Pathfinder Sorcerers: A Funny Thing I _Think_ I Noticed

[Erik the Green]

So, this has been bugging me a little for a while, and I took the opportunity of the Great Hiatus to do a some research. Specifically, I got the NPC Codex from my local library and checked the premade NPC sorcerers of all the different races.
Of the 18 examples, 8 are human or half elf, and yet not a single one of those grabbed extra spells known by taking the human favored class bonus at any level, at all, ever. Moreover, none of the 18 have taken any measures to use items to help. None of them has Mnemonic Vestments, or Rings of Spell Knowledge, or Pages of Spell Knowledge, not even the rather cheap ones for 1st and 2nd level utility spells. I know there is this long-standing idea, going back to that one cat who legendarily didn't even want to make the class at all for 3.0, that somehow sorcerers aren't supposed to be versatile or even try to be. I just wanted to ask, from other's knowledge of other Paizo sorcerers in adventure paths & etc, is this no added spells really a thing that was the case throughout the 1st edition?

P.S. Now that I think about it, all the versions of Seoni the Iconic Sorcerer I've ever seen are shorted on spells too.

P.P.S. I'm not even going to get into the fact that almost none of the examples have taken measures, even by mid to late levels, to get decent Bracers of Armor (possibly with Death Ward, or even Soulfire). Instead they layer +1 of this and +3 or that, and maybe +2 of something else; cheaper, yes, but if a sorcerer isn't going to go big for a Runestaff (where allowed) they're also not going to be sinking an eventual 200K +/- into magic weapon(s). Sorcerers are still squishy, even in PF. Not to mention, surely some sorcerers have decent relations with some wizards and can get stuff crafted? Being some wizard's minder for a while and making with the explodo as needed isn't undignified unless you're stupid and decide it is, IMNSHO.

[Efrate]

On magic items, I do not think i have ever seen enchanted with +× abilities other than raw numbers on any premade npc. And its not wizard friend in pathfinder, you can craft yourself at slightly higher dcs without spells known, one of the perks of pf crafting. I am not sure any npc gets favored class bonuses, I think thats just for PCs but I not sure. If they do I am 90% certain that it will just go for an extra hp.

[FaerieGodfather]

Might be a dumb question, but have you ever seen a non-Sorcerer NPC stat block with Alternate Favored Class Bonuses?

Since they were originally published in Advanced Player's Guide, Paizo may not have used them in statblocks for the benefit of people who didn't own it.

[Kurald Galain]

Moreover, none of the 18 have taken any measures to use items to help. None of them has Mnemonic Vestments, or Rings of Spell Knowledge, or Pages of Spell Knowledge, not even the rather cheap ones for 1st and 2nd level utility spells.
That's not so weird. Those items are all from Ultimate Equipment which was released about a month before the NPC Codex... and given how the publishing pipeline works, the NC had to be finalized well before UE went live.

Besides, they're meant to be sample characters, not forum-level hyper-optimized characters.


Not to mention, surely some sorcerers have decent relations with some wizards and can get stuff crafted?And sorcerers can craft stuff just fine by themselves.

[Psyren]

Judging by her statblock it looks like she took the +1 HP favored class bonus instead. At level 7 for example, she has 12 Con (+1 modifier) but has 7d6 + 14 hp instead of 7d6 + 7, and no Toughness feat.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Didn’t the NPC Codex use almost exclusively core book options?

[Psyren]

Didn’t the NPC Codex use almost exclusively core book options?

Correct - and besides, even if it didn't, there's no reason the iconics (which were intended to be used among other things as premades for beginners) would be using variant stuff like AFCBs, archetypes etc, so I'm not sure what the OP was expecting.

[Afgncaap5]

Yeah, it's a combination of "using the basic core rules for favored classes" and "being designed for a level of play that power optimization boards rarely consider to exist". Sometimes ya just want a generically nifty sorcerer who doesn't take every offered bonus, ya know? Really live in the fantasy for a bit.

[Erik the Green]

OK, never mind. I didn't notice the dates on the NPC Codex vs the APG and Ultimate Equipment because I usually look at stuff at d20pfsrd. Shrug. I am still a little bemused at this idea that a sorcerer trying to expand their greatest asset by any reasonable means is somehow "hyper-op," though.
Also, though anyone can craft, it seems possible that a wizard who took the relevant feat, has all the needed spells in their book, and probably has maxed Spellcraft might be better at it than a sorcerer who might not be able to say yes to any of those three points out of necessity. Comparative advantage and division of labor are laws of economics so they are eternal and universal, yes?

P.S. I do admire wizards for their cool hats, and I respect their status as the class most able to say "nope, not doing this today" and make it stick even from 1st level, I just think they are kind of boring. I'd rather play a character that can say "I don't just do magic, I am magic" and then live up to it by breaking an army or deading a dragon singlehanded. If you believe some voices on this board wizards should(?) eventually end up stochastic automatons, running a dozen divinations a day for perfect safety and perfect success and never actually doing anything except by astral projecting from their private demi-plane. I'll pass, because the idea is to have big loud fun, not to infallibly win.

IMNSHO. :)

[Erik the Green]

At the risk of being accused of a late hit, I do have some added facts for this thread. Late last night, after I posted, I had some third thoughts so I got out my magnifying glass and checked the actual dates in the books as opposed to the erroneous gibberish on Amazon (not for the first time, either). Turns out that the APG was August 2010, 2 years before Ultimate Equipment (August 2012) and also 2 years before the NPC Codex (October 2012), so the options I was suggesting did in fact exist, if Paizo had wanted to make better opponents. I guess I was coming from a storytelling perspective, eg. the NPCs are real to themselves and would try to maximize their chances at least somewhat (apart from the raving loonies). If the consensus is that we should respect the ancestral curse of 3.0, because sorcerers aren't supposed to try to be better, I'll let it lie...for a while.

[Psyren]

At the risk of repeating myself, the core iconics are designed (in part) to be quick and easy premades for use by folks newer to the game, so they're unlikely to utilize non-core options. In particular, they are legal for use in the PFS Core Campaign format (i.e. CRB-only); putting non-core options on them would render them illegal in that format and you'd need an all-new set of premades anyway, leaving you with some other official sorcerer lacking the level of optimization you seem to want.

But even putting all that aside - a sorcerer who doesn't take that AFCB and never crafts a single stitch of gear is still Tier 2, i.e. one of the most powerful classes in the game. If you think those elements are key to having optimal fun with your sorcerer, great - but Paizo leaving them out of Seoni's build for any reason (or no reason) is perfectly fine too.

[HeraldOfExius]

I guess I was coming from a storytelling perspective, eg. the NPCs are real to themselves and would try to maximize their chances at least somewhat (apart from the raving loonies). If the consensus is that we should respect the ancestral curse of 3.0, because sorcerers aren't supposed to try to be better, I'll let it lie...for a while.

And why should they "try to maximize their chances"? Do most people in the real world do everything they possibly can to become leading experts? Probably not; they have other things to do with their lives too. I would say that a world filled to the brim with people who eke out every advantage they can makes less sense from a storytelling perspective. Less optimized NPCs also makes the narrative skew closer to "the PCs are special," which is certainly more interesting as a player than "why can't all these other guys save the town without us?"

[Erik the Green]

Psyren, Herald,
Thank you ever so much for so exhaustively correcting my mistakes; I was in grave danger of doing things the Wrong Way. I now acknowledge the dogma that sorcerers shall not try in any way to improve beyond Paizo's generous basic chassis of 34+9 spells and bloodline gimmicks, I mean powers.

I don’t agree with it, though, and I think you all are both overreacting as if you are special agents of the wizards’ specialness special protection team or something.

I do also realize, however, that I need to try to restate and clarify my underlying question for this thread:

Paizo created the human FCB for sorcerers quite early in the run of the first edition, and a considerable generosity it was, too. They only sprinkled something like it on a few other classes after that, so they must have thought it was pretty good. On this board I’ve heard everything from sorcerers have to be human and take it to your apparent position that it is OP and a Timmy move and we don’t do that. By my reckoning taking full advantage of it seems to result in enough added spells known that a sorcerer could develop a second theme by 20th level to contrast or counterbalance their bloodline. And maybe have a little better ability to get in-built coverage of some of the Necessary Magical Effects such that they don’t have to worry so much about forever devoting 3 of their first level slots to mage armor, magic missile, and shield over any other spells like about 3/4 of the ones in the NPC Codex do, just for example. Such a human or ½ elf sorcerer wouldn’t add any nines at all before epic, so I’m really not thinking “the horror, the horror.”

My question for the Playground, then, is whether there is actually some sort of consensus about good, really good, or OP? Properly utilized, does the human FCB shift a sorcerer from the second T-word (terrarium, tollbooth, transubstantiation...?) to the first, or would it still be just knocking on the door?

That’s all I have to say on this matter, and if nobody else cares then I’ll go make like a tree and fall in the woods, all right?

tl; dr = I think the human sorcerer FCB is cool and useful; pls. explain why it is or isn't, don't just tell me we're not supposed to use it because reasons

[Psyren]

Erik, I'm not quite sure where the sarcasm/attitude is coming from :smalltongue: I never said that you shouldn't use the FCB - I was only explaining a likely reason why premade sorcerers (Seoni especially) don't. That was the question you asked (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?607312-Pathfinder-Sorcerers-A-Funny-Thing-I-_Think_-I-Noticed&p=24371923&viewfull=1#post24371923), after all.

As far as whether the FCB is too powerful, I think that's going to be dependent on the power level of the group using it. I will say that all else being equal, more spells known are going to outweigh almost all the other FCB options out there; make of that what you will.

[Mordaedil]

On the other hand, I have to give the NPC Codex credit for sparking my imagination a tad bit.

I never before thought to play a fighter using UMD to pretend to be a gish caster.

[Psyren]

On the other hand, I have to give the NPC Codex credit for sparking my imagination a tad bit.

I never before thought to play a fighter using UMD to pretend to be a gish caster.

If you really want an item-based "gadget-fighter", I recommend Weapon Master's Handbook, which contains several options to support this style, most notably Item Mastery. Combine that with Master Craftsman and they can even make several magic items all on their own without needing spells at all.

[HeraldOfExius]

Like Psyren, I was not saying that the AFCB is "wrong." I was merely expressing my own preference for worlds where suboptimal NPCs actually exist. I have nothing against sorcerers being able to know more spells than they would normally get, I just find that my sense of immersion gets strained if every NPC in the world prioritizes the same things.

There's nothing wrong with players taking the AFCB (that is why it exists, after all). There's nothing wrong with some NPCs taking it. And while there's nothing mechanically wrong with every single human sorcerer in the world having up to 20 more spells than other sorcerers (beyond disproportionately encouraging players to build human sorcerers), I personally find that to be harder to accept from a narrative standpoint (unless the setting has "all human sorcerers are better" as an established fact).

As far as the prebuilt NPCs not using certain options that are technically available to them, it seems to come down to Paizo not pulling from every resource they published in order to keep things simple. It's easy to forget just how overwhelming Pathfinder can be to people who don't have years of experience with the system. If somebody who didn't know about the AFCB saw that some prebuilt sorcerers knew 5 level 1 spells while others knew 7, how are they supposed to figure out why that is? Should they cross reference all the prebuilt sorcerers until they realize that being human somehow gives you more spells? Should there be a line somewhere in the book that tells the reader that AFCBs exist and may or may not be used on any particular character? Choosing to restrict the options to mostly just core eliminates this potential issue.

[Psychoalpha]

Psyren, Herald,
Thank you ever so much for so exhaustively correcting my mistakes; I was in grave danger of doing things the Wrong Way. I now acknowledge the dogma that sorcerers shall not try in any way to improve beyond Paizo's generous basic chassis of 34+9 spells and bloodline gimmicks, I mean powers.

I don’t agree with it, though, and I think you all are both overreacting as if you are special agents of the wizards’ specialness special protection team or something.

Yikes. You're the only one overreacting here. You asked specific questions about why NPCs published in a book are the way they are, why they didn't make use of XYZ, etc. You were given answers about the specific NPCs. Nobody said anything about you doing anything, dogma about sorcerers, or anything much about wizards aside from the general observation that wizards have a less focused nature than Sorcerers and are generally more commonly item crafters than Sorcerers as a result (which was just a side comment more than anything).

Your post literally asked nothing about playing Sorcerers, Sorcerer characters at tables, etc. It was 100% about NPCs published in books, and you received answers in that vein, most of which amount to 'NPCs in the Codex use extremely limited options across the board, it is just the way it is.'


My question for the Playground, then, is whether there is actually some sort of consensus about good, really good, or OP? Properly utilized, does the human FCB shift a sorcerer from the second T-word (terrarium, tollbooth, transubstantiation...?) to the first, or would it still be just knocking on the door?

Outside of Mythic or cheese logs, a Sorcerer is 'only' ever going to be Tier 2. Which is kind of like saying that the Mk-41 was only the SECOND most powerful nuclear bomb detonated, because technically it was less powerful than the Tsar Bomba.


tl; dr = I think the human sorcerer FCB is cool and useful; pls. explain why it is or isn't, don't just tell me we're not supposed to use it because reasons

tl;dr = Unless I missed it somewhere, nobody said anything about whether or not anyone else is 'supposed to use it'. I think most people here would probably agree that whether or not you should is entirely dependent on your table, just like so many other potent options. It's 100% fine at all of my tables, FWIW, and the FCB options that give spontaneous casters more spells are almost always used by people making characters unless there's something that leans heavily into a theme they really want to play. More options = more toys = more fun, more or less.

But again, that's all about players, and I once again stress you only asked about pregen NPCs in your OP.

[Erik the Green]

So, Psyren, HeraldOfExius, that is actually…a pretty fair cop. Can I say that Grumpy Cat (RIP) is my spirit animal and sometimes I can get a little careless about how well bare text conveys nuance, eg. not at all? Let me take a deep breath and try again.

First of all I don’t actually disagree that the NPCs from the Codex-in the context of a specific era of the game and configuration of the ruleset-are perfectly fine threats to an average party in a normal OP game, especially the psycho killers. Brr. Many of them could spiff up quite nicely. I was just disappointed, from my POV here after the end of the First edition era, that Paizo created such an amazing and generous gift-in one whole sentence!-and then didn’t do anything with it that I have ever seen. Possibly I overreacted, possibly it was too much to hope that they would have ever done a supplement for high levels with nothing but hell on wheels like this one: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-20/nyrissa/?! I would have bought a copy, anyway.

Second, after some reflection, I think my stance comes emotionally from possibly having a slightly different calibration of worthy opponent than you guys. I wouldn’t want to play in a game where the bad guys have things that PCs can never do, just because they're Eeeevil, but I would generally like to see the smart guys be smart and believably effective regardless of role. Fair chase works both ways, after all. Dumb guys can be low op if they are bona fide T2; Xykon is the poster child for that, though I do sometimes wonder how he went from teenage zombie monger to elderly obliterator of entire armies. Power of story, yes, but one has to think that even the most gun-happy (fwackoom-happy?) sorcerer might eventually run into someone of equal-ish power and an actual plan or just more than 3 brain cells. Also, even now in the endgame phase of the OOTS story, does anyone else think that IF Xykon ran into an opponent that could keep up Protection From Negative Energy, Death Ward, or Life’s Grace (boy, would he hate that one) in the face of Superb Dispelling and IF Xykon did notice that spamming Energy Drain wasn’t working before he got ganked, he would fall back on spamming Lightning Bolt instead?

OK, I wandered a little there, but thirdly, yes, all play styles are equally good. Some are just better than others <joke>. I have played off and on through the various eras of D&D, but I started in junior high, from the book with the giant idol on the cover. I learnt the dungeoneering equivalent of grip and rip it out of necessity (killer DM, as required at the time), and never played a magic-user because paperwork and squishy, not to mention those fladerschalderbladin' rebounding fireballs. I mean, come on, we won and it was a TPK?. 3.0 introduced the sorcerer and I was thrilled even though it was clearly leaned down almost to the chassis. Phenomenal magic powers and no bookkeeping = yay! Then Paizo shined the class up even further, and I became pretty monoclassical, mostly, or Sorc + passive/skills in a gestalt milieu. After all, the best arcane caster is one who can pose as a prosperous faceman rogue, just a couple of little daggers + no real danger at all, right? Then came 5th Ed and PF 2nd and things that are called sorcerer but leave me all, how do you even, those aren’t right. So, from a point of nostalgia and happiness I represent sorcerers pretty strongly. If I overdid it, sorry, but everybody has a favorite, don’t they?

Fourth, and this is maybe just a futile pursuit of iffy math, but I’m still trying to weigh or assess the human FCB. It seems self-evident that it is worth a lot more than simply trading in the human Skilled feature, or 1 whole Race point. 1.666 bloodlines, or 1 bloodline and one first round feat pick to be named later? I'm vexed. Just nobody tell Paizo or they might retroactively undo it.

Fifth, of course I don’t think it can get a Sorcerer into Tier 1 if put in terms of "can literally do anything and everything whatsoever," but I think it is arguable that taking the FCB all the way to 20 could get a sorcerer respectably close to, frex, a bare minimum, no scrolls except as DM special favor, nobody shares their spellbook for any amount of money or even a life debt model of wizard. Even if that is in a world with also no Knowstones or Runestaves, maybe. Just for example, if they’ve got Wish, Shapechange, and Shades at the top of their stack plus Mind Blank, Greater Plane Shift, Polymorph Any Object (unnerfed PAO!) AND 3 others the next level down is it really possible to say there’s something meaningful that sorcerer can’t do? More freely, or high-ish OP, if said sorcerer hypothetically did nod to style (Xykon notwithstanding) they could go half-elf and Paragon Surge up their own Runestaff too over time, even if avoiding Ancestral Relic cheese out of good taste.
If this has been done to death, though, say so and I'll let it lie.

Sixth, there is no sixth point!

Anyway, that is where I am at, and my gaming motto these days would probably be from Patton, who once said while kicking Nazi aarvark that “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.” For peace, justice, and to protect the innocent, to be sure.

Erik the Green is out, until the next time 😉

P.S. Psyren, if you're not too cheesed off at this time, could you please elucidate on what might be cool in the Weapon Masters Handbook, if there is anything beyond Item Mastery you think is of note? I acknowledge your superior knowledge in this matter; as a librarian, I'm professionally required to say that if it is true. I ask because I have been picking up some Pathfinder assorted titles lately to try to get ahead of supplies running out now that first edition is over and avoid the $^^^ that happened after 3.5 closed out, but I just looked on Amazon aaaand that one is suddenly $35, used. Whoops.

[Psyren]

P.S. Psyren, if you're not too cheesed off at this time, could you please elucidate on what might be cool in the Weapon Masters Handbook, if there is anything beyond Item Mastery you think is of note? I acknowledge your superior knowledge in this matter; as a librarian, I'm professionally required to say that if it is true. I ask because I have been picking up some Pathfinder assorted titles lately to try to get ahead of supplies running out now that first edition is over and avoid the $^^^ that happened after 3.5 closed out, but I just looked on Amazon aaaand that one is suddenly $35, used. Whoops.

I wasn't upset at all :smallsmile: just bemused at the reaction I got from saying "I wasn't there, but here are some likely reasons Seoni was built using core-only options." But I'm more than happy to move on.

You asked about WMH - there's a ton of great stuff there. Notably it's the source of Advanced Weapon Training, otherwise known as "here's some class features that the Fighter probably should have had from the beginning." In particular, I love the way the subsystem was designed - almost as a balance patch to the base Fighter rather than yet another archetype. To the extent that you can patch a tabletop game at all, WMH showed a great way to go about it; I only wish they had done something similar for the Kineticist and Shifter.

More fun stuff it has includes:
- Additions to the Stamina system that debuted in Unchained
- Divine Fighting Techniques for the pious martial
- Melee weapon style feats (these do fun things like give you a 10ft. step or let you use unarmed damage with monk weapons)
- Ranged weapon style feats (these do fun things like let you ready multiple ranged attacks and ricochet thrown weapons)
- Item Mastery to let fighters draw additional magical abilities from standard gear

It's just chock-full of useful crunch for anyone who wanted the Fighter to get some love, and plenty of other martials can use the material too.

Lastly, the author behind WMH is also the guy who created the Pactmaker (i.e. the 3rd-party Binder conversion that I made a handbook for back when it was called the Occultist) and without revealing my bias too much, I absolutely adore his work.

[Erik the Green]

I wasn't upset at all :smallsmile: just bemused at the reaction I got from saying "I wasn't there, but here are some likely reasons Seoni was built using core-only options." But I'm more than happy to move on.

You asked about WMH - there's a ton of great stuff there. Notably it's the source of Advanced Weapon Training, otherwise known as "here's some class features that the Fighter probably should have had from the beginning." In particular, I love the way the subsystem was designed - almost as a balance patch to the base Fighter rather than yet another archetype. To the extent that you can patch a tabletop game at all, WMH showed a great way to go about it; I only wish they had done something similar for the Kineticist and Shifter.

More fun stuff it has includes:
- Additions to the Stamina system that debuted in Unchained
- Divine Fighting Techniques for the pious martial
- Melee weapon style feats (these do fun things like give you a 10ft. step or let you use unarmed damage with monk weapons)
- Ranged weapon style feats (these do fun things like let you ready multiple ranged attacks and ricochet thrown weapons)
- Item Mastery to let fighters draw additional magical abilities from standard gear

It's just chock-full of useful crunch for anyone who wanted the Fighter to get some love, and plenty of other martials can use the material too.

Lastly, the author behind WMH is also the guy who created the Pactmaker (i.e. the 3rd-party Binder conversion that I made a handbook for back when it was called the Occultist) and without revealing my bias too much, I absolutely adore his work.

Well, dang. That is a very strong recommendation. I guess I should suck it up before the price gets worse. Thank you. Talking of PF versions of offbeat 3.5 classes, do you have any information or opinion about the Avowed from Forrestfire? I was following the playtest thread and it seemed like a much more interesting and capable version of the warlock, plus 86-ing the creepy fluff from DnD unless actually chosen on purpose. I haven't seen anyone talking about playing it, and I was wondering if it got caught in the edition change undertow. Thanks in advance.
Yrs., E

[SpacemonkeyDM]

The NPC Codex is a great book. I like all the cool builds scattered throughout and since I do not play with Min/ Maxers at my table I am happy that the NPCs in the book did not have every little option to optimize them. Fits my playing style just fine.