Sorcerers and Wasted Spell Slots

[Uller]

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?

No. But if I installed software and a few months later the company releases a patch or an upgrade, I might download it and install it. Besides, characters are not computers. They're (simulated) people.

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?

Probably not. But if the Rogue10 hasn't picked anyone's pocket since he was a wee Rogue4, it would make sense to me that he would no longer be too great at picking pockets and might have concentrated a bit more on some developing other skill.

Can you still do the things that you haven't done for 5 years as well as you used to do them? People...unlike computer hardware...change over time and adapt to their current circumstances. Should a character who never gains a level but changes circumstances not change some of his skills to reflect his new situation?

Life is what it is.

D&D is not life. I know some people hate it when we say "It's just a game, fun conquers all." but in my game, that's the rule...

And know...I don't give my players whatever they want all the time. I keep an eye on balance and making sure things are fun for the whole group. My players are all very reasonable people and if I allow one person to swap out a spell, another player won't take that to mean that they can start moving around ability scores or something.

Very few GMs go back in time and change things retroactively.

Nor do I (except when a player is very new and really needs to experience their own failures...then I let them change once they see the better way...some people can only learn by experience). I'm not saying to go back. I'm saying to allow PCs change as time goes FORWARD based on the abilities they currently use.

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

Maybe you don't, but I do. I used to be able to zero the sights on the main gun of an M728 but since I've not had a need to do that for 10 years, I can't anymore. Sure, I could easily relearn it, but if someone just sat me in the turret of the tank and told me to do it without a manual, I'd be clueless.

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

Probably not (not unless there was some very serious problems with the character and even then, I'd probably suggest just retiring the character rather than changing levels).

Again...I'm not advocating retroactive change. I might encourage the player to take levels of Rogue in the future and maybe allow him to slowly change some of his fighter feats to more Roguish ones over time.

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

To repeat hong's statement: Metagaming can trump role-playing. Like to keep things fun...since its a game.

 

[Uller]

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.

I don't think there is one other than the ones already pointed out. Certainly you could approach your DM with some of the house rules suggested here. Daniel's might be good if your DM doesn't want people swapping around spells/powers like crazy...

 

[Uller]

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

Morally superior? No. But if one's DM style (and it could just as easily be any one of the styles you described) is negatively impacting his group, then that DM should reconsider his stance...In most groups, it probably isn't an issue at all. In my own group, it has only come up a few times. Which is why I don't think I've "opened the flood gates."

 

[KarinsDad]

Probably not (not unless there was some very serious problems with the character and even then, I'd probably suggest just retiring the character rather than changing levels).

Again...I'm not advocating retroactive change. I might encourage the player to take levels of Rogue in the future and maybe allow him to slowly change some of his fighter feats to more Roguish ones over time.

The point comes down to where you draw the line.

I too have no problem with a character learning new abilities. That's part of the game.

I have a problem with a character changing abilities he already has without paying some significant price for it and using magic to accomplish it (e.g. using a Wish spell).

Making an exception for a Sorcerer shouldn't be done IMO. And yes, no matter how you sugar coat it, allowing a Sorcerer to swap out spells is making a retroactive change, just like letting a Rogue swap out ranks in Pick Pocket, or letting a Fighter swap out two levels of Fighter for Rogue.

Without using magic or a feat to accomplish it, it's class favoritism. The Sorcerer got to cast more Sleep spells per day at lower level and as a result, he was much more effective then. Now he pays the price for doing that. Allowing him to swap out spells means that he doesn't pay the price. Giving in to the player's desire to get his cake and eat it too is just an unfair decision to the other players IMO.


And, I think the newbie issue is really non-sequitor. The GM should go out of his way in the first place to help newbies not make obvious mistakes. If you are changing sorcerer spells because it is a newbie and it is something fairly obvious, then you didn't do your job in the first place and are just basically correcting a mistake when you allow the newbie to make some changes. Newbies are a special case which should not dictate the rules decisions for experienced players.

 

[Pielorinho]

"Class favoritism"?! Okay, maybe it is a moral issue for some folks. Call me chaotic evil, then.

I would allow it IMC because of my gameworld justification for sorcerers: sorcerers learn their magic from spirits. A sorcerer who upgrades invisibility to improved invisibility is simply performing a ritual to make her invis. spirit more powerful, and is making a compact with a (for example) spider spirit to learn how to cast Web. A sorcerer who doesn't have imp. invis. and who wants to learn Web can do a ritual to let the invisibility spirit free and is then taking on the spider spirit.

No metagaming, no retconning required. If I ran sorcerous magic in a different form, I'm sure I could come up with an in-game justification for how it worked, too.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Oh -- I want to add one more thing. Balacing classes by making them great at low levels and sucky at high levels is so second-edition. It's a terrible form of balance, because it makes characters very fun to play for a long while and then no fun at all to play for a long while.

And I don't think that's how sorcerers are balanced. Instead, I think they're balanced because they get high level spells later than wizards, because they have a smaller selection of spells to learn from, because they don't get free feats.

Allowing them to swap out spells at a rate of one/level, or only when learning more powerful versions of their old spells, or at an experience-point cost, isn't going to make them weirdly unbalanced. Nobody's suggesting we allow a sorcerer to swap Web for Melf's once we learn we'll be fighting trolls; we're suggesting a slow method of changing spells.

What it'll mean is that it's not a stupid decision for a sorcerer to take Sleep as a spell. It means sorcerers can make their decisions based on their current needs, not on their needs in five levels.

For some folks' campaigns, that's a good thing. For no one's campaign should that be an unbalancing thing.

Daniel

 

[KarinsDad]

For some folks' campaigns, that's a good thing. For no one's campaign should that be an unbalancing thing.

Well, everyone has different ideas of balance.

The first balance comparison I make is between Sorcerers with Wizards. There is a certain balance between them in the game mechanics. The PROs for each class when comparing them are:

Wizards: Get spells one level earlier every other level. Get more feats. Get more versatility (i.e. spells learned) and can change spells once per day. Can potentially craft items with low utility spells and enhance their on the fly utility that way.

Sorcerers: Can cast more spells per day. Can cast any spell in their repertoire on the fly. Can potentially metamagic spells on the fly. Do not have to pay money to put spells into spell books.

When you allow Sorcerers to change their repertoire, even at a once per level rate, it gives them more power. Hence, it changes the balance.

In your view point, this balance change is not significant.

In my view point, this balance change is somewhat significant, but probably not game breaking.


However, there is another, more important, area of balance that I consider which people on the opposite side of the fence are basically ignoring.

It is unfair to allow players of Sorcerers to swap out spells if you do not allow other players to swap out feats, skill ranks, or other abilities.

To me, this is a more significant balance problem since it can create "class favoritism" resentment between players (or maybe you can view it as player favoritism, i.e. the player of the sorcerer, it can still cause hard feelings between players).

I'm a firm believer in being fair to all players, regardless of which class they play.


So, in order to give this ability to Sorcerers, you should balance it out by giving similar swapping abilities to other classes. Otherwise, you risk the perception that you are being unfair as a DM. IMO.

A Rogue may take Pick Pockets a lot, thinking that he will have use of that skill at higher levels. A Sorcerer, on the other hand, has a very good ides of how much utility most spells will have at higher level. If he takes Sleep at low level, he KNOWS that it will have low utility and only be useful in Town Encounters in the future. The Rogue does not even have that little bit of foreknowledge when selecting his Pick Pocket skills.

But, for some inexplicable reason, it is somehow fair to allow the Sorcerer to both get the multi-cast on the fly utility of his Sleep spell at low level, and to swap it out for something better at higher level.

How is that fair to the Rogue who has less of a clue whether his skills will be more useful later on?

 

[IceBear]

If Daniel and Uller's players don't care that the sorcerer gets to swap spells and they can't swap skills, feats, levels, etc, isn't that all that matters in the end?

In all honesty, Neverwinter Nights is going to cause a lot of misconceptions about the sorcerer class if people try to start playing pen and paper D&D after playing the computer game. In case you don't know, Bioware is allowing sorcerers to change as many spells as the want when they level. Yet ANOTHER area where that game fails to translate the pen and paper experience *sigh*

IceBear

 

[Zhure]

I actually play a Psychic Warrior, but Psions, PsyWars, and Sorcerers are all in the same boat pretty much for spell selection (Psionic spells are "Powers" and casting is "Manifesting" for those who might not know). I took Lesser Metaphysical Weapon (Lesser Magic Weapon) and now that I can take Metaphysical weapon (greater Magic Weapon) the 1st level version is pretty wasted. Also what I "expected" to fight and what we frequently fight are quite different.

I based many of my earlier decisions on things that the particular DM had done in most (maybe all) of his previous campaigns. this one turned out almost completely different. However, my earlier powers are now pretty useless.

I have used these powers at least once, but now they get used just because. I have a kobold following me around becasue I saved his life (and he provides good comic relief), so to keep him from bothering me too much I Lesser Metaphysical Weapon his crossbow. Not that he can hit much that we fight (APL 10.x, maybe 11 now).



Arnix (tm)

Lesser Metaphysical weapon is a great way to give +1 to a bundle of arrows for 1 hour per level. It's far superior to the magical equivalent. For only 1 PP, you can make a whole quiverfull magical for hours, split them among the party.

Greg

 

[KarinsDad]

If Daniel and Uller's players don't care that the sorcerer gets to swap spells and they can't swap skills, feats, levels, etc, isn't that all that matters in the end?

Well, at first, that probably will happen.

"Hey, the Sorcerer is more useful. Great!"

But, when the reoccurring villain Sorcerer shows up time and time again and always seems to have the proper spells to kick the party's butt each time, sooner or later, someone will say:

"Hey, I think that Sorcerer is swapping spells!"

and suddenly, it will sink in that their arch-nemesis is doing the exact same thing that the party Sorcerer is.

"Well Frank, if you wouldn't have whined like a girl and got the DM to change the darn rule, Ted's character probably wouldn't have died 3 times now. Way to go Frank."

Most people tend to look at rules and laws as good if they benefit them personally and bad if they harm them personally. What goes around, comes around.