Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LuYangShih" data-source="post: 821844" data-attributes="member: 10414">I prefer to trust the designers on what the intent of what they wrote was, instead of leaving it up to interpetation.  YMMV.I personally have no problems with Boccobs Blessed Book.  But, I also think the scribing costs for Wizards are ridiculous without the existence of an item to negate the problem.  If it is really as imbalanced as you seem to think, I'm sure they'll fix it in 3.5E.Almost any situation, perhaps, but not all situations.  Not all encounters require the same limited pool of spells to deal with best, but the Sorcerer always has to draw from that limited pool of spells to get the job done, as ineffecient as that may be.I disagree, and that has not been my experience.  If anything, it's the Sorcerer who is a "one hit wonder", as they often know only ONE spell of a given level, and two or three of another.  Assuming you are playing with the core rules, the cost is hardly prohibitive and will not set the Wizard back significantly.  Even if you house rule Boccobs Blessed Book, the amount of GP the Wizard will likely spend on scribing spells into his spellbook is hardly crippling.You can "interpret" quite a few of the rules in the book in a different way than you were meant to.  That doesn't make it official, or any less of a house rule.  The designers have stated what the intention of Boccobs Blessed Book is, which makes disallowing Boccobs Blessed Book a house rule.  Of course high and low magic is an issue.  If the Wizard is in a magic rich world where he can stroll down to the magic shop, and pick and choose whatever spells he wants, as well as have more money to do so, it gives him an advantage over the Sorcerer.  Likewise, if the Sorcerer is in a world where few if any magic shops exist, and magic is scarce and rare, he will have an advantage over the Wizard, because his magic is almost purely inherent.I still don't think pointing out varying multiclass rules really adds anything to a discussion of whether or not Wizards and Sorcerers are balanced against each other.  A Wizard could just as easily take levels of PrCs that give benefits based on the Intelligence score, but that doesn't make the class any more or less balanced against the Sorcerer.The point I was making is, given the discussion is based on whether or not the Wizard is balanced against the Sorcerer, why add other, mostly irrelevant extra information into the mix?  In most middle to high magic worlds, it is farily easy for Wizards to acquire new spells from magic shops.Who said I'm talking purely combat?  That's the entire point.  A Wizard can handle almost any task, from spying, to scouting, to investigation, to travel and exploration, to combat, and so on, with the vast array of spells at his disposal.  Meanwhile, the Sorcerer can handle a few of those areas, but he can't handle them all, and if he tries, he ends up far less effective than a Wizard will be.  I do not assume anything.  I'm merely pointing out that the Wizard will have access to a much wider variety of spells, and thus can handle many more tasks than a Sorcere can, because of his limited focus.  I don't really see why just one big encounter would do much, considering the party will likely take time to rest afterwards, thus allowing the Wizard to regain his full powers before the next big encounter happens.  The only way I've ever seen for a well prepared Wizard to really run out of spells is either A)  Truly massive encounters, in which case he can fall back on his wands and scrolls, or B) a number of smaller encounters, dispersed before or after the big encounter.  YMMV, of course.I don't consider Arena Games, or Games Of Death, a proper way to test the balance of a character, or class.  The true balance of a character comes in actual play, when adventuring as part of a group.  And, to me at least, the Wizard is more effective in the standard adventuring party than a Sorcerer.</blockquote>

Verification