There is no issue. Not really. Fear of "power creep" will be the motivation behind some of these posts.
Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview
There is no issue. Not really. Fear of "power creep" will be the motivation behind some of these posts.
dm4hire
Explorer
I like that it comes down to what is your priority when dealing with the character. There's still a lot of builds a player might go with that would make taking the extra hit point or skill point more preferable. I also have to agree that if anyone is really arguing the power issue it's got to be a player the majority of the time. I don't see an issue with the changes since, so far from what I'm seeing, you're giving up one for another. A sorcerer may gain 20 extra spells known, but he/she will still have the limits of how many times they can cast. A good NPC build will hold out and over come by attrition anyway and if not, well the object of the game isn't to defeat the players but to provide an enjoyable experience everyone can participate in.
It's not that it's something for a DM to be worried about. Not at all. It is that it is clearly superior to taking a hit point or a skill point. Take toughness as a feat and/or false life as one of those extra spells and you won't miss the hit points.
Even with cantrips, detect magic or prestidigitation (at-will) is worth much more than 1 lowly hit point. By the time you are exchanging 1 bonus hit point (i.e. it is not even an actual loss of a hit point) for greater teleport you gotta think for a moment ... is there a better deal in the game than that? Maybe, but I dunno what it is.
Further, nobody who is expressing concerns mentioned anything at all about increased castings per day... the extra known spells are better than their alternative even without extra castings per day so saying "it is balanced because they don't get extra castings" is flawed. It's like saying a cleric who can use his channelling to both heal and harm the living isn't more powerful because he doesn't get more channels per day.
Remember, it isn't a sorcerer "fix" - it is an alternative to a hp or skill point for a human sorcerer only. So it doesn't really address perceived imbalances between sor and wiz. If the same rule had been presented as a sorcerer "fix" and was thus available to every race (for those DMs/Tables where the sor is seen as underpowered) it wouldn't even be a problem.
In summary, the big deal isn't a power problem. As you say, it isn't really anything that any DM will have trouble with. It is that it is bad design (like 3.x toughness) because some options are demonstrably superior to others as shown above with the option of taking False life as a bonus spell and still getting 19 other spells for negligible cost.
Even with cantrips, detect magic or prestidigitation (at-will) is worth much more than 1 lowly hit point. By the time you are exchanging 1 bonus hit point (i.e. it is not even an actual loss of a hit point) for greater teleport you gotta think for a moment ... is there a better deal in the game than that? Maybe, but I dunno what it is.
Further, nobody who is expressing concerns mentioned anything at all about increased castings per day... the extra known spells are better than their alternative even without extra castings per day so saying "it is balanced because they don't get extra castings" is flawed. It's like saying a cleric who can use his channelling to both heal and harm the living isn't more powerful because he doesn't get more channels per day.
Remember, it isn't a sorcerer "fix" - it is an alternative to a hp or skill point for a human sorcerer only. So it doesn't really address perceived imbalances between sor and wiz. If the same rule had been presented as a sorcerer "fix" and was thus available to every race (for those DMs/Tables where the sor is seen as underpowered) it wouldn't even be a problem.
In summary, the big deal isn't a power problem. As you say, it isn't really anything that any DM will have trouble with. It is that it is bad design (like 3.x toughness) because some options are demonstrably superior to others as shown above with the option of taking False life as a bonus spell and still getting 19 other spells for negligible cost.
IMHO, the amount of new spells are going to be a major factor in determining strength of this ability. At this moment, while very useful, it is unlikely to bring Sorcerer power closer to Wizard.
However, with APG, Ultimate Magic and Adventure Path spells, I cannot imagine not using it to improve versatility of spontaneous spellcaster.
Regards,
Ruemere
However, with APG, Ultimate Magic and Adventure Path spells, I cannot imagine not using it to improve versatility of spontaneous spellcaster.
Regards,
Ruemere
Personally, I like the new sorcerer option. No one in my group, myself included, likes to play sorcerers; a specialist wizard has a number spells per day close to what a sorcerer has, and if you include scribe scroll...
Ultimately, the only benefit that a sorcerer has is spontaneous casting, and they pay too heavy of a price for it, IMO. I can never get behind a sorcerer because they just don't know enough spells, and there are almost no decent options to acquiring more. I'm happy with any add-on that will allow a sorcerer to be more than a one trick pony.
Ultimately, the only benefit that a sorcerer has is spontaneous casting, and they pay too heavy of a price for it, IMO. I can never get behind a sorcerer because they just don't know enough spells, and there are almost no decent options to acquiring more. I'm happy with any add-on that will allow a sorcerer to be more than a one trick pony.
BryonD
Hero
I'm not going to go through another whole round of making the point.
But the claim is not that it breaks the system.
The claim is that the option to gain another spell known is notably better than the option to take 1 hit point.
And, comparing to a wizard is meaningless. A limit on spells known is not a balance factor to the wizard class.
As I said, it's not a sorcerer "fix" - it's an alternative to 1hp per level for human sorcerers only. Hence, saying "I don't see a problem because sorcerers are weaker than wizards anyway" is missing the point by a league or two.
If it WAS a sorcerer fix, there wouldn't be a problem (assuming sorcerers need fixing, something I am not convinced of but would probably take on board).
Last edited:
I'd always take the spell. I've always wanted sorcerers to have more spells. It is a clearly superior option.
A hit point doesn't mean much to a sorcerer. And the more spells books in play, the more valuable this option will become. It will make sorcerers more attractive to play.
BryonD
Hero
I don't personally agree that they need the buff. The wizard in the group I run recently switched to sorcerer because they decided it worked better for them.
But, I also have no argument with your opinion on it. And if you like this because it is a buff that helps fix the class for you, then I'm 100% in support.
The point of contention seems to be if it is or is not a buff. And on that it appears you and I agree.
BryonD
Hero
If you are looking at it the same way as EroGaki, then fine. (at least more or less)
I'm not in any way trying to tell other people how to play or what is or isn't fun for them.
I agree. "It is a clearly superior option."
It seems we disagree whether or not the sorcerer needs it. But that is fine.
If Paizo came out and said "You know, we kinda came in a bit low on the sorcerer and we are fixing it here". Then that would be fine.
We don't know what favored perks other races will get. Since humans are the only race to get one for every class it seems safe to assume that most won't get anything new for sorcerer at all. If they are fixing the class, then fix the class. Don't fix the class *for human PCs*.
