sorcerers

[Thanee]

6) I'd make Wizard spell book copying/recovery substantially cheaper.

That's something I do in all D&D games. Wizards can scribe spells for 1/10th of the given cost. It's completely ridiculous how expensive that nonmagical writing is (a magical scroll costs less than copying the same spell into the spellbook, at least for the lower spell levels).

Also, there is absolutely no balance reason to hinder wizards from learning many spells.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zimbel]

Spellbooks

That's something I do in all D&D games. Wizards can scribe spells for 1/10th of the given cost. It's completely ridiculous how expensive that nonmagical writing is (a magical scroll costs less than copying the same spell into the spellbook, at least for the lower spell levels).

Also, there is absolutely no balance reason to hinder wizards from learning many spells.

Bye
Thanee

I agree with you, although my original comment was focusing on the second and further copies, rather than the original. I'd even go further, and state that if you hinder a Wizard from getting a reasonable spell selection (say, at least 6 spells/ spell level), then a Sorcerer is more powerful at most levels, unless you're also playing an (otherwise) high-wealth game.

Of course, the "horrible" side effect of your recomendation is that not every mid-level Wizard will have a Blessed Book (unless, of course, you reduce its cost as well).

 

[Thanee]

Heh. My wizards tend to have more like 20-30 spells of every spell level (even with normal rules). I wouldn't want to play one with just 6.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felix]

every Wizard I've played will often deliberately leave 1-2 slots free

Including the wizards I play myself.

This does however, introduce the problem of reducing the number of spells available for the wizard to cast when he runs into a problem he didn't predict.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

Drop the slander. It's unbecoming, and contrary to the forum rules.

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.

Sure. Sorcerers can spend a fortune on buying all the scrolls they like. But wizards get them for half price based on a class ability. I never said that sorcerers shouldn't/couldn't buy scrolls. They should...at least until they can get hold of staves, which are generally superior. But it's much more expensive for them to do so.

Wizards have a class ability that lets them get the most out of their large spell repertoire by having backup spells for cheap. This is not something to be ignored.

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.

So you're saying it should be easier to buy scrolls than to buy materials to make scrolls, because so many people are making scrolls? Where are they getting their materials from, then? Wouldn't a shortage of scroll-making materials drive up the price of scrolls so that it becomes prohibitive, causing a lack of demand, causing many to drop out of the scroll-producing market, alleviating the demand on scroll-making materials, and making them easier to buy than scrolls? Something funny going on there, I think.

And yeah, it's a lucrative business. You make twice what you put into it, as long as you go kill some goblins every once in a while to keep the XP flowing.

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.

I did not and am not ignoring it. It simply costs double for sorcerers what it does for wizards, which is not a minor issue. If a sorcerer is awarded twice the gp of the wizard, then they have equal access to scrolls, and then the wizard is no longer more capable of dealing with unforseen circumstances. But this isn't the case.

And yes, I know it costs money to add spells to your spellbook. 100 gp/page, plus the cost of the scroll, if any. However, this is a one-time "startup" cost, and afterwards the wizard can prepare or scribe the spell as often as he pleases. This cost is absorbed to some extent over time, dwarfed by the geometrically escalating treasure charts. Entrepreneurial wizards will also try to recoup some of that loss by charging to allow other wizards to copy their spellbooks for 50 gp/spell level. Another good wizard cottage industry that doesn't even cost XP.

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.

I like the way that it's only my opinion that wizards should make scrolls using their class feature, but it's a fact that sorcerers should have scrolls. That's a funny one.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. Sorcerers can spend a fortune on buying all the scrolls they like. But wizards get them for half price based on a class ability. I never said that sorcerers shouldn't/couldn't buy scrolls. They should...at least until they can get hold of staves, which are generally superior. But it's much more expensive for them to do so.

Wizards have a class ability that lets them get the most out of their large spell repertoire by having backup spells for cheap. This is not something to be ignored.

It is obvious that you haven't actually looked at the math and hence the reason you mistakenly view it the way you do.


After first level, Wizards get two spells per level. All of other spells have to be either purchased or found.

If a Wizard purchases a spell, how much does it cost?

Well minimally, it costs the same as a scroll of that spell (25 GP * spell level * minimum caster level). Or, it could alternatively cost 50 GP times spell level as per page 179 of the PHB. This latter method of payment seems odd though since starting at third level spells, an NPC Wizard could make a lot more money selling scrolls than letting someone copy out of his book for the same level spell (yet another area where the economics in the game is broken). But in either case, it costs money to acquire the spell.

It then costs money to put the spell in his spellbook (100 GP * spell level).

So for each spell at each spell level a Wizard purchases beyond his two automatically gained per level, it minimally costs:

1, 25 GP (via scroll) + 100 GP = 125 GP
2, 100 GP (via NPC) + 200 GP = 300 GP
3, 150 GP (via NPC) + 300 GP = 450 GP
4, 600 GP
5, 750 GP
6, 900 GP
7, 1050 GP
8, 1200 GP
9, 1350 GP

Each scroll for the Wizard costs (assuming no expensive material components):

1, 12.5 GP
2, 75 GP
3, 187.5 GP
4, 350 GP
5, 562.5 GP
6, 825 GP
7, 1137.5 GP
8, 1500 GP
9, 1912.5 GP

Each scroll for the Sorcerer costs (again assuming no expensive material components):

1, 25 GP
2, 150 GP
3, 375 GP
4, 700 GP
5, 1125 GP
6, 1650 GP
7, 2275 GP
8, 3000 GP
9, 3825 GP

Now, it is a safe assumption that the Wizard will most often pick his free spells as ones which he will study a lot and more rarely make scrolls of those. He would more often make and use scrolls of his lesser studied spells that he acquires in other ways. The very first scroll that he ever makes if he purchases the spell (as opposed to finding it) at each spell level costs:

1, 137.5 GP
2, 375 GP
3, 637.5 GP
4, 950 GP
5, 1312.5 GP
6, 1725 GP
7, 2187.5 GP
8, 2700 GP
9, 3262.5 GP

It costs even more if the DM forces the Wizard to buy a scroll of the given spell. In that case, he would have to scribe the spell twice, just to break even with what it costs the Sorcerer to purchase the scroll twice. And, he would have to do this for every single spell he purchases, even those he rarely would scribe into scrolls.

As can be seen above, it isn't until 7th level scrolls that it costs the Wizard less to scribe his first scroll than it does the Sorcerer to purchase his first scroll of the same level.


Now, what happens if he finds the spell on a scroll or a spellbook. On the surface, it would appear that this is where he starts saving money over the Sorcerer.

Well, not usually.

There are several factors here:

1) If the Wizard finds the spell on a scroll, he has to expend the scroll in order to put it into his spellbook. So, it costs him 100 GP * spell level to get it into his spellbook. As an example, the Wizard is -300 GP in this case and has zero scroll whereas the Sorcerer is 0 GP and has one scroll. The Wizard would then have to scribe four scrolls, and the Sorcerer would have to purchase three in order for both of them to have four scrolls and the Wizard to pay less money (1050 GP vs. 1125 GP). If the Wizard scribes fewer than four 3rd level scrolls, the advantage in savings goes to the Sorcerer (and this applies to every 3rd level scroll found which the Wizard did not have in his repetoire).

2) If the Wizard finds a new spell in a spellbook, he again has to spell 100 GP * spell level to get it into his spellbook. He again is behind the eight ball in expenses before he even starts.

Now, what does a Wizard do with those spellbooks he finds. Well, he could sell some of them, but so would the Sorcerer. No advantage in cash for the Wizard there.

However, he would keep SOME of the spellbooks he finds in order to have caches of spellbooks where he could replace his own spellbooks if they get lost or destroyed.

And this is a MAJOR factor that you are totally forgetting and why the scroll GP math is really in the advantage of the Sorcerer.

The Sorcerer will sell every book he finds. The Wizard (if he is truly being played intelligently) will only sell books where most or all of the spells are duplicated in other books that he owns. If a given book has multiple unique spells that are not in any of his other books, it is STUPID for him to sell that book.

It is better for the Wizard to keep those books unless it is only a few spells where it is more advantageous to copy those spells into a set of spare spell books (which again costs 100 GP * spell level a SECOND time) and then sell the book.

And at a certain level, it is better for both the Wizard and the Sorcerer to craft/buy/find wands and then staffs, and scrolls start becoming less significant anyway.


So, what is the bottom line?

Wizard spends:

100 GP * spell level to put a new spell into his books
100 GP * spell level to put a new spell into a backup book
100 GP * spell level to purchase a new spell
25 GP * spell level * caster level / 2 to scribe a scroll PLUS spell level * caster level XP

Wizard acquires:

50 GP * each spell level in books he sells, but he does not sell all of the books


Sorcerer spends:

25 GP * spell level * caster level to purchase a scroll

Sorcerer acquires:

50 GP * each spell level in books he sells, but he sells every book he finds


A single found spellbook can buy a Sorcerer dozens of scrolls whereas the Wizard might not even break even by placing the new spells in his books, scribing the same number of same level scrolls, and then selling the book. This assumes it is a book he wants to sell. He will probably not want to sell a book that has a lot of new spells in it.


Now, it doesn't take an advanced Economics degree to see that in a normal game, the Wizard is spending boatloads more GP in order to scribe his stash of scrolls and maintain his spellbook and spare spellbooks, than the Sorcerer is purchasing his stash of scrolls.


So my point stands. It generally costs less for the Sorcerer to purchase scrolls than it does the Wizard to both scribe scrolls AND maintain his spellbooks.

Your theory about it costing the Sorcerer more for scrolls is flawed and misleading, and doesn't look at the big picture. Your point about Wizards backing up their lack of flexibility by scribing scrolls is basically moot to the discussion since Sorcerers can do the exact same thing and in the long run, it costs Sorcerers less GP to do so.

Advantage: Sorcerers (yet again)

 

[KarinsDad]

Entrepreneurial wizards will also try to recoup some of that loss by charging to allow other wizards to copy their spellbooks for 50 gp/spell level. Another good wizard cottage industry that doesn't even cost XP.

Note: A Sorcerer can do the exact same thing. Any spellbooks he finds, he can allow wizards to copy into their spellbooks for 50 GP per spell level.

No real advantage to the Wizard, even though you implied it as such. This is again moot to the discussion.


For that matter, any class that can cast Read Magic can do this (and even PC classes like Fighters or Rogues can do it if they can make a Spellcraft roll or have a friend cast Read Magic). You might as well turn your PC Wizard into a Barkeep or a Greengrocer if this is how he is going to acquire wealth.

 

[Caliban]

While I agree with KD that the Scribe Scroll feat isn't nearly as big an advantage as it first appears, I think he's overlooking something his price calculations:


Boccobs Blessed Book - Once the wizard can craft this book (and every PC wizard I've ever seen has taken Craft Wondrous by 10th level) his cost for scribing spells into his spellbook drops from 100 gp per page to 6.25 gp (and .5 xp) per page (plus the cost of the source of the spell, of course).

Other factors to consider (and which I think play just as big a role):

1) Availability of spells - in many campaigns you can't count on buying scrolls (or accessing spellbooks) of any spell you want. This gives an advantage to wizards in that they only have the find the scroll once and they can scribe it into the book and have it available for casting or scroll creation from then on. It hurts wizards in that they can't count on buying a specific spell to round out their spell selection, removing one of their advantages over sorcerers (it doesn't really hurt them much, just makes it less of an advantage).

2) Downtime - In campaigns where the DM keeps the action moving, with little downtime, a wizard may not be able to take advantage of the ability to scribe scrolls, scribe spells into their spell books, or create items like Boccob's book. In campaigns where there is frequent downtime between events, these abilities become much more advantageous.

3) Wealth Levels - how much money is available to the wizard? In poor campaigns sorcerers have a clear advantage. In campaigns with a higher than normal wealth level it swings toward the wizard.

4) Frequency of combat - in campaigns where you tend to have more than two combats in a single day, a sorcerer has an advantage. In campaigns where you tend to have one or two fights a day and usually have a chance to recover spells before the next combat, the sorcerers extra spells don't really give him an advantage (although if the campaign also features a lot of out of combat problem solving, the correct spell selection for the sorcerer means they can use their spells to help out with that instead).

Availability, Downtime, Combat Frequency, and Wealth levels are highly variable from campaign to campaign and can swing the advantage one direction or the other.

I think this is why people can have such different perceptions of how powerful sorcerers and wizards are in relation to each other - based on the situations they are used to seeing them in each perception may be true.

Personally, I think that all things being equal, a wizard is more useful out of combat (better class skills, more skill points, can make knowledge checks all day long, better item creation), while the sorcerer has the advantage in purely combat situations (a well designed sorcerer can have the spells to meet almost any combat situation, and can do it 3 or 4 fights in a row if need be), and being able to drop the same spell over and over again until it sticks is something most wizards can't do. Sorcerers also make better party buffers if they choose to go that route.

In the end, I think they balance out, and for some people the wizard will be more fun, and for others the sorcerer will be more fun.

That being said, in my home game I do give sorcerers the Eschew Material feat for free at first level. I just think it fits.

 

[KarinsDad]

While I agree with KD that the Scribe Scroll feat isn't nearly as big an advantage as it first appears, I think he's overlooking something his price calculations:


Boccobs Blessed Book - Once the wizard can craft this book (and every PC wizard I've ever seen has taken Craft Wondrous by 10th level) his cost for scribing spells into his spellbook drops from 100 gp per page to 6.25 gp (and .5 xp) per page (plus the cost of the source of the spell, of course).

True.

Magic items can swing it in either direction. Interesting that your Wizards always take Craft Wondrous. I used to DREAM of having the players in my campaign take item creation feats. Although to be totally fair, I have TWO PCs with an item creation feat in the current campaign, Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor (and we had one other campaign where they took several item creation feats, but that was because we were using the item creation rules from Artificer's Handbook in that campaign which makes item creation costs less exponential).

I almost fell out of my chair when they took them. Unfortunately, we have no Wizard this time around.

Course, I also see Scribe Scroll falling slightly by the wayside as Wands and Staffs and the item creation feats for them become available.

Personally, I think that all things being equal, a wizard is more useful out of combat (better class skills, more skill points, can make knowledge checks all day long, better item creation), while the sorcerer has the advantage in purely combat situations (a well designed sorcerer can have the spells to meet almost any combat situation, and can do it 3 or 4 fights in a row if need be), and being able to drop the same spell over and over again until it sticks is something most wizards can't do. Sorcerers also make better party buffers if they choose to go that route.

In the end, I think they balance out, and for some people the wizard will be more fun, and for others the sorcerer will be more fun.

Precisely.

That being said, in my home game I do give sorcerers the Eschew Material feat for free at first level. I just think it fits.

I allow them (and Wizards if they want) to get Eschew Material instead of a familiar if they want. They do it every time.

Once the toad familiar went from +2 CON in 3E to +3 hit points in 3.5, familiars became pretty much a waste unless you have Improved Famliar which costs a feat (although Rats and Weasels are semi-ok).

Bonuses to a few skills just isn't worth the risk of getting the darn thing killed.

 

[scottin]

I do not want to argue the merits of Sroc vs. Wiz. I think the arguments on both sides have merit. It is more a question of play-style. I have play both classes, and think they are fairly well balanced, tho I think the bonus feats that Wizards get and Primary Stat of INT vs. CHA are huge advantages. I personally prefer to play a Sorcerer, because it suits my style of play better. What I would like to see more ideas about making a Sorcerer unique.

For example, compare Barbarian vs. Fighter. Both are at heart fighters and fairly well balanced. (No flames please, I am not trying to get into a discussion of which is better). However the Fighter CLASS is more versatile, in that the bonus feats allow one to “tailor the class to your needs or desires. The Barb is significantly less “tailor”-able, but has numerous class-specific feature which make up the difference. I do not believe that this is true for sorcerers. This is what I would like to see for Sorcerers. Let Wizards be the “Fighter” equivalent in the previous analogy, and make Sorcerers the “Barb” equivalent. As some pointed out earlier in the thread (sorry to the author, I couldn’t find the quote) Sorcerers are basically spontaneously-casting Wizards. In other words, what suggestions are there to make the Sorcerer more “Barbarian”-ish. (not literally, but as in the previous analogy)

I like the idea of using the bloodline feature that (I think) Thanee pointed out. Also, someone else mention giving Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. (Someone else suggested getting this instead of a familiar, and I couldn’t imagine give up my familiar, tho I did use Improve familiar from UA) I also saw an alt. feat of giving up a spell slot to gain a spell-like ability. This seems to go along with the bloodline idea. Maybe every 4 to 5 levels. Imagine giving up a forth level spell slot to be about to use an Empowered Scorching Ray 2x/day.

I agree that spell swaping 1 spell /level is plenty.

Please let me know what you think.