Sorcerers get the short end of the stick?

[Synchronicity]

Ok, two things before I begin.
1) This probably isn't what you're thinking. I'm not going to start another innumerable round of 'Is the Wizard balanced against the Sorcerer?' Those discussions have been had a dozen times, and generally have no real resolution. For this thread, I am presupposing that the two classes *are* balanced against one another, and moving on from there. It's a necessary assumption to proceed to my actual question and not get bogged down in the wrong debate.
2) I'm not sure if this thread should go into another forum or not. It's not exactly a rules question, it's a personal question and opinion and a request for other opinions, so I'm putting it here. If any moderator thinks it belongs elsewhere, please move it. Thanks!

Now then, on to my question..when I ask if sorcerers get the short end of the stick in D&D, I'm not referring to Sorcerers vs Wizards. I am referring to how Sorcerers match up with Prestige Classes.

There isn't *one* decent PrC I've found that's better for Sorcerers than Wizards; it's all the other way around. Let me show you my reasoning.

1) Sorcerers get less Knowledge skills as class skills ('Knowledge: arcana', as opposed to 'all Knowledge skills, taken individually' for Wizards), making it harder for them to qualify for many arcane casting prestige classes, where knowledges are often a requirement.

2) They get less spells known, making it harder for them to qualify for classes with specific spell requirements, such as Loremaster. (X divination spells of level X)

3) They get spells a level later than wizards, making it harder for them to qualify for classes with '3rd level arcane casting' or the like required by at least one level.

4) Due to the later aquisition of new spell levels as compared to Wizards, 2/3 casting or 1/2 casting classes hurt sorcerers even more than they hurt wizards.

4) They get less metamagic and item creation feats than wizards, when such feats are a common requirement for an arcane casting PrC. Wizards get Scribe Scroll at first level and a feat ever 5 levels. Sorcerers get jack.

And what do they get in return? Well, they can use shortspears. Badly, because they have crap BAB. Whoop de do. Why this bias? I just don't get it. Whether or not Sorcerers are balanced against Wizards as a base class (a debate which I do not want to enter here), they sure as all heck don't seem to be balanced against Wizards when it comes to PrCs. Wizards get it better, period.

So, then, I ask you this:

1) Am I correct in my points, or have I overlooked some information which shows me to be in the wrong? Have your gaming experiences suggested that I am wrong, and sorcerers are not ill-treated in this regard?

2) If I am correct, can anyone suggest a reason why this might be?

3) If I am correct, does anyone have any ideas as to how this imbalance could be redressed?

Many thanks for your input!

Cheers,
Synchronicity.

 

[Telperion]

Now then, on to my question..when I ask if sorcerers get the short end of the stick in D&D, I'm not referring to Sorcerers vs Wizards. I am referring to how Sorcerers match up with Prestige Classes.

There isn't *one* decent PrC I've found that's better for Sorcerers than Wizards; it's all the other way around. Let me show you my reasoning.

1) Sorcerers get less Knowledge skills as class skills ('Knowledge: arcana', as opposed to 'all Knowledge skills, taken individually' for Wizards), making it harder for them to qualify for many arcane casting prestige classes, where knowledges are often a requirement.

2) They get less spells known, making it harder for them to qualify for classes with specific spell requirements, such as Loremaster. (X divination spells of level X)

3) They get spells a level later than wizards, making it harder for them to qualify for classes with '3rd level arcane casting' or the like required by at least one level.

4) Due to the later aquisition of new spell levels as compared to Wizards, 2/3 casting or 1/2 casting classes hurt sorcerers even more than they hurt wizards.

4) They get less metamagic and item creation feats than wizards, when such feats are a common requirement for an arcane casting PrC. Wizards get Scribe Scroll at first level and a feat ever 5 levels. Sorcerers get jack.

And what do they get in return? Well, they can use shortspears. Badly, because they have crap BAB. Whoop de do. Why this bias? I just don't get it. Whether or not Sorcerers are balanced against Wizards as a base class (a debate which I do not want to enter here), they sure as all heck don't seem to be balanced against Wizards when it comes to PrCs. Wizards get it better, period.

So, then, I ask you this:

1) Am I correct in my points, or have I overlooked some information which shows me to be in the wrong? Have your gaming experiences suggested that I am wrong, and sorcerers are not ill-treated in this regard?

2) If I am correct, can anyone suggest a reason why this might be?

3) If I am correct, does anyone have any ideas as to how this imbalance could be redressed?

Many thanks for your input!

Cheers,
Synchronicity.

RageWitch is an excellent PrC for Barbarian / Sorcerers. It's in the Sword&Sorcery Player's Guides.

1) In my opinion playing a Sorcerer is not about being the walking library that a Wizard is. IMO being a sorcerer is not about having lots of skill points. Granted: wizards don't get any more, but since their spell casting is tied to Intelligence they tend to have higher Intelligence scores than Sorcerers. Put to it shortly: sorcerers are primal forces, control and unleashing their inner power. I won't go into greater detail here, since I don't feel like copying half the book from the Player's Guide to Wizards, Bards and Sorcerers. There's some very good fluff in there.

2 - 3 ) Well, since I don't agree with your opinion on what sorcerers "should" be it would be all to easy to simply write: no, you are not correct.

IMO playing a sorcerer is more about building a character with a theme than selecting a school of magic to study and master. Although there will be a great deal more min-maxing when creating a balanced sorcerer the theme of the character shows much more strongly as well. You probably don't see a hell-spawn sorcerer (no templates, feats, PrC's or anything like that required to qualify. Simply levels in sorcerer and ) going around doing lots of nice things and protecting people and stuff like that. What you could see is a character that is clearly marked as a spawn of a fiend (again, no template required) and the two obvious examples are:

1. Accept what you are and live your life as you choose to live it. You have been given power by being born to a bloodline of pure Evil.

2. Fight what you are and try to destroy everything that is even remotely Evil because you cannot stand the idea that part of you is Evil. Which brings to mind: this kind of characters create much more interesting crusaders than LG Paladins.

 

[Nightfall]

RageWitch is an excellent PrC for Barbarian / Sorcerers. It's in the Sword&Sorcery Player's Guides.

True, but Blessed of Mesos is way better and it's sorcerer only.

 

[Vrecknidj]

So, then, I ask you this:

1) Am I correct in my points, or have I overlooked some information which shows me to be in the wrong? Have your gaming experiences suggested that I am wrong, and sorcerers are not ill-treated in this regard?

2) If I am correct, can anyone suggest a reason why this might be?

3) If I am correct, does anyone have any ideas as to how this imbalance could be redressed?

Many thanks for your input!

1) Your points seem accurate; whether the judgments reached by them regarding prestige classes is correct remains to be seen (in part because it's a subjective position). In my campaign, there are two characters with sorcerer levels. One is a monk/rogue/fighter/sorcerer (crazy, yes). The other is a sorcerer/dragon disciple. This second character is one of the rare characters in that campaign that has taken any prestige class levels. That character, of course, is far better with a sorcerer background than with a wizard background.

2) I suggest that the sheer volume of spells that a sorcerer can cast in a day is such an advantage (though admittedly easy to overcome for a DM), that all the disadvantages you mention are built in. The sorcerer's drawbacks are, as far as I can tell, in the eye's of the designers, intended to be overcome by the number of spells per day that they can cast.

3) In my campaign, I give sorcerers an entirely different opening set of stuff. They do not automatically get a familiar and then they can choose two of several options (one of which is a familiar). These include: 6 skill points instead of 4, all the Charisma-based skills as class skills, the Eschew Materials feat for free, Darkvision 60', Endurance, Skill Focus, or Toughness.

This doesn't get at an answer to the qualifications for prestige classes that you ask though. If I were concerned about that issue, I'd just make up more prestige classes for which sorcerers were a natural fit.

Dave

 

[Joshua Randall]

The problem is not with sorcerers, it's with broken PrC's. PrC's that give full spellcasting and other abilities to wizards (or clerics for that matter) are too powerful. You give up nothing(*) and you get all sorts of goodies.

(*) Oh yeah, your familiar doesn't advance. Whoop-dee-doo.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Yes, sorcerers got short end of the stick and things haven't changed in 3.5 edition in any important issues. Whoohaa, couple of charisma based skills.

What comes to prestige classes, you are absolute right. Not only sorcerers get to join later (because of slower spell-progression and through no extra feats to put into feat requiments), they are mostly joining prestige classes geared for wizards if they want to have anything good. Which in this case reads full spell-progression, since for some reason, sorcerers prestige classes are made to give it from 5-7 levels, to futher slow down their already slow spell-progression.

Of course, with wizard-geared prestige classes, you better hope knowledge-skills don't include something more obscure than arcane knowledge

Epic rules treat them unfairly too, but epic rules are IMO un-needed anyway, expect for few monsters perhaps.

I've seen only two good prestige classes for sorcerers. Another one is that mentioned Blessed of Mesos from Scarred land player's book. And another one is Eldrich Master from old dragon magazine (by Monte Cook).

I think reason for this is, WotC never wanted sorcerers to steal wizards' favored caster-place (reason why psionists orginaly game of much worse). And people don't make good prestige classes for them, since any prestige class with full spell-progression would gain them more than just staying a base sorcerer, or likely so.

I don't say sorcerers as written coudn't be powerful as combat blasters, but they don't really outdo wizard's in that if DM handles the game as D&D books present it. Wizard can make scrolls, maybe pick craft wand (those extra feats help with that choice) and even get/make some pearls of power (which sorcerer can't use). Naturally there is more expensive item ring of wizardy.

Charisma is worse caster stat by far than int, unless you min-max your sorcerer as I do in Neverwinter Nights (it includes paladin levels after 20 sorcerer levels). It is double benefit for wizard to raise int, it doesn't only affect his spells, it also affect skills. And before 3.5 edition they didn't get even single social skill.

In four campaings houserules fixed sorcerer to be somewhat better. Yet people rather play wizards or perhaps pick socerer for multi-class, usually for background reason.

Only in game where DM doesn't let players almost never find or let alone purchase magic items, and lets them have no free time for item making (or requires obscure componets, and materials, not to mention in-game knowledge about how to make particular item), doesn't allow wizard to reseach spells before some high level at least, or regulary makes scenarios where wizards spell-book is stolen or destroyed. In those kind of games sorcerer might come of better, but only if DM doesn't make that class's time hard too.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

The problem is not with sorcerers, it's with broken PrC's. PrC's that give full spellcasting and other abilities to wizards (or clerics for that matter) are too powerful. You give up nothing(*) and you get all sorts of goodies.

(*) Oh yeah, your familiar doesn't advance. Whoop-dee-doo.

Powerful is not same as broken. If you prefer prestige classes to be something which always make casters worse in their art, sure there are many out there. Sure let's make all fighter prestige-classes give them cleric's BAB instead too. Yes that equals same thing, because you get to pick some good feats like improved critical or improved two-weapon fighting later, to mention few.

At least in games I play spell-casters aren't those dealing the most damage, unless it is all about fire-balling "the low-level grunts".

Almost every class for spontanious caster class however, get's that reduced spell-casting thing. That's IMO unfair, whatever you consider it broken or not. That point doesn't change the issue. Clerics and wizards get something sorcerers don't.

 

[apsuman]

Couple of things here.

In addition to the short spear, they also get the crossbow.

Sorcerers are better for multi class and the more the other class is not a spell casting type, the better.


Truestrike is great for any sorcerer/fighter or sorcerer/barbarian type. So is still spell for those pesky armor penalties. but even without still spell you often have so many spell slots and so few spells known that simply casting it at it's normal level and chancing the failure is not that bad.

Candle Caster, albeit hokey, is actually a better PRC for a sorcerer than a wizard.

Sorcerers get nothing as they advance except spells known, spells per day, and familiar abiities. Since they get nothing (ok familiar abilites) they lose nothing by choosing to go into a prc (sure that knowledgelanes ate up your skill points) but a wizard loses those bonus feats.

I really do agree with the premise that Sorcerers are balanced with wizards as core classes. I do however think that the designers should have done more to make the two different. And in making them different would have assuaged many of your concerns.

Here are some ideas:

Offer Sorcerers bonus feats (spell focus, eschew materians, meta magic, etc.) and offer wizards (mostly) different bonus feats (spell focus, item creation).

Give the sorcerers better skill points.

Give the sorcerers more skills.

Even if you do not give the wizards a different set of bonus feats, make a list of bonus feats for sorcerers. At level one they could choose: Eschew Materials, a familair, etc. Include in the bonus feats, extra spell (known), and extra spell slot.

If the delay in acquiring new spells bothers you, introduce a feat that allows sorcerers to know spells (and have spell slots) as if they were one level higher.

All this, imho.

 

[the Jester]

Imo, one of the reasons it takes sorcerers a lil longer to enter a prc is because they lose much less than a wizard (in the form of the wizard's bonus feats.)

 

[iwatt]

right now I gave the sorc in my party a d6 HD. This fit in well with the barbarian campaign I'm running (i.e everybodys got tons of hps). The guy playing him seems happy, and up till now (5th level) it hasn't become unbalancing. His familiar is a bit tougher than normal, but that's ok.