sorcerers

[Merlion]

No, it smacks of common sense.

Every enemy of a Wizard in the entire campaign should target his spell books.

To do otherwise is the height of idiocy in the name of being "politically correct" at the gaming table.

That does not mean that enemies should always succeed, it just means that the Wizard should be forced to take precautions.

Spoon feeding your players by not attacking the PC Wizard's spellbooks is weak.

Just like PCs not attacking the NPC Wizard's spellbooks is weak.


Does it make sense to you to NOT target an enemies weakness? What is so special about Wizards in this regard?

The fact that they are the only class...the only anything really...with such a weakness.

If you are going to frequently make use of this, you should build something similar into the other classes.

If you take a Fighter's sword, he is not negated because 1) he probably has another weapon and 2) he can just pick up another sword and wield it just as well.

All the other spellcasters do not have such a requirement for their magic.


Its not like a regular weakness. Its a unique to the Wizard class glaring cheap easy way to completely destroy a person's character without actually killing them.

And its really there mostly for flavour. So to me doing this...especially with any frequency...is usualy just going to be because you dont like Wizards or you dont like the player playing the wizard.


My overall point was that because of this, to me its not a big point of relevency to the Sorcerer/Wizard debate, because 1) its basically a design flaw and 2) the use of it as anything other than a plot device, to me at least is a sign of problems.



Getting back on the actual topic..

I'm not claiming Sorcerer superiority over Wizards by any means, just that they have their advantages over Wizards and Wizards have other advantages

This is true, but overall the Wizard has more and greater advantages. Basically, a Sorcerer who knows a niche spell will be at a bit of an advantage over a wizard because they can access it at any time.

But the idea that Sorcerers are going to be able to access more spells at any given time, spontaneously, than Wizards is simply incorect. A Wizard can generally prepare at any given time as many or more spells of a given level than a Sorcerer knows

 

[KarinsDad]

The fact that they are the only class...the only anything really...with such a weakness.

If you are going to frequently make use of this, you should build something similar into the other classes.

If you take a Fighter's sword, he is not negated because 1) he probably has another weapon and 2) he can just pick up another sword and wield it just as well.

Not necessary. The other classes already have weaknesses built in, you just are not looking.

For example, in our game last week, the Dwarven Spellsword with an adamantine maul got hit with a Greater Mage Hand where the enemy was going to send his maul through a magical portal and deprive him of it (and even if he would have gone after it, it was a one way portal and he would not be coming back).

Even though the Dwarf has backup weapons, that would effectively halve the amount of damage he does per round and seriously cripple his offensive capability.

Fortunately for the Dwarf, he made his saving throw.


Every class has weaknesses. Sorcerers and Wizards have low hit points. It is easy to whale on them.

Fighters, typically, have low Reflex and Will saves.

Etc.

You want to weaken a Sorcerer? Either take away his spell component bag or hit him with multiple Ego Whips.

Ego Whip doesn't do much against a Wizard unless you hit him enough times to send his CHA to zero. But, even one Ego Whip can be pretty devastating against a Sorcerer.


All classes have weaknesses, you just have to look for them.

 

[Merlion]

Not necessary. The other classes already have weaknesses built in, you just are not looking

And you are not looking at what I am saying.


I never said Wizards are the only class with weaknesses. And I never said their spellbook was their only weakness.


I said no other class has a weakness like how the spellbook can be used as one. A Wizard with no spellbook is more or less negated .


No other class has a weakness that does this, and certainlly not as easily.

Even though the Dwarf has backup weapons, that would effectively halve the amount of damage he does per round and seriously cripple his offensive capability

Cripple, not negate.

Fighters, typically, have low Reflex and Will saves

Yes. So they are more vulnerable to certain things than some other classes.


But a Wizard having their spellbook taken away isnt a thing that they are more vulnerable to than others. Its a unique "off switch" that completely ruins their ability to contribute.




However, none of this has much to do with the topic. My point still remains...I do not see this as a big factor in the Wizard/Sorcerer debate, because it is something that should not be as it is, and should mostly be ignored except perhaps as part of the plot. Unless you plan to attach an "off switch" to all the other classes. Not a vulnerability or a weakness, but a form of negation.

 

[Denaes]

I'm not claiming Sorcerer superiority over Wizards by any means, just that they have their advantages over Wizards and Wizards have other advantages

This is true, but overall the Wizard has more and greater advantages. Basically, a Sorcerer who knows a niche spell will be at a bit of an advantage over a wizard because they can access it at any time.

You think the Wizard has more and greater advantages because you are more predisposed to them. That is entirely subjective as to which advantages are better.

Both classes have numerous advantages that the other doesn't and overall they pretty much even out. Maybe in one GMs game or players/groups hands, some will be more important while in another GMs game or players/groups hands those same advantages arn't that snazzy.

But the idea that Sorcerers are going to be able to access more spells at any given time, spontaneously, than Wizards is simply incorect. A Wizard can generally prepare at any given time as many or more spells of a given level than a Sorcerer knows

Yes they can. that is an advantage. A disadvantage is when they can't use 75% of those spells because they dipped their does into everything and specific circumstances don't come up.

Charm Person is a great spell, but it's useless without people to charm, let alone people you want to charm. On the other hand, Charm Person is useless if you need to charm someone and you don't have it prepared. Even if you choose the right spell at the right time, what if you don't have the right number? You have to charm 3 people?

Thats a big disadvantage with Wizards - if they don't know specifically what to prepare for, they're taking a huge gamble with wasting spell slots on spells you won't need.

It's not the end of the world and doesn't make them poor choices. It's just a tradeoff. Less versatility in play for potentially more versatility in preparation. This is a tradeoff I struggled with when making my last sorcerer. Overall I went with the Sorcerer in that case. Other times the Wizard in me has one out.

Sometimes it can be very important to be able to learn that one spell to solve a problem. Sometimes it means nothing. Sometimes it's more handy, Sorcerer or Wizard, to have a bundle of scrolls to cover spells they don't have or don't have prepared.

Many of the Wizard/Sorcerer lovers are first to jump up with specific instances they're better suited and the other is worse suited.

 

[KarinsDad]

And you are not looking at what I am saying.

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree that for an intelligently run Wizard, that this is the be all end all problem that you are ballooning it up to be.

I never said Wizards are the only class with weaknesses. And I never said their spellbook was their only weakness.


I said no other class has a weakness like how the spellbook can be used as one. A Wizard with no spellbook is more or less negated .

I've run Wizards that lost their spellbooks and my characters were not negated.

If you are going to play a PC with an Int of 14 or higher, you had better play him smart.

Spare spell books.

Hidden spell books.

Protected spell books.

Scrolls.

Wands.

Staves.

Potions.

Etc., etc., etc.


If you carry around a single spellbook and it gets lost, stolen, or destroyed, then the problem is with the player of the high Int Wizard not playing his character smart, not in the Wizard class itself.


If a Fighter is way out in the wilderness and encounters a Rust Monster and loses his armor, shield, and/or weapons, he is not negated either. It might take him a while to recover his loses, but he is still at a serious disadvantage.

No different than the Wizard who loses some or all of his spell books. Disadvantaged, not negated.


A naked Fighter is probably in more trouble than a naked Wizard who has Teleport memorized.

 

[Denaes]

However, none of this has much to do with the topic. My point still remains...I do not see this as a big factor in the Wizard/Sorcerer debate, because it is something that should not be as it is, and should mostly be ignored except perhaps as part of the plot. Unless you plan to attach an "off switch" to all the other classes. Not a vulnerability or a weakness, but a form of negation.

So you're saying that if you ignore one of the Wizards greatest weaknesses because it's to harsh, then Wizards have far more good abilities over the Sorcerer and less drawbacks.

Just coudn't resist that.

Yeah, if we're doing a wishlist, I think the Sorcerers known spells should be modified by another stat like Wis or Int or something to give them extra known spells above what is standard.

 

[Jdvn1]

That's a pretty big assumption that the wizard actually gets all those spells. Sure, he gets two 9th level spells at 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th, but that's still only 8 spells, compared to the Sorcerer's 3. To be fair, you should deck out the sorcerer with all the loot he can buy with the money he hasn't spent buying scrolls from other greedy archmages or ransoming his soul for with powerful fiends.

Eight spells to three is more than double. And the Wizard at least has the option for diversity, which is hugely beneficial. Sure, a Sorcerer can be really powerful if you trick him out with items, but chances are his diversity (and, thus, in my opinion, usefulness) won't match up to a Wizard's.

Wizards make better crafters, but that takes time. And they have to prepare their metamagic ahead of time, or see what it is they need, then spend 15 minutes to get it. Meanwhile, the sorcerer spends one full round action to metamagic any spell in his repitoire.

Typically, you know what most of your spells are going to be ahead of time, and you know what your metamagicked spells are going to be ahead of time. Those few empty slots are for "if you really need it." Having to spend a full round every time you want to metamagic a spell really hurts, though. It's not unbalancing compared to a Wizard, but it is a huge factor.

Which will cost the Wizard another large boodle of cash, which the sorc is spending on something else that the wizard doesn't have.

But the Sorc can't spend it on spell diversity to the extent a Wizard can. I think that's what it comes down to.

Often in a high level game, 1st level spells arn't necessary, but they're still there, they're still nice to have, and they're darned appreciated when they are called for. Same goes for the Sorc's multiplicity of spells.

Same goes for diversity of spells. In my experience, spell diversity is more useful more often than multiplicity of spells at higher levels.

Dimension Door or Teleport to the other side?

8 times. And that's no joke. It takes a wizard what, about 7 rounds to take down a Prismatic Wall -- if he has all those spells memorized. (I never did prepare Gust of Wind on a regular basis) So the sorc can jump back and forth 4 times before the wizard would have taken it down. That'll get most parties through the wall just fine, although scenarios can be contrived where it won't.

Go ahead. Dim Door or Teleport your party over. Done? Cool, you're out of 4th or 5th level spells for the rest of the day. Meanwhile, the Wizard spent 4 of those 7 rounds casting 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells. And I can have a city go through the passage now, instead of just a party.

Oh, and we can exit too.

But maybe I'm just used to big parties.

Jdyn1, all the spells that a wizard has at his disposal are very useful, when he has them memorized. And when he doesn't, and when he also doesn't have an open slot to spend 15 minutes to fill with the exact right spell, all that spell flexibility counts for bubkis.

The number of spells a Sorcerer can cast can be useful, but if he doesn't have the right spell, all that multiplicity counts for bubkis.

The decider on the wizard v sorcerer question is how the DM manages the challenges.
Do you have time to prep? -- The wizard is superior.
Do you "oh my god castsomethingNOW!" -- The sorcerer has the advantage.

And if you have a DM that does half and half, well, then they're about even in the long run.

I've only seen a Wizard in any of my parties run out of spells once (I've never seen them get close to running out of spells at higher levels). It doesn't happen a lot if he knows what he's doing. Sometimes you have to be creative to make your spells useful, but a Wizard has a spell for almost any occasion.

I do think it balances out in the long run, but because Sorcerers are a bit better at earlier levels and Wizards are a bit better at higher levels. As I said originally.

 

[Merlion]

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree that for an intelligently run Wizard, that this is the be all end all problem that you are ballooning it up to be.



I've run Wizards that lost their spellbooks and my characters were not negated.

If you are going to play a PC with an Int of 14 or higher, you had better play him smart.

Spare spell books.

Hidden spell books.

Protected spell books.

Scrolls.

Wands.

Staves.

Potions.

Etc., etc., etc.


If you carry around a single spellbook and it gets lost, stolen, or destroyed, then the problem is with the player of the high Int Wizard not playing his character smart, not in the Wizard class itself.


If a Fighter is way out in the wilderness and encounters a Rust Monster and loses his armor, shield, and/or weapons, he is not negated either. It might take him a while to recover his loses, but he is still at a serious disadvantage.

No different than the Wizard who loses some or all of his spell books. Disadvantaged, not negated.


A naked Fighter is probably in more trouble than a naked Wizard who has Teleport memorized.

This isnt what this thread is about. I have stated my opinion, and the facts are self evident. Once a wizard expends his prepared spells, until he gets a new spellbook he cannot prepare anymore. And reconstructing an entire spell book is a bit more diffacult and complicated than aqquiring a new sword.

I basically disagree with using tactics that remove a characters ability to function as their character type entirely, and I think the Wizard spellbook dependency...and the ease of depriving them of it, are examples of very poor design.


I am not saying anything further on that topic, as it has little or nothing to do with the point of the thread. Especially since if its as easy as you say to protect your spellbook, than it really isnt a weakness and therefore is not a disadvantage of the Wizard toward the sorcerer anyway.

Yeah, if we're doing a wishlist, I think the Sorcerers known spells should be modified by another stat like Wis or Int or something to give them extra known spells above what is standard

Mechanically, that would help. Thematically and overall tho the class would still just basically be a variant wizard.

I'd like to see them get some additional class abilities. They are always going on about the "dragon blood" thing with sorcerers. I say make up some bloodlines that grant some useful but not too powerful abilities that Sorcerers gain as they level, and affect their spell list, to make the Sorcerer meaningfully different from the wizard, and make up for their lack of magical versatility.

 

[Jdvn1]

This is the balancing factor between the Wizard & Sorcerer and obviously your preference.

The Wizards get higher level spells, they're able to learn more spells in general, but their casting slots are spread thinner.

Maybe you have fewer of particular spells, but each slot is just as useful.

Most definately if a wizard had a day to prepare for a specific situation, they would be better suited. Most likely they would have dozens more spells to choose from and they could memorize spells that they would never have memorized on an average day.

Sorcerers have their other advantages, like being able to cast spells whenever they like, no matter what spell. If they have a slot and know the spell, they can cast it. They don't have to worry about prioritizing their spells or making awful memorization picks.

With a little practice and experience, bad memorization picks aren't an issue.

I don't think a game has gone by where the Wizard of the group has said something like "wow, if only I had that one spell memorized" or "If we wait around for a day I can cast a spell suited just for that situation".

I don't think a game has gone by where the Sorcerer of the group has said, "Oh, I don't have that spell" or "We'd have to go back to town to find a scroll of it."

Wha!? Dude, speak for yourself. I wouldn't take combat spells over utility spells in most cases. Define useful yourself. Sorcerers are the equivilent of Wizards because of their great spontanious versatility, not because they're damage jockeys. Heck, they're equal because they don't have to choose between the two. They can just use utility or combat spells as needed.

Your Sorcerers take Gust of Wind, Passwall, and Daylight? I haven't seen that myself, but that's interesting. I might argue there are better spells for a Sorcerer to take, but that's kind of moot.

You can choose to play your Sorcerer, just like other characters, different ways. Don't judge the class on how specific people play it or against a specific standard. It's all about the overall general utility of the class.

Very true. I haven't seen any utility (non-combat spells) Sorcerers, though. That's just me.

 

[Denaes]

This isnt what this thread is about. I have stated my opinion, and the facts are self evident. Once a wizard expends his prepared spells, until he gets a new spellbook he cannot prepare anymore. And reconstructing an entire spell book is a bit more diffacult and complicated than aqquiring a new sword.

Comparing the Eiffel Tower to a peasants house.

Yeah, it's hard to rebuild a 15th level Wizards spellbook exactly as it was. But you're comparing that with walking into a store and buying a new sword!?

Keep the comparisons appropriate and even:

Starting Spellbook == Sword at a blacksmiths shoppe.

15th Level Spellbook == Mighty magical sword that does something that the warrior enjoys.

It's not easy to replace Smurfsbaine - the sword that the fighter has lovingly weilded for the last 20 sessions. He might have to weild a lesser sword and go on a quest to get a replacement sword or chase down the theives.

Getting a new spellbook is about as hard as beating a wizard and picking up his book. He may not have the variety and spells you had, but he's got - err... had - some spells and a book.

Also note that you're mechanically sheltered with a certain amount of spells. It's a class ability that you gain a spell or two per level, so the GM is obligated to get those back to you. It might be a plot point to loose the book, but he's got to get something in your hands.

Same goes with all the class abilities for every class. you can take something away for a plot point, but you're going against the spirit of the game if you don't return it or give something to make up for it until then.