Why I Hate Sorcerors

[Grog]

Dragging us back to the original topic: Why I hate sorcerers.

I'm a bit surprised the idea of PrCs hasn't really come up yet. Sorcerers are the best, bar none at those arcane PrCs, since they really lose nothing when taking a PrC with "+1 caster level". There's no feats wasted, no BAB to worry about, and they're only gonna gain in the Saves department.

Isn't the exact same thing true for wizards? Sure, they'd lose a couple of bonus feats, but even a pretty half-assed PrC is going to more than make up for that.

 

[Petrosian]

OK, this feels so much like a troll that i am hesitant to respond. You are asking so many questions with so basic and obvious answers that it feels like just an attempt to solicit response and not really a discussion.

But, at the risk of looking like silly and naive trollbait

There is no other fighting base class that chooses feats as they progress. Sorceror and Wizard share the same list.

OK, maybe your book is very different than mine, but every class, in addition to every fighter class, chooses feats as they progress.

If you think the fact that the fighter chooses more feats make them distinctive and differentiated from the other classes, then you would i figure also think the wizard gaining his own bonus feats makes him distinct from the sor?

Yet, you seem to be saying repeatedly that the sor is not distinct from the wiz.

So, this seems to be somewhat contradictory.

A fighter defined by different skills? Not without cosmopolitan, multiclassing or cross class skills. What differentiates a sorcer from a wizard? Same spells. The sorc throws a few more, the wiz knows a few more. You expect the same sorts of things from them both. At least wizards have specialization to differentiate between them.

Skills was ONE part of the process by which they differentiate themselves, not the entirety. Regardless, since i can look in my game right now and see a fighter who has almost maxed cross-class sense motive and in another game a fighter who has maxed cross-class wilderness lore, and another game where the fighter has maxed jump and see from these skills and their use in play distinction between the fighters, I will even go along with skills as a valuable method of player providing flavor to generic classes.

I suppose in a game where players disdained cross-class skills as not efficient enough for their tastes that this might not be as reliable a method.

As for the general "whats the difference in spells" the 500 lb gorilla difference in wiz and sor spell use is the incredible difference that spontaneous casting has vs prepared casting.

i see this in play everytime i see a wizard play or a cleric play and a sorcerer play.

If you do not see the serious and drastic differences these make in play, then i can fully and totally understand how you see sor and wiz as not distinct enough.

A smart players will make smart decisions. Spells like sleep just wont show up, unless the player enjoys problems later. Admit it, some spells are better than others, and those will show up all too often. There should be a way for a sorceror to choose other spells without slapping themselves in the forehead later, saying "I wish I hadn't taken that".

An smusing issue but, if one wants sorcerers to be MORE distinvt from wizards why would one want them to gain the wizards "use and later lose" spell swapping? That makes them less distinctive.

I love the fact that the sor sees different spells as valuable than wizards in some cases.

How could you tell they weren't wizards?

By the lack of spellbooks and the lack of time devoted to preparation rituals.
By the expenditure of lots of time recreating and socializing as opposed to lots of time writing into spellbooks.
By the use of copious amounts of ready cash as opposed to spending lots of money on spell scribing.
By the freequent, make that copious, use of metamagic in rather spontaneous situations.

Of course, since the sorcerers were not all clones, these various traits apply to some of them, different traits to different guys, while the wizard traits apply to most if not all of the wizards.

A notion for you to ponder... with the dependence on spellbooks, preparation and the drains on money and time that such usually entail, might it be the wizards who tend to turn out similar to each other, lacking flavor, much more often than the sorcerer?

This is not a question of every sorceror being the same, but a question of sorceror not being very different from wizard. Good players can always make up for bad classes and still have fun.

Perhaps the good players and bad classes thing explains wizards?

As much as i have seen sorcerers distinct from each other, I have NEVER seen a sorcerer even close to being mistaken for a wizard in play. The wizard archtype is fairly limited and defined and at the very least the incredible difference between prepared casting and spontaneous casting makes them unmistably different in play by anyone with any experience.

False. See TaB, sorcerors and picking spells.

IIRC they did similar picking feats picking stats blah blah for most every class in every book. I took none of them as anything other than some advice, not an indication of the one way to play the class.

Compare druid and cleric. Very similar classes, both full spellcasters. They are not often confused for one another.

uhh... in my experience the question of whether to represent aq given character as a druid or a cleric with nature domains has been a tough work thru for neqarly every druid i have seen. There are very large play-balance issues thqat make the nature cleric a choice tough to avoid.

I have rarely seen such a quandry over sor and wizard because they bring very different things to the character. A player fairly quickly chooses one or the other.

What can a person notice over a short time to tell them that a character is a sorceror vs a wizard. That is the style issue.

Well within the first 24 hours, the spellbook thing and preparation. Within probably the first 3 rounds of any combat the metamagic thing.

need i go further.

OK, no more trollbait risk for me.

You seem rather oblivious to the meaty differences between the wiz and sor or just simply preferring to pretend you dont see them.

Either way, more commentary from me to respond to you wont change that.

enjoy your games

 

[dpdx]

I've always played divine casters when I've played casters, and I have zip experience with arcanes, but I do know one thing:

There's a revised PHB coming out, and when it does, I'm anxious to see if the new material stokes or quenches the light and heat coming out of this thread...

 

[LokiDR]

Um, PAX, why do agree with me and still argue?

I think the power of the sorceror is balanced with wizard, but I agree with the lack of style difference.

All those arguements against sorceror are class style. We agree that it should be changed, not tossed. Spell selection is a huge part of it, but there is some question of skills and abilities. I am just not sure how it should be changed.

 

[LokiDR]

OK, this feels so much like a troll that i am hesitant to respond. You are asking so many questions with so basic and obvious answers that it feels like just an attempt to solicit response and not really a discussion.

But, at the risk of looking like silly and naive trollbait

...

OK, no more trollbait risk for me.

You seem rather oblivious to the meaty differences between the wiz and sor or just simply preferring to pretend you dont see them.

Either way, more commentary from me to respond to you wont change that.

enjoy your games

Wow. I have never been called a troll before. I think I will have to start doing shorter posts.

Sorceror and wizard are different. The same way a druid and a cleric with nature and animal are different. Given a day, either pair would be discernable. My issue is that one class overlaps so much with another class that choosing between them is a matter of personality, arguments like this arise. I may like wiz over sorc, but I am pretty sure that neither is better than the other.

Druid and nature clerics are pretty close too. But they have different spell lists, for the most part. Druids can't wear metal armor, a cleric no matter what domains would be wise to for a good portion of the time. Druids wildshape, clerics can't. I don't like this overlap, but at least I can point at spells/abilites that one has that the other doesn't.

What spells does a wizard have that a sorceror can't have? I can think of 2. What exceptional, supernateral or spell like abilites does one have that the other can't? Wizards specialize, sorcerors can't. This is just too close for my liking. Both classes are fine in their own right, but I don't see the need for both as they are now in one system.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Good point.. it is strange that Sorcerers and Wizards are the only classes to share a spell list! WotC did a great job, I thought, of giving each class its own individual list which often gives the same spells at different levels.

That notwithstanding, I still do NOT understand why the hell Sorcerers, who's power is inate, would have to use non-expensive material components!!!? Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for the class that gets only a few spells to not have to worry about spellbooks ... or material components? At least it would have been something to give this class some advantage.

 

[hong]

See, I got rid of all of these problems by booting wizards from my campaign. Worked splendidly!

 

[Hashmalum]

See, I got rid of all of these problems by booting wizards from my campaign. Worked splendidly!

So, now who casts the specialized spells that sorcerers can't be expected to waste slots on to know? And who makes the items that depend on those spells?

 

[hong]

So, now who casts the specialized spells that sorcerers can't be expected to waste slots on to know?

That's not my problem. That's the players' problem. Also, NPCs, not being bound by the dictates of an adventuring life, and being subject to the arbitrary whims of an uncaring and sadistic DM, can take any spells they want.

And who makes the items that depend on those spells?

See above.

 

[Pax]

Um, PAX, why do agree with me and still argue?

All those arguements against sorceror are class style. We agree that it should be changed, not tossed. Spell selection is a huge part of it, but there is some question of skills and abilities. I am just not sure how it should be changed.

No.

You think it should be changed. You think it must be, it needs to be.

I think it could be changed for the better. I think it might be, maybe.

There's world of difference between the two. I think the sorceror works as-is, but might have room for improvement.

You have presented yourself in the position that the sorceror as presented is utter crap, and must be revised wholesale to even be worth the pages spent on it in the PHB.