sorcerers

[amethal]

Isn't that in UA as well?

Bye
Thanee

No, UA bloodlines are completely different, and taking a UA bloodline as a sorcerer is probably the worst thing you could do to your character.

You can look up UA bloodlines here :-

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm

On the other hand, the penumbra bloodline from Dragon 325 looks very attractive as two of its bonus spells are shadow evocation and greater shadow evocation.

I just hate the idea of not being able to cast any light spells (the "cost" of the bloodline) as my first party was convinced for a long time that the only spells my sorcerer had were sleep, detect magic and light. The mighty sorcerer being reduced to getting out the tinderbox and candles wouldn't have been the same.

Still, if we are using Dragon, then never mind bloodlines. I want a load of knowstones!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok, then Wizards win.

If the fact that they can scribe scrolls means that you automatically assume that they have dozens of scrolls on hand for every occasion automatically, then they have the most flexibility and versatility.

I've never seen someone who could afford to spend the time/money to do that, but in theory, it's possible to create a scroll of every spell you have so that you'll always have it on hand.
- so Wizards beat Sorcerers in usefullness because the Wizard comes with Scribe Scroll and the Sorcerer doesn't automatically have it.

Strangely enough, it's not the Wizards casting ability, but the fact that they can scribe as many scrolls as they would like in theory

Every wizard I've ever played or seen played had most if not all of his spells on scrolls, aside from the ones that are more useful to have prepared because they scale with level and scribing them at higher levels is more trouble and expense than it's worth. This isn't "in theory". It's actually quite cheap and easy for a wizard to keep a single scroll of each of his utility spells. You don't need dozens of scrolls. You just need to make sure you've got the scrolls you're going to need.

Besides, the wizard's spells per day is usually approximately equal to the sorcerer's spells known. Even without the scrolls, he has the opportunity to always duplicate the sorcerer's spells known list in his prepared spells. In that case, the only difference between the wizard and the sorcerer would be the number of times each of these spells could be cast. That's the bottom line. The sorcerer has an advantage in volume, while the wizard has an advantage in being able to access spells.

But come on, now. If we're going to compare the wizard and the sorcerer beside one another, bonus feats and other class abilities that modify their ability to cast spells are going to come into play. If the question is whether sorcerers and wizards are balanced against each other, their spellcasting abilities in a vacuum aren't going to tell us the whole story. Hell, whether or not the DM allows hedgehog familiars is going to potentially make a difference in relative power level, so bonus feats sure as hell will too.

Ok, then Wizards win.

You seem to think I'm trying to argue that the wizard is better than the sorcerer. I'm not. I'm explaining that the wizard is more flexible than the sorcerer, while the sorcerer wins at being able to whip off a large quantity of the same limited list of spells. I'm actually quite fond of sorcerers as written. I modify them because I want them to be a certain way, i.e. thematic, not because I think they're horribly underpowered. I do think they're slighly underpowered compared to wizards, but that has to do with the spellbook being such a terrible drawback mechanic, which we've already covered in this thread. Incidentally, if a wizard spends two or three of his bonus feats on Spell Mastery, I think they're about equal. But I hate Spell Mastery, and would rather just leave the damn books alone unless the player does something really stupid with them, instead giving bonus feats to the sorcerer in order to level the playing field.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I was attempting to show that Sorcerers can shine in normal day to day use because of their flexibility.

And what you demonstrated was that spell selection is key, but the sorcerer's ability to cast a large volume of spells is great if those are the spells you need to cast in order to bypass a danger. Which is essentially what I've been saying is the sorcerer's advantage: volume. He's the wholesaler of arcane magic.

The thing with the Wizard... any spell selections you make are poor in hindsight if other spells would have been a better choice. And we wern't playing in some "Scrolls Unlimited" campaign were Wizards had scrolls flowing out of their robes because they had the ability to make them. The wizard was spending his money on other things and we didn't have a whole lot of downtime.

Ah, strawmen... In my last campaign, we had downtime about once every adventure or two adventures. I never had any problem saying "I scribe a bunch of scrolls during downtime." Sorry to disrupt your sarcasm, but it was hardly "scrolls unlimited." If your DM isn't allowing downtime, he's denying the wizard access to his class feature, which requires downtime. Nothing wrong with that style of play, but it must be taken into account that it hobbles the wizard to lose out like that, so of course in that kind of campaign a sorcerer will have an advantage.

Thats the only point anyone pro-sorcerer has been trying to make. The Sorcerer is Flexible in their casting method because they don't need to choose spells.

It is not because they don't choose spells that they are flexible. It's because they can keep casting those spells that they didn't get to choose. That's a key difference. Being limited is not an advantage. Being tenacious is. This is the whole point I've been arguing. It's not that the sorcerer doesn't need to choose spells, but that he is not able to choose spells. That's a disadvantage. It's made up for by the spontaneous casting mechanic. But it does not make the sorcerer more capable of dealing with different situations, as people like to claim. It makes him more capable of dealing with a certain set of situations than the wizard would be with the same spell selection, because the wizard will run out of slots first. The wizard is more likely to have a Leomund's Secure Shelter on a scroll (or even prepared, if he uses it often enough), but he's less likely to be able to Dimension Door three times in one combat.

And we're comparing mechanics, not player minds. Not everyone will be the all knowing Doc Akward with (real world) magic vision to be prepared for everything.

Look, can you lose the attitude please? It's starting to get annoying, and it's childish. If there were any more sarcasm dripping from your posts I'd have to put a towel under my monitor to soak it up.

Also, my name is spelled Awkward.

And, to actually address this point, if we're not comparing "player minds" then we're not comparing spell selection. If we're not comparing spell selection, then all we can do is count spells known and spells per day and compare them side by side, and that'll be a pretty damn empty comparison, don't you think? The wizard's spellcasting mechanic relies on careful spell selection anyway, and the sorcerer's spells known requires planning and synergy. The wizard's Scribe Scroll ability makes up for a lot in spell selection as "the backup plan" when the day's selected spells turn out to be suboptimal. Not that I have seen many wizards who don't use most if not all of their spells each day (again, until about level 7 or 10, when they wind up with more slots than they seem to actually need...which gives them greater ability to duplicate spells or leave slots open).

Spell selection is very important for both classes, and the effectiveness of the character will depend to a great degree on his spell selection. My argument is that because wizards have a larger repertoire and can change their spells known every day (or multiple times during a day), and have backup methods of accessing spells, they are less affected by the demands of spell selection, therefore making spell selection a factor when comparing the two classes.

 

[KarinsDad]

Every wizard I've ever played or seen played had most if not all of his spells on scrolls, aside from the ones that are more useful to have prepared because they scale with level and scribing them at higher levels is more trouble and expense than it's worth. This isn't "in theory". It's actually quite cheap and easy for a wizard to keep a single scroll of each of his utility spells. You don't need dozens of scrolls. You just need to make sure you've got the scrolls you're going to need.

Every sorcerer I've ever played or seen played had most if not all of the spells he wanted on scrolls, aside from the ones that he could cast because they scale with level and having them scribed at higher levels is more trouble and expense than it's worth. This isn't "in theory". It's actually quite cheap (when you factor in not having to pay for spellbooks) and easy for a sorcerer to keep a single scroll of each of the utility spells he wants. You don't need dozens of scrolls. You just need to make sure you've got the scrolls you're going to need.


What's your point?

That Sorcerers are actually more versatile as well as flexible?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Every sorcerer I've ever played or seen played had most if not all of the spells he wanted on scrolls, aside from the ones that he could cast because they scale with level and having them scribed at higher levels is more trouble and expense than it's worth. This isn't "in theory". It's actually quite cheap (when you factor in not having to pay for spellbooks) and easy for a sorcerer to keep a single scroll of each of the utility spells he wants. You don't need dozens of scrolls. You just need to make sure you've got the scrolls you're going to need.


What's your point?

That Sorcerers are actually more versatile as well as flexible?

My point is that you don't have to be some kind of psychic in order to know which spells you're going to need, as Denaes seems to suggest. Read my post in the context of the quoted text above it and it should be clear.

 

[KarinsDad]

My point is that you don't have to be some kind of psychic in order to know which spells you're going to need, as Denaes seems to suggest. Read my post in the context of the quoted text above it and it should be clear.

No, your point is that you will ignore the logic that refutes your position.

The fact is that Sorcerers should be able to acquire scrolls just like Wizards should be able to acquire the components to scribe scrolls.

One should not be rare and the other common.

Hence, for the same money that Wizards are using to scribe scrolls and put spells in their books, Sorcerers should be able to find/purchase scrolls that they want.

If you are going to play the "scribe scroll" card for Wizards, you have to also play the "purchase scroll" card for Sorcerers. Granted, a given DM might make it difficult for a Sorcerer to do this, but a fair and equitable DM will make it about as difficult for a Sorcerer to acquire scrolls as it is for a Wizard to acquire the material components required to scribe scrolls. In fact, it should be easier to acquire scrolls due to the vast amounts of money to be made by NPC Wizards willing to scribe scrolls. That should be a very lucrative business.

In a fairly equitable game, this makes Sorcerers nearly as versatile as Wizards and actually makes them more powerful overall in many ways.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact that you have ignored it since it disagrees with your philosophy on the subject, when it was mentioned several times now in this thread, does not make it invalid. It just means that you are ignoring it.

You have repeatedly stated your opinion that Wizards should have scrolls to shore up their weaknesses, but you ignore the fact that Sorcerers should have scrolls to shore up their weaknesses. That is faulty logic.

 

[Denaes]

My point is that you don't have to be some kind of psychic in order to know which spells you're going to need, as Denaes seems to suggest. Read my post in the context of the quoted text above it and it should be clear.

You just need to be psychic to know exactly which spells and in what numbers you'll need to the next day to make you more flexible than the Sorcerer who doesn't have to think about it.

 

[Zimbel]

Sor vs Wiz

Personally, I've played a Sorcerer at LV 4,8-20. I've played a Wizard at LV 8-9, alongside a sorcerer.

My perception:
1) In the game where I played a Wizard, my perception was that at those levels, the Wizard was slightly weaker on average than the sorcerer. Usually, in one encounter/day, the Wizard would be stronger. The rest of the encouters, the Sorcerer would usually be stronger. I admit that some of this was my Wizard deliberately choosing spells to reduce the overlap between the casters.
2) I find it very strange that there is little mention of what I think is one of the Wizard's great strengths - magic item creation. They are probably the best class for creating magic items, and around LV 9-10, (since many will spend a lot early on on a Blessed Book) having the feats (and, likely the spells) to create most of your own magic items is really nice - it effectively nearly doubles your wealth. Furthermore, if your DM is using the 3.5 XP methods, you won't be hurting for long in level, either.
3) I find the Wizard's versitility nice, but perhaps not as nice as some Wizard advocates make it out to be. I find it primarily useful for non-time sensative situations (i.e. getting between adventures, temporary housing, etc). The realilty is that for the vast majority of spell levels, there are 4 spells that I'm interested in 90% of the time. Sorcerers eventually will get at least 3 of them.

Changes I think should be made to the classes:
1) I think that both classes should get 1d6 HP.
2) I'd give the wizard 3 free spells (instead of 2) on each "even" level - I think that their versitility should be pumped up slightly for campaigns where buying scrolls or obtaining access to spellbooks is difficult.
3) I'd pump up the familiar's power (at least their defensive power). Giving them 2/3 to 3/4 of the spellcaster's HP would help significantly.
4) I'd weaken the high-level spells (actually, this is a comment for Clerics, Druids, and Psions as well).
5) I'd give the Sorcerer more Cha-based class skills. Diplomacy and Intimidate come to mind.
6) I'd make Wizard spell book copying/recovery substantially cheaper.

 

[Felix]

Sorcerer is not flexible

Ok. A fourth level sorcer and a fourth level wizard.

Sorc's spells known are:

6/3/1
Read Magic
Detect Magic
Prestidigitation
Ghost Sound
Message
Mage Hand

Magic Missile
Disguise Self
Protection from Evil

Invisibility

Sorc's spells per day are:
6/7/3 (7 because Sorc needs at least a 12 CHA to cast 2nd level spells)

Flexible:
Responsive to change, adaptable

Ok, now... these are some of the combinations of spells a sorc can cast on a given day:
3 Prestidigitations
2 Detect Magics
1 Read Magic

4 Magic Missiles
3 Protection from Evils

3 Invisibilities

or...

2 Ghost Sound
2 Mage Hand
1 Prestidigitation

2 Disguise Selfs
1 Protection from Evils
2 Magic Missiles

2 Invisibilities
1 [Silent] Magic Missile

or...
or...
or...
or...
ad nauseum.

The wizard has this many spells per day.
4/4/2 (4 1st levels because of a minimum 12 INT)

The wizard gets all cantrips, 3+INT 1st level spells, 2 more 1st levels, and 4 2nd levels.

As soon as the wizard memorizes his spells for the day, he only has one possible selection of spells for that day. Thus, the wizard is not too adaptable. Not repsonsive to a changed environment.

Within any given day, the sorcerer is more flexible.
Over time, the wizard is more flexible.

The question then becomes, what do you need more? The ability to meet challenges that you know ahead of time? Or challenges that come upon you unawares?

 

[Zimbel]

As soon as the wizard memorizes his spells for the day, he only has one possible selection of spells for that day. Thus, the wizard is not too adaptable. Not repsonsive to a changed environment.

Minor nit-pick: every Wizard I've played will often deliberately leave 1-2 slots free, to help adapt for the day (although obviously not for a particular encounter, unless known ahead of time).