[3.5] Biggest Weakness of Sorcerers

[FateStayDreamer]

The biggest issue I have with the Sorcerer is the Prestige entry tax feels higher for them. Essentially, they tend to enter prestige classes later due to limitations in class features or spell level access.

Is there a fix out their for this/update/errata? Just seems like a seriously high tax comparative to Wizard and other Arcane casters.

[Venger]

The biggest issue I have with the Sorcerer is the Prestige entry tax feels higher for them. Essentially, they tend to enter prestige classes later due to limitations in class features or spell level access.

Is there a fix out their for this/update/errata? Just seems like a seriously high tax comparative to Wizard and other Arcane casters.

Yeah, Monte hates sorcerers, so went out of his way to handicap them during the design phase.

No, there is no update/errata to put sorcerers on equal footing with wizard. In certain circumstances, versatile spellcaster can help you play ketchup, but a lot of the time, you're out of luck.

[Darrin]

The spell level thing delays you only one level, so that doesn't seem like a huge barrier. There are two other barriers to qualify for PrCs that are particularly difficult for Sorcerers to manage:

1) Skill ranks. Oh, you're a sorcerer, only 2 skill points per level... and oh look, you dumped Int because it's not a casting stat? And your almost-too-short-to-be-worth-mentioning skill list doesn't actually appear to involve being good at magic, or really any other professional vocation? Sucks to be you!

2) Feats. Oh, you don't get bonus feats like a wizard? If you spend your feats on flavor/backstory or just to remain competent at your job, you don't have any slots leftover for PrCs? Oh, how unfortunate!

So yeah, Sorcerers get kicked in the gonads pretty hard when it comes to PrC prereqs.

If you want to fix this, then you need to: give them more skill points, at least 4 per level, and a more diverse skill list that actually complements their strengths, like... you know, maybe some Charisma-based skills fer crissakes?!? Also, bonus feats, same as the wizard: 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th.

[heavyfuel]

Yeah. Sorcerers get the short end of the stick when compared to pretty much every single other high tier caster. I'm just happy they don't have multiple casting stats like some other classes cough cough favoredsoul cough

[redwizard007]

If you want to fix this, then you need to: give them more skill points, at least 4 per level, and a more diverse skill list that actually complements their strengths, like... you know, maybe some Charisma-based skills fer crissakes?!? Also, bonus feats, same as the wizard: 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th.

At that point, aren't you playing a wizard with more spell slots and less spells known?

Pathfinder added Bluff and Intimidate to the skill list, which make sense. Personally, I'd drop Alchemy and Knowledge (arcana) from the sorcerer list and add those two. Thematically it fits better. Mechanically it's probably worse.

Let's face it. The problem is not really with the sorcerer class. It has strengths and weaknesses just like all the other classes. The problem comes from you not being able to use a sorcerer chassis to build what you want. Adding more advantages until it outshines the master of magic just seems juvenile.

The sorcerer is designed, IMO, to be an untrained savant. PH pg48- "They have no books, no mentors, no theories- just raw power." Does adding free spell casting feats support that? No. Does having additional spells per level with limited spells known? Yes.

My only issue with the class is that alchemy and knowledge (arcana) don't really fit that idea either. Adjusting skill list to reflect that would be DM specific.

[Darrin]

Adding more advantages until it outshines the master of magic just seems juvenile.


I'm not looking for the Sorcerer to outshine the Wizard. Mostly I'm looking for something closer to equal footing. I'm certainly not a proponent for "All classes must follow the same power curve" thinking that gave us 4E, but I don't see any compelling reason why a player should be punished with poor character design and fewer resources just because they chose to play a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't see any compelling reason why a player should be punished with poor character design and fewer resources just because they chose to play a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

The reason is that in the hands of any player who's not heavily into optimization boards, the sorcerer is much more powerful because he can pick his spells at-need instead of having to do so several hours in advance.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kobold using the greater draconic rite of passage covers the spell level gap just in time for PrCs at 5.

Skills are harder but not impossible; education, martial study, apprentice, and maybe a few other feats add a class skill or two else you can just bite the bullet and grab a dip in something with the skills you need or, if you don't need anything else from the dip class, factotum.

Nothing for lack of feats but dipping.

Ultimately, you're going to go into most PrCs one level late but kobold and/or a feat can get you into a lot of them at the same level as a wizard base.

It does seem that one of the devs was pretty vocal in his dislike of the class but it ultimately got the love it needed toward the end of the edition's run. Sufficient optimization can erase any meaningful difference between the two archetypal arcanists.

[Mato]

Is there a fix out their for this/update/errata? Just seems like a seriously high tax comparative to Wizard and other Arcane casters.Yes.

Kobold using the greater draconic rite of passage covers the spell level gap just in time for PrCs at 5.See?

Yeah, Monte hates sorcerers, so went out of his way to handicap them during the design phase.And GitP goes out of it's way to claim versatile spellcaster works with a wizard and then complains the sorcerer doesn't get anything.

Don't forget sorcerers get a few unique spells such as wings of cover/furry, arcane fusion, & dragonblood spellpact. They also get other extra mechanics such as dragonpacts. Certain races provide bonuses for sorcerers such as kobolds and dragonspawn. And there are niches they can specifically abuse. Like a 17th level transmutation focused sorcerer can look into persisting bite of the wearbear giving them a +32 bonus to strength and a +16 bonus to constitution on top of a few other things. With extraordinary spell aim, they can even use this bonus while projecting an antimagic field allowing them to slap most wizards to death.

Just because something is #2 doesn't mean it can't break the game in silly ways #3 can't or that #201 isn't jealous of everyone else.

[redwizard007]

I'm not looking for the Sorcerer to outshine the Wizard. Mostly I'm looking for something closer to equal footing. I'm certainly not a proponent for "All classes must follow the same power curve" thinking that gave us 4E, but I don't see any compelling reason why a player should be punished with poor character design and fewer resources just because they chose to play a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard.

Short answer: change it at your table.

Continuing to advocate for the Devil: Oh, really? You want to talk about being screwed? Let's talk about the martial classes.

[ryu]

Short answer: change it at your table.

Continuing to advocate for the Devil: Oh, really? You want to talk about being screwed? Let's talk about the martial classes.

But I already balanced those by erasing them from the book with white out....

[Mato]

But I already balanced those by erasing them from the book with white out....I found it easier to just replace those pages with some of the ones I found in the Tome of Battle...

[ryu]

Nah then you have to worry about manually removing pages, reapplying new ones while still looking proper, and worrying about anything you actually want to keep on the other side of pages at the border of your removal. White out is faster, simpler, and doesn't prevent use of ToB.

[Venger]

Yes.
See?
And GitP goes out of it's way to claim versatile spellcaster works with a wizard and then complains the sorcerer doesn't get anything.

Don't forget sorcerers get a few unique spells such as wings of cover/furry, arcane fusion, & dragonblood spellpact. They also get other extra mechanics such as dragonpacts. Certain races provide bonuses for sorcerers such as kobolds and dragonspawn. And there are niches they can specifically abuse. Like a 17th level transmutation focused sorcerer can look into persisting bite of the wearbear giving them a +32 bonus to strength and a +16 bonus to constitution on top of a few other things. With extraordinary spell aim, they can even use this bonus while projecting an antimagic field allowing them to slap most wizards to death.

Just because something is #2 doesn't mean it can't break the game in silly ways #3 can't or that #201 isn't jealous of everyone else.

Uh who said wizards can use versatile spellcaster?

[ryu]

Uh who said wizards can use versatile spellcaster?

I do. The requirement is the ability to spontaneously cast spells. Wizard has several methods of being able to do just that.

[Arcanist]

And GitP goes out of it's way to claim versatile spellcaster works with a wizard and then complains the sorcerer doesn't get anything.


Uh who said wizards can use versatile spellcaster?

I was under the impression there wasn't really anything to prove here. Wizards have Spell Slots, therefore they can benefit from Versatile Spellcaster (assuming they have a higher level spell known in their spellbook). The feat expressly only requires you to be able to cast spells spontaneously. It doesn't ask how you are able to do it, just that you have "Ability to spontaneously cast spells." If it is really a matter of

Unless there is something I am missing, it should be fine for them to make use of the feat. :smallconfused:


wings of cover/furry, arcane fusion, & dragonblood spellpact. They also get other extra mechanics such as dragonpacts.

Dragonblood Spellpact is literally a class feature for Wizard with the trade off being gp instead of xp so it's kind of meh? Dragonpacts are awesome though, as are Wings of Cover, Wings of Flurry, and the Arcane Fusion spells.

[Troacctid]

At that point, aren't you playing a wizard with more spell slots and less spells known?
I mean, yeah. That's like the whole point of a Sorcerer. Not seeing the problem here.

[ryu]

The various things that actually require some work for a wizard to obtain aren't bad. They just don't make up for being a level behind in spells, being harshly limited in spells known, having comparatively crap for skills due to not scaling off int and not high skills per level, no wizard bonus feats, and lacking access to some of the best alternative class features for casters. Even assuming the wizard is banned from taking versatile spellcaster, that's only my favorite method of taking the one good core aspect of sorcerers. It's far from the only one. Also yes I know you can get back on proper track with that kobold thing. That's only one problem and it locks your race to fix it.

[wilphe]

Yeah, Monte hates sorcerers, so went out of his way to handicap them during the design phase.

Isn't it a basic design decision/assumption in 3.5 that spontaneous spellcasting from a limited list is so much better than casting less spells from a unlimited list that it can only be balanced by getting spells a level later?

Clerics, Druids, Wugens and Wizards get 2nd level spells at 3rd

Sorcerers, Favoured Souls, Warmages, Shugenga and Beguilers at 4th

Whether they are right in that assumption is very much a different matter, but it's very hard baked into the setup and not Sorcerer specific

[Telonius]

IMO, Sorcerers and Wizards ought to have a bit more difference between them than feats and spells known. To me, the Wizard is supposed to study magic; the Sorcerer is supposed to be magic. Splitting the bonus feats so that Wizard gets Item Creation feats and Sorcerer gets Metamagic feats (and throwing the "metamagic takes more time for spontaneous casters" thing into the trash) would go a long way to achieving that.

[BowStreetRunner]

The sorcerer is designed, IMO, to be an untrained savant. PH pg48- "They have no books, no mentors, no theories- just raw power." Does adding free spell casting feats support that? No. Does having additional spells per level with limited spells known? Yes.

What they should have done is give it SLAs instead of spells and called the Warlocks instead of Sorcerers.

[Kurald Galain]

IMO, Sorcerers and Wizards ought to have a bit more difference between them than feats and spells known. To me, the Wizard is supposed to study magic; the Sorcerer is supposed to be magic.

Why yes. They should give the sorcerer a set of thematic bonus feats, spells known, and spell-like abilities (and maybe an extra class skill) that all depend on their magical heritage. Oh wait... :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Isn't it a basic design decision/assumption in 3.5 that spontaneous spellcasting from a limited list is so much better than casting less spells from a unlimited list that it can only be balanced by getting spells a level later?

Clerics, Druids, Wugens and Wizards get 2nd level spells at 3rd

Sorcerers, Favoured Souls, Warmages, Shugenga and Beguilers at 4th

Whether they are right in that assumption is very much a different matter, but it's very hard baked into the setup and not Sorcerer specific

They certainly over valued the difference a bit but they weren't necessarily wrong. If everything else was equal; spells advanced at the same level, both sorc and wiz get the same number known from leveling, both get the same number of slots, etc; the ability to add spells to your known list for less gold probably wouldn't be enough incentive to pick preparation over spontaneity.

Even as is, picking spells known such that you usually have a "good enough" solution to most problems isn't overmuch difficult if you know what you're doing and getting extras that you just can't do without isn't bank-breaking for spontaneous casters. The 1 level difference gets pretty badly exaggerated. If these issues weren't there, the relatively unimportant extra strategic flexibility just wouldn't be enough to forgo the ability to select from your known spells and add metamagic on the fly.

Piling on -all- of the disadvantages they did might've been a bit much but putting none of them in place would've been too far the other way.

[Mato]

Dragonblood Spellpact is literally a class feature for Wizard with the trade off being gp instead of xp so it's kind of meh?A sorcerer can use dragonblood spellpact with a bard or favored soul, or even another sorcerer with arcane disciple, allowing him to cherry pick his spells from multiple sources.


Wizards have Spell Slots, therefore they can benefit from Versatile Spellcaster (assuming they have a higher level spell known in their spellbook).A wizard casts prepared spells.

Also unless rules contradict each other there is no way to claim one rule ignores another.

Prerequisite: Ability to spontaneously cast spells

Versatile Spellcaster (Races of the Dragon): Although only spontaneous spellcasters can utilize this feat, the ability to sacrifice two lower-level spell slots for one higher-level spell slot comes in handy more often than you might think.And those two rules do not conflict with each other, just your opinion about what you think one of them means.

I'd ask you which is more likely, all fifteen people in charge of the text in complete mage being wrong or you, but we both know exactly how you'll answer that.

[ryu]

Spontaneous spellcasters means people who cast spells spontaneous. If it was intended class specific a competent English speaker would list them directly afterwords with exclusive language. That didn't happen.

[Nifft]

If it was intended class specific a competent English speaker would list them directly afterwords with exclusive language. That didn't happen.

Do competent English speakers ever forget to type all the words?

[Arcanist]

A sorcerer can use dragonblood spellpact with a bard or favored soul, or even another sorcerer with arcane disciple, allowing him to cherry pick his spells from multiple sources.

That is interest and certainly makes it more worth while if this is the case. I like it.


A wizard casts prepared spells.

The feat is not asking that of you though and I don't think I claimed otherwise. I simply stated that the feat requires that you need "Spell slots", which Wizards explicitly have.


Also unless rules contradict each other there is no way to claim one rule ignores another.


Prerequisite: Ability to spontaneously cast spells


Versatile Spellcaster (Races of the Dragon): Although only spontaneous spellcasters can utilize this feat, the ability to sacrifice two lower-level spell slots for one higher-level spell slot comes in handy more often than you might think.

And those two rules do not conflict with each other, just your opinion about what you think one of them means.

Wow, that certainly does change my opinion. Solid find :smallwink:


I'd ask you which is more likely, all fifteen people in charge of the text in complete mage being wrong or you, but we both know exactly how you'll answer that.

I have no idea what this is supposed to imply, mind running that back?

[JoshuaZ]

The sorcerer is designed, IMO, to be an untrained savant. PH pg48- "They have no books, no mentors, no theories- just raw power." Does adding free spell casting feats support that? No.

Sure, it does. Just a matter of how you fluff. Take metamagic feats for example, say Silent Spell "Huh, I thought I needed to say stuff when I channel my inner magic but it turns out that if try I really hard I can do it without saying anything." It might lead to a different set of bonus feats for sorcerers than wizards (say metamagic feats and spell focus feats and no item creation feats) but the basic idea is pretty easy to keep consistent with that fluff.

[ryu]

Do competent English speakers ever forget to type all the words?

Not while writing rulebooks with some sort of editor no. I didn't forget any words, because I wasn't noticing any ambiguity of meaning to be removed.

[BowStreetRunner]

Not while writing rulebooks with some sort of editor no.Which is why they never need to publish any Errata.

[Nifft]

Spontaneous spellcasters means people who cast spells spontaneous. If it was intended class specific a competent English speaker would list them directly afterwords with exclusive language. That didn't happen.


Which is why they never need to publish any Errata.

I think ryu needs an errata team.

Or a better definition of "competent English".

[ryu]

Which is why they never need to publish any Errata.

You want to argue that Errata is the primary source of correction? Fine. If it wasn't intended why in all these years wasn't that necessary passage added? The other alternative is that y'all are reading restrictions into a feat that don't exist because it fits with your intended balance. Naturally I've no respect for this method of interpretation because it involves adding things unevidenced to the text.

As that was the passage brought in to attempt to correct me I very much doubt you'll find a more fleshed out official version.

[Venger]

Isn't it a basic design decision/assumption in 3.5 that spontaneous spellcasting from a limited list is so much better than casting less spells from a unlimited list that it can only be balanced by getting spells a level later?

Clerics, Druids, Wugens and Wizards get 2nd level spells at 3rd

Sorcerers, Favoured Souls, Warmages, Shugenga and Beguilers at 4th

Whether they are right in that assumption is very much a different matter, but it's very hard baked into the setup and not Sorcerer specific

Yes, and it's wrong. Monte specifically went out of his way to handicap sorcerer because of his crush on the wizard class. He's written a bunch about it on his blog.

[BowStreetRunner]

You want to argue that Errata is the primary source of correction?No, I don't want to argue that. I do want to argue that your assertion that competent English speakers don't ever forget to type all of the words while writing rule-books with some sort of editor is patently ridiculous, or else they wouldn't ever need Errata. That is all.

[ryu]

No, I don't want to argue that. I do want to argue that your assertion that competent English speakers don't ever forget to type all of the words while writing rule-books with some sort of editor is patently ridiculous, or else they wouldn't ever need Errata. That is all.

So you have no stake in proving the actual rules question one way or the other then? Carry on. I don't much care about the tangent.

[BowStreetRunner]

So you have no stake in proving the actual rules question one way or the other then? Carry on. I don't much care about the tangent.Not so much that I have no stake in it, as I know it's pointless to argue something that was never explicitly answered in the rules itself and is left open to interpretation. If the rules had said "spontaneous caster means this, and this, and this, but not that, or that, or that" then nobody would be having these arguments. But the rules were not made by a bunch of lawmakers for interpretation in courts of law, they were made by a bunch of gamers who primarily wanted to provide a guide for other gamers to use but realized that rule 0 was ultimately the only real authority in any game. No one was going to put any strenuous effort into perfecting the language of the rules when they were only going to be sold to a bunch of players who were just going to be hanging around using these rules on nights and weekends to have a fun time.

Interpret the rules question the way you want. I find the arguments on both sides interesting and have on many occasions shifted the way I enforce certain rules in my own games based on some of the more compelling arguments I've read in these forums.

But please, maintain a bit of decorum in the process. Argue for your point, not against people who support a different view. Give evidence for your positions, don't just say something is so without offering proof. And proofread everything before you post it. Somewhere down the line someone like me is going to be wrestling with the question of whether a wizard can become a spontaneous caster to qualify for one of these prestige classes and will come across this thread while searching for discussions on the matter. If they read an interesting point that you raise, it may attract their attention and possibly sway their decision. But if they are anything like me they will skim right past the personal attacks, unsupported claims, barely intelligible rants, and other useless points and look for the more thoughtful arguments instead.

[ryu]

Not so much that I have no stake in it, as I know it's pointless to argue something that was never explicitly answered in the rules itself and is left open to interpretation. If the rules had said "spontaneous caster means this, and this, and this, but not that, or that, or that" then nobody would be having these arguments. But the rules were not made by a bunch of lawmakers for interpretation in courts of law, they were made by a bunch of gamers who primarily wanted to provide a guide for other gamers to use but realized that rule 0 was ultimately the only real authority in any game. No one was going to put any strenuous effort into perfecting the language of the rules when they were only going to be sold to a bunch of players who were just going to be hanging around using these rules on nights and weekends to have a fun time.

Interpret the rules question the way you want. I find the arguments on both sides interesting and have on many occasions shifted the way I enforce certain rules in my own games based on some of the more compelling arguments I've read in these forums.

But please, maintain a bit of decorum in the process. Argue for your point, not against people who support a different view. Give evidence for your positions, don't just say something is so without offering proof. And proofread everything before you post it. Somewhere down the line someone like me is going to be wrestling with the question of whether a wizard can become a spontaneous caster to qualify for one of these prestige classes and will come across this thread while searching for discussions on the matter. If they read an interesting point that you raise, it may attract their attention and possibly sway their decision. But if they are anything like me they will skim right past the personal attacks, unsupported claims, barely intelligible rants, and other useless points and look for the more thoughtful arguments instead.

That would be the bad blood between the people posting. By both involved I've been insulted, called dishonest, had games I played in in the past called not real, and so on. You reap the argumentative decorum you sew and roughness begets roughness. On one of them I even tried the ignore button after very deliberately disowning all willing interaction with him. He proceeded to make it an ongoing feud bringing other people in, so I decided to begrudgingly acknowledge his existence as opposed to having him burst his way into other conversations.

[Nifft]

Spontaneous spellcasters means people who cast spells spontaneous. If it was intended class specific a competent English speaker would list them directly afterwords with exclusive language. That didn't happen.


That would be the bad blood between the people posting. By both involved I've been insulted, called dishonest, had games I played in in the past called not real, and so on. You reap the argumentative decorum you sew and roughness begets roughness. On one of them I even tried the ignore button after very deliberately disowning all willing interaction with him. He proceeded to make it an ongoing feud bringing other people in, so I decided to begrudgingly acknowledge his existence as opposed to having him burst his way into other conversations.

Actually your argument (cited above) was an attack on the authors & editors of the book, not on any particular poster.

Your argument was bad, so people pointed that out.

Your argument also attacked English competency while failing to use correct English, so people pointed that out too.

The fact that your argument is bad has nothing to do with other posters. The fact that you're attacking people who post here as a way to justify attacking the people who wrote & edited WotC's rule books... that's just ironic, and not in a fun way.

BowStreetRunner was trying to help you.

[ryu]

And clearly he'll continue doing what he does regardless of acknowledgement. As I can't control him the only response is to go back to no longer interacting with him.

I'd also like to point out he didn't deny the accusations levied against him.

[Crichton]

Yes, and it's wrong. Monte specifically went out of his way to handicap sorcerer because of his crush on the wizard class. He's written a bunch about it on his blog.

I don't suppose you have a link to that, or some advice on googling for it, since it's probably quite an old blog post by now? Just to sate my own curiosity, really.

[Fouredged Sword]

See at my table we just make the fairly common sense rule that versatile spellcaster can only use spell slots a character can cast from spontaneously and can only cast spells the character can cast spontaneously.

Why is this important? Because clerics and wizards CAN cast spontaneously from their spell slots. The ability to sacrifice 2 level X spells to cast a level X+1 cure or divination spell is useful, but generally not game breaking.

[BowStreetRunner]

...clerics and wizards CAN cast spontaneously from their spell slots...That's quite an over-generalization. This is only true under specific circumstances. A vanilla Cleric can certainly lose any prepared slot to spontaneously cast a cure spell of the same level. But other than that, either caster would need some sort of feat or maybe an ability from a dip in another class.

[Nifft]

See at my table we just make the fairly common sense rule that versatile spellcaster can only use spell slots a character can cast from spontaneously and can only cast spells the character can cast spontaneously.

Why is this important? Because clerics and wizards CAN cast spontaneously from their spell slots. The ability to sacrifice 2 level X spells to cast a level X+1 cure or divination spell is useful, but generally not game breaking.

That's quite sensible.

The only time I've seen this come up naturally was a proposed Ultimate Magus PC, since that character would have a legit reason to take Versatile Spellcaster (the spontaneous base class), plus would have Wizard casting.

[Troacctid]

As far as I can tell, Versatile Spellcaster doesn't change anything about the process of casting a spell except the spell slot required. A wizard would therefore still need to prepare the spell in advance, using two spell slots instead of one.

[Fouredged Sword]

As far as I can tell, Versatile Spellcaster doesn't change anything about the process of casting a spell except the spell slot required. A wizard would therefore still need to prepare the spell in advance, using two spell slots instead of one.

Unfortunately it doesn't actually require such. You are not allowed to create a new spell slot, fill it, and then cast from it. You are explicitly emptying two spell slots to cast a spell of X+1 level. No preparation required. You never get a "slot" to do anything with. You just immediately cast the spell.

[Troacctid]

Unfortunately it doesn't actually require such. You are not allowed to create a new spell slot, fill it, and then cast from it. You are explicitly emptying two spell slots to cast a spell of X+1 level. No preparation required. You never get a "slot" to do anything with. You just immediately cast the spell.
"You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

I don't see anything here that lets you bypass the normal preparation process. You just prepare a 3rd level spell in two 2nd level slots rather than one 3rd level slot.

[Nifft]

"You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

I don't see anything here that lets you bypass the normal preparation process. You just prepare a 3rd level spell in two 2nd level slots rather than one 3rd level slot.

You also don't see anything that lets you participate in the normal preparation process.

Versatile Spellcaster doesn't use the word "prepare" at all, and seems to reference only spontaneous spellcaster mechanics.

It doesn't say you can use it to prepare any spells, just to cast one; therefore you can't use it to prepare any spells.

[ryu]

"You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

I don't see anything here that lets you bypass the normal preparation process. You just prepare a 3rd level spell in two 2nd level slots rather than one 3rd level slot.

An interesting adjudication. At least you aren't adding prereqs that don't exist. At your tables if I was playing I'd most likely switch to the uncanny forethought cast any spell from an empty slot as a fullround action combo supplemented by spontaneous divination. As I said there are many methods of doing this. Unhindered versatile spellcaster is just a favored method.

[Troacctid]

You also don't see anything that lets you participate in the normal preparation process.

Versatile Spellcaster doesn't use the word "prepare" at all, and seems to reference only spontaneous spellcaster mechanics.

It doesn't say you can use it to prepare any spells, just to cast one; therefore you can't use it to prepare any spells.
Versatile Spellcaster doesn't say it, but the general rules for prepared spellcasting do, and Versatile Spellcaster doesn't say anything to contradict them.

[Nifft]

Versatile Spellcaster doesn't say it, but the general rules for prepared spellcasting do, and Versatile Spellcaster doesn't say anything to contradict them.

Nobody is claiming any sort of ~contradiction~ in the rules so I guess that's a straw man.

The fact under dispute is that the feat uses the word "cast", and you want it to mean "prepare", but it doesn't. Casting isn't the same as preparing.

Sorcerers -- the primary target audience for this feat -- do cast spells, but by default don't prepare spells. Thus it's perfectly normal for a Sorcerer feat to participate in the casting rules, but not interact with the preparation rules.

The feat functions perfectly well for Sorcerers. It's not nearly as useful for baseline Wizards, and that's fine. The fact that a Sorcerer feat is good for a Sorcerer and not so good for a Wizard is not a dysfunction. Sorcerers are occasionally allowed to have modestly nice things.

[Elkad]

Giving Sorcerers (and all the other even-level spell progression classes) a bard-like "0+bonus" on the odd levels is a pretty decent boost. Keeps them equal with the prepared casters in that respect.

[Nifft]

Giving Sorcerers (and all the other even-level spell progression classes) a bard-like "0+bonus" on the odd levels is a pretty decent boost. Keeps them equal with the prepared casters in that respect.

I did that, in addition to giving them bonus metamagic feats so they'd have a use for the bonus spell slot on odd levels before they gained a spell known at that level.

It wasn't broken, but it didn't seem sufficient.

Maybe if I'd done it even more Bard-like and given them 2 spells known at their highest level... but that'd be a significant re-write, changing their whole spell progression.

[Fouredged Sword]

I did that, in addition to giving them bonus metamagic feats so they'd have a use for the bonus spell slot on odd levels before they gained a spell known at that level.

It wasn't broken, but it didn't seem sufficient.

Maybe if I'd done it even more Bard-like and given them 2 spells known at their highest level... but that'd be a significant re-write, changing their whole spell progression.

Nah, just bump them up a spellcaster level without increasing their CL. They have more slots but less flexibility than a wizard.

Give them a slow method to change out spells known (say 24 hours of meditation with a scroll) and call it a day.

Though I am in favor of giving them a d8 HD, 3/4th bab, prof in two martial weapons, and 6+int skillpoints.

Magic comes easy to them so they can train to be more "adventures" than spell slinging bathrobe men.