Gez
First Post
Sorcerers don't travel without spellbook. It's bad game design, and really only existed in the first place to screw the players (in the "look at all these cool spells you can't learn" way of things).
Consider these two scenarios for Inner Sorcery Syndrom (ISS).
1) Because the sorcerer don't need a spellbook, he can spend this money on getting a wizard to cast permanenced buffs on him. So the sorcerer is more of a challenge than another creature of its CR. But when the heroes defeat the sorcerer, they can't learn his spells, so they get less reward than they should.
Net result: Good for the foe, bad for the players. Not fair, and this not a good idea.
2) Because the don't need a spellbook, he gets lots of spare money he can use for cool items. So, the sorcerer is more of a reward than another creature of its CR. And when the heroes defeat the sorcerer, they take all the phat l00t and get much more treasure than they should.
Net result: Bad for the monster, too good for the players. Bad all around, and thus a bad idea.
That's why in 4E sorcerers will get an immortal-like quickening that will allow them to steal the spell knowns of defeated sorcerers. FYI, this isn't just my opinion; Jonathan Tween, Ed Spark, Rich Backer, and I had a discussion about this during the design of the 4E, and we agreed with the above reasoning.
Question: How is this different than having encounters with monsters that don't have treasure? Shouldn't the awarding of treasure balance out over time and make up for the ISS spells?
Answer: It is different because in most circumstances you're not going to have an extensive campaign against monsters that have no spellbooks, whereas with sorcerers quite often the scenario is a long foray into the dragonbroodnest, which means many encounters in a row (even extending over several game sessions) where the heroes get little or no new spells. True, they may find scrolls or potions while on such a campaign, but when they leave the underground tunnels laden with "treasure" that's just blank pages and empty vials, that means they're not being fairly rewarded for their work. If the sorcerers are just an occassional opponent it's not so bad (they would count as a no-treasure monster in those circumstances), but you still have to keep in mind how the cost of ISS (however you interpret it, using option 1 or 2 above) affects the EL of the encounter.
Question: How is this different than using divine spellcaster? They can't learn their enemies' spells, which is what you seem to be arguing against.
Answer: This is totally unrelated to the problem. The divine spellcasters in the party already know all the spells on their spell list, those used by their enemies aren't new. Arcane spellcasters, on the other hand, need to find spellbooks.
With apologies to Sean K. Reynolds...
Consider these two scenarios for Inner Sorcery Syndrom (ISS).
1) Because the sorcerer don't need a spellbook, he can spend this money on getting a wizard to cast permanenced buffs on him. So the sorcerer is more of a challenge than another creature of its CR. But when the heroes defeat the sorcerer, they can't learn his spells, so they get less reward than they should.
Net result: Good for the foe, bad for the players. Not fair, and this not a good idea.
2) Because the don't need a spellbook, he gets lots of spare money he can use for cool items. So, the sorcerer is more of a reward than another creature of its CR. And when the heroes defeat the sorcerer, they take all the phat l00t and get much more treasure than they should.
Net result: Bad for the monster, too good for the players. Bad all around, and thus a bad idea.
That's why in 4E sorcerers will get an immortal-like quickening that will allow them to steal the spell knowns of defeated sorcerers. FYI, this isn't just my opinion; Jonathan Tween, Ed Spark, Rich Backer, and I had a discussion about this during the design of the 4E, and we agreed with the above reasoning.
Question: How is this different than having encounters with monsters that don't have treasure? Shouldn't the awarding of treasure balance out over time and make up for the ISS spells?
Answer: It is different because in most circumstances you're not going to have an extensive campaign against monsters that have no spellbooks, whereas with sorcerers quite often the scenario is a long foray into the dragonbroodnest, which means many encounters in a row (even extending over several game sessions) where the heroes get little or no new spells. True, they may find scrolls or potions while on such a campaign, but when they leave the underground tunnels laden with "treasure" that's just blank pages and empty vials, that means they're not being fairly rewarded for their work. If the sorcerers are just an occassional opponent it's not so bad (they would count as a no-treasure monster in those circumstances), but you still have to keep in mind how the cost of ISS (however you interpret it, using option 1 or 2 above) affects the EL of the encounter.
Question: How is this different than using divine spellcaster? They can't learn their enemies' spells, which is what you seem to be arguing against.
Answer: This is totally unrelated to the problem. The divine spellcasters in the party already know all the spells on their spell list, those used by their enemies aren't new. Arcane spellcasters, on the other hand, need to find spellbooks.
With apologies to Sean K. Reynolds...
Last edited:
