PDA

View Full Version : Sorcerer vs Wizard (whats your favorite and why?)



Threeshades
2007-05-05, 01:29 PM
Heya, im right at this momnt drawing an elf wizard, but his face turned out so handsome that you might assume he is actually a sorcerer (who tend to have higher charisma than wizards) and i was actually drawing him as one optin for my next character. So I asked myself if i made him a sorcerer now, what would be the advantages and what are the disadvantages.

Well we all know that sorcerers and wizards by default have the same repertoire of spells (i mean same number of known spells). The difference though is that sorcerers have more spells per day and dont need to prepare any, so they usually dont run into a situation where they would need a spell they know but cant cast today (except maybe if they already wasted all spells of that level) wizards on the contrary, can learn spells not only through leveling up but also by scroll transcription, also they get bonus feats which widens their range a little more.

What do you think is the more useful of those two options and which do you prefer and why?

Chosen
2007-05-05, 01:36 PM
I personally like Wizards. For two reasons
1. The get their new spells a whole level earlier than sorc.
2. Their amount spells known make sorc way to limited in what he can do till really high levels

Though i do suggest sorc to new players he want to run a arcane caster in my campaigns since sorc tend to be easier to run for new players.

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 01:37 PM
Wizards kill Sorcerers

Wizards know more spells. ALWAYS. At first level, a wizard knows all lvl 0 spells plus at least 4 lvl 1 spells... more if he has an intelligence higher than 11. And he learns spells from scrolls and spellbooks. Kill a wizard BBEG? Keep around his spellbook so you can learn those nasty spells he threw at you. A well-played wizard will know more spells than a sorcerer. ALWAYS

Furthermore, wizards can use metamagic feats without taking a full-round action, as sorcerer has to. Metamagic is incredibly useful, especially when you have splatbooks. Plus, wizards get free metamagic feats at every five levels. Sorcerers don't.

Sorcerers are easier to play, however.

Lolth
2007-05-05, 01:46 PM
Well we all know that sorcerers and wizards by default have the same repertoire of spells (i mean same number of known spells). The difference though is that sorcerers have more spells per day and dont need to prepare any, so they usually dont run into a situation where they would need a spell they know but cant cast today (except maybe if they already wasted all spells of that level) wizards on the contrary, can learn spells not only through leveling up but also by scroll transcription, also they get bonus feats which widens their range a little more.

What do you think is the more useful of those two options and which do you prefer and why?

Not true. While Sorcerers can pick their "known" spells from the same list Wizards can, the number of spells they can pick is much more limited.

Basically, Wizards can know a whole heaping pile of spells, and have to plan accordingly when they memorize (and back that up with scrolls), whereas Sorcerers only know a (relative) few, which they can cast more often.

To me, these fill two different roles. A Wizard is a more utility-oriented caster, while Sorcerers tend (in my experience, YMMV, etc.) to be blasters.

And, of course, their skillsets tend to differ, with Sorcerers having some potential as "faces" and Wizards typically having more skills to spend on Knowledges, etc.

I tend to prefer Wizards. Purely for flavor reasons.

Lolth
2007-05-05, 01:48 PM
Double-post.

Indon
2007-05-05, 01:57 PM
Sorcerors have the significant advantage of being able to pick all of their spells; Wizards get some of theirs as treasure or have to purchase them, giving the DM more power over their spell selection and at the same time offering more versatility to the Wizard.

Of course, if it's easy to purchase magic scrolls for powerful spells, this is not much of an advantage, but a DM who equates potency with rarity may have sorcerors thriving in his campaign just as much as any wizard.

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 02:00 PM
Uh... no. A wizard learns two new spells per LEVEL. And can research new spells and add them to his list.

Pauwel
2007-05-05, 02:02 PM
Just because you're handsome doesn't mean you have to have a high charisma.

That aside, I much prefer wizards from a mechanical point of view and slightly prefer them flavourvise (spelling?). The concept of a sorcerer, while good, is badly implemented in my opinion. I'd rather play a psion and call it a sorcerer.

ChomZ
2007-05-05, 02:03 PM
it depends on what you want:
a wizard is way better for roleplaying and offers many more options for spells.. you could spend one day puting explosive ruins everywhere for the heck of it.. and the next you could be blowing up buildings.. and still again you could illusionify everyone into thinking they're in a swamp filled with toads.. or sumthing..
a sorcerer offers a greater number of spells per day, but you only know a small few. this means that you have to specialize and only do one type of magic

personally I like wizard

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 02:09 PM
Not true. While Sorcerers can pick their "known" spells from the same list Wizards can, the number of spells they can pick is much more limited.

Basically, Wizards can know a whole heaping pile of spells, and have to plan accordingly when they memorize (and back that up with scrolls), whereas Sorcerers only know a (relative) few, which they can cast more often.

To me, these fill two different roles. A Wizard is a more utility-oriented caster, while Sorcerers tend (in my experience, YMMV, etc.) to be blasters.

And, of course, their skillsets tend to differ, with Sorcerers having some potential as "faces" and Wizards typically having more skills to spend on Knowledges, etc.

I tend to prefer Wizards. Purely for flavor reasons.
Hmm, yes, about the wizard spells i only remembered that they get 2 new spells of their choice every level, and sorcerers do pretty much the same, except a few times they get 3 spells.


Sorcerors have the significant advantage of being able to pick all of their spells; Wizards get some of theirs as treasure or have to purchase them, giving the DM more power over their spell selection and at the same time offering more versatility to the Wizard.

Of course, if it's easy to purchase magic scrolls for powerful spells, this is not much of an advantage, but a DM who equates potency with rarity may have sorcerors thriving in his campaign just as much as any wizard.
Wizards can "pick" about as many spells as sorcerers (they get 2 spells every level and they can freely choose what level)


Wizards kill Sorcerers

Wizards know more spells. ALWAYS. At first level, a wizard knows all lvl 0 spells plus at least 4 lvl 1 spells... more if he has an intelligence higher than 11. And he learns spells from scrolls and spellbooks. Kill a wizard BBEG? Keep around his spellbook so you can learn those nasty spells he threw at you. A well-played wizard will know more spells than a sorcerer. ALWAYS

Furthermore, wizards can use metamagic feats without taking a full-round action, as sorcerer has to. Metamagic is incredibly useful, especially when you have splatbooks. Plus, wizards get free metamagic feats at every five levels. Sorcerers don't.

Sorcerers are easier to play, however.
this sounds like a pretty overwhelming advantage for the wizard.


A little off the topic:
What (except cha/int) are the most useful abilities for wizards and sorcerers. my DM usually says con (for additional HP and better concentration score) and dex (higher ac). But what about wisdom (will saves) and for sorcerers Intelligence (spellcraft and most orher caster relevant skills). I see it that a well played arcane caster should be able to avoid getting hit (by levitation/fly and protection spells or at least mage armor)
And can wizards make more use of a high Cha than getting a decent diplomacy skill?

Indon
2007-05-05, 02:09 PM
Uh... no. A wizard learns two new spells per LEVEL. And can research new spells and add them to his list.

Giving the Wizard a grand total of 20 spells. Great. Sorcerors get 34, excluding cantrips. Even Bards get to pick more spells.

And any caster can create custom spells, including Sorcerors and even Druids and Clerics, with DM approval.

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 02:13 PM
Just because you're handsome doesn't mean you have to have a high charisma.

That aside, I much prefer wizards from a mechanical point of view and slightly prefer them flavourvise (spelling?). The concept of a sorcerer, while good, is badly implemented in my opinion. I'd rather play a psion and call it a sorcerer.

yeah i know, a good looking character can still be a disgusting *******/agressive idiot which puts the charisma back down. or the other (like our current group wizard) is absolutely disgusting, aggressive and an unsympathetic bastard all over, wearing parts of dead people and monsters, yet has a Cha of 14 which means he must be incredibly pretty

Draz74
2007-05-05, 02:20 PM
Wizards are much more powerful, but I prefer Sorcerers, because I love Spontaneous Casting for its flexibility and lesser bookkeeping requirements. Plus, Sorcerers are still one of the more-powerful-ish core classes (probably most powerful after Druid/Cleric/Wizard), so you won't be suffering too much on that end.

If only they could use Quicken, though. If only ... (and yes, I know there are a number of non-core tricks that let them.)

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-05-05, 02:23 PM
When it comes down to it, I prefere sorcerers. I truely don't care about the surging raw power a wizard might have, sorcerers are plenty strong. I also find myself liking charismatic characters more than any other. Spontaneous casting is also far more fun, especially with more spell slots.

I'm also a person that likes to make up the heritages of my characters, so sorcerers end up being right up my alley when it comes to that, the only ones trumping that being warlocks.

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 02:28 PM
Giving the Wizard a grand total of 20 spells. Great. Sorcerors get 34, excluding cantrips. Even Bards get to pick more spells.

And any caster can create custom spells, including Sorcerors and even Druids and Clerics, with DM approval.

True, but wizards get to add them to their spell list. Sorcerers have to replace spells.

As for the wizard only knowing 20 spells... the wizard learns two per level after and four+int bonus at the first level plus the entire 0 level list. Assuming the wiz has 15 int (elite array) at first level and is unspecialized, without scrolls a lvl 20 wiz would have... 63 spells known, 44 exculding cantrips.

At level 20, a sorcerer would know... 43 spells, 24 exculding cantrips.

A wizard knows more, without any scrolls or spellbooks looted. And seriously, what kind of caster doesn't have scrolls? What kind campaign doesn't have at least one foe wizard?

Morty
2007-05-05, 02:29 PM
I prefer wizards both crunch and fluff-wise. Crunch-wise, wizards are far more versatile and interesting. Flavor-wise... well, sorcerer's fluff is some incoherent babbling about spooky ancestry and/or inborn talent, so the choice is obvoius.

brian c
2007-05-05, 02:38 PM
Giving the Wizard a grand total of 20 spells. Great. Sorcerors get 34, excluding cantrips. Even Bards get to pick more spells.

And any caster can create custom spells, including Sorcerors and even Druids and Clerics, with DM approval.

Sigh... Wizards learn at least 2 spells per level, and since they level up 19 times, that's 38 spells. In addition to that, they can learn new spells from scrolls or from other spellbooks.


A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice. At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.


And if you read the non-bolded part, that shows that a wizard knows all 0-level spells plus up to 7 1st level spells (8 if you're a grey elf) at wizard level 1. Assuming a wizard starts with 18 intelligence, they will know an absolutely minimum of 45 spells, plus all cantrips, when they're level 20. That's without any "help" from the DM at all in terms of scrolls and spellbooks being found.


That having been said, I like sorcerers more because I don't like preparing spells. I'd rather choose whatever spell I want at the time it's needed, so that I don't have to worry "darn, I just used my last Meteor Swarm, all I have left prepared is Weird, and my opponent is immune to mind-affecting spells!"

I like sorcerers enough to redesign them here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42964) for my homebrew world, and make them better than wizards :)

Edit: damn penguin ninja! though please note that it's 3+int, not 4+int for the number of 1st level spells you start off knowing

Indon
2007-05-05, 02:38 PM
As for the wizard only knowing 20 spells... the wizard learns two per level after and four+int bonus at the first level plus the entire 0 level list. Assuming the wiz has 15 int (elite array) at first level and is unspecialized, without scrolls a lvl 20 wiz would have... 63 spells known, 44 exculding cantrips.

At level 20, a sorcerer would know... 43 spells, 24 exculding cantrips.


I was indeed wrong on my initial Wizard spells known count (You mean 19x2 isn't 20?). Sorcerors get 34, though, without cantrips and can reselect lower-level spells if they fancy, letting them replace outdated spells.

I guess that 2 per spell level is to let Wizards remain viable in precisely the kind of campaign in which they don't get to run into scrolls. It does seem much in a different style of campaign, though.

Green Bean
2007-05-05, 02:53 PM
Sorcerors have tactical flexibility, whereas wizards have strategic flexibility. Personally, I prefer sorcerors, but that's because I favor blaster-caster builds.

barawn
2007-05-05, 03:13 PM
Kill a wizard BBEG? Keep around his spellbook so you can learn those nasty spells he threw at you. A well-played wizard will know more spells than a sorcerer. ALWAYS

This, of course, is why any evil wizard will trap the hell out of a spellbook.

That, and I'm always amazed at the number of DMs who don't have their villains target spellcaster's spellbooks. A full spellbook is worth 5000 gp. To a thief, it might as well be a huge diamond. To a BBEG, it's an amazingly fast way to reduce the threat level of a group of adventurers.

And it's amazing to what lengths wizards go to protect spellbooks after it happens once.

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 03:30 PM
This, of course, is why any evil wizard will trap the hell out of a spellbook.

That, and I'm always amazed at the number of DMs who don't have their villains target spellcaster's spellbooks. A full spellbook is worth 5000 gp. To a thief, it might as well be a huge diamond. To a BBEG, it's an amazingly fast way to reduce the threat level of a group of adventurers.

And it's amazing to what lengths wizards go to protect spellbooks after it happens once.

that's why its always useful to take this feat that lets you cast without the spellbook.

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 03:43 PM
that's why its always useful to take this feat that lets you cast without the spellbook.

Spell mastery? Waste of a good feat slot. With all the ways you can keep your spellbook safe, there's no reason to take it.

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 03:54 PM
Spell mastery? Waste of a good feat slot. With all the ways you can keep your spellbook safe, there's no reason to take it.

well okay, not always. Well we had one case. Our wizard (after being the ony survivor of a deck of many things game) woke up in prison stripped of all his possessions except for his clothes. To find a way out of the prison he actually needed it. (the barbarian throwing broken pieces of wood out of his cell and the fighter armed with a spoon couldnt really stand their own against the 4 guards and the cleric)

however, something a little off the topic:
What (except cha/int) are the most useful abilities for wizards and sorcerers. my DM usually says con (for additional HP and better concentration score) and dex (higher ac). But what about wisdom (will saves) and for sorcerers Intelligence (spellcraft and most orher caster relevant skills). I see it that a well played arcane caster should be able to avoid getting hit (by levitation/fly and protection spells or at least mage armor) and concentration should at least be fitted out for a wizard by the additional skill points from his (usually) insane INT-bonus
And can wizards make more use of a high Cha than getting a decent diplomacy skill?

brian c
2007-05-05, 04:07 PM
well okay, not always. Well we had one case. Our wizard (after being the ony survivor of a deck of many things game) woke up in prison stripped of all his possessions except for his clothes. To find a way out of the prison he actually needed it. (the barbarian throwing broken pieces of wood out of his cell and the fighter armed with a spoon couldnt really stand their own against the 4 guards and the cleric)

however, something a little off the topic:
What (except cha/int) are the most useful abilities for wizards and sorcerers. my DM usually says con (for additional HP and better concentration score) and dex (higher ac). But what about wisdom (will saves) and for sorcerers Intelligence (spellcraft and most orher caster relevant skills). I see it that a well played arcane caster should be able to avoid getting hit (by levitation/fly and protection spells or at least mage armor) and concentration should at least be fitted out for a wizard by the additional skill points from his (usually) insane INT-bonus
And can wizards make more use of a high Cha than getting a decent diplomacy skill?

Con is important because they only have d4 hitdice, also for Concentration and Fort saves. Dex is important for AC, reflex saves and touch attacks; one of the reasons that Elves are very often spellcasters (not counting Grey Elves). Int is important for skill points, but sorcerers don't use a whole lot of skills anyway, Spellcraft is more important to Wizards because thats how they learn spells. Cha isn't very important to Wizards because instead of having +Cha to Diplomacy or Bluff, it's easier to just use all those skill points if they really want good skills. Wisdom isn't all that important because both classes have a Good will save, but it's probably more useful to Wizards than Cha is.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-05, 04:55 PM
Answer:
Depends.

Level, permitted sources and optional rules (offical rules-options), wealth, and downtime availability, and predictability all play a part. There's other factors, too, but those are the biggies.

Level:
At 1st, the Sorcerer has two 1st level spells known and about 4 spell slots for them. Meanwhile, the Wizard has... two (three, for a specialist) spell slots, and a fair number of spells to fill them with. In general, a Wizard is going to prepare basically the same set of spells every day, simply for convenience. At this point, the Sorcerer is marginally ahead. At 20th, the same thing applies... but the Wizard can use Quicken, arrange to rest whenever and wherever, and has more than enough spell slots to counter not knowing how many of what is liable to be needed. At 20th, the Wizard has a bit of an edge.

Permitted Sources and optional rules:
A Desert Kobold (UA racial varient - trades Con penalty for a Wis penalty, and loses the light sensitivity, plus some meaningless stuff) Sorcerer with the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage (costs a feat and a few HP) casts as a Sorcerer 1 level higher. Add in a Dragon Magazine bloodline feat, two flaws (UA), Arcane Preparation (Complete Arcane) and the Mage of the Arcane Order Prestige Class (by this route, accessable after fifth for the Sorcerer - Complete Arcane, I think), and at 7th, the Sorcerer knows two 4th level spells, can cast them at caster level 8, and can call any PHB Sor/Wiz spell of 3rd level or lower on a round's notice (with some limits - and it scales fairly well, so that after a point, the Sorcerer can Call any PHB Sor/Wiz spell provided the Sorcerer still has a slot available of the appropriet level). And can make use of Quicken (thanks to Arcane Preparation). Later, this Kobold can pick up some bonus metamagic feats from the PrC, and has enough room to take Spell Focus twice and Skill Focus(Spellcraft) to become an Archmage. At 20th, the build has three unspecified metamagic feats and one fully arbitrary feat (mostly specified feats, though). Other than the lack of a spellbook, lower Int, higher Cha, and extra spontaneous casting, this character looks a LOT like a Wizard. If you toss in the XPH (for Psychic Reformation) and Magic-Psionics transparency (default), this guy can also change feat and spells known by way of Limited Wish with a standard action, a 7th level spell slot, and 300 (or more) xp at 13th+. Suddenly, most the Wizard's advantages are fairly moot - unless the Wizard takes PrC's, too (as much of this was for getting around the Sorcerer's limitations as compared to the Wizard, the Wizard takes straight power from PrC's).

Wealth:
A Sorcerer needs... a spell components pouch - and that can be done without, with good spell or Feat selection. A Sorcerer that's been exhausted of spells, stripped naked, and locked in a cell overnight is only slightly less dangerous than with all his equipment. The Sorcerer is one of the classes least dependant on wealth. If it's available, purchased scrolls and wands round out the spells known fairly well. A Wizard needs: a spell components pouch, a spellbook, scribing materials, scrolls, and so on. Without spending a feat on it, the Wizard who's been exhausted of spells, stripped naked, and locked in a cell overnight is a commoner with a better will save and the ability to cast Read Magic (a lot). At Wealth-by-level, the Sorcerer gets to have permanent equipment where the Wizard has a lot of money tied up in the spellbook (or consumeables to cover for the lack of known spells).

Downtime Availability:
A Sorcerer needs eight hours rest and 15 minutes prep, then he's good to go.
A Wizard needs eight hours rest, an hour's prep, and he's good to go... today. He also needs weeks to scribe scrolls into his spellbook, make new scrolls for the stuff he won't need often but are needed NOW when needed, craft wands/staves for commonly used spells, and so forth. If the campaign is rushed (in character), the Wizard's in trouble; if the campaign has lots of in-character down-time, the Wizard's fine. The Sorcerer doesn't much care.

Predictability (take 1: Player perspective):
The Wizard is the king of the known encounter. White dragon coming up? All damage spells (what damage spells?) are fire-based. Wizard's going to have fun times. If he later finds out it was a *Red* dragon, using Endure Elements, Disguise Self, Protection from Energy, and Cone of Cold to fake the villagers into thinking he's a White dragon (Endure elements: Lives comfortably in cold environs; Disguise Self: looks white. Protection from Energy: Well that Icy blast didn't do much, did it? Cone of Cold: Ah, freezy breath weapon), the Wizard's going to have some issues. The Sorcerer is (mostly) stuck with his normal selection - by necessity, not specialized against any particular type of opponent. Oh, he's Red, not White? Okay. I'll use my other spells, no sweat. The Sorcerer isn't usually going to own the encounter when he knows what he's up against - but nor is he going to lose out simply because he prepared the wrong set today.

Predictability (take 2: DM Perspective):
Wizards are chaotic. They are hard to predict and adjust for, as they adjust themselves quite handily. Sorcerers are much more predictable - you can track what they can do much more readily. It's easier to design a campaign with a Sorcerer than one with a Wizard in such a way that you can control who's going to be in the spotlight today.

There's more I could list - spell slot efficiency and endurance, for instance; but I think that's enough for now.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-05, 05:20 PM
I don't like how sorcerors can't do anything but blast with a handful of spells.
The charisma synergy with diplomacy is nice, but a sorceror doesn't have that many skill points to throw around. He gets slightly better weapon proficiencies than the wizard, but what good does that do? He still has a poor BAB and a d4 HD.

The wizard, on the other hand, gets oodles of skill points, a spell for virtually every situation, bonus feats, and the use of metamagic.

Sorcerors are just too limited for me.

Destin_The_Valiant
2007-05-05, 05:21 PM
One often overlooked advantage that the scorceror has over the wizard (and I myself and loath to concede any) is in simplicity.

Scorceror wakes up, you uncheck the 'spent spell' boxes on your scrap sheet, and you're good to go.

Wizard wakes up, has to memorize. Meanwhile, you have to meticulously plan for the day's encounters from a much larger selection of spells. Mind you, that's the encounters you know are coming and the ones that you don't know are coming. In addition, you pretty much have to make a new list every day, making a lot more leg (and paper)work for you, the player.

Now, if you don't MIND doing the additional writing, then yay you.

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 05:42 PM
One often overlooked advantage that the scorceror has over the wizard (and I myself and loath to concede any) is in simplicity.

Scorceror wakes up, you uncheck the 'spent spell' boxes on your scrap sheet, and you're good to go.

Wizard wakes up, has to memorize. Meanwhile, you have to meticulously plan for the day's encounters from a much larger selection of spells. Mind you, that's the encounters you know are coming and the ones that you don't know are coming. In addition, you pretty much have to make a new list every day, making a lot more leg (and paper)work for you, the player.

Now, if you don't MIND doing the additional writing, then yay you.

well most encounters are best dealt with with a few fireballs, mage armor and a magic missile here and there. only if you have to expect enemies with certain energy resistances its coming to weight really.
and thaats what i mentioned in the beginning.

oh and paper work is okay by me. because compared to that other RPG i used to play the D&D wizard has a quite reasonaple amout of paper work (the default pages +2 spell sheets) and thats just some marking and checking boxes here and there. doesnt take long.

Lemur
2007-05-05, 05:44 PM
I like wizards because I'm a nerdy person, and wizards are inherently nerdier than sorcerors.

Dhavaer
2007-05-05, 05:52 PM
Spell mastery? ... there's no reason to take it.

Magelord. It's like being a wizard and a sorcerer, and having sneak attack progression into the bargain.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-05, 06:07 PM
Spell mastery? Waste of a good feat slot. With all the ways you can keep your spellbook safe, there's no reason to take it.
Yep. And a few Dispel checks (or one Disjunction) later, your spellbook is open for perusal of the Wizard who stole it - after all, what one Wizard can create, another can circumvent... and a Spellbook is a very, very valuable prize to a Wizard, much worth seeking.

Warding spells of basically all stripes are magical traps - an appropriet CR rogue will make the search and disable device DC by taking 10. And it can then be delivered to the Wizard who hired the theft (or used by an Arcane Trickster directly).

You can make copies and use Secret Chest or Instant Summons ... but that takes lots of time and money (a single, 100 page spellbook, full, takes 50 days and 5,000 gp in materials to copy - and that only for the reduced time and money for copying an existing spellbook; otherwise, it's 100 days and 10,000 gp; Baccob's Blessed Book is much less expensive for the number of pages... but even with the reduced copy cost, you're looking at 500 days to copy a full one. You got a year of downtime in your campaign every so often?), and is still not avaible if your possessions are removed from you (you must have the focus to get the Secret Chest, or the 1,000 gp sapphire to get the Instant Summons to work. If you're completely depleted of spells by some means, have all your possessions torn from you, and get tossed in a cell (it can be perfectly mundane!) you're basically lost without Spell Mastry (or something very much like it).

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-05, 06:22 PM
Buy a BBB. Makes saves as a magic item, and enemy wizards can't read what's in 'em.

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 06:23 PM
A good sequester spell can keep your book safe from anything. ANYTHING.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-05, 06:29 PM
Buy a BBB. Makes saves as a magic item, and enemy wizards can't read what's in 'em.

Making saves is nice, but what are you talking about with "can't read what's in 'em"? There's nothing in the DMG suggesting that a BBB has security beyond the built in lock and metal binding.

Oh, and wizard of course. A sorcerer isn't really a magician, they're just a self-propelled magic staff. :smalltongue:

Jack_Simth
2007-05-05, 06:30 PM
A good sequester spell can keep your book safe from anything. ANYTHING.Not really; blindsight will locate it. Touch will locate it. If it's somewhere and happens to be subject to an area dispel/disjunction, the spell making it invisible ends. Besides, what do you do before 13th? It is, after all, a 7th level spell.

Edit:
Here's a question to cook your brain: RAW, can Major Creation (PHB, Sor/Wiz 5) make a spellbook complete with spells?

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 06:41 PM
Shrink item on the spellbook and keep it in your pocket. Dispel in the morning and read it. Prepare your spells and cast it again. Takes up a slot, but its worth it. Keep a wand if you need to.

As long as you live, you're spellbook is safe. No rogue is going to look into your robes and take out what appears to be a little matchbook.

AkumaWolf
2007-05-05, 06:43 PM
Personally... I like sorcerers better... and for simple reason...

I'm a huge fan of anime and manga... and the way the sorcerer uses magic just *screams* anime...

I've rarely seen anime characters use spellbooks... or memorize their spells beforehand... but spontanously cast blaster-type spell... hell yeah! :smallbiggrin:

And not only that... but anime characters usually don't have a lot of spells aswell... more like a couple of 'techniques' that they've perfected over time...

I swear... sometimes I can hear my sorcerer scream "biggu-bangu-attacku" when I cast spells :smalltongue:

Other aspects I like about sorcerers:

Like their magic... they seem more wilder and spontanious in their personality...

They seem more intriqued with adventuring than sitting cooped-up in a spell-room all day...

Spontanious casting......... I'm just too lazy with the memorizing bit... :smalltongue:

But it doesn't mean I don't respect wizards....

I think wizards require a LOT of thinking to play properly... and I respect that...

Also... the 'collect-all-the-spells-on-the-spell-list' makes for a nice little mini-game whenever a wizard gets bored of a campaign...:smalltongue:

Deel
2007-05-05, 07:29 PM
Wizards are definitely more powerful, but I still dislike them for some reason, probably the whole book nerd stereotype. If I am going to have a book, I'll take Archivist, now there's a class I can like. I suck at planning though so I prefer spontaneous casters anyway, so I usually go with Sorcerer or Beguiler. The innate casting, heritage stuff with sorcerer, it's all great character stuff for me, and being able to choose what you want to use a slot on immediately is good for versatility, though you do need to pick more general use spells that way, I have never had a problem with it.

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 08:53 PM
I heard something that sorcerers taking a prestige class that occasionally grants the character "+1 spellcasting level" (such as mystic theurge or archmage) dont learn any new spells from the prestige class level-ups, while wizards do (IIRC). Why is that? Can somebody explain that further to me?

PS:
I just worked on a set of abilities for a (level 7) Sun Elf wizard (sun elves are Forgotten Realms only i think, for those who dont know they get +2 INT instead of DEX, they may or may not be just like gray elves, i cant really tell because i got sources saying grey elves also get +2 Dex and -2 Str, while others say they dont), i used 32-point Buy:

STR 8
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 21 (including +1 for being between levels 4 and 8)
WIS 8
CHA 12
(racial adjustments included)

Do you think these stats are useful or should they be optimized?

kpenguin
2007-05-05, 08:55 PM
Whoever said that is wrong. The materials by WotC themselves would contradict that.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-05, 08:57 PM
I heard something that sorcerers taking a prestige class that occasionally grants the character "+1 spellcasting level" (such as mystic theurge or archmage) dont learn any new spells from the prestige class level-ups, while wizards do (IIRC). Why is that? Can somebody explain that further to me?

Look at the text form of the ability. The one on the Archmage specifies that you gain spells known, if applicable. I assume it's a mistake, but the Mystic Theurge text on the SRD doesn't say the same, so it seems a sorcerer or favored soul might be hosed...

Those stats look good for a wizard to me...you might want to move some points from charisma to something more useful, unless not dumping it is important to your concept.

PsyBlade
2007-05-05, 09:14 PM
I like the spontaneous nature of sorcerers. I am currently playing a Dwarf one. Yes, he's not optimized. I have a decent Con (14 after racial), and a decent Int (14, but I started @ lev 5, would be 13). Decent concentration skill, and I get to have more than a measly 3 maxed skill scores (though one of my 4 skills isn't maxed). Go with what you feel like.

Armads
2007-05-05, 09:22 PM
I prefer sorcerers. They are much easier to play, although not as powerful. They also can apply metamagic spontaneously, and using the PHB2 metamagic specialist, they are actually good at it.

brian c
2007-05-05, 09:37 PM
I heard something that sorcerers taking a prestige class that occasionally grants the character "+1 spellcasting level" (such as mystic theurge or archmage) dont learn any new spells from the prestige class level-ups, while wizards do (IIRC). Why is that? Can somebody explain that further to me?

PS:
I just worked on a set of abilities for a (level 7) Sun Elf wizard (sun elves are Forgotten Realms only i think, for those who dont know they get +2 INT instead of DEX, they may or may not be just like gray elves, i cant really tell because i got sources saying grey elves also get +2 Dex and -2 Str, while others say they dont), i used 32-point Buy:

STR 8
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 21 (including +1 for being between levels 4 and 8)
WIS 8
CHA 12
(racial adjustments included)

Do you think these stats are useful or should they be optimized?


Whoever said that is wrong. The materials by WotC themselves would contradict that.


Look at the text form of the ability. The one on the Archmage specifies that you gain spells known, if applicable. I assume it's a mistake, but the Mystic Theurge text on the SRD doesn't say the same, so it seems a sorcerer or favored soul might be hosed...

Okay, I went over this in another thread recently but I'll just recap it here. Mystic Theurge only says that you gain new spells per day as if you had increased your previous spellcasting class. It does not say anywhere that you learn new spells, and specifically says that you "[do] not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained". By RAW, a Sorcerer/Mystic Theurge does not learn new spells when gaining a level in MT. Archmage, by comparison, specifically states that a Sorcerer/Archmage does learn new spells when gaining a level in Archmage. It's a reasonable houserule to let Sorcerers learn new spells when gaining a level in MT, but it's not in "the materials by WotC themselves"

Arbitrarity
2007-05-05, 09:46 PM
My wizard's idea of paranoia.

Ok. We have a portable hole in my pocket. My cloak is trapped 3 different ways, and the hole is in a secret pocket in the cloak. The book is sequestered, and the hole is filled with an extra copy of my book using regular spellbooks (which have been writtin into freely, using secret page). I can read my book, as I have see invisibility permanently. Furthermore, I have a ring of greater prying eyes up at all times.

I have a clone, underground, with an extra copy of my spellbook. Both are sequestered.

In 6 random places around the globe, I used teleport object to hide extra copies of my spellbook (using secret page with regular books). These are now on the ethereal plane, and can only be gotten by finding them (needle in haystack), and a DC 32 dispel check.

Oh yeah, and I took spell mastery, so I can prepare MMM, Greater teleport, greater dispel magic, and a couple other goodies.

Paranoid enough?

brian c
2007-05-05, 11:47 PM
Maybe too much so... that's a whole lot of spells and resources used making sure no one takes your spellbook.

BardicDuelist
2007-05-06, 12:21 AM
And any caster can create custom spells, including Sorcerors and even Druids and Clerics, with DM approval.

So can BARDS! Though they are generally not allowed to.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 12:21 AM
Shrink item on the spellbook and keep it in your pocket. Dispel in the morning and read it. Prepare your spells and cast it again. Takes up a slot, but its worth it. Keep a wand if you need to.

As long as you live, you're spellbook is safe. No rogue is going to look into your robes and take out what appears to be a little matchbook.

1) Reduce item is Dismissable - no need for a Dispel.

2) Sure they are.
a) Tindertwigs are 1 gp each.
b) The Spellcraft DC to identify a spell that's already in place and in effect is 20+spell level, as is the Spellcraft DC to recognize materials created or shaped through magic - 23, in the case of Shrink Item. With the Use Magic Device synergy, a skilled rogue may very well take some ranks in Spellcraft, despite it being cross class. Or the hired rogue may be instructed to take anything/everything he can get - after all, you might have it put in Gloves of Storing, a Portable Hole (folds up like a hankerchief), or something else; remember, when your spellbook is targetted for theft, there's an opposing Wizard in the mix somewhere.
c) It could simply be taken as part of taking everything else. Cleric with orders to capture steps out with an already active Antimagic Field, grapples, and renders you unconscious (with the Wizard's d4 HD, poorest BAB, poor Fort save, and Strength commonly used as a dump stat, it's not going to be overly hard; Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, or Charisma poison's a good addition; Intelligence poison would take too long, Constitution poison can kill, which isn't the point of the excersize). Spellthief eliminates all your spell slots while you're helpless (if the class is available in the campaign - it's trickier to keep you alive through the process, but repeated negative levels from a Commanded Wight, with repeated Restoration spells from the Commanding Cleric will do the job as well, Core, and requires only an 8th level Cleric and a CR 3 critter). While you're still unconscious, you're strip-searched (with full body cavity checks), then locked in a cell. Standard Wizard capture protocol (although an opening Disjunction is good for higher levels, and at lower levels, the Antimagic Field is replaced with an appropriet version of Dispel Magic).


My wizard's idea of paranoia.

Ok. We have a portable hole in my pocket. My cloak is trapped 3 different ways, and the hole is in a secret pocket in the cloak. The book is sequestered, and the hole is filled with an extra copy of my book using regular spellbooks (which have been writtin into freely, using secret page). I can read my book, as I have see invisibility permanently. Furthermore, I have a ring of greater prying eyes up at all times.

I have a clone, underground, with an extra copy of my spellbook. Both are sequestered.

In 6 random places around the globe, I used teleport object to hide extra copies of my spellbook (using secret page with regular books). These are now on the ethereal plane, and can only be gotten by finding them (needle in haystack), and a DC 32 dispel check.

Oh yeah, and I took spell mastery, so I can prepare MMM, Greater teleport, greater dispel magic, and a couple other goodies.

Paranoid enough?

Yes.

Do note that an amount of that hinges on having Spell Mastry (MMM, Greater Teleport, Greater Dispel Magic, and others) available for when you're merely successfully captured - requiring any prison to have an Anti-magic field, or a way to render your permanently comatose (or simply unable to prepare spells... constant interruptions and no sleep would do the job, as would Draining your Int down to 9) in order to contain you.

Jacob Orlove
2007-05-06, 01:15 AM
Here's a question to cook your brain: RAW, can Major Creation (PHB, Sor/Wiz 5) make a spellbook complete with spells?
That's nothing. If you want *real* spellbook-fu, look no further than Secret Page (Sor/Wiz 3).

Personally, I prefer Sorcerers, because Vancian casting is super obnoxious, and, frankly, poor game design. Plus, it's more challenging to play a Sorcerer.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-06, 02:01 AM
Making saves is nice, but what are you talking about with "can't read what's in 'em"? There's nothing in the DMG suggesting that a BBB has security beyond the built in lock and metal binding.

Blessed Book

This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with silver, and locked.

A wizard can fill the 1,000 pages of a blessed book with spells without paying the 100 gp per page material cost. This book is never found as randomly generated treasure with spells already inscribed in it.

Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, secret page; Price 12,500 gp;Weight 1 lb.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-06, 02:04 AM
PS:
I just worked on a set of abilities for a (level 7) Sun Elf wizard (sun elves are Forgotten Realms only i think, for those who dont know they get +2 INT instead of DEX, they may or may not be just like gray elves, i cant really tell because i got sources saying grey elves also get +2 Dex and -2 Str, while others say they dont), i used 32-point Buy:

STR 8
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 21 (including +1 for being between levels 4 and 8)
WIS 8
CHA 12
(racial adjustments included)

Do you think these stats are useful or should they be optimized?

Gray elves have all elf stats (-2 con, +2 dex, all that racial crap) AND -2 str +int.

If you want to optimize a little more, move pts from charisma to str, dex and con, and bump up an age bracket, which will give -1 all phys stats and +1 all mental.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-06, 02:09 AM
Blessed Book

This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with silver, and locked.

A wizard can fill the 1,000 pages of a blessed book with spells without paying the 100 gp per page material cost. This book is never found as randomly generated treasure with spells already inscribed in it.

Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, secret page; Price 12,500 gp;Weight 1 lb.
Yes, but what about the question? There's nothing in there that says 'the spells you put in the book are invisible to other people.' It only says that you never randomly roll up a pre-filled BBB. At a guess, that's because there's no natural way to calculate the market price.

Teilos
2007-05-06, 05:41 AM
Wizards are great, if you get Wealth by level, there is an open market and you get regular downtime.

Sorcerers are great, if you do not know your DM. Many DM's I know, do not give WBL. And even if you got gold, it is quite hard to find a trader of magic stuff.
Often the BBEG's spellbook was hidden and never found. You might be lucky and find a small spellbook now and then. But I have in all the years never found a book with an apropriate spell selection, which you would expect for a caster of that level.
And if you are restricted to the spells you get by levelling up, then you have to compare 34 (sorcerer, without cantrips) with around 44 (wizard, without cantrips). Yes, the wizard got more. But it is only 30% more.

Swooper
2007-05-06, 06:47 AM
It depends, as mentioned, on the DM. The DM I usually play with never lets us find spellbooks, simply because it would mean he'd have to prepare for it. He's the type who never prepares for anything, makes most things up on the fly and doesn't bother with rules if it doesn't suit him (in fact, he doesn't know most of them). Therefore, he never actually knows what spells an NPC wizard has, except maybe a few signature ones he decides on. In case it becomes important whether a particular NPC knows a certain spell, he rolls randomly for it. It gets pretty annoying after a while. Anyway, with a guy like this: Sorcerer all the way, no question. We don't have WBL by a long shot most of the time, so making/buying scrolls and wands that wizards have to rely a bit on is out of the question.

With a sane DM, however, a wizard wins every time. Even without the incredibly useful Collegiate Wizard feat from CArc (hidden outside the feats chapter, I think it's in the one called "Arcane Campaigns" in a sidebar), a wizard has WAY more tricks up his sleeve than a sorcerer. After a few levels it stops mattering that the sorceror can cast a single extra spell per day per spell level(assuming you're a specialist, and you should be), because the wizard can choose when and where to rest via spells like Rope Trick, Leomund's Secure Shelter and Teleport. The spontaneous casting of the sorcerer is countered by the wizard making a few scrolls of key utility spells that might be useful sometimes, but not all the time (Knock is a prime example) and wands for spells he likes to cast often (like certain offensive spells as well as common defensive buffs, like Shield). The wizard also wins for getting higher level spells a whole level earlier, and higher level spells mean everything. That means every other level, a sorcerer is much less powerful than a wizard. Here's class balance for you.

For flavour, however... well, I tend to prefer sorcerers for coolness. The blood-of-dragons thing always appealed to me, and the fact that you're a literal source of magic, arcane energies bubbling out your ears and there's little you can do about it except vent it. I love that.

Final note: If you end up going with wizard, pick Collegiate Wizard as your first feat. It helps increase the wizards strong point, versatility.
If you go for a sorcerer, get the Metamagic Specialist variant class feature from PH2 if the DM allows it. It helps offset the sorcerer's weakness, which is ironically versatility.

Threeshades
2007-05-06, 06:52 AM
Gray elves have all elf stats (-2 con, +2 dex, all that racial crap) AND -2 str +int.

If you want to optimize a little more, move pts from charisma to str, dex and con, and bump up an age bracket, which will give -1 all phys stats and +1 all mental.

okay, then sunelves are different.

if i move the charisma points - lets say i reduce it to 10 - i could either get a strength of 10 or a Con of 13 neither of those makes much sense to me (CON 12/13 makes no difference and about STR im not really looking forward to go into hand-to-hand combat) and a charisma of less than 10 would be a little off my idea of the character. I still want him to be handsome and elegant, and there the charisma shoudlnt drop too much or i have to make up for it with lots of negative traits.

And also the age should be kept down, because my idea is a young (young in elven terms) wizard.

Latronis
2007-05-06, 07:04 AM
okay, then sunelves are different.

if i move the charisma points - lets say i reduce it to 10 - i could either get a strength of 10 or a Con of 13 neither of those makes much sense to me (CON 12/13 makes no difference and about STR im not really looking forward to go into hand-to-hand combat) and a charisma of less than 10 would be a little off my idea of the character. I still want him to be handsome and elegant, and there the charisma shoudlnt drop too much or i have to make up for it with lots of negative traits.

And also the age should be kept down, because my idea is a young (young in elven terms) wizard.

the original optimization presented was combining the two not considering them seperately.

That way when the age modifiers are added the 13 becomes 12 instead of 12 becoming 11 for con and yout cha goes back upto 10

Threeshades
2007-05-06, 07:27 AM
the original optimization presented was combining the two not considering them seperately.

That way when the age modifiers are added the 13 becomes 12 instead of 12 becoming 11 for con and yout cha goes back upto 10

okay that makes a lot of senseand it acutally is quite tempting having an even higher INT bot the higher age would also put down the dex and therefore my armor class.

About Spellbook safety: How about scribing one or more touch-, and look-activated symbols of death on the book and attuning it only to yourself? Maybe adding a profane lock so whoever wants to open it has to touch it and look at it. Would effectively prevent anyone else from using your book

At lower level you could also write on it "I prepared explosive runes this morning."

bosssmiley
2007-05-06, 07:52 AM
Of the Vancian casting (*bleuch!*) core classes I much prefer the intellectual rigour and pseudo-"Order of Hermes" scholastic win of wizards over the "Mommy did a magic man, so I'm magic too" hard fail of sorcerers. Bards? Those dilettantes don't even warrant a mention. :smalltongue:

Of course, in an ideal world (D&D 4th Ed.), all Vancian 'fire-and-forget' casting would be replaced by XPH-style Magic Points. This would far better model the versatility of ever wizard we've ever seen in non-game-derived fantasy fiction and films. Gandalf, Merlin, the White Witch; none ever had problems with 'fire-and forget' spells. :smallfurious:

In response to Teilos: WBL per the book shouldn't be a problem for any GM playing in a 'standard magic' D&D setting. WBL is assumed to be part of the character's background; just as the assumed XP that got him to the chosen starting level is. Just follow the "no one item over 25% of WBL" good taste rule and it should work out OK.

Exceptions to the above exist for low magic/post-apocalypse game worlds of course.

Latronis
2007-05-06, 08:14 AM
okay that makes a lot of senseand it acutally is quite tempting having an even higher INT bot the higher age would also put down the dex and therefore my armor class.

About Spellbook safety: How about scribing one or more touch-, and look-activated symbols of death on the book and attuning it only to yourself? Maybe adding a profane lock so whoever wants to open it has to touch it and look at it. Would effectively prevent anyone else from using your book

At lower level you could also write on it "I prepared explosive runes this morning."


Trouble with that is the symbols have saves, you could still lose the book.

I'd make it teleport to the friendly neighbourhood temple of magicy god to which i have an arrangement and known for sizeable donations and aid, while marking the toucher. Then its just a matter of using a spell masteried greater teleport to go fetch it.

and hunting them down at my leisure ofc

Teilos
2007-05-06, 08:18 AM
In response to Teilos: WBL per the book shouldn't be a problem for any GM playing in a 'standard magic' D&D setting. WBL is assumed to be part of the character's background; just as the assumed XP that got him to the chosen starting level is. Just follow the "no one item over 25% of WBL" good taste rule and it should work out OK.

Exceptions to the above exist for low magic/post-apocalypse game worlds of course.

Hmm... I am not perfectly sure, if I understand you. If I understand you right, then you understood me wrong. I did not say WBL is hard to implement. I just wanted to point out that there are DMs, who do not give WBL for some reason. And with those DMs you are better off playing a sorcerer. Or atleast you need to make your DM give you Collegiate Wizard (p.181 CArc).

Arbitrarity
2007-05-06, 08:22 AM
Not all symbols have saves. Pain and weakness don't for example.

"It's so much fun touching this book (ow). It (ow) feels (ow, ow, OW!) so (Auugh!) goo (My FACE!) d."

EDIT: Because then my book asplode.

My book! My book!

And if you try to kill the wizard, you don't open the book, you disintigrate it. Which is a problem my wizard is trying to get around.....

Threeshades
2007-05-06, 08:36 AM
Trouble with that is the symbols have saves, you could still lose the book.

I'd make it teleport to the friendly neighbourhood temple of magicy god to which i have an arrangement and known for sizeable donations and aid, while marking the toucher. Then its just a matter of using a spell masteried greater teleport to go fetch it.

and hunting them down at my leisure ofc

thats why i said one or more. "Oh noes! a symbol of death! Phew, saved. Now ow to open this thing... Oh noes! Another symbol of death! Saved again! And what's.... ah crap...." *die*


Not all symbols have saves. Pain and weakness don't for example.

"It's so much fun touching this book (ow). It (ow) feels (ow, ow, OW!) so (Auugh!) goo (My FACE!) d."

Now youre stressing it. How about getting a Bard to cast Sympathetic Vibration on it just for the heck of it?

Latronis
2007-05-06, 09:20 AM
thats why i said one or more. "Oh noes! a symbol of death! Phew, saved. Now ow to open this thing... Oh noes! Another symbol of death! Saved again! And what's.... ah crap...." *die*



Now youre stressing it. How about getting a Bard to cast Sympathetic Vibration on it just for the heck of it?

call me crazy but if i were to pinch a wizards book i wouldnt kepp turning pages after the first 2 traps.....

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 09:32 AM
That's nothing. If you want *real* spellbook-fu, look no further than Secret Page (Sor/Wiz 3).

Personally, I prefer Sorcerers, because Vancian casting is super obnoxious, and, frankly, poor game design. Plus, it's more challenging to play a Sorcerer.

Secret Page does so one page at a time, with a ten minute casting, and you have to have an actual page to start with. A full spellbook requires 100 castings, which takes 1,000 minutes. No rules listed for complex stuff on the page (like spells). And if all your stuff is removed from you, you're still toast.

Major Creation is also a 10 minute casting time.... but you do so once per spellbook you wish to use (once per day, basically), with listed rules for what to do for complex objects (presumably including spells): an appropriet skill check. How often does a competent wizard NOT max Spellcraft and Knoweledge(Arcana), the two most appropriet skills for the job? Plus, if this bit of cheddar is permitted, you only need to Master one very specific spell - Major Creation - as that will cover the rest. Additionally, it gives you a "safe" way of loaning out your spellbook. Pick the caster level correctly, and it will last just long enough for the person to whom you're loaning it to prepare spells. They can't not give it back, it simply vanishes. In order to actual sit down and copy the thing, they'd have to take it somewhere that spells don't expire (astral) and do it there, or prepare all the spells inside. And you can even combat that deal-breaking bit by making it so there is only a single spell in the book. With one casting.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-06, 09:41 AM
Secret page, at level 16 or so, takes about a month to duplicate a BBB.

Can prepare about 30 spells/day of level 3+, and if all are secret page, then you spend 8 hours resting, 1 preparing, 5 casting, etc. Average 45 Pages a day. Over a month, you're good. It's also very, very cheap.

As in, 150 GP for a BBB equivalent.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 10:16 AM
Not all symbols have saves. Pain and weakness don't for example.

"It's so much fun touching this book (ow). It (ow) feels (ow, ow, OW!) so (Auugh!) goo (My FACE!) d."

EDIT: Because then my book asplode.

My book! My book!

Actually, they do have saves - Fort, specifically - they are the same as the thing they inherit from (Symbol of Death) except where noted, and they don't include a Save line at all, so they inherit Fort Negates.


And if you try to kill the wizard, you don't open the book, you disintigrate it. Which is a problem my wizard is trying to get around.....
Compared to (Greater) Dispel Magic until it's no longer magical? Or a quick Disjunction to be sure?

Oh, and while you're fine Fire Trapping your Book, I would NOT reccommend Explosive Runes, as they explicitly damage the surface they are scribed on; you'll lose the book, either way.

Reinboom
2007-05-06, 10:28 AM
My preference is towards Sorcerer. It's style of casting is more flavorful to me, and just easier to work with than always being forced to play a high intellect spellcaster all the times. I find it easier to get a larger variety of history and type with the sorcerer.

I also prefer the lesser amounts of bookkeeping required for sorcerers and the 'on-the-spot' versatility options.

For the metamagic issue... I hate the familiar, so I just take the sorcerer alternate in PHB2 that allows them to apply metamagic spontaneously (it replaces the familiar).

For power reasons, sorcerers are blatantly weaker, but meh, I don't care. They can more easily perform alongside the party instead of becoming a one-person-army by accident and are easier to 'control'. Keeping on the same grounds as the rest of the party always feels more fun to me.

As for my issues with the sorcerer... skills. It's completely nonflavorful with them and has way too few (on average). You -have- to take int just to keep up, and then it only gets a single good skill for its main stat (cha), which forces you to play into that.

Maxwell
2007-05-06, 11:31 AM
I like Sorcerers. If you play a sorcerer, you only have to make good spell selection choices every level. Wizards have to make those same choices every day. Personally, I like more blasting and less studying.

jlousivy
2007-05-06, 11:36 AM
Sorcerer, you only have to choose spells 20 times :-) call me lazy but i like that.
That and it's easier to not overshadow the party AS much.
(note that the people i game couldn't optimize if their life depended on it. ie: the bard has great cleave, and the cleric doesn't use any buffs at all, therefore.... yeah)

Jacob Orlove
2007-05-06, 01:08 PM
Secret Page does so one page at a time, with a ten minute casting, and you have to have an actual page to start with. A full spellbook requires 100 castings, which takes 1,000 minutes. No rules listed for complex stuff on the page (like spells). And if all your stuff is removed from you, you're still toast.

Major Creation is also a 10 minute casting time.... but you do so once per spellbook you wish to use (once per day, basically), with listed rules for what to do for complex objects (presumably including spells): an appropriet skill check. How often does a competent wizard NOT max Spellcraft and Knoweledge(Arcana), the two most appropriet skills for the job? Plus, if this bit of cheddar is permitted, you only need to Master one very specific spell - Major Creation - as that will cover the rest.
Oh, I see. You meant using Spell Mastery to prepare for losing a spellbook. I meant using Secret Page to avoid all further scribing costs (forever), and have duplicate books prepared in case you lose your main one. Once you have access to the 5th level spells you'd need to cast Major Creation, you can just save a Teleport, and teleport back to one of your other books as necessary.

If you really want to cheese up Major Creation, though, take it as an Archmage SLA. Since that special ability does not say that the SLAs keep the same casting time as the spell, you use the default for SLAs: one standard action.


Of the Vancian casting (*bleuch!*) core classes I much prefer the intellectual rigour and pseudo-"Order of Hermes" scholastic win of wizards over the "Mommy did a magic man, so I'm magic too" hard fail of sorcerers.
Sorcerers are not Vancian casters. As you said, Vancian is "fire and forget" which in no way describes the way Sorcerers cast spells. A Sorcerer can have one spell slot left after a hard day, and, if it's a slot of his highest level, he can still cast any spell he knows. That's the exact opposite of "fire and forget".

Jack_Simth
2007-05-06, 01:31 PM
Oh, I see. You meant using Spell Mastery to prepare for losing a spellbook. I meant using Secret Page to avoid all further scribing costs (forever), and have duplicate books prepared in case you lose your main one. Once you have access to the 5th level spells you'd need to cast Major Creation, you can just save a Teleport, and teleport back to one of your other books as necessary.

It's worse than that.

You're out adventuring. You decide that, today, you want to prepare Mage Armor, Haste, Wish, and Shapechange (you have never actually encountered a scroll of Wish or Shapechange, and due to circumstances, were pretty much forced to select Disjunction and Time Stop at 17th). You cast Major Creation, and make a spellbook that includes Mage Armor, Haste, Wish, and Shapechange, then prepare spells.

The next day, your spellbook is stolen. Oh well, you just Major Create a new spellbook, that just happens to have all the spells you'll want to prepare today.

And so on. The only spell you need to Master... is Major Creation, as that will get you your spellbook. You end up preparing spells twice - once to get the blank spell slots and one with Major Creation, then once more for all your spells.

You spend nothing but the spell slot - ever. Whenever there's a spell you want, you just Major Create a spellbook that includes it. No need for the scroll, no need to research. Just a 10 minute casting time, and it's yours.

That's cheese. Technically Core RAW, too. Of course, the DM chooses the skill check DC, so it may not work out so well.


If you really want to cheese up Major Creation, though, take it as an Archmage SLA. Since that special ability does not say that the SLAs keep the same casting time as the spell, you use the default for SLAs: one standard action.
Yeah, but that requires a very valuable slot from a PrC with a lot of valueable abilities, that's kinda tricky to enter (three low-value feats). Easier for a Wizard to get into than a Sorcerer (unless you take the stance that the Wizard doesn't actually "know" the spells unless the Wizard has Spell Mastry for them, in which case the Wizard will have some difficulties).

lacesmcawesome
2007-05-06, 05:38 PM
I like wizards better mechanically, but I find that I prefer sorcerers overall, just because I like how they're presented in the PHB. How they kinda just discover an innate magical ability. For some reason, the charismatic yet shunned sorcerer gives me a lot more pleasure during gameplay than the studious and powerful wizard.

Plus, don't need to prepare spells. I'm never very good at choosing the right ones.

Kiero
2007-05-06, 06:48 PM
Sorcerors, because you can ditch all the boring prep with choosing exactly what spells you think you might need. Besides which, Wizards are bookish nerds.

jlousivy
2007-05-06, 06:52 PM
And compare the wizard in the phb and the sorcerer. The sorcerer dude is much cooler (anyone need a belt?)

Threeshades
2007-05-06, 06:54 PM
This is a drawing i made for my planned character.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/Tobi-Sean/Fyrbaen.jpg
(The weird word on top of it is his name)

i think its visible here why i dont want a low cha or higher age category. I would maybe make him a sorcerer, but there are no +2 Cha elves only those with +2 Int, so he's a wizard.


Sorcerors, because you can ditch all the boring prep with choosing exactly what spells you think you might need. Besides which, Wizards are bookish nerds.
/\ Does he look like a bookish nerd?


And compare the wizard in the phb and the sorcerer. The sorcerer dude is much cooler (anyone need a belt?)
Oh please, that sorcerer just forgot to put off the gimp suit after his last "game"

jlousivy
2007-05-06, 06:55 PM
mechanicly yes, it'd be better to be the wizard, but from that picture, i think it says sorcerer all over it

Threeshades
2007-05-06, 06:58 PM
mechanicly yes, it'd be better to be the wizard, but from that picture, i think it says sorcerer all over it

Find me a +2 Cha race without level adjustment that looks like elves and i make him a sorcerer :smallwink:

Jacob Orlove
2007-05-06, 07:00 PM
There's a +2 Cha elf subrace out there, but it might be campaign-specific. Still, it's not very hard to assume +2 Cha +2 Dex -2 Str -2 Con (as Grey Elf, but Cha instead of Int), and take the standard Elf Traits.

Edit: Star Elf, from Unapproachable East, but they're just +2 Cha, -2 Con.

Dhavaer
2007-05-06, 07:01 PM
Find me a +2 Cha race without level adjustment that looks like elves and i make him a sorcerer :smallwink:

Star Elves. I'm not sure where they're from, Unapproachable East I think.

Indon
2007-05-06, 07:18 PM
thats why i said one or more. "Oh noes! a symbol of death! Phew, saved. Now ow to open this thing... Oh noes! Another symbol of death! Saved again! And what's.... ah crap...." *die*


More like:

"Oh, no! A symbol of Death! It's okay, I saved. Detect Magic! Hmm. I'm sensing other necromancy auras from within the book. Dispel Magic!"

...at least, I don't _think_ Dispel Magic renders spellbooks worthless.

Vulion
2007-05-06, 07:19 PM
I like the wizard more because I always like characters that had to work to use magic, you know earning their powers, rather than being born with the power.

Dr. Weasel
2007-05-06, 07:34 PM
Charisma has nothing to do with appearance. Nothing. Check a dictionary if you need to (seriously, do it)- there should be no physical reflection of a character's charisma score.

Now that I said that, I love sorcerers.
They are just as good as wizards in nearly any situation and they do not ruin the flow of the game in order to rest to gain the proper spells. They also are far more customizable than wizards because they can not do everything.
They are not necessarily blasters, either. That is just the role they are often given because they are far better than any other class in that field. In battlefield control, Sorcerers often equal Wizards abilities countering spells known with always having the correct spells prepared for nearly any situation.
I've even started using Battle Sorcerer as my default melee class, being more capable and flexible than any other tank (besides ToB characters which my group for some reason doesn't use) and higher-end spell casters as well.

Threeshades
2007-05-06, 07:39 PM
Charisma has nothing to do with appearance. Nothing. Check a dictionary if you need to (seriously, do it)- there should be no physical reflection of a character's charisma score.

Now that I said that, I love sorcerers.
They are just as good as wizards in nearly any situation and they do not ruin the flow of the game in order to rest to gain the proper spells. They also are far more customizable than wizards because they can not do everything.
They are not necessarily blasters, either. That is just the role they are often given because they are far better than any other class in that field. In battlefield control, Sorcerers often equal Wizards abilities countering spells known with always having the correct spells prepared for nearly any situation.
I've even started using Battle Sorcerer as my default melee class, being more capable and flexible than any other tank (besides ToB characters which my group for some reason doesn't use) and higher-end spell casters as well.

yeah but this is D&D and in D&D good look indicates better charisma (other factors are social skills and a lot of personality traits). Generally the ability to take influence on others. And this ability happens to be supported by a good look. (A woman generally considered attractive has a much better chance to persuade a man into helping her with something, than a less attractive one)
oh and by the way thats something i also wanted him to have. a more sociable behaviour an elegant occurence and stuff

Miles Invictus
2007-05-06, 07:41 PM
I prefer wizards, for the mechanical benefits -- Sorcerors have no skill points and perhaps the smallest set of class skills. Wizards? They can tell you almost anything you need to know, craft almost any item you care to acquire, learn any number of spells. Sorcerers? They can cast a smattering of different spells, and...uh...sound really, really sincere. Provided they don't care to put points into Concentration, Spellcraft, or Knowledge (Arcana).

Jacob Orlove
2007-05-06, 08:54 PM
Charisma has nothing to do with appearance. Nothing. Check a dictionary if you need to (seriously, do it)- there should be no physical reflection of a character's charisma score.
How about we check the rules, instead of a dictionary:

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.
Personally, I'm with you that Charisma should be a purely mental stat, but according to the rules, it is not.

Reinboom
2007-05-06, 09:38 PM
I prefer wizards, for the mechanical benefits -- Sorcerors have no skill points and perhaps the smallest set of class skills. Wizards? They can tell you almost anything you need to know, craft almost any item you care to acquire, learn any number of spells. Sorcerers? They can cast a smattering of different spells, and...uh...sound really, really sincere. Provided they don't care to put points into Concentration, Spellcraft, or Knowledge (Arcana).

I always have at least 12 int to make sure these that knowledge (arcana) is at 5 ranks, and the other two are maxed. After that, I still prefer to have knowledge (arcana) maxed.
The short amount of class skills is quite a bother however.

Dausuul
2007-05-06, 11:28 PM
Mechanically, the wizard has it all over the sorceror:

* Much wider array of spells known
* Access to high-level spells one level sooner
* Lots more skill points, and more class skills
* Many more PrC options (due to wizard bonus feats, skill points from high Int, earlier qualification for "cast Xth-level arcane spells," and PrCs that flat-out require prepared casting)

The wizard's advantages on paper are somewhat less in actual play; the wizard is strongest when s/he has a chance to prepare in advance to deal with a known opponent, and that's often not an option, particularly at the lower levels where you don't have super-divinations to tell you what's coming and teleportation to get you out of a tight spot. Even so, the wizard comes out ahead overall.

For characters who are fun to play, however, I prefer spontaneous casters to prepared ones. I like being able to leap into an unexpected situation and make my tactics up on the fly; and I've always found the Vancian magic system to be bizarre, counterintuitive, and silly. It's also a major contributing factor in the disease known as Caster Narcolepsy (to wit, the tendency of casters to fall asleep after roughly 30 minutes of adventuring).

Incidentally, it's also worth considering the "themed spontaneous caster" classes: warmage, beguiler, and dread necromancer.

Dhavaer
2007-05-07, 01:07 AM
Be a Magelord, and get the best of both worlds! You might need to ask your DM for a houserule to finish the class pre-epic, though. The pre-reqs are messed up; fifth level spells + Evasion.

Miles Invictus
2007-05-07, 01:18 AM
I always have at least 12 int to make sure these that knowledge (arcana) is at 5 ranks, and the other two are maxed. After that, I still prefer to have knowledge (arcana) maxed.
The short amount of class skills is quite a bother however.

It's a disappointment. Flavorwise, Sorcerors should have the best skill list (and skill points) of any primary caster, because their powers are innate -- they come from within, not from knowledge or devotion.

Kiero
2007-05-07, 01:30 AM
/\ Does he look like a bookish nerd?

No, worse, he's an elf.

brian c
2007-05-07, 02:20 AM
Be a Magelord, and get the best of both worlds! You might need to ask your DM for a houserule to finish the class pre-epic, though. The pre-reqs are messed up; fifth level spells + Evasion.

Ew... that means at best, you have to be a Wizard 9/Rogue 2 or Wizard 9/Monk 2 in order to enter, depending on whether you want better unarmored AC or if you want sneak attack damage on rays.

Turcano
2007-05-07, 02:32 AM
More like:

"Oh, no! A symbol of Death! It's okay, I saved. Detect Magic! Hmm. I'm sensing other necromancy auras from within the book. Dispel Magic!"

...at least, I don't _think_ Dispel Magic renders spellbooks worthless.

That's not really a good way to trap a spellbook. You want teleport object to send your spell somewhere safe, something to punish the would-be thief, and something to notify you of the attempted theft and/or the identity of the thief, and these traps should go off simultaneously (specifying the same trigger for each trap will do). Then you cast magic aura on it, making it seem non-magical.

Dhavaer
2007-05-07, 05:21 AM
Ew... that means at best, you have to be a Wizard 9/Rogue 2 or Wizard 9/Monk 2 in order to enter, depending on whether you want better unarmored AC or if you want sneak attack damage on rays.

Magelords get Sneak Attack anyway. If you find a way to get Jump as a class skill, you can go Wizard 9/Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries 1 and actually finish the PrC before level 21. Although it was probably intended to be 4th or 3rd level spells, so it was probably intended to be used with Rogue. Not with Monk, Magelords are non-lawful.

Leon
2007-05-07, 06:30 AM
Sorcerers hands down

they are the reason i started playing D&D, inspired by my Absolute Favourite Anime Character - Lina Inverse

brian c
2007-05-07, 07:01 AM
Magelords get Sneak Attack anyway. If you find a way to get Jump as a class skill, you can go Wizard 9/Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries 1 and actually finish the PrC before level 21. Although it was probably intended to be 4th or 3rd level spells, so it was probably intended to be used with Rogue. Not with Monk, Magelords are non-lawful.

Eh, just stop being lawful. It's not like you lose any monk class abilities.

Indon
2007-05-07, 07:42 AM
Sorcerers hands down

they are the reason i started playing D&D, inspired by my Absolute Favourite Anime Character - Lina Inverse

Lina Inverse is like, the poster child for the single-encounter-ending-spell.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-07, 07:50 AM
At a guess, that's because there's no natural way to calculate the market price.

Or because they were all written on secret pages.

Threeshades
2007-05-07, 07:58 AM
No, worse, he's an elf.

An you're a towel!

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-07, 08:02 AM
That's cheese. Technically Core RAW, too. Of course, the DM chooses the skill check DC, so it may not work out so well.

I don't think so. Copying spells into a spellbook consumes the scrolls used to do so, or memorized spells. This implies that spellbooks aren't animal, mineral or vegetable.

Setra
2007-05-07, 08:51 AM
Lina Inverse is like, the poster child for the single-encounter-ending-spell.
Fireball! *battle over*
Dragon Slave! *battle over*
Giga Slave! *battle over*
Ragna Blade! *battle over*

On another note, what level would those last three spells be?

the_tick_rules
2007-05-07, 08:56 AM
wizards tend to be more versatile, but play whatever you want.

Indon
2007-05-07, 09:21 AM
Fireball! *battle over*
Dragon Slave! *battle over*
Giga Slave! *battle over*
Ragna Blade! *battle over*

On another note, what level would those last three spells be?

Dragon Slave I think is level 9. She has a few a day, and she's probably level 20 or thereabouts.

Giga Slave, I suspect, is epic magic (an epic blaster spell, no less!), since she dies if she fails casting. I dunno about Ragna, I've only seen like, up to half of the second season.

Teloric
2007-05-07, 09:51 AM
It amazes me how many people compare the Sorcerer and the Wizard based simply on the power level they are able to achieve. There's so much more to roleplaying than how powerful your character can get.

If they cranked up the number of spells available to the Sorcerer, or nerfed the Wizard to learn only 1 spell per level, I wonder how many of you would still prefer the Wizard? Personally, I would still choose the Wizard over the Sorcerer, even if their relative power levels were well balanced. I like the idea of a character gaining spell power through research and tireless hours seeking out the mysteries of the universe, whether it be in dungeons, or old libraries, or wherever.

To me, the Sorcerer feels like his powers are simply thrown at him. By contrast the Wizard must EARN his abilities. This is why I prefer the Wizard. It has nothing to do with Power what-so-ever...

UserClone
2007-05-07, 11:11 AM
Oh crap. Who let the RPer in?

brian c
2007-05-07, 11:22 AM
It amazes me how many people compare the Sorcerer and the Wizard based simply on the power level they are able to achieve. There's so much more to roleplaying than how powerful your character can get.

If they cranked up the number of spells available to the Sorcerer, or nerfed the Wizard to learn only 1 spell per level, I wonder how many of you would still prefer the Wizard? Personally, I would still choose the Wizard over the Sorcerer, even if their relative power levels were well balanced. I like the idea of a character gaining spell power through research and tireless hours seeking out the mysteries of the universe, whether it be in dungeons, or old libraries, or wherever.

To me, the Sorcerer feels like his powers are simply thrown at him. By contrast the Wizard must EARN his abilities. This is why I prefer the Wizard. It has nothing to do with Power what-so-ever...

If they were perfecty balanced, I'd prefer a sorcerer. As-is, I prefer sorcerers. If they were hideously underpowered, I'd just play a melee character :)

Threeshades
2007-05-07, 11:33 AM
If they were perfecty balanced, I'd prefer a sorcerer. As-is, I prefer sorcerers. If they were hideously underpowered, I'd just play a melee character :)

So youre playing a melee character? :smallwink:

From tehe roleplaying i have to say myself i would also prefer the Wizard after all. I kind of like this, breeding over his book in the morning, and spending time to think what to do.

Reinboom
2007-05-07, 11:44 AM
I don't think of the sorcerers as just having their power 'thrown at them'. They have magic inside of them, and they have tapped into it.
Notably, they do still have to perform all the components of magic, the hand gestures, the arcane babblin..er.. vocals, the focus and material are all the same as a wizard, and can be identified with spellcraft equally. Taking this into account, a wizard has to "train, memorize, and debate" daily, while a sorcerer already has all the required vocal and somatic requirements memorized, born innately, natural and not just force themselves to cast it.

It's rather silly that you keep forgetting stuff each day, how absent minded of you wizards :smallwink:
This flavor is still in sorcerers, just not as.. cruelly?
Also as for the feel of still having power 'thrown' at you, I question where does the wizard get their 2 free spells each level? Surely they are just thrown at them.

NullAshton
2007-05-07, 11:45 AM
Yep. And a few Dispel checks (or one Disjunction) later, your spellbook is open for perusal of the Wizard who stole it - after all, what one Wizard can create, another can circumvent... and a Spellbook is a very, very valuable prize to a Wizard, much worth seeking.

Warding spells of basically all stripes are magical traps - an appropriet CR rogue will make the search and disable device DC by taking 10. And it can then be delivered to the Wizard who hired the theft (or used by an Arcane Trickster directly).

You can make copies and use Secret Chest or Instant Summons ... but that takes lots of time and money (a single, 100 page spellbook, full, takes 50 days and 5,000 gp in materials to copy - and that only for the reduced time and money for copying an existing spellbook; otherwise, it's 100 days and 10,000 gp; Baccob's Blessed Book is much less expensive for the number of pages... but even with the reduced copy cost, you're looking at 500 days to copy a full one. You got a year of downtime in your campaign every so often?), and is still not avaible if your possessions are removed from you (you must have the focus to get the Secret Chest, or the 1,000 gp sapphire to get the Instant Summons to work. If you're completely depleted of spells by some means, have all your possessions torn from you, and get tossed in a cell (it can be perfectly mundane!) you're basically lost without Spell Mastry (or something very much like it).

Hmmmm.... a plot that involves a wizard stealing a PC's wizard's spellbook, and using his own spells against the PCs... bwaahaahaa. How do you like your celerity NOW, punks?

BrokenButterfly
2007-05-07, 11:48 AM
Personally, since I've played a sorcerer once but never played a wizard, I'm going to say that I prefer sorcerer. I always like it when Charisma governs a character, Intelligence is a bit stuffy for me.

Orchestration
2007-05-07, 01:09 PM
The number of Feats a Wizzard gets and the Advantages Int gives over Charisma (Skillpoints, the number of Spellcaster Skills that Int gives a bonus to) make Wizzards so much more powerfull than a Sorcerer that it is not even funny.

I think for a Start a Sorc should get more Skillpoints and a wider selection of skill to choose from. Cha should modify there Spellcraft score and Wis mod. Probally give them D6 HD aswell.

They should also be able to specalise (sp) in a certain magic type in the same way Ranger can choose Fighting Style.

For example:

1st Level: Spell Focus: Evocation
5rd Level: Arcane Defense: Evocation
9th Level: Greater Spell Focus: Evocation

3rd: Level: Spell Pentration
7th: Greater Spell Penetration

Then let them use the rest of the (few, Sorc's get a poor number of feats) feats they already to get to add some versatility to there character.

Either that or make Battlesorcerer become the Default Sorcerer. They get D8 HD, 3/4 BAB Progression, Light Armour Proficiancy, No Casting Failure in Light Armour. The lose 1 spell casting a day for each spell level and 1 spell known per level.

kpenguin
2007-05-07, 01:13 PM
Spell known loss: baaaaad. Especially for a sorcerer. A caster doesn't need 3/4 BAB and that Light Armor Proficiency only helps a wee bit. I personally like my casters with full spell progression, thank you very much.

Yechezkiel
2007-05-07, 01:44 PM
Um, 3/4 BAB?


Spell known loss: baaaaad. Especially for a sorcerer. A caster doesn't need 3/4 BAB and that Light Armor Proficiency only helps a wee bit. I personally like my casters with full spell progression, thank you very much.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-07, 06:23 PM
I don't think so. Copying spells into a spellbook consumes the scrolls used to do so, or memorized spells. This implies that spellbooks aren't animal, mineral or vegetable.

That level of detail, I'm afraid, delves into the theory of magic. If to scribe the spell you have to dissasemble the spell to see how it was put together, the book is still mundane, but the spell goes away by virtue of being taken apart to make a set of assembly instructions. If the spell is turned into a sort of template, then there's some magic in the book.

RAW, though, there is no mention of spellbooks being in and of themselves, magical (barring Baccob's, of course) or alive. Which leaves dead veggies and minerals. What minerals are at the DM's discretion.... as is the skill check. You may find that there's some mithral in your spellbook's pages, so the thing only lasts 1 round per level - which makes it useless that way.

Hmmmm.... a plot that involves a wizard stealing a PC's wizard's spellbook, and using his own spells against the PCs... bwaahaahaa. How do you like your celerity NOW, punks?
Do note, I did take Spell Mastry. And look - no Celerity!

Um, 3/4 BAB?

In refference to the UA Battle Sorcerer variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererVariantBattleS orcerer), which includes 3/4ths BAB (among other things).

Murongo
2007-05-07, 06:43 PM
Wizards are definitely more powerful but I play sorcerers just as often for the flavor of them. The whole book thing is a turn-off IMO. I like the aesthetic appeal of someone who casts with personal soul energy than a guy whose memorized spells out of a textbook.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-07, 06:53 PM
Wizards are definitely more powerful but I play sorcerers just as often for the flavor of them. The whole book thing is a turn-off IMO. I like the aesthetic appeal of someone who casts with personal soul energy than a guy whose memorized spells out of a textbook.

Wizards are only more powerful under certain types of circumstances. It is highly campaign dependant.

Indon
2007-05-07, 07:11 PM
That level of detail, I'm afraid, delves into the theory of magic. If to scribe the spell you have to dissasemble the spell to see how it was put together, the book is still mundane, but the spell goes away by virtue of being taken apart to make a set of assembly instructions. If the spell is turned into a sort of template, then there's some magic in the book.

Well, the problem with that is, by RAW, spells are made individually, so more than one of them probably doesn't count as a single item (and I'm pretty sure Creation can't make you, say, a _pile_ of objects, as it specifies an object).

If you created a spellbook full of spells on my watch, you'd have to make spellcraft checks (it being the applicable 'crafting' roll) for each and every spell, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't mention making multiple checks if neccessary. Though, alternately, I guess you could just add up all the check DC's together.



RAW, though, there is no mention of spellbooks being in and of themselves, magical (barring Baccob's, of course) or alive. Which leaves dead veggies and minerals. What minerals are at the DM's discretion.... as is the skill check. You may find that there's some mithral in your spellbook's pages, so the thing only lasts 1 round per level - which makes it useless that way.


Consider, if you will, the fact that one page in a spellbook costs 100 gold. That makes a DM ruling something like "Yeah, the ink's made of gold." pretty likely.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-07, 07:20 PM
Well, the problem with that is, by RAW, spells are made individually, so more than one of them probably doesn't count as a single item (and I'm pretty sure Creation can't make you, say, a _pile_ of objects, as it specifies an object).

Even with this interpertation, you can still spend 10 minutes to pick up the perfect spell for the job, free of charge, regardless of level, regardless of wether or not you actually know it already.

And then take the time to actually scribe it, once you've got it prepared.

Still a nasty loophole.


If you created a spellbook full of spells on my watch, you'd have to make spellcraft checks (it being the applicable 'crafting' roll) for each and every spell, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't mention making multiple checks if neccessary. Though, alternately, I guess you could just add up all the check DC's together.
As I said - skill check DC is DM call. I even said it might not fly for that reason.


Consider, if you will, the fact that one page in a spellbook costs 100 gold. That makes a DM ruling something like "Yeah, the ink's made of gold." pretty likely.
Precious metals still leave the duration at 20 minutes/level. As it takes, at most, 1 hour to prepare spells, and the minimum caster level on Major Creation is 9th, more than enough time. Mithral, on the other hand, is explicitly called out as a "rare metal" for a duration of 1 round/level. You'd need a caster level of about 150 (or 75, with Extend Spell) to make use of it with Mithral in the mix.

Indon
2007-05-08, 07:21 AM
Even with this interpertation, you can still spend 10 minutes to pick up the perfect spell for the job, free of charge, regardless of level, regardless of wether or not you actually know it already.

And then take the time to actually scribe it, once you've got it prepared.

Still a nasty loophole.

As I said - skill check DC is DM call. I even said it might not fly for that reason.

You shouldn't need the RAW to tell you that you can't make something you don't know how to make (which would be something you've never seen or worked with).

I might as well make a medium weapon that deals 3d6 damage and has a crit range of 5-20x12, since by the RAW, I'm not _prevented_ from making items that don't exist.



Precious metals still leave the duration at 20 minutes/level. As it takes, at most, 1 hour to prepare spells, and the minimum caster level on Major Creation is 9th, more than enough time. Mithral, on the other hand, is explicitly called out as a "rare metal" for a duration of 1 round/level. You'd need a caster level of about 150 (or 75, with Extend Spell) to make use of it with Mithral in the mix.

At 100 gold coins per page, it might as well be adamantium ink.

Lavidor
2007-05-08, 07:42 AM
Well... I love playing sorcerers (especially conjurer or transmuter specialists) as they are just plain fun (seriously who can resist going with a sorcerer to find out the truth of his mystical heritage:biggrin:). But wizards always end up a lot more powerful than sorcerers.

barawn
2007-05-08, 12:15 PM
Hmmmm.... a plot that involves a wizard stealing a PC's wizard's spellbook, and using his own spells against the PCs... bwaahaahaa. How do you like your celerity NOW, punks?

I don't think people realize exactly how valuable (money-wise) spellbooks are sometimes. If your party ever gets stripped of valuables, has weapons confiscated, etc., the wizard's spellbook would absolutely be one of them. Also, for those who said "keep a wand if you need to"? C'mon, if they're going to steal your spellbook, they're gonna steal your wand as well.

Of course, the other thing is that spellbooks themselves would likely be for sale at magic shops. So it's not such a huge time-suck as it might seem.


With a sane DM, however, a wizard wins every time. Even without the incredibly useful Collegiate Wizard feat from CArc (hidden outside the feats chapter, I think it's in the one called "Arcane Campaigns" in a sidebar), a wizard has WAY more tricks up his sleeve than a sorcerer. After a few levels it stops mattering that the sorceror can cast a single extra spell per day per spell level(assuming you're a specialist, and you should be), because the wizard can choose when and where to rest via spells like Rope Trick, Leomund's Secure Shelter and Teleport.

That's my second pet peeve about most DMs: there's no sense of urgency (of course, my games tend to go far the other way, and there's way too much of a sense of urgency). Sure, the wizard can rest. In the meantime, someone else has gotten the treasure, saved the day, the BBEG has gotten stronger, or caught up to the party.

I've got a feeling that those two effects (spellbook loss never happens, and 'taking too long' has no downside) contribute a lot to wizards seeming overpowered.

Indon
2007-05-08, 12:45 PM
I've got a feeling that those two effects (spellbook loss never happens, and 'taking too long' has no downside) contribute a lot to wizards seeming overpowered.

Well, spellbook loss, while perfectly reasonable in-character for many villains to try, is less-than-good for the game if used too often; without a spellbook, a Wizard is pretty much powerless in all situations, and probably not making _any_ significant contribution to the party.

Generally, the more all-or-none a class weakness is, the less it'll, in practice, actually be evoked. This means that in practice, classes with a large variety of small weaknesses seem overall weaker than an overall strong class with one glaring weakness.

Wizzardman
2007-05-08, 04:04 PM
That's not really a good way to trap a spellbook. You want teleport object to send your spell somewhere safe, something to punish the would-be thief, and something to notify you of the attempted theft and/or the identity of the thief, and these traps should go off simultaneously (specifying the same trigger for each trap will do). Then you cast magic aura on it, making it seem non-magical.

Explosive ruins. Best way to trap a spellbook ever, as my players once discovered. You don't get the spellbook back, but you have a spare. And they don't get your spells.

That said, I love wizards fluff-wise, but find them rather difficult to play crunch-wise. I don't give my players much down time in the campaign, so the wizards often don't have time to organize their spells for a major encounter, or reorganize their spells for the next major encounter [as major encounters often happen 4-5 times a day]. Thus, Sorcerers have the advantage of being able to toss out whatever spell they want without having to select them first, and thus can deal with a variety of enemies and situations with greater easy.

With the proper equipment, and the right spell selection, Sorcerers can be almost as batman as wizards. True, they don't get the ridiculous amount of spells, but they can carry just as many scrolls or wands, and they do get a lot more versatility. Additionally, sorcerers don't have to worry about as many different scrolls or spellbook components, so they often end up having more money left over for special magic items than wizards would.

The biggest problem for sorcs is, of course, spell selection. In order to be an effective sorc, you have to pick versatile spells [such as dispel magic or spells with multiple options, rather than single-use blasting items or spells only useful in a particular situation]. You also have to be very creative--you won't always have the right spell at the right time, but you might have a spell that will do the job almost as well.

For example, I once allowed my party to evade an encounter with a hungry [and oddly unintelligent] wyrm Red Dragon who demanded that we surrender whoever was "tastiest" from the group, as the Red Dragon was hungry. Unfortunatley for the hungry dragon, my sorcerer happened to have a crazy random spell called Horrible Taste from the Spell Compendium. Normally, its used for dealing with creatures that have bite attacks; in this case, well... you get the idea.



To me, the Sorcerer feels like his powers are simply thrown at him. By contrast the Wizard must EARN his abilities. This is why I prefer the Wizard. It has nothing to do with Power what-so-ever...

Precisely. This is why I love Wizards for fluff. Unfortunately, they just aren't versatile enough, unless you spend all your money on three or four scrolls of every single spell in the book.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-08, 04:12 PM
You shouldn't need the RAW to tell you that you can't make something you don't know how to make (which would be something you've never seen or worked with).

Spell research - RAW, you can research a permitted spell with the simple application of time, money, and a spellcraft check. A skill check, with a well-defined DC. Major Creation theoretically lets you make a skill check to make a complex item. A spellbook with a spell in it is still an item. Spell is used to bypass material and time costs - a fairly common application of spells.


I might as well make a medium weapon that deals 3d6 damage and has a crit range of 5-20x12, since by the RAW, I'm not _prevented_ from making items that don't exist.
Yeah, we're not talking about things that don't exist for a particular reason - we're simply talking about things that do exist but are simply not yet encountered. A skilled weaponsmith, having never seen a greatsword, could quite concievably make a greatsword (or something close enough that the difference is immaterial) simply by knowing what he wants and knowing the tools and methods of the trade. Especially if the smith has had lots of experience actually wielding weapons, and making things like, oh, a Bastard Sword.

We're not talking about Ye Olde Sworde ofe the Heavense.

At 100 gold coins per page, it might as well be adamantium ink.I picked Mithral for the weight - spellbooks don't increase in weight for the number of spells in them, or at least, it's not mentioned in the rulebooks - Adamantium does the job equally well.

Edit to avoid possible double-posting:

With a sane DM, however, a wizard wins every time. Even without the incredibly useful Collegiate Wizard feat from CArc (hidden outside the feats chapter, I think it's in the one called "Arcane Campaigns" in a sidebar), a wizard has WAY more tricks up his sleeve than a sorcerer. After a few levels it stops mattering that the sorceror can cast a single extra spell per day per spell level(assuming you're a specialist, and you should be), because the wizard can choose when and where to rest via spells like Rope Trick, Leomund's Secure Shelter and Teleport. The spontaneous casting of the sorcerer is countered by the wizard making a few scrolls of key utility spells that might be useful sometimes, but not all the time (Knock is a prime example) and wands for spells he likes to cast often (like certain offensive spells as well as common defensive buffs, like Shield). The wizard also wins for getting higher level spells a whole level earlier, and higher level spells mean everything. That means every other level, a sorcerer is much less powerful than a wizard. Here's class balance for you.
1) Wealth by level doesn't have anything to do with sanity (although you're crazy to break it your first few times out - it's something that needs to be handled fairly carefully). It is quite possible for a sane DM to make a low-wealth campaign. The DM simply has to know how to do it properly. Doing so makes Wizards weaker as compared to the Sorcerer (but still strong in comparison to, say, the Fighter - but there are ways around that, too; lots of found magic armor, weapons, and such, but no way to sell them effectively, because nobody has the money to buy them).

2) You mention "rest whenever" as a way around the Wizard's weaknesses. What, there's never any time pressure in your campaigns? The Big Bad Evil Guy isn't actively working on the Big Bad Evil Ritual? The mysteriously-magic-resistant army isn't arriving at the capital to torch it in a week? The Plauge isn't killing people on a daily basis? Nobody else is hunting that Artifact? Sure, when you're the only one going into a particular area, under no time constraints, the Rest Button is a Win for the Wizard. If the DM actually arranges the 3-5 encounters per day as reccomended, that's not an issue.

3) You mention the difference between a Wizard's and a Sorcerer's spells per day - but it's actually larger than it first appears. See, a Sorcerer doesn't have to worry about how many of a given spell to prepare, nor worry about preparing the wrong spell (most Sorcerer worries go into spell selection at level up). The Sorcerer, though, has more efficient spell slots. Where the Scorching Ray that the Wizard-6 prepared (to force a concentration check for enemy spellcasters, of course) consumes a slot uselessly until it can be abandoned at the next day's preparations, the Sorcerer-6 can simply shrug and cast Invisibility instead. Each spell a Wizard casts is an option the Wizard no longer has (until the next day) at that cost (virtually free - scrolls are another matter, but they cost XP and GP). Not so the Sorcerer. A Sorcerer's options aren't reduced until the Sorcerer is out of top-level spell slots. The Wizard can easily be out of spells useful to the situation and still have 25-50% spell slots unexpended. A reasonably well-designed Sorcerer isn't out of useful spells until the Sorcerer is out of spell slots for the top three levels.

I could go on - it won't usually be a Wizard-15 vs. a Sorcerer-15, so much as a Wizard-14 vs. a Sorcerer-15, as the Wizard is pretty much forced to craft things to mitigate class weaknesses, for example - but I've already covered most of it, if you care to look.

brian c
2007-05-08, 04:27 PM
Precisely. This is why I love Wizards for fluff. Unfortunately, they just aren't versatile enough, unless you spend all your money on three or four scrolls of every single spell in the book.

Wow, that's the only time I've ever heard someone say that Wizards aren't versatile enough. Wizards are versatile because they know so many spells, even if they get less per day. If a DM actually follows the 4/day rule, or more, then Wizard could start running out of spells and get into trouble like that, but I'm sure other people can tell you how Wizards weasel their way out of that with Rope Trick, Teleport, Magnificent Mansion, etc.

Lilivati
2007-05-08, 06:08 PM
I like wizards better when I know what to expect, because of their greater abundance of spells.

I like sorcerers better when I don't, because of their in situ flexibility.

Wizards are usually considered more flexible, but once you lock in your spells for the day, that's it. They have zero on the fly flexibility, at least until high levels when they get a sizeable amount of spells per day. That is the real advantage of the sorcerer class- you sacrifice spell variety, but you can pick what you need from what you know, as you go along. A sorcerer with a well-chosen selection of spells is more flexible, in my opinion, than a wizard.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-08, 06:20 PM
Wow, that's the only time I've ever heard someone say that Wizards aren't versatile enough. Wizards are versatile because they know so many spells, even if they get less per day. If a DM actually follows the 4/day rule, or more, then Wizard could start running out of spells and get into trouble like that, but I'm sure other people can tell you how Wizards weasel their way out of that with Rope Trick, Teleport, Magnificent Mansion, etc.
People tend to use Versitile and Flexible loosely - at one point, looking at round-to-round, and at another, looking at day-to-day. Making a distinction between the two for short periods of time only when convieninient, ignoring it the rest of the time.

Keeping the comparison Core:
Wizards have more options from day to day.
Sorcerers have more options from round to round.

I strongly suspect that Wizzardman is using the "round-to-round" version.

A Specialist Wizard-6 with an Intelligence score of 18 has 5 cantrip slots, 6 1st level spell slots, 5 2nd level spell slots, and 4 3rd level spell slots, for a total of 20 "free" spell options at any given moment. He also has some metamagic feats, but setting them at preparation time, he's stuck with the above for his maximum number of "free" spell options in a given round. Item Creation feats do not affect his "free" spell options (they cost gp and xp to use, and are thus not "free").

A Sorcerer-6 with a Charisma score of 18 has 7 0th level spells known, 4 1st level spells known, 2 2nd level spells known, and 1 third level spell known, for 14 base spell options... but the Sorcerer's metamagic feats do something extra for him - they increase his options.

Suppose the Sorcerer has, say, Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, and Empower Spell. Well, the Sorcerer could cast a 3rd level spell (1 option), cast a 2nd level spell (2 options), cast an Enlarged 2nd level spell (2 options), cast an Extended 2nd level spell (2 options), cast a 1st level spell (4 options), cast a metamagic'd 1st level spell (4*3 options), cast a 0th level spell (7 options), or cast a metamagic'd 0th level spell (3*7 options), for a total of 51 spell options (many of which will be pointless to the situation).

Every single spell the Wizard casts reduces his spell options by one; after three spells, that Wiz-6 is down to 17 "free" spell options. And the Wizard has probably used up his best "free" options at that point.

The Sorcerer, on the other hand, after expending three spells still has... 51 "free" spell options (pretty much guaranteed, as outlined above - the Sor-6 has 4 3rd level spell slots to play with).

Harkone
2007-05-08, 07:01 PM
It depends, as mentioned, on the DM. The DM I usually play with never lets us find spellbooks, simply because it would mean he'd have to prepare for it. He's the type who never prepares for anything, makes most things up on the fly and doesn't bother with rules if it doesn't suit him (in fact, he doesn't know most of them). Therefore, he never actually knows what spells an NPC wizard has, except maybe a few signature ones he decides on. In case it becomes important whether a particular NPC knows a certain spell, he rolls randomly for it. It gets pretty annoying after a while. Anyway, with a guy like this: Sorcerer all the way, no question. We don't have WBL by a long shot most of the time, so making/buying scrolls and wands that wizards have to rely a bit on is out of the question.

Just as an aside, how/why do you put up with that sort of nonsense? (Sorry, I'm a DM, and I take it seriously; I hate to see some clown besmirching the rep of DM's everywhere).

Arbitrarity
2007-05-08, 07:13 PM
Quadruple post? You're a god.

Flexible is sorceror, versatile is wizard. When you can choose all the options, you have an advantage.

For example, mind blank. An utter waste of a slot for a sorceror, but no wizard goes without one. Why? Because the wizard has the spells known.

Dozens of buffs are like this. No sorceror would take them, cause you cast them 1/day. The wizard burns his spell slots, and gets immunity to all elements, never FF, immune to mind affecting and divination, etc.

Talya
2007-05-08, 07:23 PM
I much prefer the flavor of the sorceror, but the wizard is without question more powerful.

I'd suggest that the sorceror needs the wizard's bonus feats, needs to be able to metamagic without taking a full round action (and therefore be able to quicken at will), AND about an extra 1-2 spells per spell level for the gap to narrow.

Khoran
2007-05-08, 07:27 PM
I've tried a little bit of both, I know this Wizard is better, but I enjoy the Sorcerers more then I enjoy Wizards. I guess I just love spontanious casting. Though Wizards do kick the crap out of Sorcerers in pretty much every way. Get spells sooners, gets more feats, gets the ability to learn every spell that exist. Wizards win crunch wise, but I love the Sorcerer class personally.

Harkone
2007-05-08, 07:28 PM
Sorry about all the posts; this site is slow and occasionally hard to post on. Is there any way to delete a post?

Edit: Never mind; I got it.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-08, 07:52 PM
Quadruple post? You're a god.

Flexible is sorceror, versatile is wizard. When you can choose all the options, you have an advantage.

For example, mind blank. An utter waste of a slot for a sorceror, but no wizard goes without one. Why? Because the wizard has the spells known.

Dozens of buffs are like this. No sorceror would take them, cause you cast them 1/day. The wizard burns his spell slots, and gets immunity to all elements, never FF, immune to mind affecting and divination, etc.
Funny thing.... but for a Sorcerer/Wizard worried only about themselves, directly, that's true. In a balanced cooperative party, on the other hand, you don't want that low will-save direct combat monkey standing around playing bodyguard to suddenly be standing around playing smash the spellcaster (Dominate Person? Suggestion? Bad roll on Confusion/Insanity? Whatever, there's lots of ways it can happen; some blockable by Protection From X, some not; pretty much all of them blockable by Mind Blank). Likewise, you don't want the sneak of the party to be doing something similar. You also don't want to suffer proximity effect divinations; someone who's tracking the party can track the most easily trackable member - usually the Fighter or Rogue - and when you are accompanying them (or vice versa), you're tracked by proximity, even though you never show up on the scrying / Discern Location. In a party environment, it's very, very useful to be able to spam Mind Blank. The Sorcerer can do so basically as soon as the Sorcerer has the spell. Unless the Wizard is an Abjuration specialist, it'll be a while before it's possible. Immunity to all elements? Cleric has that covered - you only really need it if you plan to solo for whatever reason. Even so, though, Protection from Energy is only a 3rd level spell, and only lasts 10 minutes/level. The Wizard, even at fairly high levels, is unlikely to be covered for all options continuously. The Sorcerer has a better chance of it. Okay, a Sorcerer probably isn't going to take Foresight, you got me there.

What's even funnier? The Wizard who depends on single copy of all-day buffs is ripe for some stripe of spell-ending spell (Dispell Magic, Greater Dispell Magic, or Disjunction, Core; variants non-core, all level-appropriet); and when it lands, with only a single copy of the spell, the Wizard either needs to retreat or press on without it. Sorcerer? Recast, no problem.

What's really funny? The Sorcerer's Spells Known looks a lot like the generalist Wizard's spells per day. Many (far from all) Wizards take essentially the same spell loadout from one day to the next. And many (not all) Wizards have at least one or two same-function spells per spell level (be that copies of the same spell or spells that do similar things in different ways - e.g., two save or lose spells of the same level). It's not too uncommon for a Sorcerer's Spells Known to have more different spells on it than a Wizard's spells-per-day does.

The two classes have different advantages and disadvantages. There is a reason why the reccomendation for a party with two primary arcanists is a Wizard and a Sorcerer (when playing Core, at least).

KoDT69
2007-05-08, 09:24 PM
I kept seeing people post that Sorcerers can't use Quicken Spell. I'm not sure when that changed, maybe in 3.5, because my original PHB doesn't limit the feat. I checked the SRD and it says it can't be applied to ANY spontaneous casting, which I believe to be a huge pile of crap. Where did they come up with the reasoning behind this?

This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.

This logic baffles me??? :smallfurious:
The whole point of Quicken Spell is to make it a SWIFT ACTION, so why does it matter if it was prepared or spontaneous? Seriously, this seems like an arbitrary way to limit spontaneous casters, as if limited spell selection and lack of bonus feats weren't enough to make the 3.5 Sorcerer inferior to the Wizard.

In light of this, I made a few houserules for my campaign...
1 - Metamagics work the same for all casting classes.
2 - Sorcerers get triple the normal spells known as on the 3.5 table and can relearn/drop spells with 1 day per spell level of training time.
3 - Sorcerers get bonus feats at level 1, 10, and 20.

Talya
2007-05-08, 09:54 PM
In light of this, I made a few houserules for my campaign...
1 - Metamagics work the same for all casting classes.

Good rule.



3 - Sorcerers get bonus feats at level 1, 10, and 20.

Good rule. I just give mine wizard bonus feats (5, 10, 15, 20).


2 - Sorcerers get triple the normal spells known as on the 3.5 table and can relearn/drop spells with 1 day per spell level of training time.

...why play a wizard in your campaign? :)

seriously, as much as I love the sorceror and would love to see it equal to a wizard, that's overkill. Double would be too much. I'd say add 50% more spells per spell level (round down.)

KoDT69
2007-05-09, 06:32 AM
If you consider how many splatbooks are available, the Wizard could end up with 500 spells to choose from. I allow all WotC printed books in my campaigns. I also do not make it too much trouble to get spells for the Wizard either. And as far as why play a Wizard in my campaign? Hmmm good question. I prefer the fluff of the Sorcerer and that is a general consensus at my game table. We tried just letting the Wizard cast spontaneously from his spellbook too. WotC had a good idea with the Sorcerer then quickly nerfed it for some reason. I seriously don't see how knowing 100 spells by level 20 is overkill... When the other 3 full casters will have 500 or so to choose from if you use all of the printed material. I seriously think that a 20th level Sorcerer should know at least half as many spells as are in the core PHB. I really don't like the Wizard fluff because it's a glorified bookworm who has to study everything all the time. A Sorcerer has no spellbook to lose, no wasted time in libraries, no trouble hunting for spells, and no problem getting a date (well maybe, depends on the player really :smallyuk:).

Reinboom
2007-05-09, 07:11 AM
Par "official", a sorcerer -can- use Quicken Spell, they just either need spontaneous metamagic or take the PHB 2 metamagic sorcerer alternative.

I agree all around that the sorcerer gets jipped beyond this however.

Talya
2007-05-09, 07:40 AM
Par "official", a sorcerer -can- use Quicken Spell, they just either need spontaneous metamagic or take the PHB 2 metamagic sorcerer alternative.

I agree all around that the sorcerer gets jipped beyond this however.

Alternately they can take the feat Arcane Spell Preparation, but that rather defeats the purpose of spontaneous casting.

Jack_Simth
2007-05-09, 08:40 PM
Alternately they can take the feat Arcane Spell Preparation, but that rather defeats the purpose of spontaneous casting.
Sorta.

See, the Sorcerer doesn't need to prep all his spell slots. Most spontaneous, some prepared. Other than for use with Quicken Spell, the Sorcerer generally won't want to prepare a spell. Even using Quicken Spell, ideally, the Sorcerer will basically only have one or two Quickened spells prepared at any given time; if they're warrented, they're used, and replaced in the aftermath (unless the party is in a hurry due to buff durations).

The big gem of Arcane Preparation, though, is access to the Mage of the Arcane Order prestige class (need one bonus feat to qualify at 5th to take it for your 6th level - a flaw, human race, or some other method; otherwise, you can qualify at 6th to take it at 7th+). Through that, the Sorcerer can get access to any Sor/Wiz PHB spell (a limited number of times per day, with some caveats, buy the book for details) on one round's notice. This mostly bypasses the Sorcerer's greatest weakness - the inability to get the right spell for the job.

Turcano
2007-05-10, 12:23 PM
I kept seeing people post that Sorcerers can't use Quicken Spell. I'm not sure when that changed, maybe in 3.5, because my original PHB doesn't limit the feat. I checked the SRD and it says it can't be applied to ANY spontaneous casting, which I believe to be a huge pile of crap. Where did they come up with the reasoning behind this?

This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.

This logic baffles me??? :smallfurious:
The whole point of Quicken Spell is to make it a SWIFT ACTION, so why does it matter if it was prepared or spontaneous? Seriously, this seems like an arbitrary way to limit spontaneous casters, as if limited spell selection and lack of bonus feats weren't enough to make the 3.5 Sorcerer inferior to the Wizard.

The reason for this is the fact that Quicken Spell can only be applied to spells with a casting time of a standard action or less (I know that applying Quicken Spell to a spell quicker than a standard action is pointless, but it's still possible). Since applying metamagic feats to a spontaneous spell makes it a full-round action, Quicken Spell doesn't work, as the casting time is now too long for it to apply.

Telonius
2007-05-10, 12:34 PM
I like sorcerers better, because I generally like playing high-charisma characters. Fewer spells to choose from means less time flipping through the PHB, Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, the Spell Compendium, and four other books trying to remember what precise spell I need in the situation we may or may not encounter. (Or rather I only do that on levelling up). And that means more time spent roleplaying. The thing that the Sorc gets kinda hosed on is metamagics, but I can live with that.

Gungnir
2007-05-10, 06:08 PM
I like sorcerers better, for flavor reasons.

1st level Wizard: "I've spent decades under my teacher mastering the basics of my art!"

1st level Sorcerer: "I learned how to exert the force of my will over the laws of physics with the same potency as you, in about half the time, with no teacher!"

Raw talent is more fun than practiced excellence. If you disagree, go tell Ichigo, and he will beat you to death with your own skull to prove my point.

...Also, that's a hell of a cross-reference, even for me.

master ranger
2007-07-15, 04:30 PM
sorcerer better a combat

Kurald Galain
2007-07-15, 05:07 PM
sorcerer better a combat

Oh no they're not.

Power-wise, wizard beats sorcerer, hands down.

Flavor-wise, that's a matter of taste but personally I prefer the learned study kind of magician over the inborn weird talent kind of magician. Yes I'm oversimplifying that.

mostlyharmful
2007-07-15, 05:11 PM
i run a campaign where there are no sorcerers, wizards don't have spell memorizzation, the Gp cost and spellcraft check for "writing a spell in their spell book" is actually a period of training after which they know the spell, wizards are still obsessed by finding old books for the recorded spell formula in them and they aren't hampered by the unexpected.:smallbiggrin:

Pirate_King
2007-07-15, 05:14 PM
it's easier to keep track of spells. that's as far as I'm going meta-game wise. rp-wise, I enjoy the idea of someone that magic comes naturally to. the way they gain new spells can be just as creative as wizards finding scrolls and studying and so on; in game, a sorcerer's new spells can manifest by amusing chance, exposure to different kinds of magic, observation and attempt at imitation of natural phenomena, etc. Heritage doesn't have to be the reason a sorcerer has his powers, either. I suppose my preference relates to how I generally go about in school, work, and probably every other aspect of my life, sticking to what I seem to be naturally good at rather than practicing or studying anything else.

Zeful
2007-07-15, 07:03 PM
indentI like sorcerers despite the weirdness that is D&D magic. I understand why wizards need bat quano and sulfer for fireball, they study and effect the universe with their understanding of it.
indentSorcerers can manipulate the universe by wanting it to happen. But because they're learning to control their powers, taking less time to do so than it's to learn to manipulate the universe.
indentWizards need a mentor or a college otherwise they don't exist. Period. The fluff of a wizard makes them dependent on an existing organization. They then get access to a library with conceivibally information on anything.
indentSorcerers are ostracized from their communities because they start with no control over their powers ("sorry about the ray of frost/acid splash mom.") So they generally have to survive on their own in the wild or a larger city where accidents with magic aren't going to be noticed. Because their more personally forceful they generally make more friends and have better conections with people.
indentAs I think about the Sorcerer Class and it's weaknesses. I look at what makes sense to give them to make the cruch and fluff more synonymous. I think about giving them the following:

4+Int skill points a level: they have more time to learn stuff other than magic, skill points should reflect that.
Knowledge (local) and Survival as class skills: As they are most likely exiled from their community they have to learn to survive on their own, as represented by Survival. The need survival is compounded by the high charisma, they attract and make friends with people, or repel them and make enemies, but they often need to learn more about their environ in order to survive, hence Knowledge (local)
Any two skills as class skills: A Sorcerer has more time to learn stuff, but his situation and oppritunities are different for each one. This represents the variety of things a Sorcerer studies based on his life uptill now.
Free Eschew Materials @ 1st level
Free Metamagic Acceleration @ 1st level: Wizards deal with formulaic changes at preperation, sorcerers are born connected to magic their spells aren't formulae, so they can make changes on the fly to their spells without thinking about it. The mental abilities are built in subconsciously
Free Highten Spell @ 6th level: They're natural conduates for magic, they don't have any abilities to regulate the spells and keep them weaker. Formulaic spells, as with any fromulae work in a vacuum, they need to be adjusted to change them. Sorcerers don't deal with formulae so they aren't restricted in that manner.
Natural (Unmodified) Cha bonus to spells known: The spells a sorcerer know represent his influence over the univers. His Charisma score represents the pull he can exert on the universe, and thus the amount of spells.
Ability to change Cha bonus worth of spells every even level at 4th: Magic is transient, and the sorcerer is the embodiment of that. Their pull on the universe is also a pull by the universe. This causes the sorcerer to realize how to cast certain spells at the expense of others. He doesn't forget them per say, he just can't cast them for a little while.


I feel this better represents the sorcerer, but it's not the best that's been come up with.

Thinker
2007-07-15, 08:25 PM
What are you guys Talking about? Wizards are worse than Sorcerors hands down!!! Sorcerors can cast spontaneously which is WAY worse than prepared. You always get the spell you need!

Duke Malagigi
2007-07-15, 08:27 PM
Of the Vancian casting (*bleuch!*) core classes I much prefer the intellectual rigour and pseudo-"Order of Hermes" scholastic win of wizards over the "Mommy did a magic man, so I'm magic too" hard fail of sorcerers. Bards? Those dilettantes don't even warrant a mention. :smalltongue:

Would you let me sig that one too? Please, I promise not to cause any trouble with it.

As for me I prefer wizards. The knowledgeable, well read and intelligent arcanist who magically manipulates the universe using the fundamental laws of science always seemed more interesting than some charming and persuasive jackass who uses magic as some sort of mystic sledgehammer and tries to beat the universe into compliance. In fact the word "wizard" comes from an Old English word meaning "wise man" or "wise woman", as a term for experience and knowledge. The word "sorcerer" or "sorceress" comes from an Old French word meaning "sortilege" or divination by lots or by lottery. In fact the words "magic" and "magi" come from the ancient Persian word "magos" or "wise man" A.K.A wizard. Well known magos include the Three Magi of the Nativity Story of the New Testament. Now stuff that in your pipe and smoke it sorcerer lovers!

CASTLEMIKE
2007-07-15, 08:53 PM
A like sorcerers or UA SRD variant spellcasters for the reduced recordkeeping although Beguiler is better with an Ultimate Magus build .

Spell Pool access from a Feat or PRC like Mage of the Arcane Order or Guild Wizard of Waterdeep with a Ring of Theurgy (20,000 GP Complete Arcane (Holds 3 Spells as Known Spells for a Sorcerer) from level 11+ and Two rings from level 13+ addresses most of the limited known spell problems using standard wealth guidelines.

Taking the Any Spell or Any Spell (Greater) as a Known spell is also nice for some more flexibility if there are no spell pools in the campaign.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-16, 06:13 AM
What are you guys Talking about? Wizards are worse than Sorcerors hands down!!! Sorcerors can cast spontaneously which is WAY worse than prepared. You always get the spell you need!

Except that you only know, like, twelve spells to begin with. For a wizard, sky's the limit.

Dausuul
2007-07-16, 07:21 AM
If they were perfecty balanced, I'd prefer a sorcerer. As-is, I prefer sorcerers. If they were hideously underpowered, I'd just play a melee character :)

So youre playing a melee character? :smallwink:

Sorcerors? Underpowered? What game are you playing? Sorcerors are the fourth most powerful class in Core, and hold their own nicely even when you add in non-core stuff.

Just because it's not as powerful as a Batman wizard doesn't make it underpowered. That's like saying a car is slow because it doesn't go as fast as a supersonic fighter jet.

new1965
2007-07-16, 07:24 AM
Like it was said before... it all depends on the campaign and the DM

MY DM targets individual campaigns to specific characters so that all the players have a chance to be the center of attention at one point or another. We are currently going through an evil clerics tower that the DM let slip is supposed to take us from level 10-13

With not much of a chance of finding an spell book or an arcane scroll, the wizard is going to walk out with the ABILITY to cast level 6 and 7 spells but wont have the opportunity to learn (or get components for) them until we get back to a city.
A sorcerer would be able to take advantage of 6th levels spells at the big showdown at the end of the campaign

In a situation like that, a wizard walks in with an advantage but the sorcerer walks out with one.

as an aside.. a high level spell thief can ruin a wizards whole day while its just annoying for a sorceror

Kurald Galain
2007-07-16, 08:20 AM
With not much of a chance of finding an spell book or an arcane scroll, the wizard is going to walk out with the ABILITY to cast level 6 and 7 spells but wont have the opportunity to learn (or get components for) them until we get back to a city.
False. Wizards gain two spells in their book per levelup. Also, plenty of spells don't have components, or have the cheap stuff you're supposed to be carrying in your pouch anyway.


as an aside.. a high level spell thief can ruin a wizards whole day while its just annoying for a sorceror
Er, no. "A spontaneous caster also loses the ability to cast the stolen spell for 1 minute."

new1965
2007-07-16, 09:34 AM
False. Wizards gain two spells in their book per levelup. Also, plenty of spells don't have components, or have the cheap stuff you're supposed to be carrying in your pouch anyway.

The spells dont just pop in the spell book. They have to be learned and written into the SpellBook (PHB 178-179 it even says "between adventures") and it takes 24 hours to do 1 spell


Er, no. "A spontaneous caster also loses the ability to cast the stolen spell for 1 minute."

Thats just annoying when compared to the fact that a Wizard looses the spell /slot for the day

Kurald Galain
2007-07-16, 09:59 AM
The spells dont just pop in the spell book. They have to be learned and written into the SpellBook (PHB 178-179 it even says "between adventures") and it takes 24 hours to do 1 spell

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

It's assumed they have been working on it at camp time.
It'd be a rather mean personal nerf, otherwise, if a wiz levels up to be able to cast 4th level spells, but is not allowed by the DM to actually learn any 4th level spells until three levels later.



Thats just annoying when compared to the fact that a Wizard looses the spell /slot for the day

Sorc also loses the spell slot.

new1965
2007-07-16, 10:19 AM
[url]
It'd be a rather mean personal nerf, otherwise, if a wiz levels up to be able to cast 4th level spells, but is not allowed by the DM to actually learn any 4th level spells until three levels later.

Thats the problem... according to the rules.. the wizard has to learn the spell from a source unless she makes up a similar one on her own. For instance.. a DM may let someone create a fireball spell for their book if they know.... say... Kelgores firebolt already. But it doesnt help them figure out how to cast teleport. Of course, people can have house rules as i they see fit but according to the PHB.......

If any spell could just be added while sitting at camp, it kills the illusion of the whole research aspect of the class

The sorcerers ability to cast any spell known versus only the ones they have prepared is what makes the spell thief thing less trouble to a sorcerer but much more devestating to a wizard

CASTLEMIKE
2007-07-16, 04:08 PM
I much prefer the flavor of the sorceror, but the wizard is without question more powerful.

I'd suggest that the sorceror needs the wizard's bonus feats, needs to be able to metamagic without taking a full round action (and therefore be able to quicken at will), AND about an extra 1-2 spells per spell level for the gap to narrow.

That is why the UA and D20 SRD Spellcaster is such an improvement basically a sorcerer fix. Bonus Feats at 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 plus other stuff. All spells basically.

Going sorcerer to spellcaster variant you pick up so much for losing neglible spellcasting and simple weapon proficiency for one single weapon more than made up by the things you can get in game for five feats instead of a familiar (which you could still take) and doing so is generally a good idea. (Miracle instead of Wish, ability to use items like Wands of Cure light). Taking the Adaptive Learning Feat as a human addresses skill choices in a skill based campaign.

Doing the same with a Favored Soul is generally a bad idea. Losing all good save, average BAB, fewer known spells, 5 open bonus feats in exchange for 7 specials, armor and weapon proficiencies.

Using a bonus feat to take a Domain with fixed spells as known spells also helps.

Paticularly when you look at what the Beguiler gets for known spells now.

Just bumping up known spells to be comparable to a Favored Soul helps quite a bit.