alt.Sorcerer... drastic

[Capellan]

Okay, I dropped it down to just the clr/drd/wiz lists. That's still more than 95% of all available spells, so it's not like I'm kicking the sorcerer in the nuts or anything .

Definitely not!

It occurs to me that, with such a hige spell list, this sorcerer is an uber magic item user ... there's almost no wand or scroll they can't at least attempt to use, for instance.

 

[seasong]

That fits their role perfectly .

 

[seasong]

As a side note, if anyone's interested in the rules for the setting I'm working on, check out the big list of house rules I put together.

Most of those house rules are not set in stone, of course - indeed, I may drop many of them before I'm done . But if you want to see a consumate tweaker struggling with as few house rules as possible, or you just like seeing me squirm like a fish on a hook, check it out .

The other big change for the setting isn't listed on that thread, because I'm not done hashing it out, but the races of the setting aren't what most D&D players are used to .

 

[Technik4]

OT: Speaking of races, would you mind critiquing my Nations and Society thread? I'm trying to get the various factions balanced with regards to each other for the start of my new (first) homebrew campaign. Its also mostly based on the miniatures I own

Technik

 

[seasong]

No prob. I'm not great at helping setting build without a specific agenda, I'm afraid, but I tossed some ideas out.

You also might get some good replies in the Plots & Places forum. It's way down at the bottom, but some good people hang out there.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I think I would tone this alt.sorcerer back a bit.

First, I think it is a bit too strong at low levels. Maybe the initial spells have to be at least 4 cantrips and no more than 2 first level spells. Then make it so the 2 new spells per character level thereafter can't both be of the same level. This way, when a sorcerer gets a new spell-caster level he gets only one new spell. Sorcerers should have to agonize about their spell choices.

Put back arcane spell failure; it goes away automatically when the automatic still spell feature kicks in.

I think the Wizard and Druid lists are more than sufficient to give the sorcerer a distinctive flavor; I wouldn't give the sorcerer the Cleric's list as well.

In fact, I might make the specialization rules more stringent to make each sorcerer more distinctive. How about one school as the "dominant" school (at least 1/2 of all new spells learned have to be Universal or from the dominant school), and two "minor" schools (cast at -1 caster level). If the dominant school is one of the big three (Evocation, Transmutation and Conjuration), then the other members of the big three count double when chosen as a minor school. Spells from other schools can't be learned at all.

Examples (dominant school in CAPITAL letters):

CONJURATION, evocation (counts double because conjuration is one of the big three)
TRANSMUTATION, conjuration (ditto)
ABJURATION, transmutation, evocation
NECROMANCY, illusion, divination
DIVINATION, transmutation, enchantment

etc..

 

[Endur]

I like this class. However, I think this alt Sorceror is much more powerful than the usual Sorceror.

His spells won't be as diverse, however.

So... the following is a radical change from the normal sorcerer. It redefines the sorcerer to be something else entirely - a battle mage, capable of pumping out spells with raw talent rather than horded magical skill. This WON'T be for everyone, and I realize that... I am looking for comments on how well balanced it is, not whether or not folks like the flavor.

The balance points, roughly, are:
+ better HD
+ light armor
+ words of power
+ access to other spell lists
- words of power (no silent spells)
- no familiar
- access to non-specialized school very limited

 

[IndyPendant]

Hey Seasong, great changes to the Sorceror class. I may end up using it myself in my own campaigns, with some minor tweaks of course. : )

Two suggestions: use the '1/25th GP cost as XP cost' rule for spells with material components that are used up, as someone else suggested. So what if they can get back the xp lost very quickly; it still makes a player consider carefully whether to get certain spells if it will cost their char every time the spell is cast...

Also, you say you want them to be able to use Light Armour and cast spells--but then give them a flat-out 'spells are not affected by arcane failure' ruling. This leaves them two feats away from casting spells in Full Plate. I would make a small change, by saying something like: 'A Sorceror does not suffer Arcane Spell Failure penalties when wearing Light Armour.' That way, if they add a shield or heavier armour to their repertoire, they *will* suffer the spellcasting penalties.

Other than that, nice concept. Best I've seen yet, by far. I'm curious; what have you done with the bard in your campaign? Eliminated it, altered it, kept it as is?

 

[seasong]

I think I would tone this alt.sorcerer back a bit.

First, I think it is a bit too strong at low levels. Maybe the initial spells have to be at least 4 cantrips and no more than 2 first level spells.

As is, the initial spells that aren't cantrips will all have to be from the same school. And in my Theralis campaign, which allows even more freedom for picking spells, the players picked a fair number of cantrips. The favored number for the first level seemed to be a minimum of 3 cantrips. Usually prestidigitation, ray of frost and cure minor wounds for the 0-level spells, with one or two others by flavor for the mage.

I realize that my experience may be unique in that regard, but I personally consider the cantrips a solid part of a well rounded mage's arsenal.

Then make it so the 2 new spells per character level thereafter can't both be of the same level. This way, when a sorcerer gets a new spell-caster level he gets only one new spell. Sorcerers should have to agonize about their spell choices.

I'll think about this one, but currently I like the idea of starting with 2 spells from the same school, and then expanding out into two other spells.

Put back arcane spell failure; it goes away automatically when the automatic still spell feature kicks in.

The ability to wear armor is one of the differentiating factors of this sorcerer. Whether it's balanced or not is up for discussion, of course .

I think the Wizard and Druid lists are more than sufficient to give the sorcerer a distinctive flavor; I wouldn't give the sorcerer the Cleric's list as well.

In fact, I might make the specialization rules more stringent to make each sorcerer more distinctive.

They're pretty stringent, already . Unless the player picks lower level spells consistently, roughly half of all known spells will be in the same school. That's distinctive - no reason to make ALL known spells be of the same school.

 

[seasong]

Endur: Thanks! I think I agree - this sorcerer is like a normal sorcerer, except he has somewhat less diverse spells and slightly better survivability, and no familiar. On the other hand, the original sorcerer was primarily a rest stop to a PrC, unlike almost every other class except ranger .

Hey Seasong, great changes to the Sorceror class. I may end up using it myself in my own campaigns, with some minor tweaks of course. : )

Of course .

Two suggestions: use the '1/25th GP cost as XP cost' rule for spells with material components that are used up, as someone else suggested. So what if they can get back the xp lost very quickly; it still makes a player consider carefully whether to get certain spells if it will cost their char every time the spell is cast...

I meant to come back to this one. It really does change the dynamic considerably. XP is cheaper than gold, flat-out, no question. By 2nd level, a character will have earned 900 GP and 1,000 XP. A spell which costs 100 GP (11% of your earnings for the level) or 4 XP (0.4% of your earnings), which would you cast?

Even at the highest levels, this holds true, although less so: from 19th to 20th, you earn 180,000 GP and 19,000 XP. A spell which costs 2,000 GP (1.1% of your earnings) or 80 XP (0.42% of your earnings)?

It just doesn't work out well.

Also, you say you want them to be able to use Light Armour and cast spells--but then give them a flat-out 'spells are not affected by arcane failure' ruling. This leaves them two feats away from casting spells in Full Plate.

Would you believe I'm fine with that? That's two feats for a net gain of +4 to +6 AC (assuming a low DEX), and the required STR to overcome encumbrance issues. Someone who really wants to roleplay a plate armor spell caster can, but it's not really that impressive a gain for the two feats. Especially when you could have taken stuff that is much better, like impoved initiative or spell focus. Personally, I'd take the savings from STR and put them into DEX.

I would make a small change, by saying something like: 'A Sorceror does not suffer Arcane Spell Failure penalties when wearing Light Armour.' That way, if they add a shield or heavier armour to their repertoire, they *will* suffer the spellcasting penalties.

Keep in mind, also, that this will be a moot point at 5th level. If you are worried about it, I would treat it as a 15% reduction in spell failure which can go to 0%; that way they continue to get some benefit from their ability even when in heavy armor.

Other than that, nice concept. Best I've seen yet, by far.

Thank you .

I'm curious; what have you done with the bard in your campaign? Eliminated it, altered it, kept it as is?

So far, I've not messed with it much. I want to see what has been done with it in 3.5 before I start piling on any house rules.

With that said , what I would like to do is emphasize the bardic music ability - make a bigger list of songs, essentially, and let bards pick from the list as they go up in bard levels. This would also have the benefit of requiring them to take bard levels in order to pick up the higher level bardic music abilities.

It depends a lot on the 3.5 bard, however. They've said they are improving it, and I'm curious to see what that means.