D&D 3E/3.5 Is Sorcerer the weakest 3.5 base class now?

[apsuman]

Look, I believe that the sorcerer class works just fine, but I do ideas on how to make it "more balanced" (sounds like "extra medium").

I think adding just a little can help a lot. I see thread discussing how to make changes and the class is wholey different.

Here are some of my ideas:

1. Sorcerers get a 1 spell slot of the next highest spell level at the same level that wizards get their next level spell. Example, at level 5 the sorcer could cast 1 third level spell (modified by high cha) but they don't know any third level spells until level 6.

2. Sorcerers get to use their CHA bonus for skill points.

3. Starting sorcerers get a bonus feat at level 1 from the following list: eschew materials, silent spell, still spell, toughness, light armor prof, arcane preparation, one martial weapon prof.

4. One free bonus feat at levels 6, 12 and 18. This way there is an incentive to stay in the class.

 

[Thanee]

It is only in 3.5 that sorcerers are really crap. In 3.0 sorcerers are on par with wizards. Why is this? Lets look at the major changes in 3.5 that affected sorcerers.

...

And how do those changes affect the wizard?

The wizard isn't even able to recast buffs in many cases, making it even worse for him with the new durations.

The only thing you posted, that actually applies to the sorcerer specifically, is the metamagic stacking issue, since metamagic is more of a sorcerer thing usually (wizards do use it, but much less than sorcerers).

About invisibility, fly and polymorph durations: I also dislike the very low duration here, as it just takes away from the non-combat possibilities mostly.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Then I'd say you haven't seen a good Monk or Rogue played. Those are two powerful classes when done well. In fact, I don't think there really IS a weakest class. I've seen every class played well without people being 'weak'.

I'm pretty sure, that I have seen good rogues being played, and even played some myself (mostly 3.0, tho, as in 3.5 I prefer the sorcerer, which is still at the top end of the class comparison scale IMHO ). I never have seen a good monk and probably never will.

BTW, I agree, that there is no weak class, I didn't say so, but there certainly is a weakest class - and I believe it's one of the two I listed in 3.5 (most probably the monk, altho the class is somewhat better now than the 3.0 one).

The reason, why I list the rogue is mainly, that 3.5 lets other classes into some of the rogue's field of expertise (skills) - namely the bard and ranger - while giving the rogue nothing of value (actually even taking away some by shifting the uncanny dodge to level 4 - very tough for the multiclassing rogues, that just want 3 levels of the class).

Now, the bard and ranger really needed some changes, but that's another issue.

The rogue still is a potent combat class with the sneak attacks (under the right circumstances only, however), but I doubt it can compete with the power attacking barbarians/fighters now.

Therefore, the only thing the rogue has going for her, is the trapfinding stuff, which doesn't seem much.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

All this stuff is definitely very situation-dependant.

Nifft also said something, which is very true:

Wizards are strategically flexible.
Sorcerers are tactically flexible.

This is the primary difference between the classes and shows where they shine.

Wizards, that leave some spell slots open during the day, are usually extremely capable, if they have those 15 minutes to prepare.

Sorcerers are unbeatable in fast situations, where quick reacting is needed.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Even assuming that spontaneous casting w/ few spells known is roughly equal to memorized casting w/ lots of spells known...

But the spontaneous casting is highly superior, once a certain level is reached (8th~10th)!

Bye
Thanee

 

[LordAO]

Aye, everyone talks about the cost. However, that is the Wizards only real money sink. Wizards more often than not dont need to worry about armor, weapons, general equipment... how many times do you see the Wizard walking around with a backpack full of torches, rope, stakes, etc.?

Really? Nah a Wizard doesnt really need money, does he? I mean, bracers of armor, headbands of intellilect, rings of wizrdry, rings of protection, amulets of natural armor, pearls of power, staves, wands, scrolls, potions, cloaks of resistance, magical robes, and the like don't really cost that much do they? (sarcasm)

I'm sorry, but in my experience the Wizard class costs more money to maintain and equip than ANY other. BY FAR. Talk about 1 gp trinkets like torches, stakes and rope all you want. All of that stuff is pocket change for a level one character, let alone a high level character.

 

[beaver1024]

And how do those changes affect the wizard?

The wizard isn't even able to recast buffs in many cases, making it even worse for him with the new durations.

The only thing you posted, that actually applies to the sorcerer specifically, is the metamagic stacking issue, since metamagic is more of a sorcerer thing usually (wizards do use it, but much less than sorcerers).

About invisibility, fly and polymorph durations: I also dislike the very low duration here, as it just takes away from the non-combat possibilities mostly.

Bye
Thanee

I'm not saying that wizards aren't affected. Sure they are but sorcerers are affected even more than wizards. The reason is because the stat buffs, Invisibility and Polymorph, in 3.5, cannot be used for non combat purposes thus sorcerers have to eat into their spells known repertoire in order to get non combat utility. Take for example Eagle's Splendor. In 3.0, it could be used in combat for raising save DCs for sorcerer spells but outside of combat it could also be used to boost charisma checks. This is important as sorcerers have limited skills and Eagle's Splendor is one of the few ways they have of increasing their ability to influence people. Now that Eagle's Splendor is nerfed in duration, sorcerers have to give up trying to be the face of the party or use up their precious spells known to learn some other spell that could be used for non combat application (ie Charm Person or Charm Monster). This straightjackets the sorcerer completely because it adds to the growning number of situations where the sorcerer's player sits and twiddle their thumbs because they don't have the right spell for the right occassion.

 

[Epametheus]

I figure that sorcerers don't get the social skills simply so that they won't trump bards in both magic and social checks.

My experience with sorcerers is that they actually come out on par with wizards in actual game play; the major area in which wizards can top them is item creation. A wizard can actually get away with learning a spell just for the sake of making a particular item; sorcerers can't.

The sorcerer class seems incredibly boring on paper, but it's a good class for people who don't want to do extensive character management.

 

[Nightfall]

Weakest class? Still bard in my view. Sorcerer can at least GET a wide selection of spells. Bards...just sing.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Weakest class? Still bard in my view. Sorcerer can at least GET a wide selection of spells. Bards...just sing.

What? No shameless plug for Blessed of Mesos? You must be slipping.