Why I Hate Sorcerors

[Darklone]

I don't like sorcerers too much. They are fine for those tactical assault type games. I can play those on the computer. And I assume that's what WotC built their sorcerer for ... to lure Diablo2 kids to the roleplaying tables.

What I missed when I first read the sorcerer was style. All those planning tends to produce the same sorcerers everywhere. That's boring. Houserules about upgrading learnt spells to higher versions tend to overpower the class. And since the spellcasting is the same for wizard and sorcerer, where's the style?

KoK players guide features the spellsinger class... At least some difference to a wizard in style. OA shamans have themes to their spells. Things like that would have been what IMHO the sorcerer should have looked like.

Hmm... perhaps I let the next few sorcerers roll randomly for their spells

 

[Speaks With Stone]

While I still have great reservations about playing a sorceror (I think the skill situation and the feat situation are my real problems), I've decided to play one. I get to start at 4th lvl and I'm currently playing a 5th lvl wizard in a different campaign. I figure this is a good opportunity for me to explore the differences and come to a "play tested" opinion as opposed to a "on paper" opinon.

I don't really want to be artillery, so I will try something else (????). I'd like to pick up metamagic feats and also explore those as well.

On a side note, I agree with Darklone that a more thematic/stylistic sorceror would have been more appealing to me, but I'll work with what they are.

Perhaps I'll find that the flexibility of non-prep outweighs my other concerns. I do agree that its all about fun. As I've often commented to my GM, the cleric looks to be the most flexible and powerful class, but I still find there spell selection to be rather unspectacular. So conversely I may find the sorceror to be more fun due to limitations in options, but ease of use and maximized spell casting to be a good offsetting factor.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, I think a "themed" sorcerer would be more fun. The sorcerer in my group explained that his sorcerous powers came from draconic blood (actually a green dragon who was an ancient enemy of his bloodline) and roleplayed this draconic element well. He focused on all things draconic, tried to use gas spells where he could, and was planning on becoming a dragon disciple. All in all, he was a lot cooler concept than the standard wizard in the group. Using this roleplay I could have seen how I could have given him extra spells known (a ritual where he uses draconic blood, etc) every once and awhile.

IceBear

 

[KnowTheToe]

Re: Tweaking the sorceror

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?

I think it makes sense and would allow less rule savy players to make sorc. without nerfing them thru lack of experience. I would allow it at leveling, limit it to one spell change per level and have it cost exp.

I also like the idea of rewarding a charater with a special ability (feat, skills, spell...)

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: Re: The best thing about sorcerers...

kigmatzomat---

Yes, but there are more spells worth knowing than sorcerors have slots.

Then we are not in agreement. You should play wizards. I should play sorcerers. All is well.

So you've never been higher than 8th level, eh? (int 14=max 4th level spells for wizard) That could be why you feel the way you do. A 20th level wizard can pick up rings of wizardry, pearls of power, and prepare Mnemonic Enhancer so they can have a wide variety of spells prepared that they can cast multiple times and that ignores having (Limited) Wish available. A 20th level sorceror is constantly strapped for just the right spell, having to spend feats on energy substitution just to have a mix of spells that can inflict damage while still fitting in their limited selection. But you don't think they need that many feats.

1) Read Hypersmurf's post.

2) I really don't think it's as desperate of a situation as you are turning it into. So what if a sorcerer is not as versatile as a wizard? Isn't that the point?
.
.
.

Bah, I played a game where the sorceror ruined everything.

*snip tirade*

So, since a sorceror is so obviously a munchkin's class I can only conclude that if you like sorcerors then you must also be a munchkin. Are you a munchkin?

-Brian

Do you honestly think that the fault lies with the class, and not the player? Do you think if that player was using, say, a wizard that he would have been any less munchy?
.
.
.

Speaks With Stone---
I don't really want to be artillery, so I will try something else (????).

My current sorcerer has these spells:

5 Telekinesis
4 Polymorph Other, Improved Invis.
3 Haste, Slow, Dispel Magic
2 Blindness/Deafness, Invis., See Invis., Fog Cloud
1 Identify, Obscuring Mist, Reduce, Enlarge, Shield

Not a single damage dealing spell in the bunch. [I have SF/GSF (transmutation)]
.
.
.
I've also seen illusion and enchantment sorcs. (Both kinda usless vs. undead and constructs, but who cares? Your cohort and the rest of the party can mess with those.)

Darklone---
And I assume that's what WotC built their sorcerer for ... to lure Diablo2 kids to the roleplaying tables.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: The best thing about sorcerers...

My current sorcerer has these spells:

5 Telekinesis

Not a single damage dealing spell in the bunch.

Go on, admit it... you have a Tenser's Floating Disk full of shuriken following you around...

-Hyp.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The best thing about sorcerers...

Go on, admit it... you have a Tenser's Floating Disk full of shuriken following you around...

-Hyp.

No, actually, I don't. (DR sucks, nor do I have millions of GMWed shuriken.)

I just got it, the spell, anyway. I'm planning on using it to pick up creatures, hold them, and then intimidate the hee-bee-jee-bees out of them.

 

[DreamChaser]

I honestly have to say that by this point this argument is getting inane. It is obvious to me that any debate that can go on for this many posts with every other post espousing the lameness of this verses the lameness of that is an even argument. It seems clear to me that they must be evenly matched, neither broken, neither completely lame. It is a stylistic issue.

I have some of the least munchkiny gamers I have ever had right now and they all prefer sorcerer over wizard not because they like lobbing fireball after fireball but because they don't want to spend their entire life managing their spellbook and preparing spells.

Many munchkiny players of the past have wanted the freedom to choose any damaging (or otherwise) spell they want.

I've had it go the other way too.

Personally, I hate the D&D version of cleric. Always have. That doesn't mean I think it should be struck from the game. I just won't play one.

DC

 

[Unseelie]

With care at picking spells, a Sorceror can be quite flexible... look at spells like Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation, and Shades.

Hmm, all illusion spells at that... I'm beginning to see a concept here.

 

[Bastoche]

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.

LOL it's like comparing an engineer to a physicist, a less deep understanding but a few years younger and alot richer LOL