Sorceror in current edition worse than wizard?

[Hypersmurf]

But that still doesn't answer the question. BOTH take full round actions. Why are some (summons, BB, etc.) ruled to happen at the beginning of the next turn, and others (metamagics) are conceeded to happen on the current turn?

The casting time of the spell in the stat block doesn't actually change when a sorcerer metamagics it. It's still "Casting Time: 1 action". He is just required to use a full-round action to get the spell off.

Like a human throwing a javelin requires an attack action, but a halfling throwing a javelin requires a full-round action. The size or the stat block of the javelin don't change; the halfling just uses it differently.

Someone casting a Summon Monster requires a full round action, and they continue casting until their next turn.

They are two different situations that happen to have one thing in common. You can't generalise from one to the other.

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I have some Fighter/Duellist builds who would consider not going WITHOUT magic armor to be a less-than-bright idea.

And I have a fighter/wizard/spellsword who considers going not going WITHOUT a BBB to be a less-than-bright idea. The point isn't necessarily that there are REALLY items that absolutely EVERYONE should have (although I'd argue that, in fact, absolutely everyone should have cloaks/ vests of resistance, +6 stat boost items, and magic weapons). The point is that just because an item is useful for everyone (or almost everyone) wouldn't make it broken.

I've played and played with fighters who had higher priorities than magic weapons but I've yet to meet a player of a non-forsaker weapon using character who would choose for his high level character to use a non-magical weapon except to prove a point. That doesn't make magic weapons broken. Similarly, every wizard I know of wants a headband of intellect and every sorceror or bard (and most paladins) wants a cloak of charisma but that doesn't make those items broken.

Then why does everyone I have ever seen say "wizards are superior to sorcerors, because they get to know mega-amounts of additional spells" hold BBB up, to deflect the naturl counter-argument "ah, but that costs MONEY, which the sorceror could spend elsewhere" ... ?

I'm not quite sure why people would hold up the "wizards get to know mega-amounts of additional spells" arguments. I think such arguments are specious. Not that wizards can't know mega-amounts of additional spells but that, in most situations, that knowledge is not really a significant advantage--it's not usually worth the cost (with or without BBB--note that a PC who bought a BBB and used it for every first level spell would lose money in the deal even with the "free scribing" interpretation).

While the ability to know more spells than a sorceror is an advantage of wizards, I would argue that the advantage shows up in these ways:
1. At odd levels (except 1 and 19), a wizard knows two spells of a level the sorceror knows no spells at. (And the wizard knows twice as many spells at the sorceror's highest castable level as well).
2. At even levels, a wizard knows four spells of his highest castable level and a sorceror only knows one.
3. (a very distant argument compared to the first two) a wizard can afford to occasionally spend a few hundred gp on a low level spell that is very rarely useful but occasionally invaluable on the theory that if he ever needs it he can fill an empty slot with it (usually that empty slot will be filled with an extra magic missile or shield spell though).

Wizards who know every spell in the PH are not much more powerful than wizards who only know their free spells. In fact, if they insist on leaving lots of slots open for "just the right spell", they'll end up being less powerful because for every situation that they get 15 minutes to prepare "just the right spell" there will be five when another magic missile, shield, glitterdust, web, fireball, haste, improved invisibility, or cone of cold would have been useful but they didn't have it because the slot was left open. (And if they intend to avoid that disadvantage by relying on wands or scrolls for combat spells, they've really decreased their power--those items cost money which a more sensible wizard can better in other ways. And those items, have lower DCs and are therefore less effective than the spells he could cast himself).

All of my explanations for why people seem to think it's in a wizard's interest to know twice as many spells at each level as he can prepare probably boil down to insulting their intelligence however.

Note, by the way, that my entire "Sorceror spell selection isn't especially limited ocmpared to a Wizard's options" argumetn mirrors your above statements entirely.

And I agree with that--except at low levels (1-5). Just because I don't think BBB is broken if it eliminates scribing costs doesn't mean I disagree with the rest of what you're saying.

The real benefit is, if the Wizard's player screwed up and went with a bad layoutof spells, a couple thousand gold and a few weeks can completely change their options.

Definitely. There's also a small benefit to being able to scribe spells like Alarm which are useful but not useful enough to show up on a sorceror's known spells list. There's also a small benefit to being able to choose spells which are very good for a small window of time will soon be outdated (sleep, scare) knowing that, when they become useless, a good spell will only cost 2-400gp. However, as I indicated, that's not really a wizard's big advantage. (IMO, the wizard's biggest advantage is that they're actually interesting to play at levels 2, 3, 4, and 5--if I get to create a higher level character, I'm much more likely to consider a sorceror than if I'm starting at first or second level).

I'll say "Whay Hyp said" -- for example, nothing says the BBB doesn't CREATE new pages out of thin air, whenever one is needed. The description only says it can hold 45 spells, regardless of level.

Those 100 9th level spells would take three BBB's (45 per book, remember). And each spell would take 18,000gp to scribe (100gp/pp, 2pp/level). The time involved would be 1,000 days ... just under three entire years, with no time off for good behavior.

Total monetary outlay would be 207,000gp. Not counting the scrolls and research costs for there to be 100 spells of 9th level to scribe in the first place, nor th time needed to track the spells down and/or research them yourself. [/B]

I guess you responded to my message before I edited out that last bit. I think your math, however, does go to demonstrate that without either the free scribing benefit of BBB a DM willing to allow blatant misuse of the Secret Page spell (the page can be made to appear like another spell--cast it on a blank book and then read the illusionary spells it creates), or the Magic of Faerun spellbook mastery rules, creating backup spellbooks is a prohibitively expensive task for a wizard of almost any level.

I think that the free scribing benefit of BBB, while not significantly increasing the power of a wizard (because the small number of extra spells that actually contribute to his power would cost less to scribe than BBB does to buy), does allow a wizard to reduce his vulnerability to losing his spellbook at a reasonable cost. I believe that to be a worthwhile function for a magic item and not out of line with its cost.

 

[peregrijn]

Let my start off by making point in advance (so you'll know whether read or skip on). The wizard is by grace of his abilities by far the 'richest' character class of them all, who can spend a lot more money on the stuff he needs then anyone else.

If you just build a character of a given level and spend the fixed amounts a wizard is indeed worse of for having to buy extra spells. But this is for 1 reason only, because a specific xp amount was chosen which happens to correspond to the absolute minimum for the level. The wizard can't spend any xp's on items he could have made himself (depending on which item creation feats he took). If a random xp amount for that level was taken every extra xp can be turned into 'goodies'. (As is the case with 'evolving' chracters which go through the levels).
The counterpoint is always that "the wizard" will lag a level behind. This point is either false or highly overrated (I'll get back to that later). First an illustration of what I mean:

A wizard who spend 10% of gained xp's on item creation is actually converting xp into wealth. He either makes them for himself (cutting cost in half, having more to spend on other things) or for others, who pay him twice what he spends, making him additional money to spend on stuff (so besides his share of the loot). Come to think of it, those scrolls and wands that are so useful for sorcerers to compensate their limited spellbase, guess who they''ll be buying from? That's right, wizards mainly. Extra money for them to buy stuff and inscribe spells
Anyway, this wizard who spends 10% xp, will actually be converting xp into gold piece value at 12,5 gp per xp.
This come down to:

up to lvl 2 100 x 12,5 = 1250 gp
up tp lvl 3 300 x 12,5 = 3750 gp
up to lvl 4 600 x 12,5 = 7500 gp
up to lvl 5 1000 x 12,5 = 12500 gp
....
up to lvl 10 4500 x 12,5 = 56250 gp
....
up to lvl 15 10500 x 12,5 = 131250 gp

A few remarks on this table; the amount is total additional gp at that point; the first two entries are more cosmetic then practical since only 'scribe scroll' and 1 st lvl spells (and cantrips) will be available for item creation. At third level however the brew potion, craft wondrous item feats become available (and no, I'm saying you can get them both at this point) and second lvl spells kick in.

Lets put these amounts next to starting funds for these levels:

lvl 2 900 + 1250
lvl 3 2700 + 3750
lvl 4 5400 + 7500
lvl 5 9000 + 12500
lvl 10 49000 + 56250
lvl 15 200000 + 131250

At lvl 10 you'll have more then double the amount to spend as the sorcerer (by 20th lvl you'll have 'only' 20 % more, but in absolute numbers you'll have over 250000(!) gp more to spend).

Back to the argument of the lagging a level. Remember that this wizard spends 10% of earned xp, so he'll have ten percent less then the rest of the party. But whether you have 6600 xp or 6000 xp you'll still have the same level. It only matters when the level break is between what you have and what the rest has. How often does this happen? About ten percent of the time. So by spending this xp the wizard can vastly (and I mean vastly) increase his wealth. And about 1 in every 10 sessions he'll be a level behind.
Now this is the "highly overrated" part of the rebuttal, here it is assumed that the different chracters will be making the same amount of xp, irrespective of the items etc one has.

We all know that having more goodies greatly increases your changes of defeating baddies and getting xp for it. In case of individualised xp the wizard with all his extra wealth will have it a lot easier, can defeat more and gain more xp. In this case he may actually catch up and pass the others by, despite spending on items, in which case the argument of 'lagging a level' is false.

I know, I know, you'll be wanting to tell me that it takes time and this and that. That's true but all those elements are in the realm of campaign specifics; needing the time to make items is not a problem unless the campaign (DM) makes it so.
The point I made was that a wizard can be the wealthiest character BY THE GRACE OF HIS ABILITIES.
Whether or not he gets to exploit these abilities to the fullest is a campaing specific, as it is for all character classes. A ranger has a favored enemy but the campaign (DM) decides whether he could actually run into them.

 

[peregrijn]

To make 1 point extra clear here, the wizard is NOT dependend on others to buy his stuff to gain these benefits.
As I said in the post, he can sell to others (at dmg prices) OR simply make items he wants for himself at half price (for up to 10 percent of his xp). The money saved can be used to buy stuff just as the rest of the party does.
The total value (by the book) of the stuff he can afford (either bought or made) is the same whether he sells to others or makes for himself.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

But that still doesn't answer the question. BOTH take full round actions. Why are some (summons, BB, etc.) ruled to happen at the beginning of the next turn, and others (metamagics) are conceeded to happen on the current turn?

Logic. A statement (in this case "a spell with a casting time of one round requires a full-round action") does not imply its converse.

We know that a spell with a one-round casting time does not go off until the next round. But for the metamagic spell to not go off until the next round, it would be the converse of that first statement ("a spell that requires a full-round action has a casting time of one round") that would have to be true.

QED, as long as you apply basic logic AND realize that the type of action required to cast a spell and its "casting time," while related, are two different things.

 

[Pax]

By the way, Wizards do gain additional spells to cast per day if they are specialists. They gain an extra spell per level to cast every day. And you say I don't know enough about Sorcerers. Also, when I spoke of the Intelligence bonus giving extra spells, I meant that the more you increase your Intelligence through level gains and items, the more spells you will be able to cast, reducing the discrepancy between Sorcerers and Wizards in spells cast per day.

Your coment was, the way you wrote it, to the effect that specialists would know more spells, and that higher intelligence would let a wizard know more spells.

Spontaneous casting is great. It's the main benefit the Sorcerers have, but in my opinion, it doesn't make up for the fact that sometimes Sorcerers will simply not have the spells needed to deal with the situation at hand. This is almost never the case with Wizards.

A sorceror well-thought-out, with both his spells and his feats (especially metamagics) picked with an eye to maximum versatility, will rarely lack fo teh ability to make multiple use of one or more applicable spells in most encounters that call for spellcasting.

You keep saying that the Sorcerers spontaneous casting overrides the versatility of the Wizard, but I just don't see how.

No, I've never even intimated anything of the SORT. Go back and read my first comments on Sorceror-vs-Wizard: I stated then (and have supported SINCE then) that Wizards are more versatile strategically, while sorcerors are more versatile tactically.

What if you are in the middle of an investigation, and want magical help? How many Sorcerers take Contact Other Plane as one of their known spells? And the same sort of situation can and will apply to things like exploration, scouting, spying, and so on.

That's what the cleric often covers -- divinations, that (in combat, or just avfter) can be flushed for healing magics if it wasn't needed for it's own purpose(s).

Remember, you keep touting "member of a team" -- the Sorceror doesn't need to be able to do everything, to be able to handle every situation all by himself.

He (IC and OOC) needs to find their niche wihtin the team, and become the best fulfiller of that role, that he can be.

Sorcerers have a limited application, and they can't deal with the large variety of situations a Wizard can, at least in my experience.

Your experience is apparently based on Wizards essentially getting gobs of free extra spells to add, for free, to their magical spellbooks.

I've seen Sorcerers played, and they're fun, and effective, but not as effective as Wizards. You obviously disagree, but until I see a Sorcerer that can come even close to dealing with the large amount of situations a Wizard can, you probably won't convince me that a Sorcerer is as good as a Wizard.

Dealign with a large amount of situations -- that seems to contradict yoru earlier insistance that the Wizard was "the best team player".

Team players don't HAVE to face every possible situation or conundrum; that's what the OTHER team members are there for.

 

[Pax]

I think that the free scribing benefit of BBB, while not significantly increasing the power of a wizard (because the small number of extra spells that actually contribute to his power would cost less to scribe than BBB does to buy), does allow a wizard to reduce his vulnerability to losing his spellbook at a reasonable cost. I believe that to be a worthwhile function for a magic item and not out of line with its cost.

Actually, despite despising the "free scribing" of BBB, I do agree Wizards need a comparative break in scribing costs (and in how many spells a book can hold, IMO -- especially if using MoF's "enhanced spellbook" rules).

Speaking of which -- I -like- the idea of encouraging a Wizard to invest in unusual spellbooks. Gives teh Wizard a bit more flavor and style, IMO, if his spellbook is bound in white dragonhide, and filled with copper-foil pages ...

Anyway, I'm thinking of each spell takes (level+1)^3 "points" of space, and costs ((level+1)^2)x10gp to scribe. Books would have, um ... maybe 5 points of space per page. Scribing time would be scalar to length, though I'm not sure at what ratio. Probably significantly less than the current DMG rules (maybe 1 or 2 hours of work, per point of space?)

And all of the previous paragraphis LITERALLY off th top of my head. IMO, it'd produce a wider variety in the cost of scribing low-level spells compared to high-level spells (a 1st level spell would cost 40gp to scribe; a 5th level spell woudl cost 360gp; a 9th level spell would cost 1,000gp). However, it'd still be cheaper than current, more affordable at the levels where spells of those levels are important to the wizard, and more affordable for even a 2d or 3d level wizard to start crafting a backup/reserve spellbook.