Useless sorcerers no one wants in the party

[Three_Haligonians]

Well, considering that, it sounds likt you were useful in the game, so I don't see what the problem is.

Maybe I didn't read it right, but it seems to me that Lord Pendragon wasn't equating 'being useful' with 'having direct damage boom-boom' spells. If you can find a way to make the most innocuous, least offensive spell useful in a combat scenario, then by golly it sounds like you're useful.
What Pendragon and others are talking about (I think) are the sorcerers who would take spells like Unseen Servant and Nystul's Magic Aura at 1st level and not find a way to use them.

I guess my lack of smileys made my post seem like a counter-point. I wasn't disagreeing with Pendragon, I just had to quote him because his hypothetical? example was frighteningly similar to my actual character. I agree we're all on the same page.

R from Three Haligonians

 

[Doctor Shaft]

But isn't it kind of the DM's fault as well if there's a character that he's known about ahead of time, but doesn't really make any adjustments in the campaign to suit said character.

I guess it's up to the DM what kind of characters are going to exist in a campaign, but if you know ahead of time that you've got a sorceror that isn't a "combat monster" or particularly useful to the party... then make him useful somehow. Let him stumble over an item. A weapon. A scroll. Give him a mission that the party absolutely needs him for.

 

[IronWolf]

Who ever casts Gliterdust!

Glitterdust certainly has its uses. As several have mentioned dual purposes, chance to blind for a few rounds and countering invisibility, quite the punch for a lower level spell.

As for the main thread question. If the sorceror is choosing spells because they fit how he sees the character than more power to him (or her). His character concept deserves as much merit as other characters in the party. Now it is nice in these cases if the DM takes that into account somewhat and tailors a few encounters that allows the unusual sorceror to excel.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Maybe I didn't read it right, but it seems to me that Lord Pendragon wasn't equating 'being useful' with 'having direct damage boom-boom' spells. If you can find a way to make the most innocuous, least offensive spell useful in a combat scenario, then by golly it sounds like you're useful.
What Pendragon and others are talking about (I think) are the sorcerers who would take spells like Unseen Servant and Nystul's Magic Aura at 1st level and not find a way to use them.

You have interpreted my post exactly right, Pants.

It's not that I expect a spellcaster (of any stripe) to fill their repertoire with nothing but boom spells. But I do expect them to be useful in combat. If they can manage that with strange and unusual spell selections, more power to them. I love that kind of creativity. But if they select unusual spells, and then proceed to use that as an excuse to do nothing in combat, while the rest of the party is being hammered....well, time to start looking for another spellcaster.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Interesting persective. My next character concept that I'm really looking forward to playing is designed to be totally useless in combat, but very useful outside of it. He's going to be an Expert, with only Knowledge skills. Starting at 75 years old for the bonus to Int. I hope somebody gets new campaign started soon so I can play him.

Only knowledge skills doesn't count as "very useful".

Considering that you could make the same character as a bard, where he would have everything the expert has, PLUS spells and bardic knowledge (and that's if you put zero points into perform...), and you're just being silly here. You're basically telling the party "put up with my crap because I'm a PC".

Of course you may simply have overlooked the fact that this character could be a bard and the concept wouldn't suffer in the slightest. But now you know.

 

[VirgilCaine]

You have interpreted my post exactly right, Pants.

It's not that I expect a spellcaster (of any stripe) to fill their repertoire with nothing but boom spells. But I do expect them to be useful in combat. If they can manage that with strange and unusual spell selections, more power to them. I love that kind of creativity. But if they select unusual spells, and then proceed to use that as an excuse to do nothing in combat, while the rest of the party is being hammered....well, time to start looking for another spellcaster.

Sorcerors can use wands and scrolls just as well as wizards.
So how can a sorceror be useless if the DM is willing to be a little flexible with treasure/NPC placement to throw in a few low-charge wands and a few scrolls, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. OR if the player is smart, they could have asked this on their own.

 

[Wycen Adamantite]

The latest class profile article over at WotC raises a few tangent questions for discussion:

Have you ever played (or played in a party with) a sorcerer who picked spells the rest of the group just didn't appreciate? Sorcerers accused of making bad/stupid spell choices at each level?

And how do you handle such unpopular character development decisions when the group perspective is so different from the individual player's desires?

It's not that we didn't appreciate the spells, it was how he used them. We got fireballed, my character got ice stormed, he killed 2 hookers who got caught in a lightening breath blast, and several other occasions when he blasted without looking.