Is Sorcerer actually a very weak class?

[Steve]

There are some things that might be able to be done to increase the quality of gameplay regarding sorcerers, without boosting their powerlevel. At the same time it wouldnt be unfair to suggest some powerboosts for any sorc that goes over Sorc6 or even find a formula to give sorcs some RP only spells as SLAs.

As you point out, Sorcerers lack Skill Points. Doubling what they get currently would be a yuuuuge benefit.

Also, because Sorcerers are much more "related" to magic—it is often in their blood—it would be interesting to consider granting pure Sorcerers the new Familiar expanding/empowering Feats (custom BGTSCC). That in itself might entice more Players to RP Sorcerers, in these terms of being more tied to the Weave, naturally and directly...and to their Familiar.

[Rask]

Yes, but Rask stated "crit immune" which is a Pale Master 10 feat, and ASoC at 10.

So that's at most Sorc 7 / PM 10 / ASoC 10 / BG 3 for 7 + 6 + 10 + 4 = 27.

The crit immune comes from using Iron Body + still spell. To clarify.

[CommanderKrieg]

Yes it is 100% >_> <_<

[Lockonnow]

I have allways say that wizard is a RP class you get language and you get skills and more spells in the spellbook so there you go

[Brother Bruce]

Sorcs dont need a buff, just a PrC that synergizes well with them if anything. The fact people want to give them more skillpoints or free feats is absurd.

[Hawke]

I do not play sorcerers, because I am feel I am not skilled enough to be effective with them. I play wizards, pretty much only wizards and one druid, and still I can't see myself picking the right spells to be effective with it and then use it.

I used to take ASOC with my wizards, but found the feat requirements for the class to be too high for what I got out of it. Having some spells maximized, etc in some instances was ok, but there were other PrCs that I feel were a better fit. Because picking the spells for what I might be doing always left me with spells that were never used.

ASOC with Sorcerer seems like it gives Sorcerer a more freedom and versatility than it would a class like the Wizard, due to the flexibility of choosing how you want to deploy your spells.

Another thing that I remember people rejoicing with sorcerers was the addition of the Archmage class. Sure, if you took it to 10, you burn 5 spells (unlike another PrC with much easier requirements to qualify) but the sorcerer could eat that cost. The ability to pick a couple of SLAs and change the elemental damage on a spell helped reduce the need of having more spells that were of different elemental type, like acid or fire, etc. This would give out more freedom.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that yes, ASOC seems to be a go to class for Sorcerers, and even Archmage if you dont want to go the divine shield route, because it just goes together, like peanut butter and chocolate.

What is being asked of the developer team is to recreate a base class, balance it, test it, and make certain that it isn't over powered compared to the other classes. That is huge.

After writing this, I think I am going to make the plunge in creating my first sorcerer, because now I am curious. Yes, I think I am. Just have no idea what I want to do.

[Steve]

I think the big issue for Sorcerers is the CRPG vs. PnP difference. In PnP, there is so much power in the immediacy of having spells available and constant in the mind and by the hand, that even going 30 levels of Sorc would make for a powerful Character.

But on a CRPG, and on BGTSCC where they "compete" with Favored Souls, Bards, etc., they just simple fall short in the mechanics issue(s).

Luckily, however, why even consider a pure Sorcerer anymore, when considering that there IS ASoC and Arch Mage. D&D has nearly always been about multi-classing, at least, in the ability of a Player to customize their Character. I can only hope that D&D in general continues to develop in this way.

So, really, Sorc is the base or foundation for a very powerful Character—and Build—if you utilize all the options that are available to you. Because really, why not take advantage of these options?!?

[Flights of Fantasy]

Especially when there is no reason to avoid it.

[HauteCarl]

I played a sorc on a nwn1 pw for about 6 years, it was a blast. Being a character that is essentially tied to the weave is fun stuff rp wise but viability is a big issue for me. When just by looking through nwn2db you see that the wizard builds outnumber the sorc builds by 50 to 1 it does tend to make one think that there is something inherently better, easier or maybe more fun about playing a wiz here. Sorc's typically are played for the pew pew blastification factor as I have learned but it would be interesting to play a one that is dc based perhaps.

[Archaos]

We've discussed them in QC before and the issue is that they really are already a powerful class so it's tough to justify improving them.

This doesn't make much sense.
Sorcerer is an empty but a powerful class and even more powerful with PrCs.
With both arguments, there's no reason not to improve Sorcs.

a) If the base class class is that powerful and the PrCs can make them more powerful, then there's no reason not to improve the base class to make pure Sorcs slightly more in line with PrCs. Since everyone goes into a PrC.

b) If it's the PrCs that make the Sorc that powerful, then that's no justification to not improve the base Sorc either.
Since taking class levels away, should be a trade-off.
You trade the pure class levels, for the PrC benefits.

Look at the Druid, they are a full and powerful class 1-30.
You can choose to PrC for variety but there's a trade-off.
ALL the classes should be like that, especially the Sorcerer.
Pathfinder had the right idea. Wanna PrC or multi-class? Then you lose the benefits of staying pure.

I am not saying buff the Sorcerer's spellcasting, since that would be a buff to multi-classing, THAT would make it more powerful.
The empty class levels should be buffed, with something similar to Pathfinder's Sorcerer.
You multiclass, you lose the bloodline benefits. The spell power remains the same.

I don't understand this idea about rewarding pure classes. One of the more unique things about 3e D&D and this game is the possibility of combining up to 4 classes in a (hopefully) unique manner. PRCs are almost always more powerful for any sort of char, and I don't see a problem with that.

If your designed class is worthless after a few levels because you're not rewarded for staying pure, that's a lazily made and badly designed class.

Look at the Druid. Solid class features 1-30 with lots of variety and scaling bonuses.
Look at the Sorcerer. Empty and lazy class. At least the Wizard gets extra feats.
Look at Favored Soul. A ton of class features as well, up to level 20.
Look at the Cleric. Empty class beyond level 1, like the Sorcerer.
At least Clerics get some scaling abilities from some Domains but that's about it.

You get the option to multiclass with all those classes. Rewarding pure class doesn't prohibit that.
But it's obvious which classes are fuller and better designed and which ones are lazily made.

An empty and boring class, is a badly designed class.
A badly designed needs to be buffed and improved.

The Sorcerer's strength is the casting and that's why it is more powerful with PrCs.
I'm not saying buff the casting, I'm saying buff the empty class levels with something else.
Bloodline feats/resistances etc are thematically appropriate.

But the ability to get 1 new spell and/or to change the spells at levels 21-30, is a good one too.

[chad878262]

Archaos, I think you are missing the point. Even without PRC's Sorcerer can already handle as much content as just about any other class. Sure, they are not going to solo the white dragon, but most content a sorcerer with a solid selection of feats and spells is going to ROFL-stomp the majority of PvE content...and they will do it for a bit longer than a Wizard. It's not just about having 1 more spell per level than a Specialist Wizard, it is also about the need for a Wizard to prepare spells they may never use, tying up slots in order to ensure they have some protection if they get hit with Mords or otherwise find themselves in a dangerous position and need to escape.

Meanwhile the Sorcerer always has those spells in there bag, but if they don't need them they can still rain death on mobs and bosses, using their full arsenal. You ask why we shouldn't improve sorcerer, but really there needs to be a reason why we SHOULD improve them. You don't start a business case with 'why not?'

This is all just my opinion of course, but it's likely more people play wizards because as an RP server there are sooo many spells that have situational usefulness which, with a bit of planning they can make sure they are prepared with. Sorcerers on the other hand pick their spells and that is all they got... but they can still use scrolls to carry around additional spells for supplemental/RP purposes. My guess is most players like the fact that, as a Wizard they get more languages, more skills and the ability to know more spells. Thus they are willing to give up the extra spells for those perks.

From a PvP perspective the Sorc will win more often than not between equally skilled players. They can counter spell with the dispel line and mords in their arsenal and the wizard will run out of spells before them, then it is just a matter of Mords, Enervation, maybe a greater bestow curse and then pick your save or die spell... That one more spell (more often 2-3 more spells on some important levels due to reasoning stated above) means they will outlast in a battle with a Wizard of equal skill. However, players like having skill points, knowing more languages and having much easier access to RP spells, thus there are more Wizards.

As dedude said in the other thread, I wouldn't be opposed to Bloodlines or granting one spell / day as a SLA from a pre-determined list of RP spells at level 7, 14, 21, 28 or something. But I would oppose anything that puts them in to a stronger position then they are already in.

[Nemni]

Look at the Druid. Solid class features 1-30 with lots of variety and scaling bonuses.

When I look at the Druid I see a class that is so heavily rewarded for staying pure, that it's very hard to motivate anyone to do it differently. That means that almost all druids are built the same way, with only minor variations. Favoured soul is also rewarded heavily, which means most people only dip a bit in other classes. Quite dull, imo.
Encourage more multiclassing with more variation instead!

[Archaos]

That's no excuse to keep a class that is 1-6 levels long (not counting spell/caster levels) empty.

Yes, I get the point, the Sorcerer is powerful.
The Sorcerer with PrCs is more powerful though.

Why then not give the base Sorcerer some flavorful and more interesting, non-spell related abilities, so staying pure becomes an actual valid choice?
Not going into PrCs is not a thing people do. Unless they are new and choose the handicap for RP.
That is my point. No one chooses to stay pure Sorcerer for mechanical purposes.

Measuring the power of the base Sorcerer is pointless since not going into a PrC is a handicap, not something people can practically do.
At least you can make an argument that the extra feats of the Wizard are quite useful and there's actually a trade-off to going into PrCs.

When I look at the Druid I see a class that is so heavily rewarded for staying pure, that it's very hard to motivate anyone to do it differently. That means that almost all druids are built the same way, with only minor variations. Favoured soul is also rewarded heavily, which means most people only dip a bit in other classes. Quite dull, imo.
Encourage more multiclassing with more variation instead!

If you're heavily rewarded for staying pure, that doesn't mean that you're limited from multi-classing. There's a trade-off.
You trade-off pure class power for PrC variation and/or power. How it should be.

A Rogue going into Assassin trades off half the skill points and extra Rogue feats for some spells, HiPS and Death Attack. That's an actual choice and a trade off.
Though HiPS heavily tips it to the Assassin's favor.
It's why HiPS should be a Rogue feat at worst.

With badly designed empty classes you don't even get that choice.
Empty Class <<< Empty Class with PrCs. Every single time.

[Flights of Fantasy]

Look at the Cleric. Empty class beyond level 1, like the Sorcerer.
At least Clerics get some scaling abilities from some Domains but that's about it.

I have to disagree to a certain extent. I can see why you're saying it's a boring class, but you're forgetting about turn undead progression. Clerics, much like Paladins, seemed to have initially been designed to be the undead slayers with the Paladin being the fighter version of the cleric. (Or in the case of evil clerics, the controllers of the undead with Blackguards the fighter version.) When a class is designed to fulfill a certain roll, it can't help but be a bit "boring."

[metaquad4]

PRCs (Hierophant and Morninglord) give turn undead progression.

Cleric 20/Hierophant 10 vs Cleric 30. What is the trade off for taking Hierophant? 15 skill points devoted into Lore: Religion and 3 feats?

Clerics (should, because its an idea yay!) get an additional domain at levels 25, and 30. Just an idea to give pure clerics something else. Not too powerful either, especially considering its unlikely that a single god has more than 2 useful domains. Maybe bonus feats every 5 levels after 10, too? (10, 15, 20, 25, 30)

*Devolves off topic*

-----------------------------

Giving sorcerers a spell like ability every 5 levels (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30) would certainly fill the motif of having "lots of spells", and it would fill the levels out a little more too.