Why do Wizards get bonus feats?

[Altalazar]

Actually, I think it is a mistake that Sorcerers do not get some abilities every 4 or 5 levels as well (other than next to worthless familiar abilities).

Druids get a lot of abilities.
Clerics get domain spells.
Wizards get bonus feats.

Sorcerers do not get anything.

The problem this presents is that Prestige Classes that give both additional abilities and one level of the previous classes spell casting capability are win win situations. There is no incentive whatsoever for a Sorcerer to stay single classed and not go PrC like there is (at least marginally) for Clerics, Druids, and Wizards.

The Sorceror still needs to qualify for the PrC. There is also always the incentive of wanting to play a straight sorcerer to match one's character concept.

But really, is this a problem? I've run multiple 3rd Edition games with sorcerers and not a single one of them ever took a PrC.

 

[KarinsDad]

The Sorceror still needs to qualify for the PrC. There is also always the incentive of wanting to play a straight sorcerer to match one's character concept.

But really, is this a problem? I've run multiple 3rd Edition games with sorcerers and not a single one of them ever took a PrC.

Strange.

In the 4 or 5 campaigns I've been in, most of the players had long term character goals in mind and most of them involved PrCs. The players just seem more interested in unique character ideas than in vanilla PCs.

Granted, of the characters that got to mid levels, none of those were Sorcerers, so I do not really know if it is an issue. But, if my players want to do this for Wizards, Clerics, and Rogues, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to do it for Sorcerers as well, especially because they really do not give up anything by doing it (and only gain abilities).

 

[Grayhawk]

In the 4 or 5 campaigns I've been in, most of the players had long term character goals in mind and most of them involved PrCs. The players just seem more interested in unique character ideas than in vanilla PCs.

You don't find that 'unique character ideas' can be fulfilled through roleplaying, alignment, race, skills and feat and spell selection? Just curious, as I've never seen the need for PrC's to make a character unique...

(Edit: Elaborated my question.)

 

[KarinsDad]

You don't find that 'unique character ideas' can be fulfilled through roleplaying, alignment, race, skills and feat and spell selection? Just curious, as I've never seen the need for PrC's to make a character unique...

I did not say that. I said that my players have this tendency to attempt to make unique characters by switching class eventually.

As for alignment, race, skills, and feats, I do not see that these choices make that much of a difference. Sure, you might have a Rogue that does not tumble, but the majority of the time, that is not the case. As for feats, most players pick certain feat trees or feats for PrCs, not just feats for character flavor (I have seen no multi-skill or flavor feats selected). Hence, you see a lot of duplication in alignment, race, skill, and feat selection (from campaign to campaign). Not identical, but often similar (and sometimes from the same players and sometimes from totally different players).

I do see spell selection as somewhat unique since except for a few bread and butter spells, players continually surprise me with their spell selection.

I also see roleplaying as unique.

However, I also see a lot of stereotypic roleplaying personalities. For example, I have often seen the grumpy dwarven fighter personality in almost every campaign from totally different players. None of those dwarves stick out as vastly unique in my memory (except one who liked to collect trophies which was just plain annoying for everyone else, hence, the reason he was memorable).

And, I also see very few characters that do not eventually attempt either multiclassing (non-spell casters for the most part) or a PrC (spell casters for the most part). YMMV obviously.

 

[jgsugden]

The only thing that makes sense is that the 3.0 designers thought the wizard needed a boost to equal the power of a sorcerer. There is no other prominant reason to give those feats to wizards, but not sorcerers.

 

[Unseelie]

Familiars. Sorcerers with Familiars want to advance as Sorcerers, at least to 6th. Familiar-less Sorcerers, OTOH, should think seriously about Prestige Classes, especially EK, Archmage, or Arcane Trickster.

Interesting, but why would I want to wait until 6th? Just asking...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The only thing that makes sense is that the 3.0 designers thought the wizard needed a boost to equal the power of a sorcerer. There is no other prominant reason to give those feats to wizards, but not sorcerers.

Well, a 1st level Sorceror is better than a 1st level Wizard. I would also say that a Sorceror will probably do better than a Wizard if you playtest in dungeon crawl mode at any level.

The metamagic feats are generally weak because a Wizard pays a very high price in advance to use them. They are uniquely poor feats relative to others in the PHB. (The Fighter doesn't have to decide how much to Power Attack when he wakes up in the morning.) Most feats give straight bonuses; no questions asked, no price paid. Wizards would not be overpowered if you gave them every single metamagic feat in the PHB at 1st level for free.

I would also say that the majority of craft item feats are weak. Scribe Scroll, Craft Wondrous, and Forge Ring (provided you are high level) are pretty good. The rest are definitely subpar, especially if you possess 2 of the better 3 already.

 

[Grayhawk]

The metamagic feats are generally weak because a Wizard pays a very high price in advance to use them. They are uniquely poor feats relative to others in the PHB. (The Fighter doesn't have to decide how much to Power Attack when he wakes up in the morning.) Most feats give straight bonuses; no questions asked, no price paid. Wizards would not be overpowered if you gave them every single metamagic feat in the PHB at 1st level for free.

My experience with metamagic feats is limited, so I'm a bit surprised to see this. Do the rest of you agree?

If the wizard didn't get bonus feats, wouldn't he buy metamagic feats using his normal feats?

Edit: Rephrase

 

[pawsplay]

Sorry, I meant 5th.

Anyway. My answer: Clerics get two good Saves, decent BAB, decent hit dice, and a unique class ability (turn undead). They cast as well as Wizards, and they can cast cure wounds. While they don't have spells with the raw damage dealing power of Wizards, they come close. If you didn't give Wizards metamagic feats, being a Wizard would be an exercise in masochism.

It also, conveniently, makes Wizards students of the arcane arts, and makes it easy to become magical item creators.

 

[Telor]

Having seen a few high level 20+ Wizards and Sorcerers I would say that the Wizards' bonus feats are a necessity, even if your DM (me) keeps track of spellbooks.

The reason: Sorcerers and Wizards take feats to boost their spell powers; be they metamagic feats or general feats. They have an equal amount of these.

The Wizard needed to be given more to represent the learned nature of Wizards. Not just that, but giving players freebies affords them more breathing room which potentially leads them to pick up some item creation feats.

I've always disagreed with WotC's official opinion on metamagic feats: Sorcerers being disadvantaged with them. I've found the opposite to be true.

Because of those extra feats, I've found more Sorcerers taking PrC than Wizards. The funny thing is Sorcerers do more damage with PrCs than Wizards do, case in point: Sorcerer 15/Archmage5 = trouble.