thank you very much dire mongoose. that was very clarifying information. i would like to know about other people who refer to wizards as gods. and why hasnt Treantmonk written a guide for sorcerers then?
Well, he only wrote guides for like 3-4 classes, probably due to his own personal interest or time limitations or what not.
but we still havent established how and why people consider wizards gods. not too long ago someone had written up a guide similar to Treantmonk's guide on the sorcerer (apparently Treantmonk didnt consider sorcerers good enough to make their own guide; apparently people only play wizards) and right in the title of the guide it said "the almost complete guide to god's (referring to the wizard) little sister" or something like that. how does having the ability to prepare spells make one a god? please explain. again, not negative. thanks again everyone for keeping this thread clean and nice. this is a clarification/experience sharing discussion.
Option are power in the game. The more you can do, the power you have, and a wizard who is willing to pimp out his spell book, and gather information has the most power. Earlier someone mentioned the point of a wizard running out of spells, but I forgot to address it. Some people feel like they have to cast a spell every round, but that is just a waste of resources. There is normally a point when everyone at the table knows the battle is won. Another point is that if you go with a specialist wizard you can cast just as many spells as a sorcerer. The class alone is not enough. The player also has to be able to pick spells that are generally useful. A wizard can handle just about any situation. Being able to prepare different spells every day is like a fighter being able to switch out feats every day. One day you might need to be an archer, another day you might need to do battle field control, another day you might need to be a switch hitter. The wizard can do that, except it is with spells instead of feats.
edit:changed "address" to "mention"
Sorry for the typos. I think there are more, but the basic point got across.
thank you very much dire mongoose. that was very clarifying information. i would like to know about other people who refer to wizards as gods. and why hasnt Treantmonk written a guide for sorcerers then?
1. I view wizards as gods but I prefer sorcerors as a matter of style. I dont think they are bad, they just arent capable of doing what a wizard can do given the right circumstances. Though I do play both classes as well as many other casting classes (I like spells).
2. Treantmonk only writes guides for classes he is interested in playing and has played. Sorceror for matters of preference doesnt fit this scheme. He has also mentioned a good deal of it will be redundant with the wizard guide (such as good feats and spells) and thus is less worth the effort then a non-overlapping class.
Earlier someone address the point of a wizard running out of spells, but I forgot to address it. Some people feel like they have to cast a spell every round, but that is just a waste of resources.
I really agree with this -- the best wizard players I have seen will often go several encounters in a row without casting a spell, carefully hoarding their juice for the moment when it really matters.
A sorcerer I wouldn't play the same way. If you've got a spell that's useful, cast it now, because you can't guarantee that you'll have a spell that's as useful for the next encounter and you probably aren't going to run out of juice.
Is it more fun to do something every round, or is it more fun to be the person who has the exact right couple spells ready when things go wrong and otherwise doesn't do much? That's a matter of player preference, but I will say that a lot of people don't have the patience to do the second option correctly.
|
<<...>>
Is it more fun to do something every round, or is it more fun to be the person who has the exact right couple spells ready when things go wrong and otherwise doesn't do much? That's a matter of player preference, but I will say that a lot of people don't have the patience to do the second option correctly.
Good point--those of us who spent time playing low-level magic-users in 1st Edition and OD&D dungeon crawls got used to not doing anything during the majority of encounters. At least in PF you can always plink away with ray of frost or acid splash. Or cast detect magic and spend a few rounds analyzing what you're up against, if it's using spells.
|
|
Option are power in the game. The more you can do, the power you have, and a wizard who is willing to pimp out his spell book, and gather information has the most power. Earlier someone address the point of a wizard running out of spells, but I forgot to address it. Some people feel like they have to cast a spell every round, but that is just a waste of resources. There is normally a point when everyone at the table knows the battle is won. Another point is that if you go with a specialist wizard you can cast just as many spells as a sorcerer. The class alone is not enough. The player also has to be able to pick spells that are generally useful. A wizard can handle just about any situation. Being able to prepare different spells every day is like a fighter being able to switch out feats every day. One day you might need to be an archer, another day you might need to do battle field control, another day you might need to be a switch hitter. The wizard can do that, except it is with spells instead of feats.
But with that does come a trade off. That trade off being less spells per day and each spell slot being a single use gamble.
The Wizard has two less spells per level (4 vs 6), give or take, and each spell they memorize takes a slot and once used is gone for the day, unless you take one of the duplicate type spells which would also take a slot, generally higher level. You can have an arcane bonded object to cast a spell as second time, but that could leave you with a death star like weakness (If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level.)
People point out scrolls, but scrolls aren't free, or even that cheap. And it takes time to make them, as well as using that spell slot for the day. Not to mention smart DMs interpret the "...must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll." part carefully when playing with casters who like to be invisible or work from darkness.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Magic-Item-Creation
Now on the upside Wizards get higher level spells a level earlier, and as I said, if you know exactly what is coming they are far, far better to have with you. But in general everyday use and normal play it isn't nearly as cut and dry when you can cast the same useful spell multiple times rather than facing something that has saves against most of the spells you memorized.
.
The Wizard has two less spells per level (4 vs 6),
Specialist wizard (yes, also a trade-off, but generally a good one) does narrow that to 5 vs. 6, and as you point out, even the most straightforward and uncreative use of arcane bond puts that up to 6 vs. 6 for at least one level of spells.
And then there's pearls of power and rings of wizardry. Mostly pearls -- granted, they get prohibitively priced fast, but for the lower half or so of spell levels they're pretty awesome and, potentially, let you cast as many spells of the given level as you can afford pearls for. Higher level pearls are probably too expensive to really factor in, but that's also about the point when sorcerer starts hitting 'you'll only know 3 spells of this level, ever' territory. Which, granted, the favored class feature in the AGP can potentially soften to 5 spells of this level, ever, for most of them. Eventually.
The wizard isn't the clear winner in every case, but too many things break its way at least most of the time (scrolls being a perfect example of this in spite of the limitations you correctly point out), and that all adds up.
|
|
.
The Wizard has two less spells per level (4 vs 6),
Specialist wizard (yes, also a trade-off, but generally a good one) does narrow that to 5 vs. 6, and as you point out, even the most straightforward and uncreative use of arcane bond puts that up to 6 vs. 6 for at least one level of spells.
And then there's pearls of power and rings of wizardry. Mostly pearls -- granted, they get prohibitively priced fast, but for the lower half or so of spell levels they're pretty awesome and, potentially, let you cast as many spells of the given level as you can afford pearls for. Higher level pearls are probably too expensive to really factor in, but that's also about the point when sorcerer starts hitting 'you'll only know 3 spells of this level, ever' territory. Which, granted, the favored class feature in the AGP can potentially soften to 5 spells of this level, ever, for most of them. Eventually.
The wizard isn't the clear winner in every case, but too many things break its way at least most of the time (scrolls being a perfect example of this in spite of the limitations you correctly point out), and that all adds up.
Very fair points. I would describe the Wizard as the most exploitable of all of the classes, but I do think the costs of the above also means to get a full exploit you have to trade off and sacrifice. And I would say the wizard can find themselves not having the right spells memorized for a job and vulnerable.
Option are power in the game. The more you can do, the power you have, and a wizard who is willing to pimp out his spell book, and gather information has the most power. Earlier someone address the point of a wizard running out of spells, but I forgot to address it. Some people feel like they have to cast a spell every round, but that is just a waste of resources. There is normally a point when everyone at the table knows the battle is won. Another point is that if you go with a specialist wizard you can cast just as many spells as a sorcerer. The class alone is not enough. The player also has to be able to pick spells that are generally useful. A wizard can handle just about any situation. Being able to prepare different spells every day is like a fighter being able to switch out feats every day. One day you might need to be an archer, another day you might need to do battle field control, another day you might need to be a switch hitter. The wizard can do that, except it is with spells instead of feats.But with that does come a trade off. That trade off being less spells per day and each spell slot being a single use gamble.
The Wizard has two less spells per level (4 vs 6), give or take, and each spell they memorize takes a slot and once used is gone for the day, unless you take one of the duplicate type spells which would also take a slot, generally higher level. You can have an arcane bonded object to cast a spell as second time, but that could leave you with a death star like weakness (If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level.)
People point out scrolls, but scrolls aren't free, or even that cheap. And it takes time to make them, as well as using that spell slot for the day. Not to mention smart DMs interpret the "...must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll." part carefully when playing with casters who like to be invisible or work from darkness.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Magic-Item-Creation
Now on the upside Wizards get higher level spells a level earlier, and as I said, if you know exactly what is coming they are far, far better to have with you. But in general everyday use and normal play it isn't nearly as cut and dry when you can cast the same useful spell multiple times rather than facing something that has saves against most of the spells you memorized.
Most of the time you fight four encounters or less, and not every encounter, combat or otherwise will require a spell to be cast. As long as the player can pick spells that are generally useful the party will succeed. If he does not know which spells to use he is not better off as a sorc, so wrong spells is a moot point. I am of course assuming we have players that know what they are doing when they play a wizard.
Why would a wizard not have his bonded item? If you can take the item then you are probably close enough to kill the wizard/sorc anyway.Scrolls are not free, but they are relatively cheap, and when you can scribe your own they get cheaper. I am not saying go crazy buying them, but to have a copy or 2 of spells you never want to prep, but might be useful is not a bad idea. I always had faerie fire as a druid on a scroll, and a few cure scrolls among others. Being invisible does not stop you from being able to read a scroll. Darkness might, but if the area is dark someone usually has a lantern or the light spell handy. Fighting is the dark is generally a bad idea anyway unless you have darkvision, so most parties avoid it at all cost. You can get the saves to be really high if you are playing a SoD/SoS caster. If you are not then it is less of an issue. Most people prepare the occasional SoS spell, but don't focus on it. Wizard's intelligence also allows for knowledge checks so they know what the most likely low save is for a creature. Throwing a fort save at a giant is a bad idea, and throwing a will save at an outsider also does not work well.
And I would say the wizard can find themselves not having the right spells memorized for a job and vulnerable.
No doubt. That dizzying power swing between being the most valuable character in the party or the most useless depending on how well you anticipated is/was, to me, part of the big draw of the class from a player fun perspective.
Which is part of why I hate arcane bond -- it's not perfect, but it's a still too good (my opinion) a safety net against not having prepared Rock to Mud the one day you really need it.
A sorcerer with decent spell picks is definitely more on an even keel.
|
|
And I would say the wizard can find themselves not having the right spells memorized for a job and vulnerable.No doubt. That dizzying power swing between being the most valuable character in the party or the most useless depending on how well you anticipated is/was, to me, part of the big draw of the class from a player fun perspective.
Which is part of why I hate arcane bond -- it's not perfect, but it's a still too good (my opinion) a safety net against not having prepared Rock to Mud the one day you really need it.
A sorcerer with decent spell picks is definitely more on an even keel.
Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhere or you have it in your hand and you are a grease spell away from trouble.
Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhere or you have it in your hand and you are a grease spell away from trouble.And I would say the wizard can find themselves not having the right spells memorized for a job and vulnerable.No doubt. That dizzying power swing between being the most valuable character in the party or the most useless depending on how well you anticipated is/was, to me, part of the big draw of the class from a player fun perspective.
Which is part of why I hate arcane bond -- it's not perfect, but it's a still too good (my opinion) a safety net against not having prepared Rock to Mud the one day you really need it.
A sorcerer with decent spell picks is definitely more on an even keel.
You can enchant it as though you had the correct item creation feat so even if it takes up a slot it is still useful. I think rings are hard to steal so I would take the ring.
|
|
You can enchant it as though you had the correct item creation feat so even if it takes up a slot it is still useful. I think rings are hard to steal so I would take the ring.
Don't get me wrong, Arcane Bond is generally superior IMHO to a familiar, but it does give you an exploitable weakness. Which is something I actually like about it. It was one of my favorite Pathfinder changes.
Edit: Also you can't forge rings until 7th level, and even then it's at your caster level.
Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhere or you have it in your hand and you are a grease spell away from trouble.
My gut feeling is, for arcane bond to be reasonably balanced, you have to play it out as: enemies smart enough to understand what spellcasters are will generally recognize bonded items and target them for sundering etc.
Which I think is workable, but I don't think is that much fun for anyone involved.
Beyond that, what WS said about enchanting.
Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhere
The slot thing would be relevant if you couldn't either use a magic item as your bonded object or make your bonded object into a magic item.
|
|
Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhereThe slot thing would be relevant if you couldn't either use a magic item as your bonded object or make your bonded object into a magic item.
Depends on what you can make vs what you can find. At lower levels you still have to meet the pre-requisites, and at higher levels artifacts are often better than what you can personally make.
Not saying it isn't good, just saying its a trade off and a potential trap.
|
|
Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhereThe slot thing would be relevant if you couldn't either use a magic item as your bonded object or make your bonded object into a magic item.
Depends on what you make. You can't forge rings until 7th level for example, and even then it's at your caster level still paying for half. Basically it gives you the item creation feat for that item, you still have to follow all the rules of actually making it a magic item.
Depends on what you can make vs what you can find.Arcane bond is nice, but it either takes up a slot somewhereThe slot thing would be relevant if you couldn't either use a magic item as your bonded object or make your bonded object into a magic item.
No, it doesn't. That's my whole point. To quote the book and the SRD, "A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item."
So, you can take your found magic item and make it your bonded object, in place of your current one. The fact that you have a ring as a bonded object doesn't actually stop you from walking around at 4th level with two looted-from-enemy magic rings. You just take one of the looted rings and make it your replacement bonded object.
So, you can take your found magic item and make it your bonded object, in place of your current one. The fact that you have a ring as a bonded object doesn't actually stop you from walking around at 4th level with two looted-from-enemy magic rings. You just take one of the looted rings and make it your replacement bonded object.
Further, in that situation I don't see any reason you couldn't say:
"this amulet is now my bonded object," if you really wanted to.At least something you've enchanted without needing the feats loses that juice if you un-bonded-object it -- otherwise arcane bond would amount to most of the crafting feats for free.
|
|
No, it doesn't. That's my whole point. To quote the book and the SRD, "A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item."
So, you can take your found magic item and make it your bonded object, in place of your current one. The fact that you have a ring as a bonded object doesn't actually stop you from walking around at 4th level with two looted-from-enemy magic rings. You just take one of the looted rings and make it your replacement bonded object.
You are right. If you go through the ritual, but you are right. It's still a weakness, but you are absolutely correct.
It's still a weakness
Yep. Sunderability/stealability/etc. and the resulting roll problem is a definite weakness.
Also on Odd levels the Wizard actually comes out ahead of the sorcerer for spells per day for a while.
Consider:
Sorcerer level 3: 5 first level spells per day.
Wizard level 3: 3 first level spells for the day, and 3 second level spells for the day.
Part of this is because when the wizard hits a new spell level he gets his bonus spells for that level too. Thus he has the spells slots he would have, plus his speciality slot, plus his bonus slots for the spell level.
5th level sorcerer: 6 first 4 second
5th level wizard: 4 first 3 second 3 third
So now the sorcerer has as many... but not of the same levels.
seventh level sorcerer: 6 first 6 second 4 third
seventh level wizard: 5 first 4 second 2 third 3 fourth
At this point the socerer stays ahead on spells per day from here out.
*****
HOWEVER: The wizard gets scribe scroll at first level. Since he can have almost every spell in his spell book and can scribe a scroll of second level or less in 2 hours, while one of 4th level or less only takes a day.
This means for the spells that he doesn't really need to have at his best ability he can have almost unlimited access to. Which means the sorcerer's vaulted "versatility" is a sham since he's only got what he has known.
***********************
Personally I don't by the whole "Wizards are gods and everyone else just aren't needed" crap. Sure if the wizard has all the time to prepare, knows exactly who his opponent is, and exactly what they will do, etc etc then he can possibly beat anyone.
But there are a lot of "ifs" involved, and a lot of ignoring his limitations involved, and requires playing by the "if you aren't a wizard you can't have nice things and wizards have all the nice things" blinders.
|
|
HOWEVER: The wizard gets scribe scroll at first level. Since he can have almost every spell in his spell book and can scribe a scroll of second level or less in 2 hours, while one of 4th level or less only takes a day.
This means for the spells that he doesn't really need to have at his best ability he can have almost unlimited access to. Which means the sorcerer's vaulted "versatility" is a sham since he's only got what he has known.
I agree with your larger point, but the scroll thing still matters because scrolls cost gold and need to be accessible (getting a scroll is a move action, even from a handy haversack, and casting is a standard), readable (can't be invisible, in darkness), etc...
Plus I suspect part of the reason they made use magic device a charisma based skill is to help Sorcerers have some access to these same scrolls, albeit at major risk of failure until higher levels.
It is the ability to repeat the same spell over and over that I attribute the versatility to as much as the number of spells. If your spell list is full of things that aren't useful, then those slots are effectively wasted. Not so with a sorcerer.
But we're arguing the margins at this point, I think we largely agree.
Plus I suspect part of the reason they made use magic device a charisma based skill is to help Sorcerers have some access to these same scrolls, albeit at major risk of failure until higher levels.
UMD has been a charisma skill, but until recently it wasn't a sorcerer class skill.
I agree with you about the intent of that, however. It does open the door to some interesting combinations. I might should start a second thread about what useful things you could or couldn't do with it in practical terms as a sorcerer.
HOWEVER: The wizard gets scribe scroll at first level. Since he can have almost every spell in his spell book and can scribe a scroll of second level or less in 2 hours, while one of 4th level or less only takes a day.
This means for the spells that he doesn't really need to have at his best ability he can have almost unlimited access to. Which means the sorcerer's vaulted "versatility" is a sham since he's only got what he has known.
I agree with your larger point, but the scroll thing still matters because scrolls cost gold and need to be accessible (getting a scroll is a move action, even from a handy haversack, and casting is a standard), readable (can't be invisible, in darkness), etc...
Plus I suspect part of the reason they made use magic device a charisma based skill is to help Sorcerers have some access to these same scrolls, albeit at major risk of failure until higher levels.
It is the ability to repeat the same spell over and over that I attribute the versatility to as much as the number of spells. If your spell list is full of things that aren't useful, then those slots are effectively wasted. Not so with a sorcerer.
But we're arguing the margins at this point, I think we largely agree.
Probably so.
I do have another thought on the subject (if you can't tell I really enjoy my magic users and play them rather often):
Pearls of power.
Now IF at level 20 you buy your +5 book of Intelligence and +6 headband of Intelligence and nothing else but pearls of power you can have the following (iirc)
1 ninth level
3 eighth level
3 seventh level
5 sixth level
5 fifth level
7 fourth level
7 third level
8 second level
10 first level
That combined with the fact that you have 9 first level spell slots, 8 slots for spell levels 2nd~5th, and 7 slots for spell levels 6~9th.
That's before you use your pearls of power to repeat spells.
As a generalist you could reduce each of those by 1, and instead take that new necklace from the APG as your bonded object to change spells memorized on the fly into other spells from a specific school of magic each day (I would recommend Conjuration).
Basically put when it comes to one entire school of magic you can be a spontaneous caster, reload spell slots, and have the scrolls for back up too (scrolls you know you can have since you can create them unlike the sorcerer).
Now granted this example does take place at level 20 however you can scale into it easily.
In fact at lower levels the wizard has more versatility than the sorcerer since he has more spells known, can change up his list each day, is only one spell slot less than the sorcerer -- and can scribe scrolls at his caster level (or close enough at the lower levels to count) for his use all the time.
Basically put in comparision at level 1 the wizard kicks the sorcerer to the curb for spell versatility in every single way.
I would also remind people that as a wizard you do not have to prepare all your spells at once. Just take some of what you'll need at the start of the day and memorize others when you got some time and have more of an idea of what you'll need for the day.
But it take 15 minutes to memorize a spell, which makes it useless when not in combat.
And you are right, pearls of power are hax. The expense helps, but it does steal a good bit of the sorcerers thunder.
Yeah it does nothing in combat -- but see the necklace I mentioned earlier that's just about as "hax" as the pearls of power and much cheaper.
|
|
Yeah it does nothing in combat -- but see the necklace I mentioned earlier that's just about as "hax" as the pearls of power and much cheaper.
But it take 15 minutes to memorize a spell, which makes it useless when not in combat.
And you are right, pearls of power are hax. The expense helps, but it does steal a good bit of the sorcerers thunder.
If you are talking about the Amulet of Magecraft, I just took a look at it and actually it has a lot of nerf attached (must be universalist, pick school at start of day, under 3rd...)
Is that what you meant?
|
Skimmed the thread, going to post the explanation I understand.
Sorcerers have a spells known list. They can cast from it in any combination to the per day limit.
Wizards can prepare any of the Sorcerers combinations for the day, and on top of this can prepare any other combination he wants.
Effectively, the Wizard is a Sorcerer who chooses his spells known every morning instead of only once at character creation.
But who thinks wizards are gods and sorcerers are crappy?
I don't know anyone who would say that exactly, but most of the players I know would agree that the wizard is mechanically stronger.
Or, to put it another way, that the wizard is a Tier 1 class and the sorcerer is a Tier 2 class, on a scale from about 1 to 6.