Sorcerers and Wasted Spell Slots

[IceBear]

Somehow I don't think that's going to be a problem with their groups. Just my impression of Uller and Dan as DMs.

IceBear

 

[Arnix]

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

Problem is, I also have (effectively) Call Weaponry. And the party has 2 archers with magic bows (largish party). Granted the magic arrow trick is a nice one but...

 

[Zhure]

Call Weaponry gives magic bow; LMW gives magic arrows. They stack.

Greg

 

[Pielorinho]

Somehow I don't think that's going to be a problem with their groups. Just my impression of Uller and Dan as DMs.

That's exactly right, for several reasons:
1) The major enemy in my game isn't a sorcerer .
2) The players are generally doing good if they can pinpoint the class of an enemy -- figuring out their spell-list is just about impossible (exception: in a recent game, the players captured the spellbooks of an enemy wizard before they confronted him, and based their tactics for that confrontation off what they'd learned).
3) If the major enemy were a sorcerer, and if they confronted him enough times that they figured out exactly what his spell list was, and if the next time they confronted him, he'd swapped out some of his spells according to a house rule I'd described to them, and if they figured out that he'd done so, they'd most likely be impressed at my rat-bastardry of using what appeared to be a PC advantage against them. I'd be appalled at a player who complained under those circumstances.

Of course, I'd be shocked at those circumstances arising. Far too many "ifs".

There's no question that this house-rule is a player-advantage more than a villain-advantage: the vast majority of villains die at the same level they're created at, and don't have an opportunity to swap out spells.

However, it does offset a villain advantage: villains generally are created at the same level they die at, and don't need to have spells that aren't effective at their level.

It all works out in the end.

Daniel

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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!"

The thing you are forgetting is that those non-recurring villainous sorcerors implicitly swap spells all the time. Have you ever met a 10th level Sorceror without MM because he got Sleep, Mage Armor, Burning Hands instead? Or one with Toughness? But those little quirks that make for a lame 10th level sorceror in fact make the NPC vastly more likely to have survived to 2nd level.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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 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.

No, metagaming is any time your PC makes plans or decisions based on information that the player possesses but the character would not.

A 1st level character who is planning what 4th and 5th level spells he is going to get is an example of metagaming. Since sorcerors use natural aptitude and instinct for their access to magic instead of book larning, this kind of planning is ludicrous and out-of-character.

Of course every player metagames to some extent. Requiring metagaming to play a class effectively is a sign of a design flaw.

 

[Pax]

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.

Did you miss where I mentioned, at least once, that "the Plan" was subject to revision by me, when and as I felt it needful?

If new rules come out, I look them over, and see if I can change -future- choices to something more favorable to me, using those rules. If not ... oh well ... maybe next campaign.

If the sorceror has already learned "all the firstlevel spells he will know", that means the sorceror is 7thlevel or higher ... and IMO, if the spell is THAT good that I MUST have it, it's probably under-rated WRT it's level . Otherwise: I can re-assess my feat choices, and pick up the feat from T&B (I forget the name) which permits Sorcerors and Bards to learn a single additional spell.

Or, per the PHB rules, I can simply surrender a less-important HIGHER level spell in favor of the lower-level spell; while the rules do not specifically allow this, I see no reason why it oculd not be done (since you can "undercast" using, for example, a 5thlevle slot to power a 2d level spell ... I see no reason why "under-learning" should be forbidden; in fact for moderate-CHA sorcerors (multiclass perhaps), who might not be ABLE to learn spells of, say, 7th or higher level ... this would almost seem a required allowance).

Either way, past choices, barring in-game effects, remain immutable.

Allowing revision because the RULES themselves change is different than allowing revision because you made a poor choice. If the rules change, allowing the player to make the choice they WOULD have made if the rules had ALWAYS been the way they are post-change, isn't a violation of the spirit of the rules regarding Sorceror spell-known choices.

But allowing the sorceror to say "gee, this spellis kinda useless after all, can I change it for something different?" ... is IMO like the Rogue saying "gee, I shoulda checked for traps BEFORE I got decapitated, can I go back and do so?"

 

[Arnix]

Actually, out of 4 campaigns, this was the first in which psionics was used. As such, many choices were made based on weak interpretations of the rules. Since the decisions were made MANY new powers (I'd say 100 or more) and feats (20+) have been released as well as a ton of clarifications and errata. This is just counting Minds Eye, WoTC main boards, Dragon Magazine, and If Thoughts Could Kill.

In the next couple of months (by Jan 1) these numbers will probably double or more. Minds Eye has a couple of huge months planned, the Minds Eye authors are publishing a book of feats, powers, PrC's, and the Quinisential PsyWar/Psion books are releasing by Mongoose Publishing.

This is more than even the most liberal Sorcerer's have changed. Most of the newer powers and feats are more useful than the PsiHB feats/powers. PsiHB was moderately under powered overall becasue of a fear of repeating 2nd Ed Psionics. Given that you MUST take feats before leveling, you get a little hosed when new feats come out. Powers could be taken even with preplanning, but given that the amount of powers has grown by leaps and bounds, preplannign is worthless. I know, I planned up to 16th level, including PrC.


Arnix (tm)

 

[Pax]

No, metagaming is any time your PC makes plans or decisions based on information that the player possesses but the character would not.

A 1st level character who is planning what 4th and 5th level spells he is going to get is an example of metagaming. Since sorcerors use natural aptitude and instinct for their access to magic instead of book larning, this kind of planning is ludicrous and out-of-character.

Of course every player metagames to some extent. Requiring metagaming to play a class effectively is a sign of a design flaw.

Perhaps noone has ever introduced you to a simple concept" character knowledge and player knowledge are seperate, and can be kept that way.

I the player have a plan for my sorceror. The Sorceror however, has only vague desires and inclinations (like my current (campaign on hiatus for hte summer) Ethen, who only knows in character, that there're metamagics that allow shifting elemental-damage spells from one type of damage to another, and he plans to get them all; that he, therefor, plans to pick up elemental-damage type spells for his damaging attack spells; that he will probably also pick up several noncombat spells, depending on what's available when.

Where's the metagaming there? The character -knows- there are Elemental Substitution metamagics(his parents sent him to a wizard for tutelage when his powers first manifested, though all he was really able to learn was the Spellcraft skill, and through that, has a basic understanding of what metamagics are out there, and so forth). In fact, he -started- the game with one (he's Human, his resultant two initial feats were Empower Spell and Elemental Substitution (Electrical)).

Anythign on the "Planning sheet" is player knowledge, not character. Ask Ethen in-character what spells he'll know when he's much higher level, and he'll ask you what you mean by "level" ... ask him what he'll be able to cast when he's "farmore advanced in the Arts" and he might name off one or two widely-known spells (widely known among those who have ranks of Spellcraft, IOW), and point out his plans WRT the ElSub metamagicks.

But that;s all he knows. I know more, but Ethen is not me, nor am I Ethen.

Again -- how is THAT, metagaming?

 

[IceBear]

Can't people just use the rules that works for them without having someone shove a fist down their throat? What works for some groups won't work for others - that's a given. As long as everyone is aware of the downsides of a house rule so some rookie doesn't use them without understanding the implications that's all that's necessary. It's just a game so let people have fun with the rules that maxamize that fun.

IceBear