Is the Sorceror as bad as I think?

[Storm Raven]

Purely in terms of treasure value ... that's a LOT of gold "spent" on those spells. If you and I were to make 10th level characters... you'd have to sink a goodly amount of money into those spells.

Just the scrolls/spellbooks alone would be worth 9,475gp. Then, eithr lot of scribing, or, 9,000gp for a BBB and SOME scribing, or, 18,000gp for TWO BBB's.

We're looking at almost 30,000gp. Money the Sorceror can invest elsewhere.

And, in the meantime, the Wizard has at least two additional feats (which are frequently Item Creation feats, Craft Wondrous Item being one of the most useful for Wizards), thus reducing the cost of all of this to a very modest sum. I also note that you don't account for finding scrolls of spells in your adventuring, which will likely drastically reduce the cost of adding spells to your spellbook overall.

Sure the sorcerer will probably have some extra cash to spend, but his spellcasting versatility is nowhere near that of the typical wizard.

 

[Pax]

Yeah well, I always like to give the party's wiz the opportunity to burn half of the groups treasures for new spells in his book

Which is patently an unfair case of favoritism. No offense, but ... that's what it sounds like to me.

There's a reason it costs so much for a Wizard to exceed their own inherent "spells known" track ...

... a little something called game balance and fairness to all players.

 

[Shaele]

Just the scrolls/spellbooks alone would be worth 9,475gp. Then, eithr lot of scribing, or, 9,000gp for a BBB and SOME scribing, or, 18,000gp for TWO BBB's.

We're looking at almost 30,000gp. Money the Sorceror can invest elsewhere.

Only if you play in a campaign where the party worries about splitting up treasure evenly, and each character spends "his own" money on items.

We play a tightly-knit group, and pool our money. Items are purchased based on what would help the party the most. Inevitably, that means that the wizard gets the same number of items as the rest of us, AND gets a reasonable number of extra spells to add to his book.

Funny, we've always played that way (and every player I've encountered prefers playing this way). For that reason alone, the "sorcerer has more money to spend" argument has never held much weight.

I'm playing a sorcerer now actually, and find him interesting because of the ability to use metamagic effectively. I expect him to fall behind the wizard ar higher levels though.

 

[Spatzimaus]

If you're consistently giving all of the scrolls to the Wizard, you can't exactly complain about class balance. I don't care about a gp-by-gp accounting of treasure, but classes are balanced based on everyone getting an average share. Getting more spells for your spellbook is expensive; it's a class balance feature, so expecting the group to just hand over all the scrolls when the Sorcerers, Bards, Rogues, and Psychic Warriors want them too?

Otherwise, by your logic, I could claim that every stat-boosting item goes to my Psion first. Doesn't matter which stat, I have uses for them all.

 

[Pax]

Only if you play in a campaign where the party worries about splitting up treasure evenly, and each character spends "his own" money on items.

Try, "only if you play in a game where treasure division is generally even and fair, as the designers intended." IOW, the rules work fine that way, if you use them for their intended purpose.

We play a tightly-knit group, and pool our money. Items are purchased based on what would help the party the most. Inevitably, that means that the wizard gets the same number of items as the rest of us, AND gets a reasonable number of extra spells to add to his book.

Whereas I too have played in fairly tightly-knit groups, where first choice of who gets an item is based on overall benefit to the group -- but the COIN-value treasure is then divided up with the magic item distribution in mind.

IOW, if you get a double share of magic, expect a half share (or NO share) of coin.

The net result is that, in the end, everyone gets the same coin-value worthof treasure, but the needed items go to where they do the most good.

Funny, we've always played that way (and every player I've encountered prefers playing this way). For that reason alone, the "sorcerer has more money to spend" argument has never held much weight.

Then you've never met anyone who comprehends the issue of basic intraparty balance? Wow.

There are tables in the DMG, showing what the value of gear/equipment/etc each character should have, at any given level. The same GP amounts are used when building higher-than-1st-level characters ... on page 43 of the DMG.

You go on, make a 10th level wizard with "10-15 spells of every spell elvel" ... I'll make a 10th level sorceror ... and, I'll have about 30,000gp more of non-spellbook investment on my sorceror's character sheet, than your wizard has on HIS.

 

[Shaele]

Try, "only if you play in a game where treasure division is generally even and fair, as the designers intended." IOW, the rules work fine that way, if you use them for their intended purpose.

I dislike the notion of forcing character behavior to maintain game balance. Do you force players to divide treasure equally?

Whereas I too have played in fairly tightly-knit groups, where first choice of who gets an item is based on overall benefit to the group -- but the COIN-value treasure is then divided up with the magic item distribution in mind.

Not a bad system, and it sounds like it works for you. That's great. My party does things differently. Again, should I force them to divide treasure differently to make sure that the sorcerer gets "as much loot" as the wizard?

Then you've never met anyone who comprehends the issue of basic intraparty balance? Wow.

Wow. Thanks for totally missing the point of my post, and couching your reply in as sarcastic a manner as possible.

Yes, I understand the notion of "intraparty balance", and I certainly understand that - strictly in terms of game mechanics - scribing cost are weighted to to try and maintain equity with sorcerers.

I get it, I just don't particularly like it. It forces a specific type of roleplaying behavior to maintain game balance.

A party shouldn't have to keep a "running total" of who-has-what, or worry about the sorcerer getting more loot than the wizard; it detracts from the game. Correction: it detracts from _our_ game, and encourages a style of play that doesn't suit us.

My players would be apalled if I suggested that they should withold items from the wizard to "make up for all of the spells he has".

In our case, the party thought that it made sense for the wizard to have access to clairvoyance, detect scrying, teleport, see invisible and a host of other spells that we - as a party - otherwise couldn't use. They had to convince him over the course of ten minutes to spend their money. He felt awful, and didn't want to use it all up, but they successfully convinced him to buy and scribe every spell they could afford.

So, how do I handle this? Do I encourage them to track wealth to make sure they "get their share"? Suggest that they make the wizard sell some of his items to pay for the new spells? Do you honestly see their behavior as something I need to correct?

 

[Shaele]

If you're consistently giving all of the scrolls to the Wizard, you can't exactly complain about class balance. I don't care about a gp-by-gp accounting of treasure, but classes are balanced based on everyone getting an average share.

If you're replying to me: I never complained about class balance, or suggested that sorcerers are weak. I just happen to find the notion of "forcing equal distribution of treasure to keep the wizard in check" to be an unsatisfactory approach.

Actually, as a DM, I have a sorcerer NPC that tags along with the party. He's quite useful, in spite of being the least wealthy character in the party. Metamagic feats help a lot - spells that affect how a spell can be used are particularly effective (e.g. chain spell, sculpt spell). I'm also waiting for the day when he can use still/silent together to good effect.

 

[LordAO]

I often find when playing a Wizard that I usually just end up preparing most of the same spells day after day anyways. So the limited spell selction of the Sorcerer doesn't bother me. I greatly enjoy the flexibility and power that it offers. As a Sorcerer I can have a large number of utility spells available yet still be able to serve as artillery as much as needed. So many times I would run into situations as a Wizard where I had prepared a spell one time too few that day. ARGGGH! And the DAMN spellbook! I hated having to put half or more of my money just into having spells! And then if my spellbook was ever lost, stolen, or damaged, I was utterly screwed. Utterly. I also hated how Wizards use metamagics. In order to have a still, silent spell, I have to prepare it that way. Well, I'm sorry. The only time I know I'm going to need it to be stilled or silent is when I'm casting it. So often times it would simply be a waste. Never so with a Sorcerer.

The Sorcerer has one huge thing for me - freedom. And that's why I will never endure the shackles of Wizardom again.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This rather depends upon how you play wizards. As the player of a wizard myself, I've found that, 95% of the time I stick with a short and specific list of prepared spells. Consequently, adding any significant number of spells to my spellbooks rapidly becomes a matter of diminishing returns.

A mid to high level sorceror constructed with minimal ideas of flexibility in mind will have far more flexibility in any given situation than a wizard since he will know a wider variety of spells than the wizard has prepared (and, most likely, a wider variety than the wizard can prepare on short notice--assuming the wizard doesn't leave half his spell slots open).

And, assuming that the sorceror spends the same amount of money on scrolls and wands that the wizard spends adding spells to his spellbook, the sorceror will probably have more spells at his fingertips too. After all, the cost of scribing a low-level spell is two to eight times higher than the cost of buying a scroll of it. So, if the wizard only uses the spells he's scribed two or three times over his career, a sorceror who bought scrolls of them instead of scribing them will come out ahead.

Umm, huh? Any wizard who does not have 10-15 spells in his spellbook for each level of spell he can cast by the time he is 9th-10th level or so is doing something wrong. The only point at which most sorcerers are comparable in spells known is usually very early in their career.

 

[andargor]

Then you've never met anyone who comprehends the issue of basic intraparty balance? Wow.

Our party has used all known methods: equal divvy, pool, random, per class level, etc..

It has always depended on the party's perception of what is "fair" or "effective", or simply to bully weaker characters, well, because they can. It all has to do with alignment...

Andargor