Why I Hate Sorcerors

bmcdaniel

Adventurer
I like the idea of spontaneous, "natural" casters who use the force of their personality to cast spells, but I don't like how sorcerors implemented in 3e. Here's why:

1. Sorcerors have a very limited spell selection, so they have to be very careful about what spells they choose to know. On the other hand, they can cast any arcane spell (on their list) from a scroll or wand. Given the 3e baseline for availability of magic items, sorcerors can be relatively certain they can get whatever scrolls and wands they need. So, sorcerors who are supposed to be more natural, untutored magic users, end up being more reliant on scrolls and wands than most wizards!

2. Second, as pointed out above, the sorceror has to select which (of a limited number) of spells to "know" versus which to rely on scrolls/wands for. Almost always, the difference between personally cast and scroll cast spells are the DC of the spell, and level-dependent benefits, most notably the duration of short-lived spells. As a result, sorcerors almost never learn utility spells. They concentrate on offensive spells that rely on high DCs and short-duration defensive spells (every sorceror I've seen knows shield; no sorceror knows mage armor).

3. Related to #2, sorcerors have to pay attention to which spells will remain useful throughout their career. Of course, all low-level spells will be relatively less useful as the sorceror gains levels (why cast magic missile when you can cast fireball?). Nevertheless, some spells degrade much more quickly than others. For example, Sleep, has a 5 HD limit, while magic missile, even if it does relatively little damage, is always, at least, useful. The spells that degrade the most quickly are those that most fit the sorceror flavor: Sleep, Color Spray, Charm Person, Hold Person, Hypnotism, Cause Fear, etc. As a result, sorcerors tend to always prefer the energy-blasting evocation spells over more subtle offensive spells. Again, I would think that the more subtle, enchantment or illusion spells would be more suitable for a natural sorceror who bases his spells on the force of his personality.

In sum, the rules logic push sorcerors very far away from their supposed flavor, and turn them, nearly uniformly, into energy-blasting artillery. That's why I hate sorcerors.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

IceBear

Explorer
Sorcerers were designed that way simply to balance them with wizards. Hell, if you had two classes with the same number of spells to draw upon, but one had to memorize and the other could cast spontaneously, which one would you choose.

Now, if in your campaign world you got rid of wizards, then any changes you make to sorcerers would probably be fine (within reason).

IceBear
 
Last edited:

Crothian

First Post
Intersting, I haven't seen that to be true though. I've seen Sorcerers who go for the subtle, versatile spells and do very, very well.
 

bret

First Post
bmcdaniel said:
Almost always, the difference between personally cast and scroll cast spells are the DC of the spell, and level-dependent benefits, most notably the duration of short-lived spells. As a result, sorcerors almost never learn utility spells. They concentrate on offensive spells that rely on high DCs and short-duration defensive spells (every sorceror I've seen knows shield; no sorceror knows mage armor).

[ snip ]
The spells that degrade the most quickly are those that most fit the sorceror flavor: Sleep, Color Spray, Charm Person, Hold Person, Hypnotism, Cause Fear, etc.


Heighten Spell takes care of the DC problem for most of those spells.

Although it would be relatively rare for a Wizard to take Heighten Spell, I believe this MMF works well for a sorcerer. The other one that is really good for Sorcerers is Energy Substitution.
 

Destil

Explorer
bmcdaniel said:
(every sorceror I've seen knows shield; no sorceror knows mage armor)
Not very clever then, are they? Mage armor is far more useful, once you get high level you'll have rogues who can't even wear padded, with monks in the party, other wizards (if a sorcerer knows MA everyone in the party can have it) and when facing incorporial/eatheral opponents.

Also, most sorcerers are too busy casting fireballs in combat to have time for a shield.
 

Mark Chance

Boingy! Boingy!
This makes perfect sense...

So, sorcerors who are supposed to be more natural, untutored magic users, end up being more reliant on scrolls and wands than most wizards!

And that's the way it should be.

I, as a college-educated historian, have a much better grasp of American history than, say, my 8th-grade students. I have this much better grasp because I've spent more time studying the subject than my 8th-grade students have spent being able to tie their own shoes.

If historical trivia were spells, I could cast more without relying on reference books than any of my students, who need to constantly refer to their scrolls in order to find the answers to the questions.

:)
 

hammymchamham

First Post
Re: This makes perfect sense...

Mark Chance said:


And that's the way it should be.

I, as a college-educated historian, have a much better grasp of American history than, say, my 8th-grade students. I have this much better grasp because I've spent more time studying the subject than my 8th-grade students have spent being able to tie their own shoes.

If historical trivia were spells, I could cast more without relying on reference books than any of my students, who need to constantly refer to their scrolls in order to find the answers to the questions.

:)

Wow, that was a really good point. :)
 

mooby

First Post
The only thing to hate about Sorcerers is that they don't have any Cha based class skills.

The class rocks!

BTW, Mage Armor is rarely taken b/c it doesn't stack w/ Bracers of Defense. That's the only reason.
 

gfunk

First Post
Re: This makes perfect sense...

Mark Chance said:


If historical trivia were spells, I could cast more without relying on reference books than any of my students, who need to constantly refer to their scrolls in order to find the answers to the questions.

:)

This analogy has its limits though. Sorcerers and Wizards are rough equivalents in strength. But I think you would probably bristle at a comparison in "power" between yourself and your students.

IMO, I agree with the poster to an extent:

1) I have played a Sorcerer up to 17th level and I really enjoy it. Being able to cast massive numbers of spells is really cool.

2) I do agree that the way the sorcerer is presented in the PHB (e.g. flavor text) does not add up when you look at the game mechanics. Lack of charisma based skills and reliance on material components are a couple of problems.

If you look at Monte Cook's sorcerer I think you'll see most of these problems have been adressed.
 

Derren

Hero
What I hate is that sorcerers lag 1 Level of spell casting behind the wizard.
Was that really necessary to balance them with the wizards (who have better class skills, more skill points, bonus feats and better access to PRCs?)
 

Remove ads

Top