Why I Hate Sorcerors

[Darklone]

Anyone else using the OA shaman instead of sorcerers in his campaigns?

 

[LokiDR]

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.

Your misinterpretations amuse me.

I have never called sorceror crap, nor will I. I like the class. I would prefer if the class was not so close to wizard. I am not sure, however, what changes would be best.

I like Hong's solution best so far. Drop one, and I don't have to deal with it.

 

[hong]

Anyone else using the OA shaman instead of sorcerers in his campaigns?

I use OA shamans (slightly tweaked) instead of clerics and druids....

 

[LokiDR]

I use OA shamans (slightly tweaked) instead of clerics and druids....

I don't own OA. What specific differences are there between the shamen and sorcerors? I know you said you use them instead of clerics/druids, but I wonder if it might not be an interesting direction to go with sorcerors.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

I find myself somewhere to the middle of this kind of debate. The sorceror, as it is, is a playable class however I think that the concept of the sorcerer and the implementation of the sorcerer are at odds. The net result is that the playing of the class as written comes somewhat at odds with the mechanics. In other words, you cannot run a pure-class sorceror that "gets by on wits and charm" (as I think the PHB puts it) at higher levels when their high charisma doesn't outweigh their low (cross class) skill rating.

There are several different paths that could be taken to make the sorcerer a bit more in line with the flavor. The simple ones are to add the social skills to the class, then there are the suggestions to give it d6 hps to reflect the non-bookish nature, and finally you end up with more , um, esoteric solutions like eliminating their spell list and letting sorcerers "learn" any non-healing/non-divine-energy spells.

The problem is that it would be rather easy to screw things up more than they are. So whatever changes are made need to have had significant playtesting by people with radically different opinions on the sorcerer.

Personally, I suggest shelving the topic for a couple of months until 3e Rev comes out as I am quite certain that the sorcerer will likely be one of the classes being "rebalanced."

 

[Petrosian]

The reason i fidagree with this is simple... all those skills are typically opposed or frankly have fairly low DCs. At 10th level a sor with a 20 cha and a 14 int (i often see sorcerers with this cheap point buy level of int) can afford to easily have +11 (12 skill ranks each and 5 from CHA) with two of bluff, gather info and diplomacy making the default take 10 result a 20. In opposed rolls they have a +11.

This means that against anyone with corss-class in these same skills or their opposites, and who doesn't have CHA as a prime stat, the sor is VERy likely to succeed. How many fighter do you know who at 10th level have a sense motive that can compete with +11 bluff checks?

The key is, the people he has to be smart enough to avoid, are those for whom CHA is a prime stat and the skills are class skills.

in short, like any other guy trying to get by on guile, he chooses his marks.

I find many players, and some Gms, seem to scoff at cross-class skills as bad investments. The truth is, if everyone else thinks that way, its not true! their own 'efficiency" leaves them vulnerable to cross-class uses, even at 2-1.

this may be the first case of a self-denying prophesy!

FWIW, in my current campaign, a fighter did indeed max his cross-class sense motive and take a 14 wis... he is the best in the party at seeing thru bluffs and the like.

In other words, you cannot run a pure-class sorceror that "gets by on wits and charm" (as I think the PHB puts it) at higher levels when their high charisma doesn't outweigh their low (cross class) skill rating.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

I agree with Petrosian. My current L10 sorcerer has a 28 Chr. [18 to start, +2 levels, +4 enhancement, +4 competence]

I then cross-classed for the social skills and received these final bonuses:

Bluff +14
Gather Information +12
Diplomacy +16
Intimidate +14

The rogue is too busy buying ranks of DD, Search, Spot, Listen, MS, Hide, Tumble, and Open Locks to "waste" points in the Charisma skills. Besides the fact that his Chr is not nearly as high as mine. (Nor would he stick an 18 in Chr in the first place, nor would he increase it with magic items and ability score increases.)

The only other class that could compete with me in these skills is a bard. Do I have a problem with that? Nope. I have fifth level spells. Any bard can sit on a tack.

Just wait until I buy a Courtier's Obi (OA). A +10 to Diplomacy checks. Yum.

 

[IceBear]

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.

You should look at Monte's sorcerer.

IceBear