Rich's anti-sorceror agenda

[Sky_Schemer]

I'm onto you, Mr. Burlew. There's not a single example of a fine, upstanding citizen in the OOtS universe that is a member of the sorceror class. It's clear from this and SoD that you're unfairly stereotyping the misguided fools that choose this path as psychotic miscreants with limited social skills. They may not be very smart, or particularly talented. They may be just pretty boys and girls with vapid personalities and more than enough power to be dangerous. But I'm sure they wouldn't like to be categorized as such, especially if their underdeveloped squirrel-brains were capable of registering it.

You need to watch out. One day there will be a sorceror born that's twice as smart as all those who came before him (or her), and they may learn to read. And then you'll be in trouble.

Assuming they can come up with a plan.

[Jefepato]

There's not a single example of a fine, upstanding citizen in the OOtS universe that is a member of the sorceror class.

Spoiler for Start of Darkness:
The S-Men.

Besides, you could pretty much say the same about druids and rangers.

[Sky_Schemer]

Spoiler for Start of Darkness:

Yeah. And how well did that work out for them? It's all just part of his plan.

No. Not that plan. The other one.

[Chronos]

There are a few arcane spellcasters among the Sapphire Guard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html), such as that lady flying in the upper-right corner of the panel. While we don't have any specifics of these individuals' class builds, as multiclassed paladins, they are much more likely to be sorcerors than wizards. And you can't get much more fine or upstanding citizens than paladins.

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

There are a few arcane spellcasters among the Sapphire Guard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html), such as that lady flying in the upper-right corner of the panel. While we don't have any specifics of these individuals' class builds, as multiclassed paladins, they are much more likely to be sorcerors than wizards. And you can't get much more fine or upstanding citizens than paladins.

Yeah, and you know what other class is fine & upstanding? Monk. In fact, if Rich put in a Monk/Paladin character, I'd reckon he (or she?) would be the finest, upstandingest character in all the OotSverse.

Wait, why did I just say "reckon"?

[Scarab83]

There are a few arcane spellcasters among the Sapphire Guard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html), such as that lady flying in the upper-right corner of the panel. While we don't have any specifics of these individuals' class builds, as multiclassed paladins, they are much more likely to be sorcerors than wizards. And you can't get much more fine or upstanding citizens than paladins.

Could've been a Cleric. They get a fly spell, don't they? Or is that a domain spell?

[Oberon]

Could've been a Cleric. They get a fly spell, don't they? Or is that a domain spell?

Travel domain, I believe. 3rd level.

[Hijklio]

Yeah, and you know what other class is fine & upstanding? Monk. In fact, if Rich put in a Monk/Paladin character, I'd reckon he (or she?) would be the finest, upstandingest character in all the OotSverse.

Wait, why did I just say "reckon"?

Wasn't Miko a monk/paladin combo?

[Dhavaer]

Wasn't Miko a monk/paladin combo?

I believe that was the point being made.

[Impikmin]

Aww, come on... Don't be Richater!:smallyuk: He he... new word:elan:

[Alysar]

Yeah, and you know what other class is fine & upstanding? Monk. In fact, if Rich put in a Monk/Paladin character, I'd reckon he (or she?) would be the finest, upstandingest character in all the OotSverse.

Wait, why did I just say "reckon"?

Wait, why did you just say "upstandingest"?

[Hijklio]

I believe that was the point being made.

Must've failed my spot check for the joke.

[Lavidor]

Girard was a sorcerer (probably multiclass, but still). The Order of the Rifts has examples for paladin, druid, rogue, barbarian, wizard and sorcerer.

[Elfanatic]

Sorcere(r)(ss) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html)

Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html)

Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html)

The defense rests and enjoys a cold beer.

[Regneva]

Being the only sorcerer in OOTS (I'm unable to get the books, I'm not American) that "Hot Chick" was not an example of an "Upstanding citizen" I think.

I think what he is looking for is "Good" Sorcerers.

[ssjKammak]

Umm didnt the party that sealed the snarl in the crayon comics .. sorry im too lazy to go back and look it up .. contain a druid im sure she was an upstanding citizen.

Just a thought
Cheers

[Enlong]

Xykon = Sorcerer

Solid wall of evidence.

[Ancalagon]

Being the only sorcerer in OOTS (I'm unable to get the books, I'm not American) that "Hot Chick" was not an example of an "Upstanding citizen" I think.

I think what he is looking for is "Good" Sorcerers.

OT: Even non-americans can get (order) the books.

[Sky_Schemer]

Girard was a sorcerer (probably multiclass, but still).

Was he a sorcerer? I don't think it was ever stated as such. He's described in The Crayons of Time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html) as an illusionist, which implies a wizard with specialization. But, I can see where there are hints of him being a sorcerer, too.

Either way, the scorecard for sorcerers in OOtS is not so good. We have three named examples in Xykon, Nale, and Samantha, and all three are bad seeds. :)

[Koretsu]

Was he a sorcerer? I don't think it was ever stated as such. He's described in The Crayons of Time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html) as an illusionist, which implies a wizard with specialization. But, I can see where there are hints of him being a sorcerer, too.

Either way, the scorecard for sorcerers in OOtS is not so good. We have three named examples in Xykon, Nale, and Samantha, and all three are bad seeds. :)

Not necessarily true. I've often found that Wizard illusionists are somewhat lacking in the versatility needed to adapt illusions to a given situation. One of my favorite characters ever was a gnome sorcerer who's spells known list was entirely made up of Illusion spells. Bam. You have an illusionist. More spells per day than a specialist wizard, and you get more adaptability to what illusions you have access to at any given moment.

[lavidor10]

Oh, he's definitely a sorcerer. He has a dragony mark on his cheek that the Elf Sorcerer Oots Avatar has on the forums.

http://www.giantitp.com/avatars/GreenSorcererElf.gif

[The Pink Ninja]

The Origin of PCs bashed Monks so hard I've stopped playing them :(

[Green Bean]

The Origin of PCs bashed Monks so hard I've stopped playing them :(

Heh. I loved that scene. Especially
the irony of a TWF ranger bashing someone for sacrificing accuracy for extra attacks

[Morty]

I doubt Rich has got any anti-Sorceror agenda, but such agenga would be completely understandable, as Sorceror is, beside Monk, the most unnecessary and silly class in D&D.

[Spiryt]

I doubt Rich has got any anti-Sorceror agenda, but such agenga would be completely understandable, as Sorceror is, beside Monk, the most unnecessary and silly class in D&D.

No offense to you guys, but i bassically don't know what is worse...

Guy who obviously is sorceror-lover (talking about unfairly stereotyping the misguided fools that choose this path as psychotic miscreants with limited social skills and gennerally is convicing us that they are not all bad...)

Sky_Schemer, if I rememmber well, Belkar is lone ranger in all strips (although probably YikYik was one too.) Both of them - murderous midgets.
So Rich's anti ranger agenda, then?

And Mort, I don't know why sorcerors are silly?
Monks maybe little, but whe are similar guys even in our world ( Shao-lin anyone?) It's pretty obvious that any Shaolin monk with just die in duel with guy who has sword and any conception how to use it.
But it's D&D so it's OK that such guys can defeat armed warriors (despite the fact that they can't - if on similar level) or dragons whith punches.

And only problem with sorcerors is that they'r overpowered, like all full casters. But at least are weaker than wizzards.

[BloodyAngel]

Personally, I love the sorcerer class. I like the idea of "inborn" magic rather than long, studied books of magic. I'm not so sure about the dragon bit... most of the sorcerers I've played have had demonic or devilish blood in them. I do think that they need a bit of a bump to make them more effective. Compared to their counterpart, wizards.... they're usually sub-par.

Sorcerers lack versitility, since they get SO few spells known. Most of them go the route of "Battle mage" and just get the most generic, useful combat spells they can. Now that Warmage has trumped everyone as the ultimate battle mage class... sorcerer is out of luck.

Sorcerers don't get bonus feats. In a game with SO many feats, that kind of bites. They may get more spells per day than wizards... but wizards get higher leveled spells quicker. That evens it out in my opinion. I'd preffer having 2nd and 1st level spells over having a crap-load of 1st level ones. It again gimps their versitility. We won't even get into metamagic feats, since they can use them on the fly, which IS very nice... even if they can't make use of quickened spells.... ever.

The sorcerer's only other perk on wizards is they can use simple weapons. Wheeee! Of course... they still have d4 HP, no armor... and the worst base attack in the game... So really... any sorcerer who tries to use his mighty spear will probably end up laughed at and killed. Of course, there are spells to fix that, like Tenser's Transformation... but wizards can use them too... and they get them sooner. The only real down-side to a wizard is the "I need my spellbook" thing... which hardly ever comes up in games... at least, not in games that I'm in.

The point of this long-winded rant is... I actually forgot. Something about sorcerers being cool, but getting the shaft in favor of wizards.
But I still love them. And like any spellcasting class... they may not be as nasty as wizards... but at higher levels, they leave all the non-spellcaster classes in the dust. Of course... one round within melee range of a hill giant and they're toast. With great power comes d4 hit dice.

[OOTS_Rules.]

I like Sorcerers better. They could have studied high-level spells before they could use them, while wizards probably wouldn't waste all of the spel-scribing time.

Wizard in a dungeon, whom is now level 20 and hasn't left the dungeon since he were level one. He also hasn't found any written spells to scribe into his spellbook: Um, it has been 20 FARGING LEVELS and I have NO FARGING SPELLS! :furious: Now i'm useless. . . :frown:

Sorcerer in same predicament: Another level up? Good, now I can cast those high-level spells that I have studied for my whole adulthood. Thinking pays off! :biggrin:

[Aquaseafoam]

Bloody Angel, on sorcerers using quickened casting. Practiced Spellcaster, Metamagic Specialist, Sudden Quicken, and who could forget Rods.

[Chronos]

Wizards have three main drawbacks: First, they have to prepare spells, and if you prepared the wrong spells for a situation, you're pretty much screwed. Second, they get less spells per day, which is extremely annoying, especially at the lower levels. Third, a wizard only learns two spells for free at each level, and for all other spells is dependant on finding other wizards' spellbooks.

Sorcerers have three main drawbacks: First, they gain new spell levels a level later than wizards. Second, they have a limit to how many spells they can know. Third, they don't get bonus feats.

Frankly, I think this is about a wash. The feats aren't actually such a big deal, since most feats are combat-oriented, so neither a wizard nor a sorcerer would bother with them, anyway. If a sorcerer wants a few metamagic feats, e can just take them as es regular one-every-three-levels feats. And depending on how easy spellbooks are to come by, a sorcerer may even have a "spells known" list longer than the wizard's. Even if the wizard knows more, they're not all necessarily spells e would have chosen. That just leaves the bit about learning spells later as a sorcerer drawback, and even that is only relevant at odd-numbered levels.

[OOTS_Rules.]

Here is my idea: A sorcerer can spend time practicing spells from scrolls and other spellbooks. That way, they can learn more spells during downtime.

[Drakron]

Here is my idea: A sorcerer can spend time practicing spells from scrolls and other spellbooks. That way, they can learn more spells during downtime.

No and I do not think I would need to say why its a bad idea.

[Enlong]

So I'll say it. It would make the class way too powerful. A wide range of spells is what the Wizard has going for it. Spontaneous casting is what the Sorcerer has going for it. Giving the Sorcerer both pros, and simultaneously eliminating it's con? Not a good idea.

[OOTS_Rules.]

But it wouldn't take 5 seconds to learn a spell, it would take, like, two months per spell (And no, saying "Two Months Later" does NOT count). You complain that the sorcerer is sub-par, but I think that my idea would be fair. Wizards also get knowledge and item creation feats going for them, so why can't we kick Sorcerers up a notch?

[Drakron]

But it wouldn't take 5 seconds to learn a spell, it would take, like, two months per spell (And no, saying "Two Months Later" does NOT count).

No.

Time mechanics in D&D are always somewhat limited for a reason, two months can pass exactly like that (saying "two months later" or you think that everyone uses teleporting magic to go around, ship travel would take weeks if not months)


You complain that the sorcerer is sub-par, but I think that my idea would be fair.

No, its simply a better wizard without the bonus feats.


Wizards also get knowledge and item creation feats going for them, so why can't we kick Sorcerers up a notch?

Because BOTH knowledge and item creation are more for NPC use that PC use, they exist to give a logical reason why +3 longswords are around.

The sorcerer is pretty much a battlefield spellcaster, that is his point.

[OOTS_Rules.]

Personally, as a DM, "2 months later" doesn't cut it for me. I'll ammend the time to, say, 3 years per spell. That sounds fair. Then the sorcerer will slowly gain new spells without completely overshadowing the wizards.

[Drakron]

Are you joking?

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to use such time mechanic, some campaigns last for decades in the game time as other just for years.

And yes, "2 months later" happens when its a long voyage were the only thing that is happening is rolling in the encounter table and any combat that comes from that.

[Gavin Sage]

But it wouldn't take 5 seconds to learn a spell, it would take, like, two months per spell (And no, saying "Two Months Later" does NOT count). You complain that the sorcerer is sub-par, but I think that my idea would be fair. Wizards also get knowledge and item creation feats going for them, so why can't we kick Sorcerers up a notch?

The Sorceror is perfectly fine and plenty powerful, its the Wizard that is broken and should be taken down a notch or two. Just saying....

[Sky_Schemer]

Sky_Schemer, if I rememmber well, Belkar is lone ranger in all strips (although probably YikYik was one too.) Both of them - murderous midgets. So Rich's anti ranger agenda, then?

You know, if you put YikYik in with YokYok and The Oracle, suddenly another pattern emerges: Rich's anti-Kobold agenda. But that's okay, I think, since Kobolds exist to be killed by PC's.

I think we need more data points before we cry foul on Rangers. With Sorcerers, though, I think we've got a good case for discrimination. I think it's time to call Mr. Jones and Mr. Rodriguez.

Anyone want to take bets on Tsukiko's arcane class?

[Chronos]

Anyone want to take bets on Tsukiko's arcane class?I don't think there's any doubt she's a Necromancy-specialized wizard. Sorceror slows down the Mystic Theurge build by a level, and besides, she was arrested for "unnatural acts of wizardry", not "of sorcery". And given her... hobbies..., specializing in Necromancy is just a given.

Oh, and I remembered another example of an upstanding sorcerer: The silver dragon, which, in the bonus strips, specifically points out that it's a sorcerer (as are all dragons). Now, admittedly, that didn't work out too well for it, but I'm sure it was a paragon of virtue while alive.

[chorpler]

Hey, Chronos! Good to see you.

[Sky_Schemer]

she was arrested for "unnatural acts of wizardry", not "of sorcery".

That's a good point. Looking back through that set, the wizard angle does seem to make more sense.


Oh, and I remembered another example of an upstanding sorcerer: The silver dragon, which, in the bonus strips, specifically points out that it's a sorcerer (as are all dragons). Now, admittedly, that didn't work out too well for it, but I'm sure it was a paragon of virtue while alive.

Good sorcerers are the new red shirts. :smalleek:

[Aquillion]

IWizard in a dungeon, whom is now level 20 and hasn't left the dungeon since he were level one. He also hasn't found any written spells to scribe into his spellbook: Um, it has been 20 FARGING LEVELS and I have NO FARGING SPELLS! :furious: Now i'm useless. . . :frown:Per RAW, wizards get, at a bare minimum, two new spells in their spellbook per level, instantly and automatically. Naturally, they can also try and talk any other arcane caster they meet into scribing scrolls for them, possibly by offering to trade spells... if they ever encounter an NPC wizard, they can try and steal his spellbook.


You know, if you put YikYik in with YokYok and The Oracle, suddenly another pattern emerges: Rich's anti-Kobold agenda. But that's okay, I think, since Kobolds exist to be killed by PC's.Yes, you would almost think that he has some sort of bizarre houseruled version of Kobolds that are generally evil in alignment instead of the good upstanding citizens they are by the RAW. :smalltongue:

[Morty]

But that's okay, I think, since Kobolds exist to be killed by PC's.

Well, if you put it that way, I can say that Sorcerors exist only to be weaker, boring cousins of wizards.
Problem with sorcerer is that he isn't any different than wizard, except of being less flexible - I won't say weaker because everything is weaker than wizard- while having dumb flavor of "inborn magic". For sorcerer to make sense, he needs to be really different than wizard.

[Regneva]

OT: Even non-americans can get (order) the books.

Well, technically YES but it's way much more expensive. $15 for the book and $40 for the shipping kinda breaks the deal for me...

[Elfanatic]

Well, technically YES but it's way much more expensive. $15 for the book and $40 for the shipping kinda breaks the deal for me...

Heretic! I hereby revoke your OotS privileges. Hand over your gun, your badge and your witty-OotS-quote t-shirt.

[Tyrmatt]

I prefer to think The Giant is on a crusade to change the stereotypes that the D&D style has perpetrated, particularly the "iconic" demo characters in the PHB.

Xykon is an evil lich sorcerer, a deviation from the usual mad wizard who sought to extend his life forever to continue his diabolical plans/ research/ etc. He's chaotic in the way that most chaotic good characters are. Lacking in planning, absent minded and generally wacky. Sure, he's an unholy construct held together by dark rituals whispered in dark places, but he's a laugh riot and loveable villain. Becoming a lich was purely to facilitate extra bad-assery.
Nale's association with sorcery is just to push the point that he's a bard without the useful bardic bits and all the penalties of multiclassing.

From a metagaming point of view, sorcerers are a pain compared to the almighty walking nuke of the wizard. But RP wise, sorcerers struggle with their own arcane powers, trying to bend it to their will without the aid of all the usual wizardly accoutrements (dribbly candles, coloured chalk magic circles, stuffed crocodile), facing discrimination and outright fear from their own families as they manifest powers, shunned by the very wizards who could help them control their powers and often finding themselves alone in world that despises them for something beyond their control.
Who needs a tragic past where your parents were murdered by X Y and Z when you've got the living tragedy of being despised by those you love?
So yeah, from the point of view of kicking in the door and getting the treasure, pick the wizard every time. But from the point of a good yarn that you'll remember for years to come, pick the sorcerer.
:)

[Decoy Lockbox]

Sorcerors still use all the magic-y tools that wizards use, except for the spellbook. Anyone attempting to cast a fireball had better have bat guano and sulfur on hand, cause its the spell components no matter who casts them. The only difference between wizard and sorceror here is that the wizard has learned to follow magical formulae to produce a fiery blast, whereas the sorceror has used...some sort of innate power or some poorly explained stuff to do the same effect. But he still, for some reason, needs the bat guano and sulfur. It doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, both Warlock and Psion capture the flavor of the sorceror better than the sorceror class does, and are more interesting (warlock) / more balanced (psion). In fact, the warlock and sorceror class descriptions seem to describing the same thing.

I play wizards quite a lot, and let me tell you the 2 free known spells per level is a godsend. I tried to play a sorceror once and switched out characters after two sessions. I just couldn't deal with the lack of versatility. Plus, the challenge in preparing spells just adds to the fun of being a wizard. Its just another challenge to overcome, another skill to master. I guess this is why sorcerors are normally advised for inexperienced players.

Looking at the SRD, the sorceror gets a total of 43 spells known by level 20. However, 9 of those are level zero spells, so I will remove them for the sake of comparison (since the wizard knows ALL level zero spells it doesnt make sense to include them). This brings his total (non-zeroth lvl) spells known to 34.

The wizard, who gets two free spells per level and starts with 3+int bonus 1st level spells, has 44 spells known by the time he is level 20 (assuming he started with 16 or 17 INT). Even with a 10 INT, the lowest possible int to be a wizard, you still have 41 spells known by lvl 20. But here is the best part -- simply by paying some cash, you can add even more spells to your spellbook! Whatever spells you happen to find or buy from shops, you can just throw em in the 'ol spellbook.

True, the sorceror gets more spells per day, but after a certain point (I would say around 5xday for most spell levels), it becomes overkill. Is eight fireballs per day really needed when you could simply have six? By level 20, assuming he has a 30 CHA (which would not be unreasonable for a lvl 20 caster), the sorceror gets spells per day of 6/9/9/8/8/8/8/7/7/7. With a 30 INT, the lvl 20 wizard has spells per day of 4/7/7/6/6/6/6/5/5/5 --assuming he isnt a specialist.
This of course is a difference of two in each slot, but in my experience neither caster is going to actually cast all of those spells before they rest. I think that the sorceror's two extra spells per day are trumped by the wizard's two extra spells known per level.

The wizard gets ALL the knowledge skills as class skills, as due to his massive intelligence score likely is recieving more skill points that everyone but the rogue. Most games I play in make heavy use of the knowledge skills to identify monsters, which is very useful. You become a walking encyclopedia of lore eventually, which is very cool from both a mechanical and flavor perspective.

The sorceror also gets 2+int skills points, but unlike the wizard, who has a high INT score, he is likely going to actually be getting around 2-4 skills points per level. And his class skills suck.

The extra feats (especially free scribe scroll at first level) that the wizard gets, while not very important, are nice enough to really push the contest in favor of the wizard. Once you get used to the ways of circumventing the preparation of spells such as scribing scrolls of utility spells and having staves or wands for your attack spells, the extra bonuses that the wizard gives you really start to shine through, especially if you are using the non-core sourcebooks, like spell compendium and complete arcane.

I prefer Wizards from the roleplaying side too -- I like the idea of a smart guy who is literally able to use his talents to alter reality. But the wizards I play often are archaeologists, using high knowledge skills, decipher script skill and their natural intellect to explore ruins and research artifacts. Wizards can also be scientists, as my most recent wizard proved. His name was Prilosec OTC (it stood for Offical Thaumaturge Counselor, he was a student adviser at a wizard's academy) who on two seperate occasions attempted brain surgery, using mage hand (for added steadiness) to wield a +1 dagger and do the deed. Also, I once used feeblemind and ray of stupidity to basically enslave a high-ish level (about our level, 10) enemy NPC rogue (now firmly lodged at 1 INT) for trap-springing purposes. Sure, it was highly unethical, but that is what being a wizard is all about -- once you realize that you can pretty much do whatever you want to non-magical folk, it becomes really hard to not become a total bastard, drunk on your own power. And a heady brew it is, oh yes :smallbiggrin:

But the point I was trying to make is this: Wizards are superior to Sorcerors in basically every capacity you would expect out of a caster except for the sorceror's increased spells per day.

Also, names of Medicines make great wizard names. The party with Prilosec OTC was joined at one point by NPC wizard Imitrex on a mission of exploration. Valtrex, Vioxx, all great wizard names.

[Drakron]

... - I won't say weaker because everything is weaker than wizard- ...

You know, when someone makes such statements its clear they have personal issues with a class.

Wizard are not the best class, CLERIC is (and WotC even acknowledges they did it on purpose) and I would even venture a Druid can beat Wizard and lest not forget a class that is pretty much the anti-spellcaster class, the Monk.

Your point that the Sorcerer is not that diferent that the Wizard is true but then again its very hard to make a variant of the arcane spellcaster without ending up as a wierd hybrid that belongs more as a prestige class that a core class.

[Querzis]

Oh come on, if Rich is anti-something its anti-monk. How many monk we saw until now? 2. One in Origins (I wont write any spoiler but lets just say he wasnt really appreciated) and one who was a multiclass monk-paladin and who was totally insane and self-righteous.

[Morty]

Your point that the Sorcerer is not that diferent that the Wizard is true but then again its very hard to make a variant of the arcane spellcaster without ending up as a wierd hybrid that belongs more as a prestige class that a core class.

They could've given them different spell list. Or different spellcasting mechanic -spontaneous isn't much different than preparation. Or make them focus less on spells and more on other class features.

[SalSar_Thiran]

With a well played wizard monks are straight out of the picture.

Wizard: "oh theres a monk." Quickened Teleport 1/2 up.
Monk: ....
Wizard: Casts Fly
Monk:....
Wizard: Lobs save or die spells till monk fails save/runs away or teleports away in the case of a really resiliant monk.

[Chronos]

If you're going to assume that the wizard is well-played, you should assume the same for the monk. Remember, monks can move faster than even magically-enhanced wizards. What's to stop the monk from running to just outside maximum range, and waiting for the wizard's Fly spell to wear off? Then the monk closes again and grapples. If the wizard escapes with another Fly, retreat and wait again. Eventually the wizard runs out of Fly spells, and the monk clobbers em.

[Teron]

If you're going to assume that the wizard is well-played, you should assume the same for the monk. Remember, monks can move faster than even magically-enhanced wizards. What's to stop the monk from running to just outside maximum range, and waiting for the wizard's Fly spell to wear off? Then the monk closes again and grapples. If the wizard escapes with another Fly, retreat and wait again. Eventually the wizard runs out of Fly spells, and the monk clobbers em.
Fine, simpler version: the wizard casts forcecage. Or, if he's cheap, Otto's irresistable dance, power word: blind or somesuch.

Only CoDzilla (cleric or druid) trumps wizards.

[Ithekro]

I thought a personal "1" trumps everybody. Follow an extreme screwup by a opponent's natural "20" and anyone will have a bad day.

[Drakron]

Fine, simpler version: the wizard casts forcecage.


Wizard just wasted 1,500 gp to do ... nothing, ever heard of "Abundant Step"


Or, if he's cheap, Otto's irresistable dance,

"Living creature touched" meaning he have to touch the monk (and Monks apply their Wis bonus to AC that also apply to touch attacks) and Monks have SR (Diamond Soul that starts at lv. 13).

Its true, it would be cheap ... for the Monk (that would "furry" the dumb wizard that tries a spell that requires a touch attack and its subjected to SR against him).


power word: blind or somesuch.

Spell Resistance applies.


Only CoDzilla (cleric or druid) trumps wizards.

Right, I just shown how none of your spells was a sure thing against a monk, try again.

[BWak]

What about Fruit Pie the Sorceror?

[SurlySeraph]

^ Also evil. He tried to poison the allergic goblin.

[malakim2099]

They could've given them different spell list. Or different spellcasting mechanic -spontaneous isn't much different than preparation. Or make them focus less on spells and more on other class features.

Actually, Monte Cook came up with a revised Sorcerer that was a little beefier. Different spell list (for the most part, just shuffling around levels), d6 HD, and other benefits. I'll have to see if I can find it... but I believe it was the Book of Eldritch Might II.

EDIT: Yeah, it's in Book of Eldritch Might II... which is a 3.0 book. I dunno if anyone has a 3.5 conversion for it, but it was basically the same spells per day/spells known, but a different spell list, 4+Int for skill points, and d6 HD.

[Aquillion]

Right, I just shown how none of your spells was a sure thing against a monk, try again.Let's not do this again. The 'monk as anti-caster' myth has been debunked in multiple twenty-page-long threads already. It isn't necessary to pull it back out of its grave again here.

(ps. Phantom Steed. It flies and is rather faster than a monk. Invisibility to buy some time while trapping you or greater invisibility FTW. Dispel / greater dispel on anything you use to gain flying or the ability to see invisible yourself. Solid fog / acid fog to slow you down in one area, and/or wall of X on the sides to trap you in, then just do it again after you've blown your one abundent step for the day. Forcecage can be used as a last resort after you've blown your abundent step on one of the other spells. Reverse Gravity to trap you at the top of the effect or on the ceiling. Once you're trapped by whatever means or are just unable to hurt the flying / invisible / whatever wizard, they use true strike + ranged touch attacks or throw save-or-die spells at you until one gets lucky; your defenses are worthless when you can't do anything but stand there and get attacked.)

[psychoticbarber]

(ps. Phantom Steed. It flies and is rather faster than a monk. Invisibility to buy some time while trapping you or greater invisibility FTW. Dispel / greater dispel on anything you use to gain flying or the ability to see invisible yourself. Solid fog / acid fog to slow you down in one area, and/or wall of X on the sides to trap you in, then just do it again after you've blown your one abundent step for the day. Forcecage can be used as a last resort after you've blown your abundent step on one of the other spells. Reverse Gravity to trap you at the top of the effect or on the ceiling. Once you're trapped by whatever means or are just unable to hurt the flying / invisible / whatever wizard, they use true strike + ranged touch attacks or throw save-or-die spells at you until one gets lucky; your defenses are worthless when you can't do anything but stand there and get attacked.)

And we won't even get INTO the kind of things my Enchanter can do to your Monk. Or rather, things my Enchanter can make your Monk do...

[Haedrian]

You need to watch out. One day there will be a sorceror born that's twice as smart as all those who came before him (or her), and they may learn to read.

Pity they can't use intelligence eh...

[Iranon]

Hmm. Considerable magical powers at my free discretion?

No busybody deities looking over your shoulder?

No need for rigorous mental discipline?



I don't think I'd be an upstanding citizen either.

[Roderick_BR]

"Anti social"? Sorcerers need high charisma, and the archetipes says they are more outspoken than wizards >:p
And only barbarians can't read </useless nitpick>


Ok, so Roy's the only full fighter around, and other than lacking raw power to battle some enemies, he's a doctored tactician.
Vaarsavius is a blaster wizard, probably specialized in Evocation. These things being what people in the forum calls "the most sub-optimal" build for wizards (and many can defend that idea because V's idea to strenghten a group of guards was more effective than throwing a couple fireballs)
Durkon if your classic dwarven cleric.
Haley is a rogue. Simple as that.
Now, Elan is pretty much an idiot, or is treated as an idiot by people.
And Belkar can't get bothered to remember his class features, plus, he's an anti social psycopath.
So, we have 1 fighter being shown as a cool class, a wizard blaster as being effective, cleric and rogue as normal.
Then we have bards as retards, and rangers as psycopaths.
We had 2 sorceres that were both evil.
We had 2 stereotypes of paladins (the bad, and the good)
Monk showed up as only part of multiclass.
A druid bent into destroying civilized cities.
A barbarian that is as smart as a 3 yo kid, and very deadly.
And a couple more wizards, fighters, rogues, and clerics, here and there.

Oh well, this is just another "Richie didn't put my favorite class as looking really cool" thread.

[Draz74]

Oh come on, if Rich is anti-something its anti-monk. How many monk we saw until now? 2. One in Origins (I wont write any spoiler but lets just say he wasnt really appreciated) and one who was a multiclass monk-paladin and who was totally insane and self-righteous.

Our friendly neighborhood Monk/Shadowdancer was a cool character.

(Yes, the Shadowdancer was definitely a Monk for his base class. I mean, shuriken?)

[Sky_Schemer]

"Anti social"? Sorcerers need high charisma, and the archetipes says they are more outspoken than wizards

Anti-social doesn't mean not charismatic. Many psychopaths in real life are extremely charismatic.


Oh well, this is just another "Richie didn't put my favorite class as looking really cool" thread.

Uh...you thought I was being serious? Most everyone else here seems to have gotten the joke. :smallconfused:

[The Hop Goblin]

Yes, you would almost think that he has some sort of bizarre houseruled version of Kobolds that are generally evil in alignment instead of the good upstanding citizens they are by the RAW. :smalltongue:

Saddly enough, in a game I ran, the party discovered a group of Kobolds who were not evil (chaotic/good native-american like actually). Infact the Kobolds took them to be psuedo-gods, painted their horses while they slept and left a brace of rabbits skinned on their doorstep.

What did the PCs do? Threw away the rabbits, thinking they were poisoned, washed their horses and shot the head shaman as it was comming out to greet them.

Stereotypes and Assumations are Bad, mmmkay.

:smallsigh:

[David Demola]

Must've failed my spot check for the joke.

I believe you mean "Sense Motive" check.

...

I'm just going to hang myself now for correcting you.

~Dave

[Aquillion]

Saddly enough, in a game I ran, the party discovered a group of Kobolds who were not evil (chaotic/good native-american like actually). Infact the Kobolds took them to be psuedo-gods, painted their horses while they slept and left a brace of rabbits skinned on their doorstep.

What did the PCs do? Threw away the rabbits, thinking they were poisoned, washed their horses and shot the head shaman as it was comming out to greet them.

Stereotypes and Assumations are Bad, mmmkay.Hey, sure, if you want to throw in a few communities of non-evil kobolds in order to 'get' your players, go ahead. The DMG lists their alignment as "usually lawful evil", though, and their racial attributes include such lovely terms as 'xenophobic' and 'cruel'.

D&D is not a real world. D&D races are mapped on high fantasy, not actual genetics or society, and the game itself was originally designed primarily for dungeon crawling; these things are set up to give the players large dungeons full of things that good-aligned characters can slaughter without compunction, not to spark debates on the nature of prejudice. Kobolds in D&D are born with an inborn tendency towards cruelty, xenophobia, and lawful evil; this seems like a horrible caricature because it is a horrible caricature. The entire race literally exists just to give players generic evil creatures to slaughter during their first level worth of advancement.

Can you do more with them? Sure. You're free to make Soapy the soap-opera kobold and have him wail away at how unfair it is that people hate him just because 99.9% of his race consists of murderous little monsters. I've always thought characters like that are trite and annoying, but they do exist (it's a cheap and easy plot for novelizations and videogames, for one.)

But getting upset at someone for portraying kobolds as wretchedly cruel lumps of 1/4 CR evil is silly... that's unquestionably what they were originally designed to be. Everything else was tacked on later. Heck, even their basic form wasn't firmly decided on early on; they went from being doglike goblinoid mammals to lizardlike dragonoid critters. Nobody cared. Most people don't even seem to have noticed for several editions.

Getting hugely upset at how people portray kobolds in gaming is like getting upset at the faceless portrayal of white pawns in chess.

[Zictor]

What is CoDzilla?

[Morty]

Hey, sure, if you want to throw in a few communities of non-evil kobolds in order to 'get' your players, go ahead. The DMG lists their alignment as "usually lawful evil", though, and their racial attributes include such lovely terms as 'xenophobic' and 'cruel'.

D&D is not a real world. D&D races are mapped on high fantasy, not actual genetics or society, and the game itself was originally designed primarily for dungeon crawling; these things are set up to give the players large dungeons full of things that good-aligned characters can slaughter without compunction, not to spark debates on the nature of prejudice. Kobolds in D&D are born with an inborn tendency towards cruelty, xenophobia, and lawful evil; this seems like a horrible caricature because it is a horrible caricature. The entire race literally exists just to give players generic evil creatures to slaughter during their first level worth of advancement.

Can you do more with them? Sure. You're free to make Soapy the soap-opera kobold and have him wail away at how unfair it is that people hate him just because 99.9% of his race consists of murderous little monsters. I've always thought characters like that are trite and annoying, but they do exist (it's a cheap and easy plot for novelizations and videogames, for one.)

But getting upset at someone for portraying kobolds as wretchedly cruel lumps of 1/4 CR evil is silly... that's unquestionably what they were originally designed to be. Everything else was tacked on later. Heck, even their basic form wasn't firmly decided on early on; they went from being doglike goblinoid mammals to lizardlike dragonoid critters. Nobody cared. Most people don't even seem to have noticed for several editions.

Getting hugely upset at how people portray kobolds in gaming is like getting upset at the faceless portrayal of white pawns in chess.

So, what you're saying is that even if we think that portraying kobolds, goblins etc. in D&D is utterly stupid and doesn't serve anything we shouldn't complain about it and change it in our games because that's how it's supposed to be because D&D is designed as mindless dungeon crawl? Sorry, but I prefer to play in gameworlds with at least some depth, which includes not instering races that serve no other purpose than easily justifable XP for heroes. I don't give a damn about how they're designed.

[Dolohov]

Bah, it's just the opposite: Rich plainly has a pro-sorceror bias. He simply uses bad guys to showcase their skills.

[The Hop Goblin]

So, what you're saying is that even if we think that portraying kobolds, goblins etc. in D&D is utterly stupid and doesn't serve anything we shouldn't complain about it and change it in our games because that's how it's supposed to be because D&D is designed as mindless dungeon crawl? Sorry, but I prefer to play in gameworlds with at least some depth, which includes not instering races that serve no other purpose than easily justifable XP for heroes. I don't give a damn about how they're designed.

The encounter was also designed to make the players realize the world they were playing in wasn't stereotypical, and that assuming the same races fit the same roles all the time was not the best idea. It got the point across eventually. As to Aquillon - I wasn't upset, nor was it a bitchy post. D&D is not the real world, understood - However, not every DM is going to run Greyhawk, Faerhun or Ebberon either.

For a player to assume, in this example, that Kobolds are evil because that is what the player is used to, is a testament to metagaming. Its what the player thinks, rather than their character. It was an amusing, I thought, story that other DM's might find funny. Its okay to laugh... really... heh heh heh...... heh.

[Tokiko Mima]

What is CoDzilla?

It's "Cleric or Druid" (CoD) + zilla (suggestive of Godzilla). It refers to the tendency both classes have at high level to become really big via spells (Righteous Might) or wildshape, yet still be able to cast their spells of flame and destruction, like Godzilla. This results in them being effectively unstoppable in melee, and more powerful than archetypes designed to fight in melee alone (i.e. Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, etc.)

Though a Wizard with the right spells is more powerful, a CoDzilla will always be incredibly dangerously overpowered. Generally this is the upper tier levels, though. A lower level Druid or Cleric is (~10 or smaller) not usually refered to as CoDzilla. They don't have their full spell selection yet.

[Roderick_BR]

Anti-social doesn't mean not charismatic. Many psychopaths in real life are extremely charismatic.



Uh...you thought I was being serious? Most everyone else here seems to have gotten the joke. :smallconfused:

Sorry, I knew this was a joke thread. I think my post sounded too serious.

[Zictor]

It's "Cleric or Druid" (CoD) + zilla (suggestive of Godzilla). It refers to the tendency both classes have at high level to become really big via spells (Righteous Might) or wildshape, yet still be able to cast their spells of flame and destruction, like Godzilla. This results in them being effectively unstoppable in melee, and more powerful than archetypes designed to fight in melee alone (i.e. Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, etc.)

Though a Wizard with the right spells is more powerful, a CoDzilla will always be incredibly dangerously overpowered. Generally this is the upper tier levels, though. A lower level Druid or Cleric is (~10 or smaller) not usually refered to as CoDzilla. They don't have their full spell selection yet.

Thanks

I have a big frustration in life: I never really played long campaigns. And I almost never played D&D.

So all my knowledge is theoretical, I don't really know what happens in-game. But I do get the internal jokes in the comic.

[Sky_Schemer]

Sorry, I knew this was a joke thread. I think my post sounded too serious.

Heh. Such is life on an on-line forum. :smallsmile:

[Aquillion]

For a player to assume, in this example, that Kobolds are evil because that is what the player is used to, is a testament to metagaming. Its what the player thinks, rather than their character. It was an amusing, I thought, story that other DM's might find funny. Its okay to laugh... really... heh heh heh...... heh.I disagree. When you say the word "kobold", players understand that word by the typical definition--they think "ok, we see a bunch of infamously xenophobic, evil monsters that our characters know are going to be trying to kill them. Charge!"

What you did is fine if you made clear to the players that their characters don't have any preconception of kobolds as evil, or no conception of kobolds at all. Otherwise, it's like doing something like this:

DM: "As you set up camp, a wolf bounds into the courtyard and lunges at Zygor, fangs bared!"

Zygor: "GAK! I stand and fight!"

DM: "Fool! The wolf's tentacles wrap around you, grappling you easily and forcing you to the ground with its gargantuan size as its six fire-breathing heads proceed to strike your flesh. Your weapons bounce harmlessly off of its scaled feathers as its massive poison stinger jabs easily through your armor and injects you with its infamously deadly poison. Its seven paralysis eyes swivel on their eyestalks as they focus on your still-stunned companions, while its large central Sorcerer Eye begins to cast a spell..."

Zygor: :smallconfused:

DM: "Oh, I forgot to mention. In my world 'wolves' are the most infamously horrific monsters known to exist. Heh, you shouldn't have been metagaming by pretending to know that they weren't a major threat. Anyway, roll your save against the poison."

[Morty]

*sigh* Of course, kobolds being non-evil is as absurd as wolves being poisonous, bizzare monsters? Yeah, it's ridiculous that kobolds could just be cave-dwelling, little lizardfolk who are elusive and don't like other races but aren't murderous and evil. Yep. Utterly impossible.
Maybe I'm weird, but when I hear "kobold" I think of little, scaly lizard-like humanoid, not evil XP on two legs.

[Sky_Schemer]

Maybe I'm weird, but when I hear "kobold" I think of little, scaly lizard-like humanoid, not evil XP on two legs.

But what if they are also ... sorcerers! :smalltongue:

dun dun DUN!!!!

[Aquillion]

*sigh* Of course, kobolds being non-evil is as absurd as wolves being poisonous, bizzare monsters? Yeah, it's ridiculous that kobolds could just be cave-dwelling, little lizardfolk who are elusive and don't like other races but aren't murderous and evil. Yep. Utterly impossible.
Maybe I'm weird, but when I hear "kobold" I think of little, scaly lizard-like humanoid, not evil XP on two legs.The point is, it isn't metagaming for players to hear "kobolds" and think "evil", no more than it is to hear "wolf" and think "animal", or "dragon" and think of a scaly treasure-hording creature that breathes stuff. That is, for the better or worse, part of what the word means... players are quite justified in assuming that "kobolds are evil" is part of their character's basic knowledge.

In fact, I would argue (absent their being given any information from the DM about the world and their knowledge of it, and absent any background on the character that would make them particularly willing to doubt conventional wisdom) that players who don't operate under the assumption that things like drow, kobolds, and goblins are evil are the ones who are metagaming. A character, growing up in a typical D&D world, would hear nothing but how evil those things generally are; players, knowing that their game is run by a DM, and having read all the books about non-typical drow or whatever, might think "Oh, there's better-than-even odds that these are non-typical kobolds", but that is certainly metagaming. The "in-character" reaction would be extreme suspicion at the very least...

If you really want to 'get' players who are metagaming, have them encounter a drow who claims to be good, then have him backstab them at the first opportunity while chortling about how gullible surface-dwellers are. PCs should not be at all easily convinced that a member of a race their characters know as generally 'evil' is atypically non-evil.

[Morty]

You're missing my point. I meant that kobolds can very well be non-evil and it'll still be perfectly normal D&D world -not to mention you can scrap racial alignments overall. In fact, this world will be better that standard D&D world, because it won't be black-and-white and will have some depth. Fluff is easily changable in some cases, and racial behavior is one of them.
And I have a question: in the D&D games you run -assuming you do- are the kobolds, goblins, etc. evil, cheap XP?