Sorcerors and being behind in spell levels

[Tabarnak Smokeblower]

I should have asked this when 3.0 actually came out (circa 2000?). Why was it deemed necessary that the sorceror be 1 level "behind", when compared to the other major spellcasting classes (wizard, cleric and druid)?

Has anyone tried to "correct" this in their campaign? What kind of effect did it have? Would wizards disappear off the face of the earth if 5th-level sorcerors were able to cast fireballs?

Thanks in advance

TS (who's 3 years late)

 

[sithramir]

Yes wizards would disappear off the face of the earth. In fact thats why the real world lost magic. A sorcerer started casting fire balls at 5th level and all the wizards went bye bye.

Eventually the sorcerer's forgot THEY could cast spells and the mortals decided to stop believing in Gods and lost the clerical powers.

Don't even get me started on the druid tree huggers. Let sjust say they got caught doing something "naughty" in a druid circle and it was left there to stand forever as stone henge to remind any "would be" druids what would happen to them if they showed their faces!

 

[kreynolds]

Why was it deemed necessary that the sorceror be 1 level "behind", when compared to the other major spellcasting classes (wizard, cleric and druid)?

For sorcerers, I would say due to their versatility. For bards, I would say due to their extraordinary versatility.

Has anyone tried to "correct" this in their campaign?

Not me.

Would wizards disappear off the face of the earth if 5th-level sorcerors were able to cast fireballs?

Probably not. The obvious advantage a wizard has over the sorcerer is that the sorcerer likely only knows 1 version of the fireball spell, maybe a coupe, whereas the wizard can have multiple versions, as many as he can learn and afford to scribe, in his spellbook. This versatility of the wizard is also why he can't cast many spells per day.

 

[Darklone]

CMIIAW, but Montes sorcerer is not behind in spell levels.

I had some sorcerers (usually together with wizards) in my groups and due to my limited experience, they are ok. Give them higher spells one level earlier, and the wizards (who usually only know two spells of their highest level when they reach a new spell level) start to go researching some new spells in some high towers without any contact to adventuring.

 

[Skaros]

CMIIAW, but Montes sorcerer is not behind in spell levels.

I had some sorcerers (usually together with wizards) in my groups and due to my limited experience, they are ok. Give them higher spells one level earlier, and the wizards (who usually only know two spells of their highest level when they reach a new spell level) start to go researching some new spells in some high towers without any contact to adventuring.

Monte's was behind in spell levels as well, from what I remember.

We briefly house ruled his version into our 3.0 games, but we quickly decided that we'd rather not have to spend time evaluating every new spell put into a supplement to see what spell level, if any, it should have in Monte's version.

 

[kreynolds]

Monte's was behind in spell levels as well, from what I remember.

Yup (level = spell level x 2).

 

[Petrosian]

in my games, using 3.0, the sorcerer has matched or outperformed the wizard in game after game.

as such, we have not seen this as a reason to beef up the sorcerer.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I can say that I would probably create a LOT fewer wizards if sorcerors were not one level behind in spell progression.

For one thing, the absolutely pathetic sorceror level 2 would no longer be a deterrent. My general attitude towards sorcerors is: they're great at high levels, but you have to endure levels 1-3 to get there.

The effect wouldn't simply be that sorcerors got powerful spells sooner. Wizards would no longer have an advantage in amount and versatility of their highest level spells. ATM, wizards have higher level spells at odd levels and at even levels are able to cast (if specialized) just as many spells as the sorceror but know a minimum of four times as many spells of that level. With the suggested change, wizards would never be able to cast just as many spells of their highest level (sorcerors would be one ahead of specialists) and would only have twice as many options not four times as many (which is also significant since the sorceror had one option and therefore the wizard could prepare 4 of the same spell and pretend to be a sorceror; if the progression were changed, wizards could prepare 4 of the same spell at even levels but sorcerors would be able to cast 4 spells from a selection of two instead of four spells from a selection of one--in other words, the wizard would be imitating a sorceror one level lower).

Sorcerors would also multiclass much much better if they got their spells on odd levels rather than even. One of the major disadvantages of multiclass sorcerors is that they have to wait so long for high level spells--a Pal 2/Sor has to wait until 6th level to cast web for instance.

All told, I think you'd significantly reduce the number of wizards in your games if you were to let sorcerors get spells early.