Sorcerers and Wasted Spell Slots

[KarinsDad]

I don't really care about the Sleep issue one way or another. What concerns me are themed Sorcerors who will get hurt in the long term.

The best themed character out there is a Wizard (shy of a PrC).

Clerics can also make ok themed characters, just not typically as good as a Wizard (except maybe in the Healing realm) due to lack of overlapping spells.

But, the theme concept sounds like Wizard Envy to me. Sorcerers flat out do not make good themed concept characters and people try to shoe horn it in anyway.

You can do that, but you should pay the price for theme plus on the fly casting.

3E. Pros and Cons. Choices.

Stating that Sorcerers should be good themed characters and changing the rules to allow it is ignoring the weaknesses of a Sorcerer.

That's like saying that Paladins should be good spell casters. No. It doesn't work that way. You have to change the rules to get it to work that way.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But, the theme concept sounds like Wizard Envy to me. Sorcerers flat out do not make good themed concept characters and people try to shoe horn it in anyway.

I guess I can't really deny that with the rules as written. I just don't see that it has to be that way or should be that way.

I am not sure what to make of "paying a price for a theme". Shouldn't you pay a price for not having a theme? Why do only wizards gain real benefits from any semblance of focus?

Now that you bring it up, one of my biggest gripes is that the D&D spellcaster of all editions are a pretty themeless lot.

Every cleric is 90% the same as every other cleric of the same level, spellwise. Never cared for that. "Good? Evil? Who cares!? We all have the same spells."

Bards work pretty well, but their theme is preset.

 

[KarinsDad]

I am not sure what to make of "paying a price for a theme". Shouldn't you pay a price for not having a theme? Why do only wizards gain real benefits from any semblance of focus?

No doubt. But, that is one of the problem with the game as written.

Now that you bring it up, one of my biggest gripes is that the D&D spellcaster of all editions are a pretty themeless lot.

Every cleric is 90% the same as every other cleric of the same level, spellwise. Never cared for that. "Good? Evil? Who cares!? We all have the same spells."

Yup. That is what class system games give you. Ease of creation due to consistency in abilities.

And, this is EXACTLY why they added Domains and Feats and PrCs to 3E. An attempt to get away a little from cookie cutter classes.

If you want to get away from that, maybe some class-less system like Gurps (shudder) or Heroes 5E would work better for you.

 

[Uller]

The point comes down to where you draw the line.

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.

I've made no exception for the sorcerer. Didn't you read any of my post? I would let a rogue switch around his skills over time or a figther or wizard to switch around his feats if the situation warrants it. I don't have any hard fast rule for these kind of changes, only that they are "reasonable" and (hopefully) make sense from an RP point of view. If the character is constantly using pick-pocket and having fun with it, then I'm not gonna let him change it. My players are all very reasonable and aren't the type to "take advantage" of my leniency. In fact, more often than not, changes have come at MY suggestion because I see a player has made some decisions that just aren't working out and would have more fun if they changed them a bit.

Like I said...I believe that real people change their skills in real life, forgetting what they used to know (at least on a conscious level) to make room for new things. You (convieniently) didn't answer my question: Is there nothing that you were able to do really well 5 or 10 years ago that you can no longer do or no longer do as well because you've not concentrated on developing or maintaining that skill? I can come up with example after example of things in real life that I can't do so well any more because I've concentrated on new things...I see no reason why D&D characters can't change in the same way.

Skills of mine that have atrophied in the last 10 years:
Military related skills (marksmanship, Drill & Ceremony, polishing leather, tank field maintenence, First Aid, Orienteering, Armor Tactics, Mine Clearing, Obstacle Breaching, Radio Communications, Physical Fitness, etc, etc,)
Sports: Hockey (Ice Skating, puck handling, slap shot, wrist shot, team work, positional play, agility, the art of delivering a crushing hip-check and flipping an opponent over your back , I've even forgotten some of the more vague rules), Skiing (equipment maintenance, paralelling, jumping, flexibility)
Music- Guitar: I've forgotten many many songs but have learned a few new ones...is this any different than a bard or sorcerer forgetting a little used spell to learn a new one? My fingers are weaker and not as nimble as they'd be if I had kept playing 2 or 3 hours a day as I once did, reading sheet music, learning music "by ear", etc.

Skills I've concentrated on that have developed in the last 10 years: Software design, cooking, household maintenence, parenting, astronomy, paintball related skills (military skills are not very useful in paintball really), computer related skills.

Sure...I guess in game terms, some of my new skills have certainly come from new "classes" and "levels" (perhaps I've multiclassed from Soldier/Student to Soldier/Student/Engineer/Father) but I would certainly not have had time to develope these new skills if I'd worked on maintaining the ones that I've let go.

Does this mean that the "Great DM in the Sky" has allowed my player to make a "retrocative" change to my skills? Hardly. My history hasn't changed...I still was a mediocre hockey player and guitar player when I was a kid and a soldier when I was a young adult. But I'm not that anymore...now I'm father, husband, engineer, paintball player and my skills have changed to reflect my different lifestyle and career. Do you deny that similar changes don't take place in the life of a PC?

So when a Rogue who was once a street urchin and was good at bluffing and pick-pocketing people has grown into a scout for his party and never picks anyone's pockets any more, doesn't it make sense that his skills in pick-pocketing might atrophy as he concentrates more on stealth and finding/disabling traps or spotting foes? It makes complete sense to me. It is silly to think that once you develope a skill, you never get any worse at it (wouldn't life be great if it did? A gold medal figure skater would never have to practice again until someone is able to beat her!)

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.

As I said, I give loads of advice to my players. They don't always take it and sometimes they make decisions before I can give it (or even ones that I'm unaware of) and I'm not the only DM in my group. The other give less advice than I do and he and I have had miscommunications on rules and style that have lead to me making bad decisisons for my characters and he for his characters.

I guess you always give perfect advice to your players? I guess your players have never assumed you'd rule that a certain ability does X in your game when it really does Y or that your game would concentrate on combat when it focuses more on stealth or avoiding combat? Hmmm....that must be great.

Players make mistakes and miscalculations. DMs make mistakes and miscalculations in the advice they give to players. Miscommunications happen. If they do, I sure as s%&t don't want to allow it to make the game less fun for a player (because then it is less fun for me). I like to make my NPC villians as tough as possible. I power-game my NPCs just like I'm a player power-gaming a PC. Since I have the advantage of knowing exactly how every rule will work, I don't want to hold back and I don't want to punish the players for not being able to read my mind. So I'll let them make a reasonable changes. If I can find an in-game explanation for it so it doesn't seem "retroactive", then all the better. But like I said...Fun conquers all.

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.

Even the most experienced players make mistakes. If you sat down at my table or I at yours, either one of us may make invalid assumptions about the other's DM style or interpritations of the rules amd that would lead to bad choices. If that is going to make the game less fun for an experienced player, then I'm going to step in and say "You know...that ability really hasn't been very useful for you in the last several sessions...and I don't think it ever will be. Why don't you change it to something a little more useful?" If a player isn't having fun, I'm not. And that's why I do what I do.

As for the example of the Sorcerer NPC villian changing spells...if he is USING a spell, then he's not going to be able to swap it now then will he? So how would the players or PCs know? Or why would they care? If they figured that out (which would likely only happen if I told them) then I'd explain that he just never used that spell and learned something new...just like a musician learns a new song and fogets ones he never plays any more...that works especially well for sorcerers and bars since their arcane knowledge is described as being akin to poetry or musical ability....

 

[KarinsDad]

I've made no exception for the sorcerer. Didn't you read any of my post? I would let a rogue switch around his skills over time or a figther or wizard to switch around his feats if the situation warrants it. I don't have any hard fast rule for these kind of changes, only that they are "reasonable" and (hopefully) make sense from an RP point of view.
[/B]

The discussion went:

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?
[/B]

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.
[/B]

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

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).
[/B]

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.
[/B]

I've made no exception for the sorcerer. Didn't you read any of my post?
[/B]

Yes, I did read your posts. I understand your concept of sometimes allowing changes, especially if the player is unhappy. I just happened at that point in the thread to be responding directly to your responses above where you stated that you probably would not allow certain changes.

Didn't you read your posts and my posts in the order they were posted?

Your opinion appears to be (and correct me if I am wrong), I will allow feat or skill modifications for other classes if I perceive that they made a mistake or are unhappy. I will always allow a Sorcerer character swap spells, although I will not let him swap out all of his spells. That’s what your messages appear to boil down to. Is this correct?

Like I said...I believe that real people change their skills in real life, forgetting what they used to know (at least on a conscious level) to make room for new things. You (convieniently) didn't answer my question: Is there nothing that you were able to do really well 5 or 10 years ago that you can no longer do or no longer do as well because you've not concentrated on developing or maintaining that skill.[/B]

The question is out of context. In real life, skills atrophy because you do not use them. If you continue to use them, then they might lessen in ability slightly over extended periods of time, but they will still stay with you.

But, this is a game we are talking about. How do you decide which skills atrophy and which do not? If the Rogue never picks a pocket, are you going to say “Hey, you never did this. Replace this skill with other skill ranks in things you do.”?

No. You won’t do that as a DM. But, how does letting him swap out some ranks of Climbing which he does once in a while make sense when he is allowed to keep all of his ranks in Pick Pocket which he never does?

It doesn’t make consistent sense. It is merely a tool to allow a whiny player to switch his skills so the DM doesn’t have to listen to it.

In the adult world, players tend to not have fun not because the other players are not having fun or not because the game is not fun, but because they perceive inequities in the game, regardless of whether those inequities are real or imagined. The mature players blow that stuff off. The immature players tend to blow it out of proportion. It all comes down to whether it is worth your effort as a DM to explain it to the immature player, or to give in, possibly creating hard feelings for your other players.

Personally, I play the game by the rules and most of my players follow suit and this type of stuff doesn’t come up too often. I believe in playing fair (no secret fudge factor DM rolls behind the screen), in playing by the rules, and in telling whiny players to grow up, it’s just a game. Having an obsolete spell in your repetoire is not game breaking.

 

[Uller]

Your opinion appears to be (and correct me if I am wrong), I will allow feat or skill modifications for other classes if I perceive that they made a mistake or are unhappy. I will always allow a Sorcerer character swap spells, although I will not let him swap out all of his spells. That’s what your messages appear to boil down to. Is this correct?

Incorrect. I will ALWAYS allow a player to drop skills, feats and spells if they go unused for extended periods of time so long as changes are small and slow to happen. That's the general rule because it makes sense to me and sort of reflects real life a bit. I encourage my players to take advantage of it if they wish because I do the same with the NPCs. You misunderstood my "Probably Not" statements because I was applying it to your example of allowing a Rogue who picks pockets all the time to suddenly drop that skill. I would not allow that. He would have to almost never use pick pockets in order to reduce his ranks to apply them to something he uses often. I probably won't allow him to completely drop pick-pockets to represent that he still knows how to do it if only on a subconscious level.

There are some things that I would not allow to be changed in this manner. For example, a cleric can't up and change his diety or his domain. A Druid can't just decide she'd rather have a Wolverine for an animal companion than her bear. She'd have to go find a wolverine.

I will always allow players who made a mistake for whatever reason to swap something around if it is impacting the fun of the group. This is not so much a general rule, but has come up from time to time.

In real life, skills atrophy because you do not use them. If you continue to use them, then they might lessen in ability slightly over extended periods of time, but they will still stay with you.

But, this is a game we are talking about. How do you decide which skills atrophy and which do not? If the Rogue never picks a pocket, are you going to say “Hey, you never did this. Replace this skill with other skill ranks in things you do.”?

I do it on a case by case basis. Usually it is not an issue.

No. You won’t do that as a DM. But, how does letting him swap out some ranks of Climbing which he does once in a while make sense when he is allowed to keep all of his ranks in Pick Pocket which he never does?

It doesn’t make consistent sense. It is merely a tool to allow a whiny player to switch his skills so the DM doesn’t have to listen to it.

None of my players have ever whined or thrown any sort of fit over this (what kind of people do you game with? They must be horrible if you feel like you must guard against whining and hissy fits!). But when a player says something like "My character is so ineffective" game after game, I'll sit down with him and help him make adjustments. More often than not, this is advice on how to play more effectively. But sometimes, changes are warranted. Hopefully we find in-game explations for such changes but since it's just a game, I don't really care.

I make no distinction between experienced or inexperienced players. Both can make mistakes. Either way, I don't think the DM taking a "You made your bed..." stance with an unhappy player to be very productive. That's a great way for me to teach my kids about the consequences of their actions in real-life, but I'm not trying to teach wisdom to my players...I'm trying to simply have fun.

The way I look at it, the PC is the domain of the player. It's all they've really got control over. I try to give them the same power over their PCs that I have over everything else. If I see a part of my game world is not working out, I'll twist it around a bit behind the scenes to make it more fun. I want the players to have fun, so I let them to a bit of the same. I'm not about to give them everything they ask for. Life is still very hard on my PCs and they have to struggle through most adventures just to survive. In the end that's what makes things really fun and keeps people coming back for more. Especially if they feel like their character made a difference.

 

[KarinsDad]

None of my players have ever whined or thrown any sort of fit over this (what kind of people do you game with? They must be horrible if you feel like you must guard against whining and hissy fits!).

Actually, none of my players has ever asked to make a change with two exceptions:


The first was, as a group, we discussed a series of AoO immunity rules and came to a group consensus that they were unbalanced.

So, we came up with an alternative.

This character had just taken a PrC class that gave him an AoO immunity in certain circumstances and the house rule would have changed it from an immunity to a slim chance of being AoOed.

So, he felt it unfair that we house ruled “the main reason he took the PrC”. Personally, I thought this a metagaming reason to take a PrC in the first place, but I do realize that PrC abilities is what attracts players to them. I also thought that this was a little whiny (this is the only player in our group that acts immature at times) on his part since he wasn’t really losing the ability, rather the ability was being downgraded a little to match the rest of the AoO rules in our game and other players were having their AoO immunities downgraded and were not complaining. Plus, the rules were equitable for both PCs and NPCs alike.

But, he wanted to take a level of Fighter instead, so I let him, but only because we changed the rule. If we wouldn’t have changed the rule and he would have asked 5 gaming sessions later to drop the PrC class because nobody is ever trying to AoO him, I would have said “So?”.


The other case was a guy who was never satisfied with his character. This was when 3E first came out and he asked for about 6 changes in the first 4 weeks. Finally, I said “Ok, no more changes”. He left the group shortly thereafter, probably because he couldn‘t get his way. Good riddance as far as I was concerned. DMs do not need headache players and neither do the other players.

But when a player says something like "My character is so ineffective" game after game, I'll sit down with him and help him make adjustments. More often than not, this is advice on how to play more effectively. But sometimes, changes are warranted. Hopefully we find in-game explations for such changes but since it's just a game, I don't really care.

It’s really hard to be ineffective in 3E. You have to really work at it.

Yes, you could pick a lot of skills or something that do not show up often in the game, but I feel that is the responsibility of the DM to introduce those opportunities to use rarer skills as much as it is the players.

But, the core class designs result in some fairly balanced characters and if players are feeling ineffective, it probably has more to do with the types of scenarios the DM introduces, the number of unbalanced spells and feats he allows in his campaign, or the increased effectiveness of other PCs whose players work to make them especially effective. For example, if a player of a Bard was in a campaign with a DM who threw boatloads of combats at the players and had very few roleplaying opportunities, I could see where he would feel ineffective. But, the core classes appear balanced to me as long as the DM creates opportunities for each PC.

 

[Uller]

It’s really hard to be ineffective in 3E. You have to really work at it.

Hehe...that's true. But I've seen it happen. We had a bard and a paladin in our party. They were made by new players when the only two experienced RPers in our group were still learning the 3e rules. Both PCs were _REALLY_ useless (especially the bard which was a hodge podge of disconnected spells and skills). The players were good sports about it, but after 3 or 4 sessions of having no effect on the game beyond conversations with NPCs (and we play fairly combat centric games), it was clear they needed some reworking...

Anyway...sounds like you've had a negative experience with a player and were forced to deal with it the only way you could. My group is fairly laid back so I don't feel like there is any risk of such craziness. Maybe some day I'll say you told me so...but I doubt it.

On the other hand, if I were playing a "public" game...one in which the players are relative strangers to me...I'd probably clamp down on this sort of stuff too.

Anyway...this was fun.

 

[Ace]

My preference for Sorcerers is to make small mods

#1 - They do get bonus spells based on CHA stat. This gives a tiny amount more needed versititility and IMO is still balanced.

#2 I don't do this but I might allow it. At each level gain allow 1 spell to be changed.

I think I would do the same with Bards and Channelers (my divine Sorc Version)

 

[Celebrim]

I think there are two cases here:

1) The case of a new player who didn't really understand the rules that felt he has short changed himself by loading up on 'useless' spells and skills.

In part, I see this as the fault of the DM for not trying to challenge the players variously enough that no skill, feat, or spell feels completely unwanted, but, granted, there are some skills and feats that are more likely to come up than others. So, if I had a newish player I might let him move a few skill points around or change a spell out mid-campaign if he had a legitimate problem. Note, a legitimate problem is one that is also a problem for me as a DM and which is not easily correctable without retrofitting. For instance, suppose the rouge finds himself woefully short on the Search skill. This is a legitimate problem forme as a DM because I kinda count on rouges of X level being able to make Y DC search checks 50% of the time. However, it is not one that I feel requires retrofitting, because I would simply advice the rouge's player, "Tough it out until you gain a level then dump as many points as possible into Search." In the mean time I'd (secretly) be a little less harsh on the search DC's, and I'd keep track of what the rouge could do and provide oppurtunities to do it. Suppose a Fighter had taken Toughness three times at 9th level and was just beginning to realize that although the extra h.p. were nice, he was way behind on his feat chains and would have a hard time getting the really cool feats. Well, I'd probably consider letting him untoughen a little (I'd make him keep at least one) provided that those feats hadn't at some point in his history been the difference between life and death, and that I as a DM felt the party was falling behind where I wanted them to be in terms of the challenges I could throw at them, and that I didn't think he fell into the second category I'll deal with below.

In the case of a newish player with a Sorcerer that wasn't perfectly min/maxed, I'd only worry if the Sorcerer wasn't able to contribute meaningfully to play. If the Sorcerer isn't fully min/maxed, that's actually great because otherwise, he'd look a little cookie cutter. Ok, so Sleep and Mage Armor are some of the 1st level spells you know, and your now 10th level. So what. You don't have to be fully min/maxed to be fun to play, and besides....

2) The second situation is a cunning min/maxer trying his best to weedle every little advantage out of me that he can. This falls into the category of annoying. Ok, so you took Sleep and Mage Armor at 1st level, because at 1st level that's some of the best spells in the game, and NOW, after using those spells to good effect to survive to 9th level you want to drop those spells out for Shield (because you just got Bracers of Defence +4) and Burning Hands (which you intend to drop into your new Sculpt Spell feat). I DON'T THINK SO. Next you'll be wanting to swap out Toughness (after using it to stay alive through levels 1-4), for Greater Spell Focus. The game is not about having the most cewl tricked out character that you can have under the rules. The game is about role playing, and if you are trying to define your character solely by what he can do, you are missing the point.