Sorceror in current edition worse than wizard?

[Petrosian]

I think arguments of "balance" between wizards and sorcerers miss one huge glaring element.

The wizard is horrendously dependent on CAMPAIGN SPECIFIC aspects to determine its balance.

How available are BBS? Since they are above 3k there are not necessarily in the "common" category.

How much free time is available for making a BBB if the wizard makes his own? A 10 day block of cooperatively inactive bad guys can be common or uncommon depending on the campaign's story and pacing. Heck, it may be enough even to just not know ahead of time. Are you going to eisk moeny and/or Xp if you are not sure you are going to get the full tenday?

How much time is available to scribe spells whether you get the book or not?

All of these are very campaign specific and not a matter of "common policy".

Without knowing them, you cannot accurately gauge the wizard's availability of known spells. Without that, you have a hard time with this compare.

IMX, the sorcerer and wizard play balanced or imbalanced based on the campaign specifics

 

[Darklone]

For melee type spellcasters in full plate mail, go pal2/cleric or pal2/spellsinger (kalamar).

A paladin/Monte bard multiclass is kewl too.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No empowered bulls strength, cat's grace and endurance for the whole party ?

Absolutely not!

I've not settled on my full list of 2nd level spells, but I've got Pyrotechnics so far, and I'm thinking of adding Combustion (from FR), Blur (aka heat haze), See Invisibility and Detect Thoughts. My current plans for 3rd level are Fireball, Blink, Dispel Magic and Protection from Elements (although I'd love Suggestion, I can't see myself wanting to drop any of those others in order to get it). If I live as long as to get 4th level spells there will be wall of fire, confusion, fire shield and one other that is as yet undecided.

Cheers

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The point being, what's said AFTER the fact does not always eflect what was intended BEFORE hand. Sometimes it's simply easier to shrug and say "meant to do that" ... even when it's not true.

That, or noone ever bothered to playtest BBB, because with absolutely free scribing costs, it IS stupid NOT to take it.

Anytime not doing something is considered "stupid" or "suicide" ... there's something wrong.

I disagree with this. A fighter would be stupid or suicidal not to get magic armor--does that mean there's something wrong? Anyone is stupid or suicidal if they don't have a cloak or vest of resistance. Does that mean there's something wrong? Now it's certainly true that being a "must have" item is one indication that something is broken but being a must have item doesn't by itself make something broken. It's a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition.

However, BBB is not a must have item. Not even for wizards.

The relevant question is this: when is it stupid not to buy a BBB? Certainly not at 5th level. I'd rather have a cloak of resistance and pearls of power than a BBB. Not at 9th level either. By then you're facing monsters like bodaks and need as good a resistance bonus as you can get. At 12th level, I'd rather give my wizard a +6 headband of intellect than a +4 headband and a BBB.

Now by 20th level, it may be that characters have so much money rolling around that there's no significant opportunity cost to buying a BBB. Maybe by 12th level, the opportunity cost is low enough for it to be worthwhile for some wizards. However, it's worth pointing out that, at least for my wizards, the primary attractiveness of BBB would not be "I can scribe as many spells as I want and know twice as many spells as I would otherwise (even though I'll never prepare 50% of them)." Instead, the attraction of BBB would be that it would make it practical to actually have a backup spellbook stored next to my clone. Without BBB, the cost of a backup spellbook is prohibitive. (Trying to make one would mean that a wizard would have very little other than his spellbook and his backup spellbook).

However, at most levels I have played wizards at (1st-12th), wizards simply don't use many more spells than they get for free--certainly not enough to justify the cost of a BBB. Unless I want enough spells that it'd cost me 9k to scribe them, there's little reason to buy a BBB (except as a backup spellbook). I have yet to play a wizard who had need for more than 3k in extra spells known.

[Edit--removed my incorrect statement about all spells only taking one page in BBB /edit]

 

[Hypersmurf]

After all, all spells--no matter what their level--take only a single page in a BBB.

That's never stated in the item description.

It says the book can hold 45 spells of any level. It enver states how that is achieved, or that spells take up fewer pages than normal.

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The best fighter/rogue/wizards?

Ftr 4/Wiz 3/Rog 3/Duelist 10 (or split the duelist levels with Weapon Master levels).
(The duelist who occasionally augments his fighting abilities with an invisibility or a cat's grace spell, can cast spider climb, and occasionally picks a lock or disables a trap).

Or

Rgr 1/Ftr 2/Bbn 1/Wiz 1/Rog 5/Duelist 10
(The fast duellist who occasionally gets angry)

Or

Rog 18/Ftr 1/Wiz 1
(The rogue who uses a martial weapon and casts shield, mage armor, or expeditious retreat and occasionally delivers a sneak attack with Ray of Frost or Lesser Fire Orb)

Or

Ftr 4/Rog 3/Rgr 1/Wiz 2/Knight of the Great Kingdom (or other melee focussed prestige class) 10
(The heavily armored warrior who has an uncanny sense for danger and really good spot and listen scores--oh yeah and he can still find a trap if he chugs a potion of Vision first...and cast true strike and feather fall and use a wand of shield).

or something else like that. Especially if you're a fey'ri with an ECL. You'll never be good enough to do a single classed spellcaster's job--not even if you were single-classed yourself. You'll also never be good enough to cast worthwhile attack spells--or at least to make them worthwhile as spells. A high level rogue, for instance, can make ray of frost a useful attack spell--but only as a delivery system for a sneak attack. (And it's quite a useful one if you're facing a critter with a good AC from armor or a fire creature who takes double damage from cold (and sneak attack damage is considered the same type as the attack that delivered it)). So, you'll need to pick a level of spells that you want to cast (no higher than 4 or you'll neuter your attack bonus and hit points so much that you're unlikely to be effective in melee with your ECL--and 4 is pushing it; 2nd or 3rd level is much more practical). After that, you need to decide if you want to be a fighter with uncanny dodge or a rogue with a few extra feats. And then you pick any prestige classes you want and go from there.

If, on the other hand, you want to be an old-school 2e style fighting wizard, scrap the character concept and start over. Play a non-ECL race--human, elf, half elf, even halfling or half-orc would be better than something with an ECL. (You can't afford to lose any more caster levels than you will already). Then play something like:
Ftr 4/Wiz 2/Bladesinger 10/Weaponmaster 4
Ftr 1/Wiz 8/Spellsword 2/Templar 1/Sacred Exorcist 8
or
Clr 20 (War and Magic domains )

If you want to be a 2e style sneaky fighter/rogue/wizard, you should probably either pick an illusionist for your fighter/wizard, play a bard (and forget you can sing most of the time), or forget it entirely. The other possibility (without Arcane Trickster) is
Ftr 1 or 2/Rog 1 or 2/Wiz (or prestige class) 18
You'd only be able to get a couple skills maxed out (probably disable device and search, spot, or listen). And you'd need to capitalize on every possible synergy between the classes. Blink, Improved Invisibility, Expert Tactician, etc.

Out of Curiosity...what WOULD the best combination of Rogue/Fighter/Wizard be? and PLZ don't say 'oh drop this class completely, and infact jsut start wizard'...

my aim is to create a secondary spellcaster *as i don't want ot spend ranks on Use Magic Device, and instead would prefer to be able to use any device flawlessly, and cast some buffs, and even a little attack spells...*

My original idea as you know was Rogue3/Fighter2/Wiz15...

however, would it simply be wiser to go Rogue/Fighter the entire way?...and would it possibly be worth takeing 2 levels of wizard *+3 will saves, +1 BAB, a few detect magic/poison, ray of enfeeblement a day* or what? i don't know exaclty wqhat i want, though Rogue is the main idea...though as you can see above, my original intention was to go a little along the lines of Elminster and such *once i learned my original intention was of like mind*...without going into epic...and only worring truly about at least 1 level of rogue, and 1 level of fighter...how should i divi up the levels to make an effective character that can do everything...

Note: one of my main considerations is to be able to fight in melee...but i want to cast spells...

i'm greedy

Any advice?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

[Looks at DMG]. What do you know, you're right. So, I guess the full price to scribe "fix" does what it's supposed to do: make BBB an absolute waste of time for any wizard who can whip up a Heward's Handy Haversack. (And make it prohibitively expensive for any wizard to ever have anything like a backup spellbook).

That's never stated in the item description.

It says the book can hold 45 spells of any level. It enver states how that is achieved, or that spells take up fewer pages than normal.

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

I disagree with this. A fighter would be stupid or suicidal not to get magic armor--does that mean there's something wrong?

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

Besides which, ANYone can benefit from magic armor, not just fighters (though Wizards and Sorcerors,and until 3.5E Bards also, will suffer some penalties for doing so).

Anyone is stupid or suicidal if they don't have a cloak or vest of resistance. Does that mean there's something wrong?

Perhaps it means their saves are already good enough, and/or they have other uses for those two limited slots? (A high-Charisma Paladin with Greater Vestments of Power and a Cloak of Displacement, perhaps).

Now it's certainly true that being a "must have" item is one indication that something is broken but being a must have item doesn't by itself make something broken. It's a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition.

However, BBB is not a must have item. Not even for wizards.

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" ... ?

However, at most levels I have played wizards at (1st-12th), wizards simply don't use many more spells than they get for free--certainly not enough to justify the cost of a BBB. Unless I want enough spells that it'd cost me 9k to scribe them, there's little reason to buy a BBB (except as a backup spellbook). I have yet to play a wizard who had need for more than 3k in extra spells known.

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.

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.

It's also worth pointing out that by removing the free scribing benefit of BBB, you have in no way, reduced the utility of the book for high level characters--only for low level ones. After all, all spells--no matter what their level--take only a single page in a BBB. And since it costs 100gp/page to scribe a spell, even under your rules, the 20th level wizard can scribe 100 9th level spells for a mere 19,000 gp or so (10k for ink, and 9k for the book). So, it the "problem" were a problem, your fix wouldn't fix it.

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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, I guess the full price to scribe "fix"...

We prefer "interpretation"

-Hyp.

 

[LuYangShih]

You WOULD, given your stated preferecne for Wizards.

Wizards are perfectly playable with or without Boccobs Blessed Book. It is simply more convient when Boccobs Blessed Book is available. It is not neccessary, and so I don't consider it "broken".

Again, the Sorceror will know a number of spells comparable to how many a Wizard PREPARES each day.

Early on, perhaps, but once the Intelligence bonuses really start adding up, this isn't the case. This is especially not true if the Wizard is a specialist.

Saying that proves you haven't even read the PHB entry for Sorcerors. ONE spell, TWO or THREE spells? Hah! At high levels -- 20th, is what we've been debating back and forth, so far -- sorcerors know 3 to 5 spells of EVERY level from 1 to 9.

I was referring to the fact that Sorcerers, upon acquiring access to a new level of spells, will only know one spell from that level. They also get access to that level of spells later than a Wizard will. And, since we're debating whether or not the classes are balanced, I assume we're talking about all the levels of progression. Most campaigns rarely reach level 20, after all.

Last time, lackwit -- it's an interpretive difference, until and unless the fAQ and/or errata say otherwise.

What's the lowest form of debate? Oh right, when you can't attack the argument, attack the person making the argument. Bravo.

And I dunno about you, I call 50-80 thousand gp spent scribing fairly significant.

By the time the Wizard has spent that much money on his spells, it is a small percentage of his total wealth, making it quite insignificant.

You're living proof of THAT.

I am not interpreting whether or not Boccobs Blessed Book is supposed to eliminate scribing costs for Wizards. I am simply accepting what the designers say the intention of Boccobs Blessed Book is.

They have stated what their intent is NOW, but that does not mean they intended that when teh WROTE it.

Well, unless you have a time machine and are telepathic, I'm going to go out on a limb and trust what they say.

BEsides which, apocryphal statements by people after the fact, regardles of what book(s) their name shows up in, are really worth no moe than what *I* say ... or what *you* say, even!

Actually, to me it shows that the designers thought what they wrote was clear enough, but have to clarify after the fact because they didn't perfectly state everything in lawyerspeak when they wrote the PHB.

And the Sorceror can stroll in right alongside the Wizard, and invest the scrol-and-scribe money into a wand or two, to cover the rare spell he "needs" but doens't know.

Yes. High magic worlds have benefits for Sorcerers too, but they have more benefits for Wizards. Wizards gain the most out of a high magic world, as it magnifies the advantage of spell selection they have.

Benefits based on INT score?

Name me any two froma WOTC source -- which don't base the benefit(s) on whatever attribute the character uses for spellcasting.

You're not being very clear here. Are you asking what classes other than Wizards gain a bonus from high Intelligence?

But it's not irrelevant. The sorceror's high charisma can be turned into an advantage. You could go Cleric/Sorceror/Geomancer, for example. Clerics benefit more than a tiny bit form a decent charisma.

And you can go do the same thing with other classes that benefit from a high Intelligence. It's irrelevant because it applies to both classes equally.

If the Wizard is prepared for "any situation", then he's a one-hit-wonder; he'll have one, maybe two iterations of any given spell ... because he's spreading himself so thin.

The Wizard doesn't have to have the spell memorized right then and there. You can keep one or two slots oopen for emergency utility spells, or you can simply retreat to a secure area, and memorize the spell you need from your spellbook. If a Sorcerer doesn't have the spell that's needed, he's just out of luck.

Y'see, that's the one thing you're overlooking: you have to prepare Wizard spells hours beforehand.

I'm not overlooking it. I simply don't see it as much of a problem as you do.

Strategically, yes -- IOW, if the wizard knwos BEFOREHAND, what to prepare with, he has an edge. The Wizard can also afford to lern a couple spells intending them SOLELY to satisfy Item Creation prerequisites.

However, you can only have so many spells prepared each day.

I think having less spells per day is much preferable to having less spells known.

OH, the wizard has WANDS?

Well, so does the Sorceror; only the sorceror buys wands for utility, instead of raw firepower or ammunition.

And so the Sorcerer has to spend GP just to try to come close to the sheer variety the Wizard is capable of.

You're the one who keeps saying Wizards are more powerful than sorcerors. Not more useful, not better team players, but more powerful.

Actually, they're all three. They're more useful, they're better team players, and they're more powerful. I would always rather have a Wizard in the party than a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer doesn't have any depth, and is only useful in a limited amount of situations, while the Wizard is useful in almost every situation.

Put your money where your mouth is, troll.

You know, I was really having fun debating this. But you apparently are not, and are resorting to insults. You seem to be emotionally involved in this debate, as petty as that is. As such, I do not care to argue this any longer. I have better things to do with my time.