuous.

I didn't claim top of the line versatility, all I did was say that a sorcerer built just so can handle any threat that comes his way, when a typical blaster wizard can't. One can't argue that there is a kind of versatility in that. A focused evoker would almost equal a sorcerer in every respect, though would have to have more care given to it for optimization. Besides, if you are going for truly max damage you won't have as much versatility as another build would.

[TuggyNE]

I didn't claim top of the line versatility, all I did was say that a sorcerer built just so can handle any threat that comes his way, when a typical blaster wizard can't. One can't argue that there is a kind of versatility in that. A focused evoker would almost equal a sorcerer in every respect, though would have to have more care given to it for optimization. Besides, if you are going for truly max damage you won't have as much versatility as another build would.

Now, I'd certainly agree that if your goal is nothing but damage, you are probably best served with a high-op sorcerer build; wizard can almost match it, but why bother? The strength of a wizard is in versatility with a fair amount of raw power, probably not relying on direct damage (as) much; the strength of a sorcerer is raw power with a smidgen of versatility.

[eggs]

I won't argue that. I was just making the point that the mailman build is comparatively low-powered compared to my standard builds. To properly represent one of my builds, I would have to provide the details, and I have been posting quite a lot for my first day.
If this is in the game where you pack an enchantment and a finger of death and feel secure about offensive versatility, I'm just going to hold onto my doubts on your views on high- v. low-power levels.

[Blackknife]

If this is in the game where you pack an enchantment and a finger of death and feel secure about offensive versatility, I'm just going to hold onto my doubts on your views on high- v. low-power levels.

I pack a whole lot more than that. I like to have those in my back pocket on just about any build though. Finger of Death and Final Rebuke work quite well when your arcane sight doesn't detect a scarab of protection. Ever used a metamagic rod to chain one of those? I like to do all kinds of fun things with metamagic rods. :)

[Psyren]

Divination is useful for the occasional mystery-solving at low levels and determining how to prep spells at higher levels, but beyond that it serves no purpose but flavor.

This is not true even in core. Two of the most powerful defensive spells in core are divination (MoP and Foresight); The ability to say "I make the save" or act in the surprise round can easily be the difference between life and death at high levels. In addition, Telepathic Bond is all but mandatory to be permanencied on the party as soon as it is affordable.

Once you get outside core, Divination really comes into its own - with spells like Unluck, Assay SR, Interplanar Telepathic Bond (also permanency-able), Alter Fortune etc.


All of conjuration's damage spells deal less damage per spell level than evocation, and illusion's spells have their own set of problems. They are less likely to work than straight evocation spells, and are vulnerable to more shut-down methods than standard evocation spells.

1) Where are you getting "less damage" from? Orbs are d6/level max 15 just like the bog-standard evocations, e.g. fireball/lightning bolt. They tend to be single-target, but you can fix this with metamagic - and meanwhile, they ignore saving throws and SR, while blasting evocations are more often subject to both.

2) Illusion has disadvantages when used to blast, but it has advantages as well. The chief one here is that Illusions can reliably target Will in addition to Reflex, whereas Evocations cannot. And you can optimize the shadow Illusions to be every bit as powerful (even moreso, by RAW) than their "real" counterparts.


Enchantment's effects are more direct and potent than illusions, and enchantment can be tweaked to effect undead and constructs, whereas using illusions effectively against those types is much trickier.

Actually, it's much easier to affect constructs and undead with illusions. Mindless creatures are totally immune to enchantment, but don't even get a save where illusions are concerned. Throw up a fake wall between you and some skeletons for instance, and they don't have a chance of coming after you unless ordered through it by their creator.


There isn't a combination of any three schools that can solve every conceivable encounter a party could face, let alone a combination of any two. The list of summon monsters available via summon monster is intentionally narrow, and transmutation only gets truly versatile at incredibly high levels, which you won't live to if you don't have solid fighting ability.

Nonsense - even at lower levels, Polymorph into a Cryohydra or War Troll can make you a literal melee monster. The fact that Shapechange makes you unstoppable at higher levels is merely a bonus.

As for Conjuration, Summon Monster is indeed weak for its level, but there are feats/PrCs to boost this considerably - and it's not the only way of summoning backup. The Planar Binding line is much more powerful for its level and has the potential to cover you all day long. And like Shapechange, Gate can end any CR-appropriate encounter all by itself.


Illusion cannot pull double-duty for both of those schools, and without the ability to kill something, all illusion will do is ensure your escape.

I covered this earlier (shadow spells can indeed cover for evocation) but remember that Illusion's purpose IS primarily defensive. You have two other perfectly good schools to kill with if you need to - but again, CDGing is the fighter's job, you have better things to do with your actions than slitting throats.



Limited wish is what the generalist who fails at his task resorts to.

This is rather odd reasoning; Limited Wish is far more useful to specialists than generalists, allowing them emergency access to a tool that may otherwise be off-limits. Nor is using it a "failure" - spells were created to be used, so how is using the right one for the job a failure?



If you are faced with a variety of situations in rapid succession, limited wish is a bad, bad idea.

If you need to rely on limited wish repeatedly then you're not very good at being a Wizard to begin with. There are spells with almost as much built-in versatility (e.g. Alter Self/Polymorph) that have no XP cost. You can also just prepare your toolbox based on the campaign you're in, which is rather easy to do even without divinations.



Focused specialists still don't have the versatility within the role that sorcerers do. They cannot just dump slot after slot into the same spell on the fly when they need to excel in a specific situation. And that third school loss does hurt. Say you are a conjurer, and you drop evocation, enchantment, and necromancy. You have shaky and unreliable cc and damage with illusion, you have limited damage and other application spells in the form of transmutation, you can see things other people can't with divination (yay) So you have the defenses of abjuration, (which are always strong and amazing) the lackluster damage of conjuration, and the summoned creatures.

You're hung up on the idea that the Wizard should be the guy doing the most damage, and this is a highly questionable playstyle. Damage is the fighter's job, not yours; Wizards are much better suited to control, because that is a job you excel at. Best of all, by not killing the enemies yourself, you (gasp!) allow the other people playing at the table with you to participate rather than hogging the spotlight with flashy blasting spells.

Furthermore, your beliefs about summons are suspect. They're weak on their own, sure, but you have the potential to positively cripple monsters yourself - to the point that a summoned fiend or magical beast can easily make quick work of them. And they're not even using your own actions by running up to helpless monsters and biting their faces off.



While the summoned creatures have a nice variety of abilities, they are rarely strong enough stat-wise to have a real impact at an appropriate cr level for the party. For example, a 17th level wizard can cast summon monster IX, an call...a Hezrou demon, a cr 12 monster. By spending a full round action. A better option would be Gate, but that carries its own risks.

Here again you're ignoring serviceable control for very subpar options. Rather than a Hezrou, I'd summon the Colossal Fiendish Spider, whose +50 grapple mod can easily restrain a Marilith (CR 17, grapple +29) leaving me free to cast more spells with impunity. And that's before feats like Augment Summoning or other buffs.



I've read that article in the past, and all it did was convince me that it's writer relied to much on skewed anecdotal experience and did not actually look at hard numbers and ability effects.

What exactly did Treantmonk say that is not true?

[Pyromancer999]

So, you are suggesting that Sorcerers need to spend a feat. This is called a feat tax. Feat taxes are normally mitigated by bonus feats. Now, guess what the sorcerer doesn't have, but the wizard does? Oh, yeah, everything, including *drumroll* bonus feats.
Which totally does away with the idea of sorcerers being able to out-stay or whatever, a wizard.


I did not suggest that Sorcerers need to spend a feat. Also, there's one thing that the sorcerer has that the wizard doesn't.


XP is a river. I, personally, once built an artificer. It was high-level, and I think I was somewhere near 3 levels down due to crafting stuff. Within three-ish sessions, I was same-level.

Not sure what you mean by it is a river, but yes, artificiers do spend a lot of XP crafting. It's what they do.


Really? My policy is limit magic-mart in-game(And NO stupid used wands), but during creation, just run potentially stupid things like me. I like magic items.

I was merely speaking of a personal preference. I find that mainly finding magic items as treasures and similar tactics makes the characters less reliant upon magic items. Again, this is merely a personal preference I was stating.


So? Preparation is not that hard. Gather information, scrying, reading the DM(That's the fun bit), and not prepping every single slot means you're always ready.

Providing they have 15 minutes to spare. Still, it does allow for flexibility, yes.


Spontaneousness is not that great.

It is rather fun, though.


The on-the-fly metamagics? Not that great, either. And, yeah, the wizard's bonus feats mean that they don't notice any feat tax anywhere near as bad.

This is assuming people want metamagic. I personally have not made use of metamagic, and I know plenty of people who do not prefer it, and even a few DMs who have banned it. Although, this is merely a matter of what one prefers.


Okay, let's go one by one here, too. The illusion school has everything Evocation has.

Shadow Evocation does have its flaws. While versatile, all it takes is a high will save and it falls apart though. Not saying it's not a versatile and decent spell, it should not be taken as a substitute for the entire evocation school.


Conjuration and Transmutation are the best schools in the game. Basically, for a normal wizard, you ban Evocation, Necromancy, and either Abjuration or Enchantment.

Although Transmutation and Conjuration are quite powerful, Evocation, Necromancy, Abjuration, and Enchantment can be quite useful in ways the other schools aren't.


Divination is the most powerful school outside of Trans and Conj, and gives them good run. Knowledge equals power, and when you can play a couple games of 20 questions with the universe each morning? Yeah, no. Plus, you can convert any slot, even a specialist slot, to a divination slot with the right ACF.

Perhaps it is, although not everyone is willing to search through books to do just that.


Focus specialist means you give up 3 schools to laugh in the sorcerer's face, then mix its sweet, delicious tears into said wizard's delicious More spells/earlier access/spontaneity latte as a sweetener, while listening to the "Anything you can do" song.

:smallsigh: This is so harsh.


Specializing a wizard is easy. The only reason NOT to do it is if you're running a pansy elf.

Elves are decent enough.



Sorcerers only have one role. Ever. That roll is to nuke things(Well, excluding Sorcadins, anyways).

Every person I have ever known to play a Sorcerer would like to disagree. While many people like to use the sorcerer as a blaster, most of those people moved over to the Warmage when it came out. Likewise, many of the people I knew to use Sorcerer for Necromancy or Illusion/Enchantment moved over to the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler. Sorcerers, although granted they do not have the potential to have a plethora of spells to access like a wizard does, can still take on two or three roles of their choosing. It's not for nothing they're ranked tier 2. They can serve as a party face and serve a couple other roles with their magic in combat.


There is no room, as they are absolutely and totally outclassed everywhere else.

Not really.


They cannot take utility spells, for the most part.

I know of sorcerer characters who have taken plenty of utility spells and still managed to be useful in battle.


Their lists all look pretty much the same with reason.

Actually, with later 3.5e books, there are a number of Sorcerer-only spells.


Wizards have every single spell. Wizards can know what is coming, leave things unprepped(And be ready fifteen minutes before hand), cast things unprepped, and otherwise make the sorcerer cry. Because the only thing more delicious than innocent virgin's blood(Chilled) is sorcerer tears. Or a mix of the two(Shaken, not stirred).

Characters do not generally know their situations 15 minutes ahead of time. Also, you love trying to make people/classes cry too much.


I know you're knew here, so let me tell you rule one in ChaOp: Wizards win.


Not everyone wants to optimize their character to the max or be a living god through optimization. Most people who want to play as a god over a universe in D&D are usually the DMs, so most people I know prefer to play something else. Also, although I'm not the person you originally responded to, I would like to point out that just because a person is new to a forum does not mean he is new to what the forum is discussing. Assumptions make....well, you know. In any case, although I disagree with some of his views(such as Divination being mainly useless) from what I've seen in this discussion, Blackknife does not appear to have little experience with D&D, albeit a different playing style, which is nothing to fault him for.

[Philistine]

"Ultimate Feats" and "Ultimate Arcane Spellbook" - I assume these are third-party books?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Okay then. Let's do this. Five categories, Blaster, Support, Sabetour(screws with the battlefield) Controller (Debuff/cc) and generalist. You provide a wizard build for each, I provide a sorcerer build for each. Builds will consist of magic items, feats, and spells.
Shouldn't saboteur and controller be the same thing? Black Tentacles is just as useful for taking out a group of mooks as it is for crushing catapults. Grease cast on catapult stones means the team can't even load it.Transmute Rock to Mud in rainy weather means a massive slowdown of any enemies trying to use the rain for cover. Also, support generally gets thrown into the mix, it's called GOD wizard, and it buffs, debuffs, and BFCs as it sees fit.

I will send that pm out soon, I will be using the same format as a quoted post so it will take me a bit but I have time. Yay for being out of college! :) I have never had a problem with using divinations, but it really sucks when you're all set to use divinations and you get ambushed while you are using them, just because you didn't use them beforehand. The problem with diviniations, is that you never know when it is safe to use them, which is why I prefer to be ready for as many encounters as I can.
Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hurt, Mordenkain's Magnificent Mansion...

It's even worse: Poor Monk has to walk. Why do you think they gave him so many on-foot movement abilities?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Only if he took VoP (which, sadly, many unsuspecting players do). Regular can at least pay for the bus ride.

[Lycar]

I feel obliged to point out that as a level 5 psion I can regularly do 5 attacks per round which each deal 400 constitution damage at the cost of 6 PP.
So, how exactly do you spend 6 PP as a level 5 manifester? :smallconfused:

[Mithril Leaf]

So, how exactly do you spend 6 PP as a level 5 manifester? :smallconfused:

I spend 1 PP prior to this preparing my 5 spheres of black lotus extract. Then 5 PP for telekinetic thrust. Separate manifestations. Should have clarified that.
(If I want to spend no GP at all, I can use another PP to make the spheres that hold the extract out of amber)

[Psyren]

So, how exactly do you spend 6 PP as a level 5 manifester? :smallconfused:

Overchannel :smalltongue:

Even if it wasn't separate manifestations, +1 ML is cake.

[Jack_Simth]

Sorcerers only have one role. Ever. That roll is to nuke things(Well, excluding Sorcadins, anyways). There is no room, as they are absolutely and totally outclassed everywhere else. They cannot take utility spells, for the most part. Their lists all look pretty much the same with reason.
There may be better options for other things (and that better option will often be a Wizard), sure. But with a bit of work, you can actually make a sorcerer that'll fill almost any roll in the party at most levels... and if you're willing for it to carry some extra risk, at level 12 it's possible to have a Sorcerer that can arrange to fill all roles in the party at the same time (Planar Binding is one of the few things Sorcerers do slightly better than Wizards - well, at least until Moment of Prescience comes into play, and as long as the DM isn't too strict with Knowledge checks).

[Little Brother]

There may be better options for other things (and that better option will often be a Wizard), sure. But with a bit of work, you can actually make a sorcerer that'll fill almost any roll in the party at most levels... and if you're willing for it to carry some extra risk, at level 12 it's possible to have a Sorcerer that can arrange to fill all roles in the party at the same time (Planar Binding is one of the few things Sorcerers do slightly better than Wizards - well, at least until Moment of Prescience comes into play, and as long as the DM isn't too strict with Knowledge checks).Hm. I did forget about Planar Binding. The issue is, though, the Wizard can prep Crushing Despair, (lesser) Geas, Bestow Curse, and huge amounts of other debuffs. Sorcerers shouldn't' touch most of these things.

I mean, Sorcerers can take a couple of decent spells beyond blasting, but very little while keeping up blasting, and blasting is the only thing where they can begin to even think about competing with the wizard.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hm. I did forget about Planar Binding. The issue is, though, the Wizard can prep Crushing Despair, (lesser) Geas, Bestow Curse, and huge amounts of other debuffs. Sorcerers shouldn't' touch most of these things.

I mean, Sorcerers can take a couple of decent spells beyond blasting, but very little while keeping up blasting, and blasting is the only thing where they can begin to even think about competing with the wizard.

Eh, I like to think of it this way.

Wizards have a magic toolbox. They automatically gain tools, but they can also buy more. The toolbox doesn't get any heavier, but it does eventually fill up. They can buy a more expensive toolbox with a lot more space, or buy another of the same type they have.

A sorcerer can pick a few tools. That's it. The best combination is probably a super swiss army knife and a set of matches. Hammer's also good, and you can probably fit it in with the other two. But while the sorcerer's using his cheap drill attached to the swiss army knife, a wizard can take a deluxe power drill out of his toolbox.

[Little Brother]

Eh, I like to think of it this way.

Wizards have a magic toolbox. They automatically gain tools, but they can also buy more. The toolbox doesn't get any heavier, but it does eventually fill up. They can buy a more expensive toolbox with a lot more space, or buy another of the same type they have.

A sorcerer can pick a few tools. That's it. The best combination is probably a super swiss army knife and a set of matches. Hammer's also good, and you can probably fit it in with the other two. But while the sorcerer's using his cheap drill attached to the swiss army knife, a wizard can take a deluxe power drill out of his toolbox.Which is why the Sorcerer should stick to blasting, where it has its own little tools.

[Gurgeh]

If only because some hammers are so big that they can't fit in a normal toolbox...

[Jack_Simth]

Hm. I did forget about Planar Binding. The issue is, though, the Wizard can prep Crushing Despair, (lesser) Geas, Bestow Curse, and huge amounts of other debuffs. Sorcerers shouldn't' touch most of these things.

While I did say for a lot of things, the wizard can do it better... you were saying "Sorcerers only have one role. Ever."

... and that just strikes me as rather false. Can they be good at blasting? Sure. That's what the mailman build is.

However, Sorcerers and Wizards draw from the same list, with a small handful of distinctions (there are a handful of Sorcerer-only spells, and a handful of Wizard-only spells, but something like 99% of the spell list is the same).

A Wizard's schtick is that he can rebuild on a day to day basis. A Sorcerer can't do that (although if you throw enough sources at it and are not using any particular variants, a character who casts as a Sorcerer 14 or higher can reselect their top two or three levels of spells known and their last two or three feats for 300 xp, a standard action, and a 7th level spell slot), however, because of the spell list overlap, of the thousands of tricks a Wizard can pull off, a Sorcerer can pick a handful of them to be able to do (although the Sorcerer usually needs to wait a level longer than the Wizard). Almost any one role the Wizard decides to take up, a Sorcerer can also fill - if the Sorcerer is built that direction (while the Wizard can re-select the next day).

Seriously. Name two party roles a Sorcerer can't fill. Is it possible a Wizard can do it more effectively? Sure. But just because choice A is mechanically better than choice B at a given task does not mean that choice B is not able to accomplish that task and will always be relegated to a different role.

As to Planar Binding, though: Crushing Despair, (Lesser) Geas, and Bestow Curse, stacked, can only apply a -10 to the target creature's Charisma check (at best - takes four days, and is limited to critters of 7 HD or less; otherwise, you're looking at -6 at most ... and have fun touching the critter that's in a calling diagram that'll breach if so much as a straw is laid across it; yes, you can use Reach Spell, but still...)... and the Sorcerer is usually going to have a much higher Charisma check than will the Wizard will to begin with (Charisma is the primary stat for a Sorcerer, and almost always the dump stat of choice for a Wizard [seriously - a Wizard gets more out of his strength score than his charisma score, at least initially], so there's going to be a hefty discrepancy between the two casting types).



I mean, Sorcerers can take a couple of decent spells beyond blasting, but very little while keeping up blasting, and blasting is the only thing where they can begin to even think about competing with the wizard.
Err... no. With a very small handful of exceptions, any one role the Wizard can fill, so can a Sorcerer, usually with close to the same reliability - the big difference being that the Wizard can pick a different role the next day.

[ryu]

Wrong. A good toolbox can fit not just one, but multiple hammers without crowding out other tools. Wizards can blast just fine while still being ready for anything. Why do I say this? Divination baby. It's that tool involving asking the client what work they need done a few days before actually getting on the job.

In response to the toolbox comment. Didn't expect a post to happen while writing that.