So what is the history of Sorcerors

EricNoah said:

If 4E does anything, I think it needs to figure out how the flavor and mechanics of magic go together. You've got the "the power's inside you, lad" people (sorcerers); the "magic's a science you can learn if you are smart" people (wizards); and the "I beseech you, unknowable supenatural beings, grant me power" people (clerics). I just wish each style felt different, and yet had something of a unified mechanic. That's probably a tall order.

Click to expand...

Probably, but a worthy goal. I'd like to see clerics stop being spellcasters at all, and be something more like 'divine warlocks' with the incantations being dependent on domain.

Wraith-Hunter said:

On the WotC boards. Not sure if it is true or not.

Click to expand...

The WotC boards a bit more on the finetuner/optimization-side, while ENworld is generally populated by people who have played a bit more (I dare to say that most active posters have at least played (or hated and refused ) 2nd ed AD&D, hence the different attitude.

For everyone who care 'bout the balance between Sorcerers and Wizards, the sorcerer is indeed worse, because he has delayed spells, and even on higher levels he only tops out at two spells more than the Wiz (and a specialist is even closer)... and look: A sorcerer gets on fourth level 3 x 2nd level spells, the specialist wizard has 3 x 2nd level spells as well at this point, making the difference quite small.

If you leave half of your top-level spell slots open as a wizard and may face a threat, take a lunch break and fill your slots... instant flexibility.

Hence the opinion that Sorcerers are bad... and not only the staggered spell progression, they also suffer the lack of bonus feats (whopping five, if you count Scribe Scroll as bonus feat)... you see the line of argumentation?

However, if you're game table isn't filled with a crowd of optimizers, you'll see that the sorcerers are worse, but not fighter-worse, just... not wizard power.

Well one of the draws for me was the ease in paperwork. It is hard to choose the spells though as they are pretty much set, I know you can swap some out but if you make a bad decision it can be with you for awhile. Nice to not need to worry about which spells to prepare for the day.

Nifft said:

It's important to get the FACTS:

#1: Sorcerers are mammals. (Except kobolds... and dragons. And lizardfolk.)
#2: Sorcerers cast spells ALL the time.
#3: The purpose of the sorcerer is to flip out and kill people.


Sorcerers can kill anyone they want! Sorcerers cast fireball ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this sorcerer who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the sorcerer fireballed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a sorcerer totally magic missile some kid just because the kid opened a window.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Spellcasting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't believe that sorcerers have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will fireball your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Cheers, -- N

Click to expand...

Crothian said:

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

I think sorcerers' lack of class abilities was because, before pervasive Prestige Classes introduced the idea of having a cool power every level, being able to cast a spell 10,000,000 times a day was seen as being a pretty sweet class ability.

Click to expand...

Wow, your sorcerers are so much cooler then mine.

Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind that the spell in question is probably "Hairy"...

And darn you, Nifft, that's too long to sig!!!

More seriously, from a flavor standpoint I'm intrigued by the idea of the Eldritch Theurge into a base class and having it replace both Sorcerers and Warlocks...

Sorcerrors are for Monsters

My theory is that Sorcerrors were originally developped as a monster spellcasting class. They are easier to GM, you don't have to explain the lack of a spellbook, and they are actually not quite as nasty as wizards in a single encounter.

Harlekin said:

My theory is that Sorcerrors were originally developped as a monster spellcasting class. They are easier to GM, you don't have to explain the lack of a spellbook, and they are actually not quite as nasty as wizards in a single encounter.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! Sorcerers, Warlocks, Wilders, Dragonfire Adepts -- perfect for NPC monsters.

C, -- N

Wraith-Hunter said:

On the WotC boards. Not sure if it is true or not.

Click to expand...

They obviously never saw the ultimate power of Blessed of Mesos. Trust me, that sucker, you'll run out of ideas well before you run out of spells OR different spells too.

I usually play wizards so decided to try something different. There are 101 PrC's out there which takes care of the problem with class abilities. And using the PHB 2 variation where you give up a familiar for normal casting time metamagic.

Click to expand...

Wow. Here's a guy who just started playing d20, and he's already figured out the same thing everyone else has - the sorcerer sucks.

Yeah, unfortunately I get frustrated by people thinking a class blows or a PrC isn't worth it because there is a dead level. I mean, even in classes where there is a dead level that means there are as many other levels that are better than average!

Click to expand...

PrCs should get something every level - they're not just some class that Joe Blow the adventurer can join when he feels like it; they're prestige classes. You should get some kind of return for spending the effort (in skill ranks, useless feats, joining organizations, whatever) to get to the point where you can take levels in it.

So is the consensus that the sorcerer was originally intended as a monster class? I'm just curious as to why it was included in the game at all.

I do like the class, and an intelligent player with some of the suppliment books can make the class better. Add in some UA type flaws and PrC's become more manageable, though high skill rank ones still hurt.

I just found the Monte Cook version from one of the Malhavok Press books and I like it better, IMHO it is what WotC should have done. I can understand however how the original play testers and poeple steeped in 1e and 2e would view the new spontaneous casting. If coming from that kind of background this class feaure would seem HUGE. But in actual play in normal campaigns, and more time to get used to the game play of d20 the advantage though good is not all powerfull. Certainly not enough to justify all the goodies wizards get over and above what sorcerers get.

Frankly I think Monte's version both from a flavor and mechanics perspective is better. If I were running a game however I would probably drop the d6 to a d4 and keep the standard spell list (monte's ups the level on a couple spells, haste, web shield etc). But the flavor of his version shows the differant approach to magic better than the standard one IMO.

I was also very surprised to see the new base classes that spont cast with access to the entire spell list not just known spells, though the effects of the spells are so limited in variety that it balances out.

But the conclusion remains. Spont casting is a big benifit but not a game breaking one. Certainly not enough justify the sorc. not having the goodies that the wizard does.

In regards to PrC's most DON'T need to be 10 level many have no decent abilities past 3rd level or at least not good enough to bother taking 8-10 levels of them. Most builds I see take multiple PrC's.

If a 10 level PrC had good abilities every level it would encourage a player to take the whole thing. If not a 3-5 level would be fine. And if you have to give up a very limited number of your feats or spend your very limited number of skill points on skills or feats you would not use then you BETTER get something else on your return.

What I have seen in class and PrC design is more game mechanic reasons to stay in the primary class till 20th (duskblade is a good example) or shorter PrC's with easy or at least USEFULL feat/skill requirements to get into and they may be short 3-5 levels.

From just getting into d20 maybe my perspective is different, I can see the changes in design philosphy. Besides DM fiat there is NO reason to saty in many core classes (fighter cough, sorcerer) and the same even in some older prestige classes. The newer base classes and the newer PrC's have different deisgn criteria, and I think noticable.

I am seeing less useless feats and skills required to get into PrC's and less skill ranks or useless skills required and the legth of many of them is shorter. The new base classes offer something every level and in many cases there is enough of a good theme going that you don't want to multi-class.

In contrast the sorcerer looks like a 486 compared to a new Mac.