Sorcerer Fix - Continued from "D&D Rules"

[Khaalis]

I just noticed that in addition to using the aura of sorcerers from my web site, you have also picked up the restricted Spell Trigger list. This is a good rule for any alternative sorcerer to my way of thinking.

Well I saw the Aura mentioned in the forum discussion by korasukage, but its not in the class description and it is a simple use of the Cleric aura.

As for the Spell Trigger, after reading some of your arguments below I have decided NOT to re-write the DMG rules on item use.

Your Alteration: "Specifically, anyone with a spell on their spell list, or in the instance of sorcerers, on their Spells Known list, knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell.”

This is primarily due to your and contradictions between Spell Trigger and Use Magic Device, as well as your argument below “Here is another example of making the sorcerer more special than every other core character class for no good reason. That's kind of special treatment screams plain old favoritism.”

The only difference is that by changing the DMG text on Spell Triggers specifically and ONLY for sorcerers, you are giving an undo and unnecessary restriction to the sorcerer. If you are going to re-write how Spell Triggers work in the way you have (see above), it should apply to ALL classes not just the sorcerer. This means that it applies to Sorcerers as well as Bards, and should also apply to EVERY class. If the caster cant cast the spell in the Spell Trigger item yet, it isn’t a “Known Spell” thus they cannot use a Spell Trigger Device until they “Know” the spell in the item.

Here is another example of making the sorcerer more special than every other core character class for no good reason. Why do sorcerers get to choose? Rogues are the most skill focused class in the game, but sorcerers get to pick two class skills that they want (or choose one with a +2 bonus)? That's kind of special treatment screams plain old favoritism. Sorcerers do get to pick which skills they want, but just like everybody else (from a skill list). As such, the sorcerer skill list should contained "fixed" choices.

I can understand this, though more material from UA doesn’t. Granted this is a “core” class discussion and you will argue that the UA is not official, so I will set that aside for now.

And about that skill list, yes Diplomacy is Charisma based skills, but that should not automatically nominate it for the sorcerer (just because the sorcerer is a Charisma based class). I see nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers. They are force of personality and innate power. Once they come into their own, sorcerers shouldn't have to negotiated.

This is your personal view of the sorcerer and it doesn’t agree with the classes definition. I know you don’t like using the flavor text as an argument but, regardless of the arguments you have made previously, unless you wish to throw out the Flavor Text and re-write it from scratch, you have to follow it as there is no other description or definition of the sorcerer. You may say that you do not see the sorcerer as diplomatic and a negotiator, but I see the flavor text saying otherwise. Per the sorcerer description:
“Since Sorcerers often have a powerful presence that gives them a way with people, they frequently serve as the “face” for an adventuring party, NEGOTIATING, BARGAINING, and speaking for others. The Sorcerer’s spells often help him sway others or gain information, so he makes an excellent spy or DIPLOMAT for an adventuring party.”
Diplomacy is the skill of negotiation and of being a professional speaker and diplomat, and of how to blend in correctly in an environment.

That said, Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) can both be intuitive skills, and therefore should be added as well. Yes, even Knowledge (arcana). This is fantasy after all and the sorcerer is the only character class that starts out inherently magical. Within that context, it is entirely feasible that arcane knowledge is buried deep within them, just waiting to be released.

You can say I am quoting scripture if you like, but since this is the only description of what a sorcerer is supposed to be, this is what we have to go by unless you want to scrap the entire flavor text and redefine the sorcerer from the ground up.
“For Sorcerers, magic is an intuitive art, not a science.”
“Since Sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that Wizards go through, they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge that most Wizard’s have.
Knowledge: “Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.”
Spellcraft: “Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.”

This is a reflection of your vision of the skills. Being inherently magical does not cover Knowledge as it is defined and only loosely so for Spellcraft. The sorcerer description specifically says that they do not study magic. Without formal study they cannot have Knowledge and without formal study of magic, especially with your version of the sorcerer which Improvises all of their components – how would they know how to recognize spells from watching them being cast or how to read a spell’s aura and know what it is? However, if you say that they can have these skills as “buried deep within them, just waiting to be released” – why cant other skills or other abilities? Of the two skills, I could only see Spellcraft being learned “intuitively” and the more I think about I agree that it fits.

Moreover, Knowledge (arcana) should be a sorcerer class skill if for no other reason than to keep so many arcane-based prestige classes open to them. Options, remember?

If a PrC has a Knowledge (Arcana) requirement, then by definition it is saying that it requires specific magical study, which is NOT a part of what the sorcerer is. You yourself have said they are NOT learned. And the PHB says that Knowledge is NOT an intuitive skill. By its definition it is formal education and may only be used if specifically trained in the skill. If the sorcerer wishes to officially train and school themselves in formal magical education they may, as a cross-class skill.

I can even make a good argument for Use Magic Device, especially now, in light of you adding my "Spell Trigger" errata to your sorcerer. Sorcerers can't use quite so many magic items anymore, making the Charisma based Use Magic Device skill that much more attractive to sorcerers.

This is a point I will call you on. You are contradicting yourself with this. On one had you want to restrict Sorcerers from using any Spell Trigger item that is not of their Spells Known, yet on the other hand you want to nullify that restriction with Use Magic Device??
Use Magic Device: “Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.”
This would allow a sorcerer to use ANY magic item regardless of what is or isn’t on their known spell list.

If you allow Use Magic Device as a class skill, you are allowing them to easily bypass a class restriction you have added.

Why change the number of spells known? I mean, your method grants 3 more spells known to sorcerers than the printed chart (by 20th level). Is it really worth altering? I mean, let's only change what we have to. You are already granting bonues spells to the sorcerer with specialization and innate ability. I think that's plenty.

Because, I and many many others feel it is worth altering. We feel that the limited number of spells is too limiting to the sorcerer’s effectiveness as a party member unless you are making a combat spell battery. If that is your only view of what a sorcerer is good for – might as well re-write the class and use the Battle Sorcerer from UA.

Now as another argument, you question me on changing spells known by 3 more spells than the core list (and simplifying the acquisition process while doing so as well as giving ”Options”) yet in your Sorcerer you change the more important balance factor of the sorcerer and re-wrote the spells per day table to allow them to gain their new spell levels at the same level as a wizard. I feel this is much more unbalancing than granting a few extra spells known over 20 levels because you are removing the balance factor that prevents a sorcerer from being more powerful than any other caster of the same level.
A 5th level Wizard can cast 4/3/2/1 while a 5th level core sorcerer casts 6/6/4/-.
A 6th level Wizard can cast 4/3/3/2 while a 6th level core sorcerer casts 6/6/5/3 which is not much farther ahead than the Wizard.
Yet with your version the sorcerer at 5th level now casts 6/6/5/3 – already far outmatching the wizard.

Lastly, I'm not crazy about your sorcerer abilities. I feel very strongly that "special bonus abilities" (at all) utterly defeats the purpose of a devoted arcane spellcasting class. The whole idea is that their "spells" provide those abilities. In fact, that's rather the point.

I assume then that you are removing the Bonus Feats from the Wizard then? And removing all Pure Caster oriented PrC’s? I also have to say that I strongly disagree. The Sorcerer is NOT balanced to the other spellcasters in the game and I feel that they must be balanced against ALL devoted casters.

When it comes to spells and Special abilities the Sorcerer is far too weak. As assessed previously:

CLASS ABILITIES
(Class Abilities {Special column} but counts Spells as a single Class Ability. Counts iterations of an ability as separate abilities where Iterations are such things as stacking Sneak Attacks. Does not count weapon and armor proficiency feats.)
Cleric = 5 abilities (including spontaneous swapping)
Druid = 25 abilities (including spontaneous swapping; 17 without iterations)
Core Sorcerer = 2 abilities
Wizard = 7 abilities

The average number of class abilities from the non-Sorcerer Pure Casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) = 12 abilities (10 w/o iterations). The Alt.Sorcerer brings this UP to the average w/o iterations, below average with iterations.

Its fine if you don’t like them and that is your prerogative. However, many people feel that the changes are necessary to both balance the class against the other classes in the game.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

The only difference is that by changing the DMG text on Spell Triggers specifically and ONLY for sorcerers, you are giving an undo and unnecessary restriction to the sorcerer. If you are going to re-write how Spell Triggers work in the way you have (see above), it should apply to ALL classes not just the sorcerer.

Nonsense. Virtually every other spellcasting class has the potential to cast every spell on their list. What they aren't casting now, they are studying for later. That foreknowledge is what allows them to spell trigger magic items based on spells from their respective lists. In the case of clerics, druids, and wizards, the groundwork for "all" spells has already been laid. That foreknowledge "must" exist on a conceptual game design level, because otherwise every heroic spellcasting class would be in school more often than they would be adventuring. The sorcerer cannot equal that potential, possessing no foreknowledge at all.

Which brings us to bards. I had originally placed that same restriction on bards, until I thought better on it. While bards will eventually hit a ceiling of spells as well, they are a wealth of knowledge without even taking a single rank of any Knowledge skill. Once again, that studied foreknowledge outshines the intuitive understanding of sorcerers, and allows bards to spell trigger any spell on their list.

I can understand this, though more material from UA doesn’t. Granted this is a "core" class discussion and you will argue that the UA is not official, so I will set that aside for now.

Right on both counts.

This is your personal view of the sorcerer and it doesn’t agree with the classes definition. I know you don't like using the flavor text as an argument but...

And that's where you lose me (any time you justify game mechanics with flavor text). Even though you now acknowledge that the flavor text may have been written for an earlier incarnation of the sorcerer that never saw print, you keep doing it. I'm sorry, but unless you base such arguments on actual game mechanics, they hold no empirical worth.

"For Sorcerers, magic is an intuitive art, not a science."
"Since Sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that Wizards go through, they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge that most Wizard's have.
Knowledge: "Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline."
Spellcraft: "Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place."

Exactly. It goes against their intuitive grasp of spellcasting. Which is probably why Knowledge (arcana) is the *only* knowledge skill that appears on their list. And funny how its the only knowledge skill that could *possibly* interest them. It's there for a very good reason. Knowledge (arcana) helps round out the class in case some errant sorcerer might actually be interested in learning more about where their powers came from. (I know, it's unfathomable!) My suggestion that arcane knowledge could also be locked inside the body is only one of many feasible rationales for this class skill.

If a PrC has a Knowledge (Arcana) requirement, then by definition it is saying that it requires specific magical study, which is NOT a part of what the sorcerer is. You yourself have said they are NOT learned. And the PHB says that Knowledge is NOT an intuitive skill. By its definition it is formal education and may only be used if specifically trained in the skill. If the sorcerer wishes to officially train and school themselves in formal magical education they may, as a cross-class skill.

This is better known as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Because of one skill, you deny the devoted sorcerer early access to a host of prestige class options. Not very far sighted.

This is a point I will call you on. You are contradicting yourself with this. On one had you want to restrict Sorcerers from using any Spell Trigger item that is not of their Spells Known, yet on the other hand you want to nullify that restriction with Use Magic Device??

That's not a contradiction. That's supply and demand. If the sorcerer cannot "spell trigger" certain magic items themselves (demand), then a few Use Magic Device ranks might make it possible (supply). But I think everybody knows by now that a few points of Use Magic Device won't do the trick. You need to sink a lot of ranks into that skill before you start getting meaningful returns. But I will say this for it. There is no skill more clearly based on magical intuition.

If you allow Use Magic Device as a class skill, you are allowing them to easily bypass a class restriction you have added.

And once again, that is by design (see above). You see, I'm not one of those dungeon masters who exerts too much control over their players. I try to exert just enough so that they can enjoy themselves while also feeling like there are checks and balances in place for when they go too far.

Because, I and many many others feel it is worth altering. We feel that the limited number of spells is too limiting to the sorcerer's effectiveness as a party member unless you are making a combat spell battery. If that is your only view of what a sorcerer is good for – might as well re-write the class and use the Battle Sorcerer from UA.

No. I just think 3 spells is a quibble. Not to mention a tell-tail sign that changes are being made strictly for the purpose of making changes.

Now as another argument, you question me on changing spells known by 3 more spells than the core list (and simplifying the acquisition process while doing so as well as giving "Options") yet in your Sorcerer you change the more important balance factor of the sorcerer and re-wrote the spells per day table to allow them to gain their new spell levels at the same level as a wizard. I feel this is much more unbalancing than granting a few extra spells known over 20 levels because you are removing the balance factor that prevents a sorcerer from being more powerful than any other caster of the same level.

I didn't think I would be explaining this to you of all people.



Despite the ability to cast spells spontaneously, the printed sorcerer is the weakest core character class. Giving them access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards (and druids and clerics for that matter) does not unbalance sorcerers. It "begins" to balance them. I didn't agree with Wizards of the Coast that sorcerer spellcasting was staggered back a level for "balance reasons" when they first made that assertion, anymore than I do now. I'm surprised you do. A sorcerer who casts higher level spells at the same time as all the other core classes still cannot hold a torch to a well prepared wizard (when it comes to spell power and utility). And that's without even burning a single spell from their reservoir of Spells per Day.

I assume then that you are removing the Bonus Feats from the Wizard then? And removing all Pure Caster oriented PrC's? I also have to say that I strongly disagree. The Sorcerer is NOT balanced to the other spellcasters in the game and I feel that they must be balanced against ALL devoted casters.

Man you switch tracks when it suits you. Now the sorcerer isn't balanced against the other spellcasters again?

If the sorcerer can improvise components, link thematic spells, cast specifically chosen spell-like abilities, create themes between their spells, etc., etc., then that is enough. Your list of additional sorcerer abilities (after all that) is what I object to. Abilities that the sorcerer spells themselves should be facilitating.

Cleric = 5 abilities (including spontaneous swapping)
Druid = 25 abilities (including spontaneous swapping; 17 without iterations)
Core Sorcerer = 2 abilities
Wizard = 7 abilities

Moreover, your method of counting abilities is flawed. Not all class abilities are created equal. Therefore adding them up is pointless. Why does that even have to be said?

No, rather than relying on "averages" to be the saving grace if this sorcerer, you have to do the hard work of examining all of the class abilities in contrast to each other, during playtesting. There are no short cuts.

 

[Khaalis]

From Sonofapreacherman

Nonsense. Virtually every other spellcasting class has the potential to cast every spell on their list. What they aren't casting now, they are studying for later. That foreknowledge is what allows them to spell trigger magic items based on spells from their respective lists. Foreknowledge or not, the sorcerer cannot equal that potential.
Which brings us to bards. I had originally placed that same restriction on bards, until I thought better on it. While bards will eventually hit a ceiling of spells as well, they are wealth of knowledge without even taking a single rank of any Knowledge skill. Once again, that studied knowledge outshines the intuitive understanding of sorcerer, and allows bards to spell trigger any spell on their list.

This is entirely your personal view. If you wish to use the argument below about making arguments purely on Mechanics, you cant pick and choose what you feel applies based on the “feel” of a class or based on the potential for a class. If a sorcerer can only activate items they know – than that rule should apply to all classes across the board – otherwise it is unfairly targeting one class, regardless of the “justification” for it. Bards cast in all manner as a sorcerer. Their Bardic Lore has nothing to do with the gift with or understanding of magic. That is a purely flavor justification you have added to single out the sorcerer.

Aside from holding you to your own arguments of universal rules and not giving undo attention to a single class, your argument above about “Potential” is flawed in its conception. ALL classes have the “Potential” to learn every spell on their spell list and this is why the Core DMG states the rule exactly as it does. A sorcerer has the inherent “potential” to cast any Wizard spells and even specifically states that the “Potential” exists to include rare arcane spells NOT included on the standard Wizard list! The “Mech” (not the flavor text) is why they have the potential to choose spells from the Wizard spell list. Also if you follow the logic of your above argument… technically and strictly speaking, then a Sorcerer should only be denied Spell Trigger access to spell levels they have already filled all possible spell known slots for and thus no longer have any “Potential” to learn new spells, otherwise they still retain the “Potential” to learn those spells. The problem is – though they may “choose” to not learn a spell at a given time, they always have the “Potential”, all the way to 20th level, to still do so due to spell swapping.

And that's where you lose me. Any time you justify game mechanics with flavor text. Even though you now acknowledge that the flavor text may have been written for an earlier incarnation of the sorcerer that never saw print, you keep doing it. I'm sorry, but unless you base such arguments on actual game mechanics, they hold no empirical worth.

Then our conversation is pretty much at a close. We are not drawing inspiration nor information from the same source. I am drawing my information from what WotC has defined the class to be. You are drawing your information from your own view and definition of what a Sorcerer is and should be.

I never acknowledged that the flavor text may not have been changed. The sorcerer was written the way it was with purpose and intent. It was designed to explain what the class is, why it came into existence and to explain its purpose in the game and how to play it to fulfill that purpose. If it had been an oversight – WotC would have re-written it with 3.5. However, they did not.

Saying that class design has NOTHING to do with flavor text and only on mechanics is the most broken statement I have Ever seen on the topic of game design. Using that argument is a one-sided justification, and leads to the fact that you might as well throw out the flavor text of EVERY class in the game and give them any ability you feel like because there is nothing to say it doesn’t fit with the character. A class is not made up 100% of its game mechanic. If that were so there would be no flavor text, there would just be a stat box. If you follow this argument why is a Barbarian Illiterate? It has nothing to do with the class mechanics, it is there due to the flavor text which states that they are uneducated. Why do rangers get nature spells and abilities? Because that is how they are defined in the flavor text.

Many of the core designers have openly stated that a class needs to be defined as to its specific purpose and intent. Since you are choosing to ignore what the class is defined as, to suit your own personal view of what a sorcerer is, you need to re-write and re-define the sorcerer. You cannot try and use arguments for the sorcerer based on the mechanics alone and ignore the text. If you follow the logic of your argument, you can also stop making such broad statements as “I see nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers.” This is your personal view of the sorcerer and is not how the class is defined. If you want to use the argument that the class is not diplomatic because it doesn’t get Diplomacy in the class mech – then you can stop changing the game mechanic of all the core classes, because your argument is saying that if it wasn’t written in the mech to begin with... it wasn’t intended.

Exactly. It goes against their intuitive grasp of spellcasting. Which is probably why Knowledge (arcana) is the only knowledge skill that appears on their list. And funny how its the only one that could possibly interest them. It's there for a very good reason. Knowledge (arcana) helps round out the class in case some errant sorcerer might actually be interested in learning more about where their powers came from. (I know, it's unfathomable!) My suggestion that arcane knowledge could also be locked inside the body is only one of many feasible rationales for this class skill.

Really?? Knowledge arcane is the ONLY knowledge skill a sorcerer is interested in? No sorcerer could ever have an interest in nature? Or the Planes? Or Religion? A character’s personal “interests” have nothing to do with the core class. Tell me that some Fighters might not have an interest in Siege Engineering or that some Fighters have no interest in learning about heraldry & nobility (what if they are of noble birth?). Yet they don’t get Knowledge (Engineering and Nobility) as class skills to cover that “errant fighter”.

Just because an individual sorcerer may be interested in devoted study to magic does not mean the entire class gets Knowledge (arcana) – unless of course you are re-defining what it is to be a sorcerer (which you are). The reason it is included is because the sorcerer was made to be nothing more than a duplicate of the wizard and that is what you are focused on - and its basically back to my original problem – your view ignores the flavor and individuality of the class and defines it as nothing more than a glorified Hedge Wizard.

There is no reference in the sorcerer that indicates that they are a LEARNED class (using your OWN argument). In fact everything about the sorcerer indicates just the opposite – they are NOT learned. Thus having a class skill of Knowledge is inappropriate – as is also defined by the other “unlearned” classes the Barbarian and the Fighter. If in your personal view, all sorcerers receive training in magic from somewhere – then re-write the class from the ground up to say so. Rogues, Paladins, Druids, Rangers etc. ALL state where and how they receive their specific knowledge training while the sorcerer specifically states it gets NONE.

And if you fall back on the Flavor Text means nothing argument then you might as well allow Knowledge (All) to all classes right now, because I can come up with character ideas for any class that has interests in Knowledge skills it doesn’t have.

This is better known as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Because of one skill, you deny the devoted sorcerer early access to a host of prestige class options. Not very far sighted.

Yep. I do deny them access to PrCs intended for learned Wizards. I am, to be perfectly honest, sick of the overabundance of generic everyone-can-enter PrC. This is not what the DMG originally intended PrC’s to be. There is also nothing wrong with banning characters from certain PrC’s or making it harder for them to get into them. If you follow your argument you should do away with any PrC that is based on race, or on a specific class ability as it is short sighted and denys access to a host of prestige options. You are placing the cart before the horse. PrC availability should have NOTHING what-so-ever to do with core class design. PrC’s are made to be available to Classes. Classes are not made to fit into PrC’s!

If you follow your argument: “Because of one skill, you deny the devoted sorcerer early access to a host of prestige class options. Not very far sighted.” you have ultimately contradicted yourself with your own PrC design.

Lets look at an example of your own published work as an example - the “Invisible Blade.” The class states (oh my god) in the Flavor Text no less, that Bards, Monks, Barbarians, Fighters and Rangers are ALL good candidates for the class. However, the “Mech” makes it very clear that this is only meant to be open to Rogues. You state that the requirements for the class are based on the ability to bluff and to sense others motives. That DEFINES the requisites for the class, just as being “Studied” in magic (knowledge arcana) is a defining point for other PrC’s.

However, by the definition of your PrC you have denied the listed GOOD CANDIDATES of the dedicated Bard, Monk, Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger early access to this PrC. Only the Rogue gains both Prerequisite skills as class skills – everyone else must multiclass or take cross-class ranks. Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger do not have Bluff nor Sense Motive as class skills and Monk and Paladin do not have Bluff as a class skill, and Bards do not have Sense Motive.

So is it still short sighted?
No, it is planned. Not all PrC’s are meant to be taken by all classes first off. Second off, not all PrC’s are as easy for some classes to attain than others. There is NOTHING short sighted about restricting a sorcerer to a delayed entry into a PrC that is intended for a Wizard. Just as with your class there is nothing short sighted about restricting a Fighter to a delayed entry into a PrC that is intended for Rogues.

That's not a contradiction. That's supply and demand. If the sorcerer cannot "spell trigger" certain magic items themselves (demand), then a few Use Magic Device ranks might make it possible (supply). But I think everybody knows by now that a few points of Use Magic Device won't do the trick. You need to sink a lot of ranks into that skill before you start getting meaningful returns. But I will say this for it. There is no skill more clearly based on magical intuition. Yup, I know how the skill works.

Really? Then how can you still make the argument? Why are the Bard and the ROGUE (one of the only 3 non-magical classes) the only ones to get it? Not clerics, not wizards, not druids – all magical classes. Who better than someone devotedly trained to the study of magic and how to create magic items and to how they work – the wizard? Yet the wizard doesn’t get it either. The skill is is specifically defined as a skill of guile, deceit and trickery in that it allows you to “fool” a magic item into thinking you are something that you aren’t. It has nothing to do with an understanding of magic nor with the manipulation OF magic!

No. I just think 3 spells is a quibble. Not to mention a tell-tail sign that changes are being made strictly for the purpose of making changes.

The number is a quibble. However, the flexibility is NOT. If I am a sorcerer who gains say 11th level. I already know teleport and its really the only 5th level spell I want. Why should I be FORCED to learn another 5th level spell when what I really want might be another 3rd level spell in my repertoire. Changing spells know was more about flexibility than bonus known spells. However, to make the process SIMPLE it by chance worked out to give them an extra 3 spells.

When I want to really add extra known spells, I add the bonus one spell per spell level from the Spell Path.

I didn't think I would be explaining this to you of all people. Despite the ability to cast spells spontaneously, the printed sorcerer is the weakest core character class.

I agree. It is the weakest class – OVERALL. What is “underpowered” in the class is not their Spell Use, it is their spell flexibility as well as their utility as a class.

Giving them access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards (and druids and clerics for that matter) does not unbalance a single mechanic. It "starts" to balance them. I didn't agree with the assertion from Wizards of the Coast that sorcerers were staggered back a level for reasons of "balance" then anymore than I do now. I'm surprised you do. A sorcerer who casts higher level spells at the same time as all the other core classes still cannot hold a torch to a well prepared wizard (when it comes to spell power and utility). And that's without even burning a single spell from their reservoir of Spells per Day.

I disagree, and I agree with WotC. A sorcerer who casts 3rd level spells 3 times more than a Wizard at 5th level is unbalanced. I have play tested this. I once felt the same as you, but found quickly that the Sorcerer out-shown and dwarfed the wizard when it came to spell utility if they gained the spells at the same level. The only thing that gave the Wizard an edge was that it could hurl a 3rd level spell when the sorcerer was still being mana-battery for 2nd level spells.

Also, what do you consider a well prepared Wizard? That wizard gets one shot with his prepared spell and yes they can create 2 scrolls to match the Sorcerer’s 3-shot pop, but at a large cost to themselves in gold and XP and time, that a Sorcerer doesn’t have to pay. I agree that a Wizard outshines a sorcerer in flexibility – and that is the point. That is the Wizard’s strength and the sorcerers weakness. However the sheer power a sorcerer gains over a wizard by acquiring spells at the same level is just unduly unfair, and thus unbalancing.

However, this again is based on your personal style and definition of balance. You see it as more balancing to give the sorcerer earlier spell utility power, while I see it as more balancing to give the class a little more utility.

Man you switch tracks when it suits you. Now the sorcerer isn't balanced against the other spellcasters again?

I never once said the CLASS was balanced! I said that their delay in spell level acquisiton balanced them against the other spell classes, preventing them from overpowering those casters at EVERY spell level. That is 2 different statements.

The sorcerer even with its delay in spells is always a stronger caster (in terms of spell use) than other casters, but to take away the ONLY advantage the other classes have (earlier higher level spell access) is broken and is as you say “giving undo attention” to the sorcerer.

If the sorcerer can improvise components, link thematic spells, cast specifically chosen spell-like abilities, create themes between their spells, etc., etc., then that is enough. Your list of additional sorcerer abilities (after all that) is what I object to. The abilities that the sorcerer spells themselves should be facilitating.

Which I disagree with. I don’t personally like the “improvised components” mechanic. But that’s my personal opinion. Druids have a very thematic spell list with a very specific theme yet they get a slew of other class abilities. Clerics have a very thematic spell list yet they also gain additional class abilities.

Moreover, your method of counting abilities is flawed. Not all class abilities are created equal. Therefore adding them up is pointless. Why does that even have to be said? No, rather than relying on averages to be the saving grace, you have to do the hard work of examining all of their abilities in contrast to each other, during playtesting. There are no short cuts.

It’s a basis for comparison. No not all abilities are created equal yet some classes abound with them. The sorcerer is the weakest class in the game and this has been playtested repeatedly. There is also the underlying issue that a Sorcerer is NOT a wizard and it needs to be differentiated from the wizard. This is the basis for this thread (its weak and its nothing more than glorified Hedge-Wizard).

The sorcerer lacks in both utility and a defining niche, and giving it a few more skills points and a few more known spells (reversible) and granting them higher level spells earlier doesn’t fix the problem in my humble opinion. The best way to fix both problems of class imbalance and class differentiation is with class abilities just as with Barbarian vs. Fighter, Druid vs. Cleric, Ranger vs. Paladin, etc. What those abilities are for the sorcerer, is still to be determined, but in my and quite a few other’s opinions, they are needed.

You have your sorcerer and it works for you - Great. It doesn’t work for me. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I thank you for your arguments and for concreting me in my search. Your arguments have shed light on areas, set me mind in others.

 

[Knight_Errant]

Rodney King anyone?

Hey again peeps,

Before I post my comments on where the sorcerer class discussion is headed, I'd like to mention that the purpose of this discussion is to work on an alternate and improved sorcerer; not to start a flame war.

I'm not saying anyone here is intending to start such a war but it does appear to be heading that way. So, lets just keep things civil for now. I would hate to see all of this good work degenerate into name calling and arguing semantic points.

In the immortal words of Mr. King (Rodney): "Can't we all just get along?"

More to follow.

 

[Buttercup]

Well then. Since we've agreed to disagree, let's get back to work.

Khaalis, I do like the idea of allowing the sorcerer to pick a class skill which represents their specific background. (But then, I'm in favor of giving players an additional 4 skill points at character creation to spend only on Knowledge, Craft or Profession skills that fit with their biography.) I think two skills might be one too many. Now, I realize that this is your generic build, so maybe you're thinking that allowing the player to select two class skills will further the customization possible, but I worry that doing this sets the sorcerer too far apart from the other base classes, which don't get to choose like this. If you want to argue that all of them should get this option, I'm with you, but that's a topic for a different thread.

As for your original work, with all the heritage options, I think I have the same concern in a few places. Most notably, Arcane Orphan gets to add Survival and *two* class skills, whereas Child of Magic--Dragon gains Survival and Spellcraft, but Child of Magic--Fiendish gains only Survival. (This is only a partial list, but it serves to illustrate the inequity.) I was thinking that the benefits of each heritage should be standardized thus: One class skill, one +2 bonus to a skill check, and perhaps a +1 bonus of some other sort. (Like +1 bonus to X when dealing with Y sort of situation/person/monster.)

 

[Knight_Errant]

On Skills:

This topic seems to have come under fire recently (again). While I admit that WotC sometimes mystifies me with their choices of class skills; I feel it is important to discuss a few points raised by Khaalis, Son, and others here. So, let me begin by examining the list of skills Khaalis has compiled for (my favorite) the latest generic incarnation of the class:

CLASS SKILLS
The class skills of the Sorcerer are: Bluff, Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Profession, Sense Motive and Spellcraft.
Skill Points for 1st Level: (4+INT modifier) x4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4+INT modifier

These all seem to make sense to me. I really can’t find anything to object to. As for Son’s objection to sorcerer’s getting Diplomacy, I am afraid I agree with Khaalis’ argument. I see no reason why they should not get it as a class skill when clerics do. Yes, I realize clerics use charisma as a secondary stat and that only seems to strengthen my feeling; especially considering sorcerers have no secondary attribute of importance. While there could be some argument made that clerics are better suited to the role of diplomat (one which I might not argue with) there are plenty of instances where a cleric of a specific deity is going to have neither the desire nor the conviction to take this skill (such as a cleric of rage or some such) in which case he will never utilize one of his granted skill slots. Whereas the argument can be made that most sorcerers could find a use for diplomacy more frequently than not.

This leads us to the Knowledge: Arcana question. This is, IMO, a tricky situation to resolve. I can see both sides of this argument. However, I do want to clarify a statement Son made earlier:

Exactly. It goes against their intuitive grasp of spellcasting. Which is probably why Knowledge (arcana) is the *only* knowledge skill that appears on their list. And funny how its the only knowledge skill that could *possibly* interest them. It's there for a very good reason. Knowledge (arcana) helps round out the class in case some errant sorcerer might actually be interested in learning more about where their powers came from. (I know, it's unfathomable!) My suggestion that arcane knowledge could also be locked inside the body is only one of many feasible rationales for this class skill.

While the skill may help to round out the class I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Is it possible that the knowledge (arcana) is locked “inside the body” of a sorcerer? I suppose, however, I will point out something from the description of knowledge skills in the PHB:

Retry: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something you never learned in the first place.
Special: An untrained knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, a character only knows common knowledge.

These two entries suggest to me that knowledge is not something that you can unlock inside your body if you concentrate really, really hard on it. You either know it or you don’t. Now, herein lies my dilemma: both arguments work on some level. It is possible for the sorcerer to simply “know” certain things about arcane energy (they are inherently magical afterall) yet they do not study magic as a wizard does, and as the skill entry for knowledge implies, this is a skill learned through study of some sort.
However, this brings us to bards. Bards don’t technically learn anything in the same manner as a wizard would; most of their knowledge is acquired on the fly through their many experiences. Could the same argument be made for sorcerers? I think so. Does it always make sense? Not necessarily.

The bottom line is that unless sorcerers need knowledge: arcana for any of their class abilities I could rationalize them not having access to this skill. If the only reason for granting it to them is so that they can qualify for PrC’s; I won’t be convinced that it must be included.
Does this limit the sorcerer from the start? I suppose that depends on how you look at limitation. IMO, you cannot make choices for a core class’ skill selection based on what individual players might choose to do several levels later.
I don’t want to get too heavily into this debate because for one it will take as too far from topic and secondly my own thoughts on PrC’s may not be in line with the majority. I am willing to discuss the topic on the side however.

This leads me to the last topic of skill discussion for now. Here is another statement from Son:

That's not a contradiction. That's supply and demand. If the sorcerer cannot "spell trigger" certain magic items themselves (demand), then a few Use Magic Device ranks might make it possible (supply). But I think everybody knows by now that a few points of Use Magic Device won't do the trick. You need to sink a lot of ranks into that skill before you start getting meaningful returns. But I will say this for it. There is no skill more clearly based on magical intuition.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the spell-trigger concept yet. While I am not completely comfortable with sorcerers being able to pick up any spell-trigger item and use it; I am leery of changing magic item rules to suit or restrict a class.
I think that I tend to agree with your last statement here Son, Use Magic Device does seem to fit sorcerers; more so than Knowledge: Arcana IMO. I would think that this skill would be of more practical use to the class than any knowledge skill. Add to this idea that it is another charisma based skill and you start to get a list that is more in line with the other core classes skill lists; that is to say that they frequently have several skills that draw from their primary attribute rather than a few.

Also, there should probably be some stipulation that allows the sorcerer to only use magic device on arcane items rather than any magic item he may encounter.

Finally, to reply to what Buttercup stated:

I think two skills might be one too many. Now, I realize that this is your generic build, so maybe you're thinking that allowing the player to select two class skills will further the customization possible, but I worry that doing this sets the sorcerer too far apart from the other base classes, which don't get to choose like this.

Keep in mind that the Cleric does get to choose additional skills based on their domains. I think that can be used as the basis for Khaalis argument here. I do not agree with the option of giving the sorcerer a bonus (+2 I believe) to any one skill of choice. That is a feat as it stands now and should not be considered a skill choice.

So, what I feel makes for a good skill list (after some thought) is listed below:

CLASS SKILLS
The class skills of the Sorcerer are: Bluff, Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Profession, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device.
Skill Points for 1st Level: (4+INT modifier) x4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4+INT modifier



This leads me to the spell per day table discussion. Son wrote:

Despite the ability to cast spells spontaneously, the printed sorcerer is the weakest core character class. Giving them access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards (and druids and clerics for that matter) does not unbalance sorcerers. It "begins" to balance them. I didn't agree with Wizards of the Coast that sorcerer spellcasting was staggered back a level for "balance reasons" when they first made that assertion, anymore than I do now. I'm surprised you do. A sorcerer who casts higher level spells at the same time as all the other core classes still cannot hold a torch to a well prepared wizard (when it comes to spell power and utility). And that's without even burning a single spell from their reservoir of Spells per Day.

Let me first say that I’m not against sorcerers getting to know a few more spells per level. They are extremely sparse IMO. However, I’m not sure that this is the solution. You did say that you have playtested this and I would like to see the results of it sometime. My feeling is that this would (as Khaalis stated) make the sorcerer more powerful than the wizard.
Finally, I do not think that they even need this modification. Are they unbalanced as they’re written? Of course. Do they need some improvement? Definitely. Is this the best solution? I am not sure of that. I admit that I am curious how this plays out.

For the current build Khaalis is working on, I think this suffices:

• Spells Known: A sorcerer’s spell selection is limited when compared to that of a wizard. A sorcerer begins play knowing 6 0-Level spells (Cantrips), and 2 1st-Level spells of their choice. At each new experience level, the sorcerer gains 2 new spells that may be acquired form any spell level that they currently may utilize.

Keeping the current table of spells known seems to work IMO. I don’t think that the sorcerer needs to have a terribly inflated table of known spells.

Wrapping it all up

Let me say again that I think this thread is continuing to be productive and definitely entertaining. I think that the next step should be to create a sorcerer that fits the Core Rules model. This would include: a fixed skill list (perhaps with one skill choice of the player, aka Cleric Domains), a set number of known spells, a set number of spells per day (each of which could be influenced by other factors such as attributes or options), fixed class abilities gained at specific levels, hit dice, weapon & armor choices, saves, and base attack.
I may attempt to write something along those lines in the next several hours if for no other reason than to illustrate my point perhaps more succinctly than I can explain it.

At any rate, keep the discussion going, I think we are actually getting somewhere.

 

[Knight_Errant]

Well, I appreciate your insight. I tried sending you an invitation to my web site via E-mail, but you have disabled it on these boards. If you are at all interested in taking a look and visiting the message boards, just click "The Waking Lands" link in my signature. I consider good feedback a valuable commodity. I hope to see you there.

I have just enabled my email here, I didnt realize it was off now that you mention it. I have also checked out your Waking Lands site; not bad .
My insight is not always what it should be, but it is mine. At anyrate, keep the comments coming and I will check on your messageboards as well.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Knight_ Errant and Buttercup.

I think we can safely assume that no flame war is forthcoming. That said, I am not without a rebuttal.

----

This is entirely your personal view. If you wish to use the argument below about making arguments purely on Mechanics, you cant pick and choose what you feel applies based on the "feel" of a class or based on the potential for a class.

I actually did base my arguement on game mechanics. You just failed to quote that part of it.

Here it is again, now in entirety.

"Virtually every other spellcasting class has the potential to cast every spell on their list. What they aren't casting now, they are studying for later. That foreknowledge is what allows them to spell trigger magic items based on spells from their respective lists. In the case of clerics, druids, and wizards, the groundwork for "all" spells has already been laid. That foreknowledge "must" exist on a conceptual game design level, because otherwise every heroic spellcasting class would be in school more often than they would be adventuring. The sorcerer cannot equal that potential, possessing no foreknowledge at all."

ALL classes have the "Potential" to learn every spell on their spell list and this is why the Core DMG states the rule exactly as it does.

Not all classes hit a spell ceiling (as the sorcerer does), yet another point that you have not addressed.

The problem is – though they may “choose” to not learn a spell at a given time, they always have the "Potential", all the way to 20th level, to still do so due to spell swapping.

Not after 20th level. Hence the ceiling. And definitely not 8th and 9th level spells. Moreover, even with swapping, the sorcerer gains no learned foreknowledge of all other spells.

Saying that class design has NOTHING to do with flavor text and only on mechanics is the most broken statement I have Ever seen on the topic of game design.

That's interesting, because I never made that statement. Go back and check if you like. You have put words in my mouth yet again. All I did was shed some light on a piece of information that might cast the flavor text into doubt, which, not surprisingly, you have chosen to ignore. For anybody else, who is not married to the flavor text, such information might at least cause them to question it.

Many of the core designers have openly stated that a class needs to be defined as to its specific purpose and intent. Since you are choosing to ignore what the class is defined as, to suit your own personal view of what a sorcerer is, you need to re-write and re-define the sorcerer. You cannot try and use arguments for the sorcerer based on the mechanics alone and ignore the text.

I never ignored anything. I am, perhaps, more aware of what often gets overlooked in a "deadline" based editing process. Moreover, I am attempting to define the specific purpose and intent of the sorcerer, but through game mechanics *first* and flavor text *second* (especially considering what I heard about the sorcerer flavor text being written for an eariler build of the sorcerer than what is printed). Is flavor text important? Of course it is. In case you haven't noticed, I have also used the flavor text as a guide (but to a point). One which is clearly more selective than your complete acceptance of the text.

Really?? Knowledge arcane is the ONLY knowledge skill a sorcerer is interested in? No sorcerer could ever have an interest in nature? Or the Planes? Or Religion?

Not if the point of this thread is to create a logical "niche" for the sorcerer. Those other areas of knowledge "define" other classes far more effectively than the sorcerer. In fact, they do nothing to define the intuitive magic of sorcerers.

Just because an individual sorcerer may be interested in devoted study to magic does not mean the entire class gets Knowledge (arcana) – unless of course you are re-defining what it is to be a sorcerer (which you are).

I find your opinion here flawed in the extreme. It is human nature to be curious about ourselves. That's not flavor text. That's common perception. Knowledge (arcana) makes it possible for the sorcerer to be curious about their magical origins. It makes perfect sense that a sorcerer might seek out the "learned" knowledge to do so.

The reason it is included is because the sorcerer was made to be nothing more than a duplicate of the wizard...

For somebody who keeps claiming that my views are just that, you have been guilty of basing your arguments on arbitrary opinions far more often than me.

Yep. I do deny them access to PrCs intended for learned Wizards.

I suspected you would, even in light of the fact that there are already so few prestige classes specifically made for sorcerers, you would ignore that and plow forward with sorcerer flavor text in hand.

If you follow your argument you should do away with any PrC that is based on race, or on a specific class ability as it is short sighted and denies access to a host of prestige options.

Not to be offensive, but you have actually followed very little except your own vision.

You are placing the cart before the horse.

I have done nothing of the sort. My primary reasons for giving sorcerers class access to Knowledge (arcana) have "already" been stated. Prestige class access only shores up my argument.

Lets look at an example of your own published work as an example - the "Invisible Blade." The class states (oh my god) in the Flavor Text no less, that Bards, Monks, Barbarians, Fighters and Rangers are ALL good candidates for the class. However, the "Mech" makes it very clear that this is only meant to be open to Rogues. You state that the requirements for the class are based on the ability to bluff and to sense others motives. That DEFINES the requisites for the class, just as being "Studied" in magic (knowledge arcana) is a defining point for other PrC's.

You are still laboring on the premise that I said something which I did not (see "putting-words-in-my-mouth" above).

Really? Then how can you still make the argument? Why are the Bard and the ROGUE (one of the only 3 non-magical classes) the only ones to get it? Not clerics, not wizards, not druids – all magical classes.

Because, once again, if those other spellcasting classes can spell trigger any spell from their list, that usually offers enough options for them. For a sorcerer, who can only spell trigger from their spells known, the incentive to learn Use Magic Device is suddenly much greater. Supply and demand. And yes, also because the sorcerer is naturally inclined towards magical intuition, as per the growing niche of what it means to be a sorcerer.

The number is a quibble. However, the flexibility is NOT. If I am a sorcerer who gains say 11th level. I already know teleport and its really the only 5th level spell I want. Why should I be FORCED to learn another 5th level spell when what I really want might be another 3rd level spell in my repertoire.

Oh! I know the answer to this one! It's because the sorcerer is "special". It's because the sorcerer deserves to break established mechanics of spellcasting because their flavor text does not match their abilities!

(Sorry, that is the extent of my sarcasm.)

Every other spellcaster has to choose from the levels of spells they are given. You want to let your sorcerer choose lower level spells instead of the highest level spells available to them? Fine. Let them. But there are game mechanics already in place for that. More specifically, it's called "letting them".

I disagree, and I agree with WotC. A sorcerer who casts 3rd level spells 3 times more than a Wizard at 5th level is unbalanced. I have play tested this. I once felt the same as you, but found quickly that the Sorcerer out-shown and dwarfed the wizard when it came to spell utility if they gained the spells at the same level.

Then you weren't playtesting the wizard at even their basic capacity. The automatic Scribe Scroll feat alone secures their supremacy in battle, on top which, the wizard still has their spells per day. The only cost to the wizard for this is gold and marginal XP. The balance that is created by giving sorcerers higher level spells at the same times as wizards, however, is lost the moment any wizard takes Craft Wand at 5th level with their first bonus metamagic feat.

The sorcerer even with its delay in spells is always a stronger caster (in terms of spell use) than other casters, but to take away the ONLY advantage the other classes have (earlier higher level spell access) is broken and is as you say "giving undo attention" to the sorcerer.

Whether you are talking about class ability equalization, or the sorcerer delay in spell level acquisition, you are still taking about balance. What is being discussed are the various ways to achieve that balance.

*Knight_Errant, you may be interested in this next bit, as it resulted from my playtesting of a sorcerer who gains higher level spells at the same time as wizards.

Let the sorcerer spontaneously cast the same spell over and over again at the wizard. The basic utility of any properly play-tested wizard will have a host of spell defenses to negate the (count them) 1 spell that a sorcerer would know at the same level as the wizard. Spell repetition means nothing if you only know one trick. Giving sorcerers access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards unbalances nothing.

No not all abilities are created equal yet some classes abound with them. The sorcerer is the weakest class in the game and this has been play-tested repeatedly.

And herein lies the fundamental thrust of your sorcerer build. You seem to think that MORE sorcerer abilities is the way to balance the class and give them a defining niche. I am here to say that personality is for the player to provide and that sorcerers already have tons of abilities (better known as "spells"). Any abilities the sorcerer receives should only govern how those spells are handled. The rest is up to each individual.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

On the subject of skills, I can accept that Diplomacy could find a home with the sorcerer if the flavor text is embraced, but then Intimidate starts to make less and less sense to me, as the two skills are in direct social opposition to each other. I know the Intimidate skill is really cool and all, but if the sorcerer truly wants to unnerve or intimidate information out of somebody, there are far more *spell-based* options that are better at diseminating information or creating a menacing presence than the Intimidate skill (no matter how many ranks you sink into it). I would think that the sorcerer, of all people, would turn to their spells for such effects (being the point of who they are and all).

 

[Khaalis]

A short rebuttal.

"Virtually every other spellcasting class has the potential to cast every spell on their list. What they aren't casting now, they are studying for later. That foreknowledge is what allows them to spell trigger magic items based on spells from their respective lists. In the case of clerics, druids, and wizards, the groundwork for "all" spells has already been laid. That foreknowledge "must" exist on a conceptual game design level, because otherwise every heroic spellcasting class would be in school more often than they would be adventuring. The sorcerer cannot equal that potential, possessing no foreknowledge at all."

Not all classes hit a spell ceiling (as the sorcerer does), yet another point that you have not addressed.

Not after 20th level. Hence the ceiling. And definitely not 8th and 9th level spells. Moreover, even with swapping, the sorcerer gains no learned foreknowledge of all other spells.

This concept of foreknowledge is your perception of how the system works and that’s fine. I am just not going to re-write how magic items work to single out one class, when I feel that following the logic of the restriction should affect all classes equally. You are also choosing to ignore bards who also have a “ceiling” on spells following your logic. Personally I feel the “ceiling” does not matter. Technically the Sorcerer has the “potential” to learn any spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Whether you call it foreknowledge or not the possibility to acquire the spells is there.

This is purely a matter of semantics and opinion. Its something we aren’t going to agree on.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: “Saying that class design has NOTHING to do with flavor text and only on mechanics is the most broken statement I have Ever seen on the topic of game design.”
That's interesting, because I never made that statement. Go back and check if you like. You have put words in my mouth yet again. All I did was shed some light on a piece of information that might cast the flavor text into doubt, which, not surprisingly, you have chosen to ignore. For anybody else, who is not married to the flavor text, such information might at least cause them to question it.

“And that's where you lose me (any time you justify game mechanics with flavor text). I'm sorry, but unless you base such arguments on actual game mechanics, they hold no empirical worth.”

This is saying that flavor text holds no empirical worth when designing a class.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: “Since you are choosing to ignore what the class is defined as, to suit your own personal view of what a sorcerer is, you need to re-write and re-define the sorcerer.”

I never ignored anything. I am, perhaps, more aware of what often gets overlooked in a "deadline" based editing process. Moreover, I am attempting to define the specific purpose and intent of the sorcerer, but through game mechanics *first* and flavor text *second* (especially considering what I heard about the sorcerer flavor text being written for an eariler build of the sorcerer than what is printed). Is flavor text important? Of course it is. In case you haven't notice, I have also used the flavor text as a guide (but to a point). One which is clearly more selective than your complete acceptance of the text.

You repeatedly said that the flavor text means nothing, that only your view of the sorcerer matters, and that flavor text cant be used as empirical evidence. So yes you are choosing to ignore it, for whatever reasons, its still ignoring it.

As for the editing process and doing mech before flavor, Im sorry but I see the process as flawed in this particular case. I do not see where knowing about the editing process has anything to do with whether or not the flavor text should be used to correct the sorcerer. This is not a class being built from the ground up. If it were, we would have a loose idea of what the class was supposed to do and we could design mechanics before flavor text. However, we aren’t doing that. We are trying to make new Mechanics to MATCH the flavor text of the class. As much as you may not like it – the Flavor Text is the defining point of the sorcerer and it is NON-Negotiable. The flavor text is Non-OGL. If WotC defines the class in its flavor text – then that is the definition of the class. If you want it to be defined differently, its time to a write a new class with your own flavor text written to match your choice of mechanics. In fact this has been done by many sources.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: “Really?? Knowledge arcane is the ONLY knowledge skill a sorcerer is interested in? No sorcerer could ever have an interest in nature? Or the Planes? Or Religion? Just because an individual sorcerer may be interested in devoted study to magic does not mean the entire class gets Knowledge (arcana) – unless of course you are re-defining what it is to be a sorcerer (which you are).”

Not if the point of this thread is to create a logical "niche" for the sorcerer. Those other areas of knowledge "define" other classes far more effectively than the sorcerer. In fact, they do nothing to define the intuitive magic of sorcerers.

I find your opinion here flawed in the extreme. It is human nature to be curious about ourselves. That's not flavor text. That's common perception. Knowledge (arcana) makes it possible for the sorcerer to be curious about their magical origins. It makes perfect sense that a sorcerer might seek out the "learned" knowledge to do so.

If you are basing sorcerers having Knowledge on the fact that Humans are curious about ourselves, your logic is flawed. For one, its humanocentric and ignores sorcerers of the other races that are NOT described as being so adaptable and curious. For two, as I said earlier – following this logic you must make all Knowledge skills class skills for all classes.

As for the logical niche and Knowledge defining the sorcerer etc. I will cover that in a later post.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: ”The reason it is included is because the sorcerer was made to be nothing more than a duplicate of the wizard...“

For somebody who keeps claiming that my views are just that, you have been guilty of basing your arguments on arbitrary opinions far more often than me.

You think this is opinion? Prove that its not.
The sorcerer is identical to the wizard in skills, hit dice, saves, familiar use, and spell list – all the things that define a class. They only differ in spell preparation - gaining automatic Improved Spell Mastery instead of Scribe Scroll and 4 Metamagic Feats. To balance their limited Spell Mastery they can cast an average of one more spell per day than a specialist wizard. The spells are the same, the method of spell casting is the same. The sorcerer is a wizard that prepares spells differently. It is the ONLY difference. Wizard came first, sorcerer was designed to give a second arcane caster option. Thus the Sorcerer is a duplicate of the wizard.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: “Yep. I do deny them access to PrCs intended for learned Wizards.

I suspected you would, even in light of the fact that there are already so few prestige classes specifically made for sorcerers, you would ignore that and plow forward with sorcerer flavor text in hand.

Hell Yes I do ignore it. So what? Why do their HAVE to be a zillion-and-one PrC’s for Sorcerers? Why do PrC’s even need to come into the discussion? They are NOT a part of the core class system. They are an OPTIONAL rule from the DMG. PrC’s were never meant to be used as “Here are a dozen ways to quit your class and become a better class”. You do NOT design a base class with the INTENT of making it so people quit the class to enter a PrC. Can you make PrCs intended for the class to enter - sure. Do you have to? No. Do you have to make it so the class can enter every vaguely related arcane PrC? Definately not.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: ”If you follow your argument you should do away with any PrC that is based on race, or on a specific class ability as it is short sighted and denies access to a host of prestige options.”

Not to be offensive, but you have actually followed very little except your own vision.

First off, how does this relate to the comment you quoted? What should I be following?
Secondly I find the statement rather humorous since you keep telling me I am not basing arguments on a vision, but am basing arguments on using the Flavor Text as gospel. I guess that makes my own vision the vision of the sorcerer as it is defined.

Originally Posted by Khaalis: ”The number is a quibble. However, the flexibility is NOT. If I am a sorcerer who gains say 11th level. I already know teleport and its really the only 5th level spell I want. Why should I be FORCED to learn another 5th level spell when what I really want might be another 3rd level spell in my repertoire.”

Every other spellcaster has to choose from the levels of spells they are given. You want to let your sorcerer choose lower level spells instead of the highest level spells available to them? Fine. Let them. But there are game mechanics already in place for that. More specifically, it's called "letting them".

Flaw in the logic. 1) Divine casters do not choose spells, they already know them all. 2) Wizards do NOT have to choose from the levels of spells they are given. They can choose to learn spells of any level available to them. ”At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.”

Then you weren't playtesting the wizard at even their basic capacity. The automatic Scribe Scroll feat alone secures their supremacy in battle, on top which, the wizard still has their spells per day. The only cost to the wizard for this is gold and marginal XP. The balance that is created by giving sorcerers higher level spells at the same times as wizards, however, is lost the moment any wizard takes Craft Wand at 5th level with their first bonus metamagic feat.

Sounds like you have only playtested it for the short haul. The cost of scrolls may “seem” marginal, but the XP costs add up fast. Over a 20 level game, with a Wizard preparing scrolls and making wands to keep up with the sorcerer, the sorcerer is going to not only outshine the wizard in casting, but will have surpassed the wizard in character levels. Secondly, using magic items as a “balance” against core class abilities is imbalanced and has even been said so by WotC designers. You cannot take magic items into consideration when balancing a class’s core functionality. Any time you say that a Wizard HAS to take Craft Wand and burn thousands upon thousand of gold and XP just to keep up with the sorcerer, there is a problem.

And herein lies the fundamental thrust of your sorcerer build. You seem to think that MORE sorcerer abilities is the way to balance the class and give them a defining niche. I am here to say that personality is for the player to provide and that sorcerers already have tons of abilities (better known as "spells"). Any abilities the sorcerer receives should only govern how those spells are handled. The rest is up to each individual.

And I fundamentally disagree that spells are a classes only abilities. You have said that a one trick pony is very limiting and that’s what the sorcerer’s spells are. Take into account that EVERY other spellcaster in the game has other abilities to fall back on defies your argument that the sorcerer should have none. Those classes also have abilities that have little or nothing to do with how their spells function – so why should the sorcerer be the only class to fall into that restriction? It is reverse discrimination. You say not to give undo attention to the sorcerer yet you single it out with various forms of sorcerer specific restrictions, even when those restrictions could just as easily be applied to other classes.

As I said, we can agree to disagree, but for now I am going back to the original mission at hand. See me following post.