Why I Hate Sorcerors

[ruleslawyer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why I Hate Sorcerors

At 12th an extrnded mage armor lasts a full day. If you can get all your adventuring done in 1 hour / day then my hat's off to you.

No offense, Destil, but I think you're missing the point.

I think what bmcdaniel is saying is that mage armor is an easier spell to get someone else to cast for you, either as a spell or in item form, than is shield. A sorc who doesn't know mage armor just needs to get his hands on a few scrolls of the spell, a wand of mage armor, or just needs a wizard ally who can dump an extended mage armor on him once in a while. A sorc who doesn't know shield CAN use spell completion or spell trigger items to cast it, but will have to pay through the NOSE for a high-enough caster level to be useful, AND can never get another caster to cast the spell on the sorc.

 

[James McMurray]

Generally speaking, fights do not last for longer than 10-12 rounds. A Wand or Scroll of Shield at 1st level will last 1 minute (10 rounds). I'd say that's pretty cheap.

Granted, it isn't as cheap as Mage Armor (due to duration differences) but it also isn't as useful to an entire party to have the Sorcerer know Shield as it is for him to know Mage armor.

Then again, what's to stop the Sorcerer from knowing them both? At 3rd level you could know both and still have a slot open for Magic Missile. If you wanted to wait until 5th level to pick the second one up, you could have slots for an offensive spell and a miscellaneous spell.

 

[hong]

Granted, it isn't as cheap as Mage Armor (due to duration differences) but it also isn't as useful to an entire party to have the Sorcerer know Shield as it is for him to know Mage armor.

I think I'd prefer the sorc to know shield and keep himself alive, than know mage armour and use it every now and then. Generally, people already have their own armour (either physical or bracers of armour). The sorc, however, needs all the AC protection he can get.

 

[Storminator]

I think sorcerers are great for new players. Think about how you describe D&D to interested non-players: swords and sorcery and monsters and roleplaying.

Then what classes do you have them play? Usually fighter types, until they grasp the rules. Everyone I've met wants to start out tossing spells, but a wizard is a subtle character, hard to play right, and likely to kill the whole party if botched at the wrong time.

But a sorcerer, with spells selected by an experienced DM, is just about the easiest PC to play. If you have the spell for the situation, fire away, if not, crossbow, if it ain't combat, time to RP.

The sorcerer can be played subtly by good players, but it can be played well by anyone. It's a wizard with training wheels.

PS

 

[Sixchan]

Re: This makes perfect sense...

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.

I'm not sure this is the best analogy. A wizard is a student of the Arcane, but a sorceror is part of it. If the historical trivia of say, the American revolution were spells, you would be a Wizard and George Washington would be the Sorceror. And George Washington probably has a better grasp of the American Revolution than you do without looking at scrolls and wands than you do.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Why I hate sorcerers

Why do I hate sorcerers?

(a) They're a lame-o class;
(b) See reason (a).

Sorcerers are useful as one-shot NPCs to throw a tough combat at the PCs in DM-generated circumstances where the benefits of the class (lots of spell slots) outweigh the disadvantages (not many spells, and these chosen specifically for the combat scenario envisaged). As PCs or as long-term NPCs, they suck.

The only advantage a sorcerer has over a wizard is that it has more spell slots. Ooh, and it gets proficiency in all those really useful Simple weapons!

A sorcerer's spell level progression is one level slower than wizard. Further, if your wizard is a specialist (and you gotta be made to take a generalist wizard) and takes only one or two Extra Slot feats, you've got a wizard who is casting as many spells as a sorcerer, has higher level spells earlier, and has greater flexibility. A wizard is the ultimate party force-multiplier; a sorcerer is only ever artillery.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Mort]

Re: Why I hate sorcerers

The only advantage a sorcerer has over a wizard is that it has more spell slots. Ooh, and it gets proficiency in all those really useful Simple weapons!

While I have little desire to turn this into a sorcerers vs. wizards thread, this statement is just flat out wrong.

Sorcerers are different from wizards in several regards that make them more suitable as PC’s (not always which is why many people play wizards).

1. Sorcerers don’t use a spell book – this means that the sorcerer can have all of his stuff stolen and still be fully effective – especially with the eschew materials feat. A wizard without a spell book is SOL in most circumstances (and anyone who has a rat bastard DM knows perfectly well how easy it is to get a spell book stolen).
2. Let’s be realistic; the majority of spells in a wizards spell book are of the point and damage variety (magic missile, lightning bolt, fireball, cone of cold etc). A sorcerer with one of those and the energy substitution and/or sculpt spell feats will get the job done too – if a little less neatly.
3. Sorcerers can cast any spell they know as many times as they want and can substitute a higher level slot to cast a necessary spell. A good example here is an encounter with a locked door (that the rogue can’t open) – a wizard may know knock but what are the chances he prepared it, even worse what are the chances he prepared it more than once if there is more than one locked door. A sorcerer can cast knock all day long if necessary. There are many other examples similar to the previous.

Point is sorcerers are plenty versatile and effective their just not everyone’s cup of tea.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm watching an anime called Orphen right now, and it really points out to me the coolness of a sorc. Basically a guy who just pulls out what he wants at anytime, and he doesn't mind using magic for even the most rudimentary tasks.

The ability to spontaneously cast is huge in my opinion, and what really sets the sorc apart, not the number of spells per day. Also, sorcs costs far less than the wizards-they don't need to buy new spells and often don't need to create as many wands and scrolls as wizards do.

I wish the sorc had just a few more spells known, since you are on a really tight budget there, but overall I think they are a good class.

 

[Hand of Vecna]

What's really bad is when they have Haste and Shapechange, and a Persistent Metamagic Rod that lets them make both spells last all day long on them (Shapechange really needs an errata)...

 

[Hypersmurf]

What's really bad is when they have Haste and Shapechange, and a Persistent Metamagic Rod that lets them make both spells last all day long on them (Shapechange really needs an errata)...

Haste is ineligible for Persistent Spell, and there's no Persistent Metamagic rod in Tome and Blood - is it from another book, or is it a custom item?

-Hyp.