Why I Hate Sorcerors

[Shard O'Glase]

make a BBB already it'll cost you about 5000, and you can scribe 45 spells into it of any level. Sure it may take 2 months to scribe all the spells in, but spend a few days here a few days there and the party wont notice it as they are living it up in INN A in city B, then INN D in city E etc. And of cource you can always just flat out say, hey lets take a couple weks off, so I can scribe some spells so I can better save your ungrateful butts.

BBB is one reaosn why I think they screwed up on scribing costs. Why come up with such a big cost if you then come up with dodges aorund the cost.

 

[IceBear]

BBB got Rule 0ed away in my campaign

IceBear

 

[Dash Dannigan]

Lol, what is BBB?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Baccobs Blessed Book. Wondeous item cost 9,000. Spell needed secret page i think. 45 page spell book, which frely accepts spells(as in no scribing cost), each page can hold 1 spell no matter waht its level.

normally 200gp a spell level so if you filled it with 1st level spells you'd break even cost wise if you bought the BBB on the open market, instead of making it. If you filled it with level 2 spells, you'd save 9,000gp if bought the BB on the open market. Under the liekly situation where you put only 2nd level or higher spells in it you can save a ton of money. For exmaple the person above who had 20,000 gp scribing costs worth of spells in loot, could save 11,000-15,500 depedning on whether he bought the BBB on the open market or made it himself.

In other words a dodge aorund the scribing costs. IMO either they screwed up with the BBB, or they screwed up with the scribing costs and the BBB is there fix without them just coming out and saying oopps, we screwed up scribing costs should be X.

 

[Dr. NRG]

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. [/B]

Absolutely true, but only for the very limited example that you give. Once you get beyond one level of sorceror, the retarded spell progression, when combined with multiclassing, makes the sorceror a less desirable choice than wizard. For example, look at a wizard5/rogue5 versus a sorceror5/rogue5. Case one gets third level spells (like haste and blink). Case two ends up with more castings of level one and two spells. If you're multi-classed, you likely won't be spending all the spell slots you have, as you'll presumably be doing other roguish things some of the time. Having a 10th level character that has devoted half of his experience to becoming an arcane caster and can't cast haste or fireball really, really hurts.

Rogues (or any class, to greater or lesser extents) also benefit from a high intelligence due to skills, providing synergy with playing a wizard.

IMHO, except in very special circumstances, sorcerors are actually one of the least likely candidates for multi-classing. They simply lose their value if their already-slow spell level progression is slowed even further.

NRG

 

[Speaks With Stone]

<<IMHO, except in very special circumstances, sorcerors are actually one of the least likely candidates for multi-classing. They simply lose their value if their already-slow spell level progression is slowed even further.>>

I'll buy that. We had a rogue 3/sorceror 4 in our group once who was clearly suboptimal (but there were other reasons for that suboptimization as well). When he got his first 2nd lvl spell, my druid was picking up 4th level spells - a noticeable difference.

Since our group rarely gets anyone past 8th level, I tend to think in low level terms. I've only multiclassed 2 characters and both only included 1 level of the 1st (or 2nd?) class. If you really balance one up with even levels, then sorceror sounds like a painfully slow progression.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

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.

I never understand this complaint. Every class level, a wizard gets two free spells of his choice, in his spellbook. No cost. Zip. Nada. A sorcerer, on the other hand, gets perhaps an average of 1 1/2 new spells per class level (I'm at work and don't have my books to hand, so I can't give you references nor check the math). So your 11th level wizard (say starting at with Int 15 at 1st level) will have all 0-level spells, 7 1st level spells, 4 spells of each level between 2nd and 5th, and 2 6th level spells for free - a heap more than an 11th level sorcerer. OK, so the wizard wants to expand his repetoire beyond the two spells per level, and that costs. Such is the price of flexibility. However, a wizard should adopt a similar philosophy as a sorcerer in choosing what spells to scribe (given the cost to do so) - don't duplicate basic effects (you've got Fireball, do you really need Lightning Bolt as well? You've got Charm Person, do you really need Suggestion as well? Etc).
So your 11th level wizard should work out which of those spells he really needs to scribe, and only scribe those ones. But the wizard has two advantages in this choice over the sorcerer. First, the wizard can afford to be less selective, 'cause at the end of the day he just needs to spend more money to acquire a new spell that he wished he had (a sorcerer is stuck with his choices for ever more). Second, it's not as though the wizard's going to suddenly lose those spellbooks he's acquired, and when he gets enough money he can scribe other spells from them into his own.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

A bunch of reasons why I generally prefer sorcerers:

1) I like Charismatic characters. (Leadership is a great feat. Oh yeah, I also dig building strongholds. In addition, my characters tend to be the party leaders.)

2) I hate spending real-time to pick which spells my character is going to memorize. (Same reason why I dislike playing clerics and druids. I love psions and bards, too.)

3) Oftentimes, my character may use the same spell 10 times a day, whereas some days I need to diversify once or twice. (Example: I have Haste, Slow and Dispel Magic. Most days, I'll just cast Slow 8 times a day. Sometimes, however, I'll need the extra Haste and Dispel Magic. I can't judge beforehand which type of day it will be.)

4) I hate my characters lugging around spellbooks.

5) +1 Mithral Buckers of Command. Enough said.

6) I hate creating scrolls and wands and potions. Can't stand wasting gold and XP.

7) I hate crafting items. Losing XP is a drag. I'd rather have NPCs craft items. More expensive, yes, but who cares? I'd rather be the same level as the rest of the party.
.
.
.
A previous poster said that sorcerers were boring. Well, I guess it depends on your playing style. Generally, I tend to think that fighters, barbarians, paladins, and rogues are more boring than sorcerers. Yet, those are my four favorite classes.

Besides, a L10 sorcerer has 24 different spells to cast. That is a lot of versatility. Granted, it's not as much as a wizard or cleric, but it sure beats the options of your run-of-the-mill fighter.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Oh yeah, one more reason:


Most spells suck. I'm not the Pokemon-gotta-catch-em-all type. I'm perfectly content having the few spells that are worth having and leaving the rest in the dust.

 

[bret]

I never understand this complaint. Every class level, a wizard gets two free spells of his choice, in his spellbook. No cost. Zip. Nada. A sorcerer, on the other hand, gets perhaps an average of 1 1/2 new spells per class level (I'm at work and don't have my books to hand, so I can't give you references nor check the math).

At 20th level, the Sorcerer has 9 0th, 5 1st and 2nd, 4 3rd-5th, and 3 6th-9th level spells. Ignoring cantrips, that is 31 spells.

If a wizard didn't pay for any scribing, they would have all 0th, 6-9 1st, and 4 2nd-8th and 8 9th level spells assuming they always picked up the highest level spells they could cast. Ignoring cantrips, that is 42-45 spells.

The sorcerer can cast any of their spells at will, no need to guess which ones might be useful that day. They do not have to protect against someone taking away their spell ability, nor do they have to carry around multiple books in order to be able to refill their spells every morning.

The wizard has to have multiple spellbooks, just off of free spells they have a second spellbook by the time they get to 5th level spells. If the spellbook gets taken away or destroyed, the wizard can't memorize any spells unless he has taken a special feat. Even if he has taken Spell Mastery, he only has a few spells that he can prepare.

It is really tough to afford more spells as a low level wizard. It costs as much to scribe a 3rd level spell as it does to buy half-plate armor. For the cost of scribing a first level spell, the fighter can buy breastplate.

Considering that wizards have to pick their spells ahead of time, they should get considerably more spells than sorcerers.