Is it true that in early versions of 3rd ed sorcerors could cast cure spells?

I heard that in early 3rd edition versions they toyed with the idea of letting Sorcerors cast cure spells. Does anyone know if this is true? Anyone try it in their campaign?

Not that I ever heard of. It might have been a very early draft, though. I didn't start seeing stuff until a few months before it was released.

This sounds very doubtfull.

I agree. If it is so, it must be very early in the design process and before the playtesting started.

well...technically

sorcerors still CAN cast cure spells....kinda....not sure which page it's on in the PHB, but it says sorcerors can learn to cast arcane spells NOT on the wiz/sor list. I assumed that meant spells on the bard list (the only other arcane spell list in the book) which does include cure spells.


though I've been known to have been wrong....once

I believe they meant that you can learn arcane spells that are not listed in the PHB.

It's on page 50, btw.

The quote from the PH has been clarified to mean what Aggemam thinks it means.

I heard that in early 3rd edition versions they toyed with the idea of letting Sorcerors cast cure spells. Does anyone know if this is true? Anyone try it in their campaign?

Click to expand...

Lord Ben - I am going to have to answer this as deftly as I can.

yes - and yes.

First off, not all playtesters had the same "version" of the game at the same time. Different combinations were tried using different groups. It was kept extremely close to the vest so to speak, because of the old idea that "wizards shouldn't cast healing spells". The fact that this was possibly being challenged was kept very hush-hush.

I have tried it in My campaign, and have found that it works quite well. Sorcerers and bards - while they could have theoretically an infinite number of spells on their "spell list" could only know so many spells. There are six residual "points of evidence" on this point.

1. You are not supposed to grant extra spells known to sor or bard characters under ANY circumstance.

2. The consequences of spontaneously adding metamagic feats (where sorcerers were supposed to reign supreme) as a full round action removing quicken spell as a viable feat.

3. The lack of knowledge skills on the class list of the sorcerer

4. The total "spells known" count of the sor is less than that of the wizard at ANY given level.

5. the sorcerer is a full level behind the wizard when it comes to caster level.

6. Compare the sheer number of spells a SPECIALIST wizard and a sorcerer type can cast at 5th level. The major "hardcore" analysis is a 5th level evoker vs a 5th level sorcerer.

The main purpose of the sorcerer was to create a distinct niche - that of the "battle mage", just as the barbarian's major niche was melee combat. These two classes have their abilities stunted accordingly outside of these two roles. After all, a sorcerer focused on battle spells shreds nearly any given wizard (supposedly) and the barbarian in his rage DOES beat the fighter if he gets hand to hand.

Fortunately, a great deal of players focus on modules or "one shot" adventures and the "kick in the door" style of play. The weakness is therefore - not a weakness, it is a strength, because these are the vast majority of the encounters. However, the weakness is dramatically exposed as more "non-combat" type situations are presented to the party in the campaign game.

The sorcerer also makes a much better "GM spellslinger" than a rival wizard for quite a few reasons.

1. Sorcerers don't have spellbooks for PC wizards to find as treasure and possibly "unbalance" things.

2. Sorcerers can be "thrown together" - just pick your spells, drop skillpoints into the following:

Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft, Scry and a maybe a few craft skills
give him a hand to hand weapon and a crossbow...
and poof - you have a sorcerer.

3. you - as GM, don't have to worry about the problems between "invisibility" and "improved invisibility" or spell progression. Your character starts at level X. There is no "evolution effect" on your spell selection.

The majority of players thought the most unbalancing and over-powered class in 2e was the wizard. In fact - mathematical analysis proved concretely this was not the case...

It is now that I start to ramble... and need to stop.

Magus_Jerel said:

5. the sorcerer is a full level behind the wizard when it comes to caster level.

Click to expand...

Um. They get their spells one level later, but they are not a caster level behind. A 6th level sorcerer does as much damage with his fireball as a 6th level wizard, his mage armor lasts just as long, etc.

J

Um. They get their spells one level later, but they are not a caster level behind. A 6th level sorcerer does as much damage with his fireball as a 6th level wizard, his mage armor lasts just as long, etc.

Click to expand...

This is what I meant to say in point three - thx - read My own posts... sheesh.

Eldritch Master = they still can.