Sorcerers and Wasted Spell Slots

[Duncan Haldane]

See, here's how I play a sorceror: when I create the character, I pick what spells s/he will have at 20th level (along with feats in order of selection, target skills, prestige class-levels if any, and so on). Thus, I know from level ONE, which spells I want to have at level TWENTY. Ech time I gain a new spell, I don't pick from the PHB, etc, lists; I pick form my personal spell planner.

What if you don't know how high a campaign will go? I've never had a campaign reach 10th level in the 19 years I've been DMing, so I can definately understand one of my players being concerned about how to organise spells - eg, should they take Invis as soon as they can, since they can definately use it now, and don't know if the campaign will reach the point where they can get Imp. Invis.

It also seems like a lot of metagaming to me - what if you change plans later and don't pick up all 20 levels as Sorceror?

I would definately hesitate to include a player in my game who claimed to know how their character will look at 20th level before the character has started play - if they are that fixed about the character then they aren't willing to allow the story I play out - the campaign - to affect their character.

Just as a campaign should be effected by the actions of the PCs, the PCs should be open to the possibility of being affected by the events in the campaign.

Duncan

 

[Pax]

What if you don't know how high a campaign will go? I've never had a campaign reach 10th level in the 19 years I've been DMing, so I can definately understand one of my players being concerned about how to organise spells - eg, should they take Invis as soon as they can, since they can definately use it now, and don't know if the campaign will reach the point where they can get Imp. Invis.

So? Neither should the Sorceror know s/he will or won't achieve a certain degree of mastery.

It also seems like a lot of metagaming to me - what if you change plans later and don't pick up all 20 levels as Sorceror?

Then I have my work cut out for me, and have to reassess my plan, and ... re-plan. And? Since this is only work for ME, what do you care?

As for metagaming: no. Metagaming is bringing out-of-game issues INTO the game. Just ebcause a player has a firm goal in mind when designing a character, does not make their plan a case of metagaming.

I would definately hesitate to include a player in my game who claimed to know how their character will look at 20th level before the character has started play - if they are that fixed about the character then they aren't willing to allow the story I play out - the campaign - to affect their character.

I plan my choices for feats, andmy choices for spells. That leaves -plenty- of room for the DM's campaing to direct the rest of the Sorceror's growth.

And I never claimed I wouldn't revise my plan, either. However, I HAVE a plan.

Just because I know what feats I want to choose, and what spells I eventually want to be able to cast, you assume I think I know EXACTLY what the character will be like at that level?

Bah.

I never claim to know how a character will look at 20th level. I claim to know what I want the character to look like, in terms of things that I can choose between 1st and 20th level.

I count ONLY on those things which -are- choices for me, when making that plan. The DM cannot say "no YOU can't have that feat" without completely barring it all along (in which case the development plan takes that ruling into account), ditto for core-rules source spells (and ditto for the plan taking that into account). Otherwise the DM is playing favorites, and/or, yes, is abusing the so-called Rule Zero.

Just as a campaign should be effected by the actions of the PCs, the PCs should be open to the possibility of being affected by the events in the campaign.

Duncan

I love how you assume a plan of what feats I want, means I wont "let" a campaign modify my character. That's funny -- or wait, you were kidding, right ... ?

 

[Uller]

First off...I didn't mean to start an arguement with Pax and the others on his "side". Some people (mostly on my "side" seem to be getting a little hot under the collar....)

If all the players in the group are happy with the notion that once you make a choice for your character, you're stuck with it short of a wish, a quest or retiring the character then great.

I do help my players with their characters. EXTENSIVELY! I offer to help them make their choices, I give them sample spell lists with reasoning for why certain combinations of spells work, etc. If you let a rank newbie pick spells without any guidance, they will almost certainly come up with a completely useless combination of spells and abilities.

This is where my attitude on this issue really comes from. Most of the players in my group started playing around the time 3e came out (some before, some after). We play about every 4 weeks or so. Sometimes there are longer breaks when every one is busy...so let's think...3e came out around August in 2000, right? So since then we've played maybe 20 times or so. What does that mean? Most of the players in my group ARE rank newbies (no offense to them if they are reading this...they do well, but often need a good bit of guidance, which I truely enjoy giving).

The other experienced gamer in this group is also the other DM. He recently finished up a campaign that lasted through 7th level or so. He didn't give as much guidance on character creation and level advancement as I usually give and some of the PCs just sort of stopped being (or never were) very effective. Around 5th level it got really bad and I suggested that he and I each sit down with some of the players and help them "rework" their characters. This was a complete overhaul...spells, skills, feats, even moved around some ability scores.

Interestingly enough, I helped our bard and one of the bits of advice I gave her was to generate her spell list as if she was high level ( I suggested 12th...20th is way way too far in the future, IMO) and pick her future spells from that list. That's also what I did when I played a Rogue/Sorcerer.

Now...would I be more "strict" with more experienced players? Maybe. But at the same time, even experienced players can make mistakes or could make choices based on invalid assumptions and that could lead him to be unhappy with his character. For instance...you can find any number of long threads on this board about certain vague (and many not so vague) rules. He may assume I would see a rule one way when really I see it another thus rendering one of his choices to be not as useful as he had hoped. In cases like that I want him to be able to make a change. I want to rule consistantly between all players, so I've just let it be known that I'm flexible in this area and if a player is unhappy with his character, he can make small changes over time and can even ask for assistance in that endeavor.

Another reason I do this is that since we play so rarely, it is difficult for us to experiment with all sorts of class, feat, spell and skill combos. So I want people who want to try something a little different to see if it will be fun to be able to do so without completely retirin their character.

 

[Uller]

I count ONLY on those things which -are- choices for me, when making that plan. The DM cannot say "no YOU can't have that feat" without completely barring it all along (in which case the development plan takes that ruling into account), ditto for core-rules source spells (and ditto for the plan taking that into account). Otherwise the DM is playing favorites, and/or, yes, is abusing the so-called Rule Zero.

So what if the rules change after you've gained a few levels? What if the DM decides your group is abusing a spell (see my polymorph thread) and changes it a little? What if new feats or spells are introduced to the campaign? Or do you go into a campaign with a certain set of rules and those are fixed for the duration? Some people play short campaigns and that is reasonable. Others play campaigns that last for years and so it is very likely that rules will change as the campaign progresses. If you've made decisions based on a certain set of rules and those rules change, that could be bad.

Example: A new first level spell is introduced after the sorcerer has already learned all the first level spells he'll ever know but the player wants that spell and probably would have chosen it early in his career. Would you let him swap out a little used 1st level spell, or make him burn a feat? I'd probably go with the former (unless the spell was introduced as a newly researched spell by an NPC).

Not trying to argue here...just curious.

 

[Rel]

Here's a few more random thoughts on this discussion:

As to your last point, Uller, I actually do try to have a fixed spell set at the start of the campaign if possible. During my last campaign, the splat books were still being released so I decided that none of those spells would be available until all the books were out. I told the player who played the Sorcerer that he could swap in a few of the new spells if he wanted. But usually I prefer if the Sorcerer knows his options before the campaign begins.

Another reason why I might be a bit strict about the "once you buy a prize, it's yours to keep" idea is that I've already given the Sorcerers a slight power boost by giving them specialization. If a Sorcerer wants to specialize (using the same Prohibited Schools guidelines for Wizards), they get one extra known spell from their speciality school at each spell level. I like giving them a few more choices and I also like the idea of "themed" Sorcerers. YMMV.

But ask yourself this: If the fighter who had taken Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in the Scimitar was disappointed because the party hadn't found a cool magical Scimitar but had found a cool magic longsword and wanted to change his feats to apply to the longsword, would you allow it? I wouldn't. I realize that it might be slightly "less fun" for the player to not have the spiffy sword. But if I let him change his feats then I should expect the other players to want to change theirs. Where does it stop?

And furthermore, none of players (and when I play I fall into the same category) picks a feat, spell or anything else crucial to their character without some discussion with the other players and the DM. It isn't because we need permission or lack the confidence to make our own decisions. We (being the geeks we are) love to talk about this kind of stuff and point out to each other the pros and cons of the various spells and feats. So it is very unlikely that anybody is making a mistake. A calculated risk, yes. A mistake, no.

Anyhow, I am enjoying the discussion because I think it transcends the Sorcerer-Spell issue and gives a glimpse into DM style which is always an interesting topic to me.

 

[Uller]

But ask yourself this: If the fighter who had taken Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in the Scimitar was disappointed because the party hadn't found a cool magical Scimitar but had found a cool magic longsword and wanted to change his feats to apply to the longsword, would you allow it? I wouldn't. I realize that it might be slightly "less fun" for the player to not have the spiffy sword. But if I let him change his feats then I should expect the other players to want to change theirs. Where does it stop?

Yes. I would probably allow a mechanism for it. Not right away, of course. If a fighter who had focus and spec in Scimitar started using a Longsword exclusively, it would make sense to me that he would eventually lose skill in scimitar and gain it in longsword. In fact, if a character hasn't touched a scimitar in game for several game years, it would seem very silly that he would specialize in that weapon.

This wouldn't be immediate. I'd probably make him gain some set amount of XP (probably a level's worth) while using the longsword first, at which point he could swap Spec (Scimitar) for Focus (Longsword). Repeat process for swapping focus (Scimitar) for Spec (Longsword).

I would especially do this if the the player was under the assumption that scimitars would be more common in the game then they really are. Of course, it is not as much an issue for a fighter since they get so many feats....so this example might be more applicable to another character (like a barbarian), but my reasoning is the same either way.

To reiterate my first point, it would be very unlikely for me to create an NPC opponent that has a longsword but specializes in scimitar...

Unlike your players, mine don't discuss the game rules too much. They make their choices mostly because they sound 'cool' and I like to encourage that...but if it doesn't work out to be as much fun as they had hoped, I don't want them locked in.

 

[Pielorinho]

1) Obviously, according to the rules, switching out spells as a sorcerer is very difficult. This is a discussion about house rules.
2) Please tell me it's just as obvious that having such a house rule isn't a moral issue. Yeah, it's a game with rules -- that doesn't mean that chaos will prevail if the DM works with the players to come up with house rules to make the game more fun for everyone.

For some folks, it's more fun to play with a strict no-spell-swapping policy. It looks like this is more fun for folks who plan out their sorcerers from the beginning.

For other folks, it's more fun to play with a swap-at-each-level policy. It looks like this is more fun for folks who like to experiment a lot with spells, who enjoy the novelty of new spells.

For other folks, it's more fun to play with something in-between. It looks like these folks are somewhere between the first two groups of players in temperament.

Strangely, none of these groups are morally superior to the others.

My own take on it is that some of my players (especially the sorcerer players) aren't nearly as familiar with the rules as I am, and prefer to focus on personality rather than on power. I'm fine with that: they make my game interesting and fun for everyone. IN order to keep them happy, I'm willing to bend some rules of being a sorcerer.

Another idea for allowing the switching-out of spells: require a ritual, with an XP cost of (spell level square) * 100. Thus, to switch out spells, you'll pay the following XP cost/spell level:
1: 100
2: 400
3: 900
4: 1600
5: 2500
6: 3600
7: 4900
8: 6400
9: 8100

This makes it expensive to do, but possible under extreme circumstances. You might halve the cost if the sorcerer has a superior, similar spell to the one being lost -- if a sorcer has invisibility and improved invisibility, and wants to switch invisibility for web, you might require her to pay only 200 XP instead of the normal 400 XP.

Whaddya think?

Daniel

 

[KarinsDad]

Example: A new first level spell is introduced after the sorcerer has already learned all the first level spells he'll ever know but the player wants that spell and probably would have chosen it early in his career. Would you let him swap out a little used 1st level spell, or make him burn a feat? I'd probably go with the former (unless the spell was introduced as a newly researched spell by an NPC).

If you buy a computer and two months later, a better one comes out, do you get to go back and trade in the first one for the new one and get every single penny back for it?

If the party Rogue purchases Pick Pockets every level and at 10th level, decides that he wants to get rid of all of his ranks in Pick Pocket and distribute them somewhere else, do you allow it?

Life is what it is. Very few GMs go back in time and change things retroactively.

Unlike a Wizard, a Sorcerer KNOWS his spells. It's knowledge. You do not unlearn things, just so that you can learn something new.

Would you let a 10th level Fighter drop two levels of Fighter and retroactively replace it with two levels of Rogue?

If not, why would you contemplate allowing a Sorcerer to switch out known spells?

It just doesn't make much sense outside of metagaming reasons.

 

[hong]

If you buy a computer and two months later, a better one comes out, do you get to go back and trade in the first one for the new one and get every single penny back for it?

If I'd written "Mac" on my character sheet and I really wanted a PC? Sure.

It's a friggin' GAME.

Life is what it is. Very few GMs go back in time and change things retroactively.

Who gives a damn about life when we're talking make believe?

It just doesn't make much sense outside of metagaming reasons.

Sometimes, just sometimes, metagaming trumps all else.

 

[Arnix]

Actually what I was seekign was not a "free exchange". Iw as looking for a MAGICAL/PSIONIC way of erasing the knowledge from my mind. Thus allowing me to learn new stuff. To use your computer topic, I do delete things from my hard drive to give me space to add something different. I don't propose just "sure swap out x for y". No, I meant something along the lines of for X gold and Y experience, this wizard will cast a POWERFUL spell on you to free up one slot.