Why I Hate Sorcerors

[IceBear]

Am I missing out on something. I'd like to try a sorceror (I've played one for a short adventure and loved casting Web at every encounter), but it really looks like the sorceror is entirely defined by a rather small spell selection. Doesn't that make for a bit of a boring role for a party?

Did you look at Monte's variant? I think he addressed some of your issues but I can't remember (it's been awhile and I haven't looked too close). Many people seem to like it.

IceBear

 

[Speaks With Stone]

I hate to even ask, but where do I find the Monte Cook variant? I looked on his site, but the search engine didn't appear to be working. It couldn't find a single reference to "sorceror" and I got tired of browsing through the message boards.

Thanks in advance.

 

[IceBear]

I hate to even ask, but where do I find the Monte Cook variant? I looked on his site, but the search engine didn't appear to be working. It couldn't find a single reference to "sorceror" and I got tired of browsing through the message boards.

Thanks in advance.

I think it's in one of the Book of Eldritch Might. Maybe the second one? It's only $5 (I think) and you get the alternate bard too. I *think* Monte did stuff like giving it different class skills, 1d6 hitdie, and changing around the spells a little (as in the levels that the spell is available to a sorcerer).

IceBear

 

[DrSpunj]

I know! I know!

Monte Cook's Sorceror variant is in his Book of Eldritch Might II along with his variant Bard. I have the book (printed version, not the pdf) and I really like what he's done with it.

It does address a lot of the problems people have listed here but he separates the Wizard and Sorceror lists completely, and makes some spells (like Shield) one spell level higher. Others that aren't so "intuitive" (like Identify ) aren't on the Sorc's spell list at all anymore. Overall it's a great revision but requires a bit of extra bookkeeping.

Hope that helps!

Drspunj

PS: Aww, you beat me IceBear!

 

[kigmatzomat]

Tweaking the sorceror

I've run sorcerors in several short lived campaigns and they do handily when carefully planned. But I'm a bit more maniacal about meta-game strategy than most. For the campaign I run I use the common tweaks of giving sorcerors sense motive, bluff & diplomacy as class skills and allowing them to specialize where they know an additional spell per spell level.

Something I'm contemplating and would like some feedback on is providing a feat that would allow a sorceror to purge and relearn his spells. This way a 12th level sorceror could ditch all those spells that cap at 6HD and pick up more offensive spells or adjust to match the spell abilities of the rest of the party. Not to mention the loot.

Suggestions, ridicule?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

See the Mind's Eye ... they've done that for psionics.

The link is in my sig.

 

[Mordane76]

So, dragging this thread back to my original post ...

Does it bother anyone else that sorcerors are more dependent on magic items than wizards?

I'm considering increasing their spells known, [but] only allowing them to use spell activation/completion devices for which they actually know the spell.

I'd say this isn't a bad idea, but if you do it, then you're going to make the sorceror weaker. If you do decide to do that, I'd say you might wanna throw in some else to help them out -- if you require sorcerers to use components, you might wanna drop that restriction as well.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

I hate sorcerers. Ever since I read the 3E PHB I couldn't understand why anyone would want to play one.

Then my Wizard hit 11th level.

We finished a huge adventure, finding a dragon's large hoard... I took a look at my captured spellbooks and scrolls and started doing some math.

To scribe all the 1st through 6th level spells that I don't have is going to cost my Wizard upwards of 20,000 GP and take about 3-4 months of work. Imagine what a Sorcerer can buy with 20,000 GP that I'm not going to have! Plus, I doubt my share of the treasure will be that much gold. Not to mention that the rest of the party doesn't want to take that much time off (and I don't blame them).

So my Wizard gets screwed, whereas a sorcerer goes blissfully along without paying the high price.

Unless you want to House Rule the scribing costs (eh, IceBear?) , Wizards have a big disadvantage when it comes to spellbooks.

 

[IceBear]

Unless you want to House Rule the scribing costs (eh, IceBear?) , Wizards have a big disadvantage when it comes to spellbooks.

See, that's why I don't use house rules willy nilly as I understand there is an underlying balance that might not be obvious

That said, since I was running a lower magic, lower wealth campaign (approximately half the suggested wealth) I did lower the scribing costs by half as that was only fair and did have the same impact on the wizard as if they were "by the book" and I was giving full wealth. I also realized that this made encounters more difficult than normal and took that into account when designing them.

IceBear

 

[Speaks With Stone]

The spellbook scribing costs are pretty extreme, but at least the wizard has the option of scribing the more important ones. The sorceror has no choice. Sure the sorceror can blissfully waltz along buying other stuff, but the wizard has that option as well (while still maintaining a better diversity in spells).

Thanks for the info on the alternate sorceror. I may look into that if my GM approves. Of course, I may just make another wizard and be done with it.

One thing that the Sorceror appears to do better at is to multiclass. If I was 1 level sorceror and many levels rogue, I believe I would be happier than if I had 1 level wizard and many levels rogue. I chose rogue for the multiclass as he can profit from the higher charisma. I imagine a paladin could do right nicely as well.