There is a need for a degree of balance in order for all character types to be considered fun. this is generally very well done in 5e.
The only people who I see complaining about balancing are those who tend to compare the highest maxed out, feat and multiclass combining character statistics in an artificial situation whereby they have preselected what equipment should be considered available (generally ignoring magical items) in order to calculate a kind of 'standard damage per turn' which doesn't take into account anything like utility, mobility etc. These people are trying to invent optimised damage builds to work out What is the highest damage per turn a character can do, taking all the highest damage options available? using a specific set of abilities, then declaring that all other combinations of abilities should somehow do exactly the same.
Kind of weird to try to balance a game where one character can cast Fly and another specialises in hitting things a lot with an axe, and where you're going to face completely unknown challenges where one, or both, of those skills may be completely useless for the entire game. And yet, 5e is fantastically balanced.
It's really just an internet forum thing, I've never met anyone who was actually playing the game who gave a hoot about it.
You are right about the weird theory building that happens on the internet. If your build doesn't come together by level 10-12 it is likely to never get there. Hitting levels higher than that is rare and it doesn't make sense to design your character specifically for that goal. And as you said, most of these super builds don't even take the campaign into consideration.
However when it comes to Ranger, I have issue with it. Every class should at least be really good at something and that something should not require the DM to have go out of their way to insert things into the game just so that they can shine. All of the classes in the game are versitile enough that moments for them to really stand out appear in a natural organic fashion. The Ranger is the only one whose abilities are so focus that in order to take advantage of their "theme" the DM has to be sure add specific terrain/foes for that character. A Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Fighter, etc. has tools that are useful no matter the setting or enemy so aren't as limited in scope.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Rangers are well balanced for combat. I just think their "specialty" is to narrow. Like Pangurjan said, had they just given them Expertise in Survival, it would have been better than what they had. Maybe give them a natural hunting instinct ability that lets them buff the party adapt to stalking a specific enemy after studying their movements and habits for a while instead of limiting it to a single category of foe.
You are right about the weird theory building that happens on the internet. If your build doesn't come together by level 10-12 it is likely to never get there. Hitting levels higher than that is rare and it doesn't make sense to design your character specifically for that goal. And as you said, most of these super builds don't even take the campaign into consideration.
However when it comes to Ranger, I have issue with it. Every class should at least be really good at something and that something should not require the DM to have go out of their way to insert things into the game just so that they can shine. All of the classes in the game are versitile enough that moments for them to really stand out appear in a natural organic fashion. The Ranger is the only one whose abilities are so focus that in order to take advantage of their "theme" the DM has to be sure add specific terrain/foes for that character. A Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Fighter, etc. has tools that are useful no matter the setting or enemy so aren't as limited in scope.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Rangers are well balanced for combat. I just think their "specialty" is to narrow. Like Pangurjan said, had they just give Expertise in given them Expertise in Survival, it would have been better than what they had.
I'd even say the Rogue Scout with its outdoors and skirmishes features arguably does the Ranger archetype well AND has the versatility broad environment application the Ranger is accused of lacking.
That said, my Rangers enjoy being Rangers, and one of them has a Paladin in the party. I don't think I do anyone any favors in the game, though I do try to make the game entertaining to the whole party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You are right about the weird theory building that happens on the internet. If your build doesn't come together by level 10-12 it is likely to never get there. Hitting levels higher than that is rare and it doesn't make sense to design your character specifically for that goal. And as you said, most of these super builds don't even take the campaign into consideration.
However when it comes to Ranger, I have issue with it. Every class should at least be really good at something and that something should not require the DM to have go out of their way to insert things into the game just so that they can shine. All of the classes in the game are versitile enough that moments for them to really stand out appear in a natural organic fashion. The Ranger is the only one whose abilities are so focus that in order to take advantage of their "theme" the DM has to be sure add specific terrain/foes for that character. A Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Fighter, etc. has tools that are useful no matter the setting or enemy so aren't as limited in scope.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Rangers are well balanced for combat. I just think their "specialty" is to narrow. Like Pangurjan said, had they just give Expertise in given them Expertise in Survival, it would have been better than what they had.
I'd even say the Rogue Scout with its outdoors and skirmishes features arguably does the Ranger archetype well AND has the versatility broad environment application the Ranger is accused of lacking.
That said, my Rangers enjoy being Rangers, and one of them has a Paladin in the party. I don't think I do anyone any favors in the game, though I do try to make the game entertaining to the whole party.
I want to go on record for saying that the Ranger is completely playable as is and is even fun to play. I just think it is the only class that suffers from having too narrow of a focus and not being particularly good in that focus. When it comes to just crunching numbers I think it is a good combat character and it certainly has a general appeal to the right type of player.
You are right about the weird theory building that happens on the internet. If your build doesn't come together by level 10-12 it is likely to never get there. Hitting levels higher than that is rare and it doesn't make sense to design your character specifically for that goal. And as you said, most of these super builds don't even take the campaign into consideration.
However when it comes to Ranger, I have issue with it. Every class should at least be really good at something and that something should not require the DM to have go out of their way to insert things into the game just so that they can shine. All of the classes in the game are versitile enough that moments for them to really stand out appear in a natural organic fashion. The Ranger is the only one whose abilities are so focus that in order to take advantage of their "theme" the DM has to be sure add specific terrain/foes for that character. A Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Fighter, etc. has tools that are useful no matter the setting or enemy so aren't as limited in scope.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Rangers are well balanced for combat. I just think their "specialty" is to narrow. Like Pangurjan said, had they just give Expertise in given them Expertise in Survival, it would have been better than what they had.
I'd even say the Rogue Scout with its outdoors and skirmishes features arguably does the Ranger archetype well AND has the versatility broad environment application the Ranger is accused of lacking.
That said, my Rangers enjoy being Rangers, and one of them has a Paladin in the party. I don't think I do anyone any favors in the game, though I do try to make the game entertaining to the whole party.
I want to go on record for saying that the Ranger is completely playable as is and is even fun to play. I just think it is the only class that suffers from having too narrow of a focus and not being particularly good in that focus. When it comes to just crunching numbers I think it is a good combat character and it certainly has a general appeal to the right type of player.
Completely agree. I think giving them survival and stealth for free as skills as well as expertise in them would help a ton. After that, increased movement and disengage as a bonus would round it out nicely for combat. Don't want to dip too deeply into rogue range though.
Mechanically, looking at just numbers and stuff, I am inclined to agree that other subclasses can usually "be" an effective "Ranger" for the group. With that said, I am currently DMing a campaign I wrote, where the heroes are going to quite literally save the realm! (My realm, not anything published)
Groups is a Tiefling Pally, Aarakocra Ranger, Tabaxi Wizard and Kobold Rogue. They have been travelling primarily through pretty thick forest near mountains and the Ranger has been able to shine, since he's the one proficient in the guiding/nature-y stuff. He's using mostly his Longbow, so his damage in combat is fine and I, as DM am making sure he has moments that he shines. As some have mentioned, in normal, everyday adventuring/exploring/fighting, all the other classes get that chance to POP. The Ranger's strengths, where he really makes a difference, I find myself trying to make sure they encounter these things, since they aren't just "there" all the time. I find the Ranger unique in that I kind of have to look for spots he can shine, where the others just have opportunities arise through basic events. Part of my job as DM is to make sure we're all having fun and making their path take them through areas and such where he can strut his stuff isn't such a big deal.
Maybe the race/class combos help folks see how my group plays, too. More about fun and creative than crunching the best numbers, so meh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I've even faced this with one of my players. He has been bothered for most of his character's existence that, as a Sorcerer, it is "sub par" compared to say a Wizard. There is no wizard in our party, so why should it even matter if Sorcerers are sub-par compared to them? Yet it seems like just knowing that this is a thing bugs him... and I think it's all his years of MMO experience (even though he has as much pen and paper experience as I, if not more, and should know better). His character has been perfectly capable of holding his own and contributed equally to the party as everyone else, but it still bothers him to know that his Sorcerer is "not as good as a Wizard." Even though there isn't one in the campaign to even compare him to.
This is something I can speak to as I've encountered similar situations. You don't need to have a counter class in your party to look at what your character is doing, is capable of and going "You know.. if I was play X instead I could be doing this +"
For example - Playing a draconic sorcerer in a campaign and by level 3 I had already encountered a few situations where if I was playing a wizard instead we wouldn't of needed to find work arounds. First was not being able to cast Identify on a quest mcguffin, I wouldn't of picked it as one of my few spells anyway but it's not even on my spell list so we had to pay for it as a service taking away 20g out of our relatively low GP total (this is ontop of having to leave the area, trek 3 days back to town find out about a wizard in the city 2 days away, pay him than travel 5 days back to the dungeon when if I was a wizard it woulda just been 10 minutes of ritual). If only I was a wizard... First 'boss' type we fought at lvl 2 was a wizard that we took down pretty handedly, Rogue and Paladin made short work of him, and guess what, had a spell book, no earth shattering I need this spells but again totally worthless to me.. but if I was a wizard I coulda added some tools. Around lvl 3 we ran into an Orc which had tie ins to this slave trade going on but he didn't speak common.. mmmm to bad I don't have ritual casting and comprehend languages! Oh yeah I can get comprehend languages.. but we just leveled up before this.. so if we can somehow power to lvl 4 I can get the spell as I level up! lets go grind boars like in south park.. aah if only I was a wizard! Also side note we take short rests usually at least once per adventuring day if for nothing else to heal up a bit as our DM does tend to put some decent hurt on our paladin and fighter, I have nothing to do during a short rest and burning my sorcery points to recover spell slots feels terrible. I'm losing my defining feature, metamagic to make up for not having the Wizards lvl 1 arcane recovery. Just having an ability that regens spell slots feels a lot better than pissing away my class feature to do something similar. ah.. to be a wizard..
And for all that, what did I do? I got some quickened firebolts off, really hard to quantify if that d10 damage really added in some punch to make up for all the BS my lack of wizardness has brought to the table though. Whole lot of stuff I haven't been able to do and not much I have been able to do I wouldn't of been able to do if I was playing the other class.
With all that said it's finally coming close to a point where I feel like I can finally do something.. twinned haste on our melees, feels kinda bad that my biggest contribution will be.. not contributing but.. uhm its something a wizard couldn't do.. just 2 more levels of bleh to get through to finally get a leg up
Just point being you don't need to have a wizard and a sorcerer in the same party to realize you could be doing things better if you just picked the other spellcaster. It's easiest to compare sorcerers to wizards as they don't have a bunch of bells and whistles like some of the other classes.
1) Identify requires a 100gp worth pearl to be cast, so your 20gp was still a better deal
2) Having more spell slots due to sorcery points is also one of the defining features of sorc. You can improve the spells or have more spell slots per day, it's up to you which one you chose.
With the rest, I agree with Lyxen, I you want utility go with wiz, if you want blaster or some more specialized caster go sorc.
It seems we are globally in agreement, just wanted to point out that the pearl is not consumed in the casting, so it would be wrong for the NPC caster to charge it. That being said, you are absolutely right, if the party funds were limited, there is a high chance that they could not have afforded the pearl for the "wizard" to cast identify in the first place.
On top of this, honestly, you can identify most items by spending a short rest studying them, I'm not even sure what the 5 days trip was about, the party could have identified it very quickly or even left it for later to be identified.
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear enough. My point was that if they had a wizard, they would still have to buy a pearl worth 100gp (or find it and not sell it). If the "op" says that their funds were limited then it would still be a better deal for them to pay the npc the 20gp as long as they needed only 1 (or up to 4 in the long run) item identified.
Edit one other note:
It seems a bit silly from hte DM to "drop" magic book from the enemies if no one in the party can use it (I am not sure whether you can use it in similar fashion as scroll RAW, but i think you can't)
There are a few modules like this where there are wizards with spellbooks as adversaries, independently as to whether the party can use it. It can still be sold for an amount of money because, you are right, it can't be used another way.
While this is true from the logical point of view I think from a psychological point of view there is quite a difference between getting a golden statue that can be sold for X gold and some piece of equipment (like the book) that no one in the party can use that can also be sold for X gold (note that the price is same). The people would "translate" the statue into the gold, but with the equipment they would translate this more into "great now we get this useless piece of crap, the dm hates us yada yada yada..."
If you are complaining that Wizards are better than Sorcerers and one of the issues you had is that you had to pay 20gp to identify an item, then I think you need to take a bit of a step back. For almost all players, 20gp to identify an item is of very little consequence. What if your DM hadn't even put that item in the game? What if the DM had let you find 400gp? This is nothing to do with the class.
Sorcerer has loads of advantages, as well as disadvantages. If you want to play a wizard instead, get your character killed and then play a wizard. You'll soon find you're missing some of your Sorcerer skills.
The sorcerer discussion is another example of how hard it is to compare different things by some standardized metric. For every case in which you can provide examples of a wizard being able to do something the sorcerer could not, others can come up with the sorcerer doing something a wizard could not.
Take Subtle Spell, for example. In my Roman Empire campaign, there is a law against open casting of spells in the public square -- the forum, city streets, government buildings (you can cast them in a tavern or something, assuming the tavern owner doesn't object, but not in public). Subtle spell would be super-useful in a case like this.
It hasn't come up a lot yet -- the couple of times the sorcerer tried to hide his casting, were before he had the Subtle Spell feature. But they haven't gone to Rome yet... that's coming up eventually (right now they are trapped in the Astral Plane after being sucked into it by a magical maelstrom). But if he wants to cast a charm person spell, say, in the forum, without being caught, that is a great way to do it. If he tried it without Subtle Spell he might be arrested.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge, heck it's probably been given a 25-line mathematical proof in some academic journal, that if you aren't playing a race that gives you a starting +2 stat bonus in the prime stat, the character is completely unplayable. Do you realize that by playing this character, you are breaking the laws of not just D&D, but he universe and all it contains??
2) Having more spell slots due to sorcery points is also one of the defining features of sorc. You can improve the spells or have more spell slots per day, it's up to you which one you chose.
Indeed, I forgot to mention that, thanks for pointing it out, but if you do the count at level 4:
Wizard: 4 / 3 Spell Slots plus 2 levels of arcane recovery which can only be used to cast spells
Sorcerer: 4 / 3 Spell Slots plus 4 (!) Sorcery points which is more than the arcane recovery and can be used to modify spells on top of that, but even at basic usage, you get at least as much as Arcane Recovery, and you don't need a short rest to get the benefit of them.
Erm, no. Not really. Four sorcery points lets you recover 2 1st level spell slots or 1 2nd level spell slot (in the latter case you'll have one sorcery point to spare. Arcane recovery lets a wizard recover the exact same.
If a sorcerer recovers as many spells as a wizard per long rest, he's basically giving up 90% of his metamagic. Depending on the type of metamagic chosen, if they're expensive options, he might give up metamagic completely for the day. And of course the wizard can use ritual casting to supplement his daily allotment of spell slots, which the sorcerer has to take a feat for if so desired.
In practice the sorcerer gives up arcane recovery, ritual casting and the wizard's theoretically unlimited number of spells known in return for being able to apply metamagic to his scant spell selection. Given the number of sorcery points and the few metamagics he can choose (just two until level 10), it's really not a great trade.
I enjoy playing sorcerers. I particularly like Shadow Sorcery and Clockwork Souls. But enjoying a class doesn't mean it's necessarily well designed. WotC could add quite a bit to the sorcerer class without making them overpowered at all.
2) Having more spell slots due to sorcery points is also one of the defining features of sorc. You can improve the spells or have more spell slots per day, it's up to you which one you chose.
Indeed, I forgot to mention that, thanks for pointing it out, but if you do the count at level 4:
Wizard: 4 / 3 Spell Slots plus 2 levels of arcane recovery which can only be used to cast spells
Sorcerer: 4 / 3 Spell Slots plus 4 (!) Sorcery points which is more than the arcane recovery and can be used to modify spells on top of that, but even at basic usage, you get at least as much as Arcane Recovery, and you don't need a short rest to get the benefit of them.
Erm, no. Not really. Four sorcery points lets you recover 2 1st level spell slots or 1 2nd level spell slot (in the latter case you'll have one sorcery point to spare. Arcane recovery lets a wizard recover the exact same.
1) Which part of "you get at least as much as Arcane Recovery" is unclear ? If you choose two level one slots, you get exactly the same thing, but if you choose a level 2 slot, you get one sorcery point for your metamagic, which is more than what the wizard gets. "at least as much".
If a sorcerer recovers as many spells as a wizard per long rest, he's basically giving up 90% of his metamagic.
2) And how do you come up with that number ? In any case, he has more options.
Depending on the type of metamagic chosen, if they're expensive options, he might give up metamagic completely for the day.
3) No, because he can then sacrifice spell slots to get some of his metamagic back if needed. Flexibility.
And of course the wizard can use ritual casting to supplement his daily allotment of spell slots, which the sorcerer has to take a feat for if so desired.
In practice the sorcerer gives up arcane recovery, ritual casting and the wizard's theoretically unlimited number of spells known in return for being able to apply metamagic to his scant spell selection. Given the number of sorcery points and the few metamagics he can choose (just two until level 10), it's really not a great trade.
4) This is your personal view, some people think that metamagic is in itself an incredible option that allows you to do things that no wizard can ever do, and in particular (this is my personal opinion) subtle and quickened spells. But of course, if all you are doing with it is quickening cantrips to increase your DPR, I can understand your disappointment.
I enjoy playing sorcerers. I particularly like Shadow Sorcery and Clockwork Souls. But enjoying a class doesn't mean it's necessarily well designed. WotC could add quite a bit to the sorcerer class without making them overpowered at all.
5) Yes, and they could turn the streamlined 5e into a monstrosity like 3e and pathfinder and lose 80% of the newly acquired gamer base that makes them extremely rich.
1) What part of "more" is in doubt here? "At least as much" is not "more".
2) I pulled it out of thin air. Should make it easy to disprove if I'm wrong, no? In any case, wizards can recover 6th level spell slots and sorcerers can't. Wizards can use ritual magic and sorcerers can't. Wizards have many more spells to choose from, particularly ritual ones since those don't even need to be prepared. More options for the sorcerer? Pssh.
3) Which most of the time is a poor trade.
4) Metamagic is great. That some people think it's incredible doesn't mean much to me though. Just about every class ability has people who really like it.
5) They could streamline the sorcerer class even more and just give them all the metamagics at once too. Wouldn't be problematic at all and would be even simpler than it is now. No need to be so pessimistic about change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The spell slots can have a combined level that is equal to or less than half your wizard level (rounded up), and none of the slots can be 6th level or higher.
So no, wizard can't recover 6th level, plus arcane recovery is usable during short rest once per day, the sorcery points are a bonus action. And generally you indeed recover more slots via points than arcane recovery
I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge, heck it's probably been given a 25-line mathematical proof in some academic journal, that if you aren't playing a race that gives you a starting +2 stat bonus in the prime stat, the character is completely unplayable. Do you realize that by playing this character, you are breaking the laws of not just D&D, but he universe and all it contains??
I sure there is also a short mathematical proof somewhere of why moving racial ASIs to alternative attributes absolutely destroys the game in all its entirety, making it no longer be D&D at all...
I sure there is also a short mathematical proof somewhere of why moving racial ASIs to alternative attributes absolutely destroys the game in all its entirety, making it no longer be D&D at all...
That one's still going through peer review... and I think it is 50 lines long (which is why the review is taking longer)....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a need for a degree of balance in order for all character types to be considered fun. this is generally very well done in 5e.
The only people who I see complaining about balancing are those who tend to compare the highest maxed out, feat and multiclass combining character statistics in an artificial situation whereby they have preselected what equipment should be considered available (generally ignoring magical items) in order to calculate a kind of 'standard damage per turn' which doesn't take into account anything like utility, mobility etc. These people are trying to invent optimised damage builds to work out What is the highest damage per turn a character can do, taking all the highest damage options available? using a specific set of abilities, then declaring that all other combinations of abilities should somehow do exactly the same.
Kind of weird to try to balance a game where one character can cast Fly and another specialises in hitting things a lot with an axe, and where you're going to face completely unknown challenges where one, or both, of those skills may be completely useless for the entire game. And yet, 5e is fantastically balanced.
It's really just an internet forum thing, I've never met anyone who was actually playing the game who gave a hoot about it.
You are right about the weird theory building that happens on the internet. If your build doesn't come together by level 10-12 it is likely to never get there. Hitting levels higher than that is rare and it doesn't make sense to design your character specifically for that goal. And as you said, most of these super builds don't even take the campaign into consideration.
However when it comes to Ranger, I have issue with it. Every class should at least be really good at something and that something should not require the DM to have go out of their way to insert things into the game just so that they can shine. All of the classes in the game are versitile enough that moments for them to really stand out appear in a natural organic fashion. The Ranger is the only one whose abilities are so focus that in order to take advantage of their "theme" the DM has to be sure add specific terrain/foes for that character. A Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Fighter, etc. has tools that are useful no matter the setting or enemy so aren't as limited in scope.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Rangers are well balanced for combat. I just think their "specialty" is to narrow. Like Pangurjan said, had they just given them Expertise in Survival, it would have been better than what they had. Maybe give them a natural hunting instinct ability that lets them buff the party adapt to stalking a specific enemy after studying their movements and habits for a while instead of limiting it to a single category of foe.
I don't know, I am not a game designer.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'd even say the Rogue Scout with its outdoors and skirmishes features arguably does the Ranger archetype well AND has the versatility broad environment application the Ranger is accused of lacking.
That said, my Rangers enjoy being Rangers, and one of them has a Paladin in the party. I don't think I do anyone any favors in the game, though I do try to make the game entertaining to the whole party.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I want to go on record for saying that the Ranger is completely playable as is and is even fun to play. I just think it is the only class that suffers from having too narrow of a focus and not being particularly good in that focus. When it comes to just crunching numbers I think it is a good combat character and it certainly has a general appeal to the right type of player.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Completely agree. I think giving them survival and stealth for free as skills as well as expertise in them would help a ton. After that, increased movement and disengage as a bonus would round it out nicely for combat. Don't want to dip too deeply into rogue range though.
Mechanically, looking at just numbers and stuff, I am inclined to agree that other subclasses can usually "be" an effective "Ranger" for the group. With that said, I am currently DMing a campaign I wrote, where the heroes are going to quite literally save the realm! (My realm, not anything published)
Groups is a Tiefling Pally, Aarakocra Ranger, Tabaxi Wizard and Kobold Rogue. They have been travelling primarily through pretty thick forest near mountains and the Ranger has been able to shine, since he's the one proficient in the guiding/nature-y stuff. He's using mostly his Longbow, so his damage in combat is fine and I, as DM am making sure he has moments that he shines. As some have mentioned, in normal, everyday adventuring/exploring/fighting, all the other classes get that chance to POP. The Ranger's strengths, where he really makes a difference, I find myself trying to make sure they encounter these things, since they aren't just "there" all the time. I find the Ranger unique in that I kind of have to look for spots he can shine, where the others just have opportunities arise through basic events. Part of my job as DM is to make sure we're all having fun and making their path take them through areas and such where he can strut his stuff isn't such a big deal.
Maybe the race/class combos help folks see how my group plays, too. More about fun and creative than crunching the best numbers, so meh.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This is something I can speak to as I've encountered similar situations. You don't need to have a counter class in your party to look at what your character is doing, is capable of and going "You know.. if I was play X instead I could be doing this +"
For example - Playing a draconic sorcerer in a campaign and by level 3 I had already encountered a few situations where if I was playing a wizard instead we wouldn't of needed to find work arounds. First was not being able to cast Identify on a quest mcguffin, I wouldn't of picked it as one of my few spells anyway but it's not even on my spell list so we had to pay for it as a service taking away 20g out of our relatively low GP total (this is ontop of having to leave the area, trek 3 days back to town find out about a wizard in the city 2 days away, pay him than travel 5 days back to the dungeon when if I was a wizard it woulda just been 10 minutes of ritual). If only I was a wizard... First 'boss' type we fought at lvl 2 was a wizard that we took down pretty handedly, Rogue and Paladin made short work of him, and guess what, had a spell book, no earth shattering I need this spells but again totally worthless to me.. but if I was a wizard I coulda added some tools. Around lvl 3 we ran into an Orc which had tie ins to this slave trade going on but he didn't speak common.. mmmm to bad I don't have ritual casting and comprehend languages! Oh yeah I can get comprehend languages.. but we just leveled up before this.. so if we can somehow power to lvl 4 I can get the spell as I level up! lets go grind boars like in south park.. aah if only I was a wizard! Also side note we take short rests usually at least once per adventuring day if for nothing else to heal up a bit as our DM does tend to put some decent hurt on our paladin and fighter, I have nothing to do during a short rest and burning my sorcery points to recover spell slots feels terrible. I'm losing my defining feature, metamagic to make up for not having the Wizards lvl 1 arcane recovery. Just having an ability that regens spell slots feels a lot better than pissing away my class feature to do something similar. ah.. to be a wizard..
And for all that, what did I do? I got some quickened firebolts off, really hard to quantify if that d10 damage really added in some punch to make up for all the BS my lack of wizardness has brought to the table though. Whole lot of stuff I haven't been able to do and not much I have been able to do I wouldn't of been able to do if I was playing the other class.
With all that said it's finally coming close to a point where I feel like I can finally do something.. twinned haste on our melees, feels kinda bad that my biggest contribution will be.. not contributing but.. uhm its something a wizard couldn't do.. just 2 more levels of bleh to get through to finally get a leg up
Just point being you don't need to have a wizard and a sorcerer in the same party to realize you could be doing things better if you just picked the other spellcaster. It's easiest to compare sorcerers to wizards as they don't have a bunch of bells and whistles like some of the other classes.
Just 2 notes.
1) Identify requires a 100gp worth pearl to be cast, so your 20gp was still a better deal
2) Having more spell slots due to sorcery points is also one of the defining features of sorc. You can improve the spells or have more spell slots per day, it's up to you which one you chose.
With the rest, I agree with Lyxen, I you want utility go with wiz, if you want blaster or some more specialized caster go sorc.
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear enough. My point was that if they had a wizard, they would still have to buy a pearl worth 100gp (or find it and not sell it). If the "op" says that their funds were limited then it would still be a better deal for them to pay the npc the 20gp as long as they needed only 1 (or up to 4 in the long run) item identified.
Edit one other note:
It seems a bit silly from hte DM to "drop" magic book from the enemies if no one in the party can use it (I am not sure whether you can use it in similar fashion as scroll RAW, but i think you can't)
While this is true from the logical point of view I think from a psychological point of view there is quite a difference between getting a golden statue that can be sold for X gold and some piece of equipment (like the book) that no one in the party can use that can also be sold for X gold (note that the price is same). The people would "translate" the statue into the gold, but with the equipment they would translate this more into "great now we get this useless piece of crap, the dm hates us yada yada yada..."
If you are complaining that Wizards are better than Sorcerers and one of the issues you had is that you had to pay 20gp to identify an item, then I think you need to take a bit of a step back. For almost all players, 20gp to identify an item is of very little consequence. What if your DM hadn't even put that item in the game? What if the DM had let you find 400gp? This is nothing to do with the class.
Sorcerer has loads of advantages, as well as disadvantages. If you want to play a wizard instead, get your character killed and then play a wizard. You'll soon find you're missing some of your Sorcerer skills.
The sorcerer discussion is another example of how hard it is to compare different things by some standardized metric. For every case in which you can provide examples of a wizard being able to do something the sorcerer could not, others can come up with the sorcerer doing something a wizard could not.
Take Subtle Spell, for example. In my Roman Empire campaign, there is a law against open casting of spells in the public square -- the forum, city streets, government buildings (you can cast them in a tavern or something, assuming the tavern owner doesn't object, but not in public). Subtle spell would be super-useful in a case like this.
It hasn't come up a lot yet -- the couple of times the sorcerer tried to hide his casting, were before he had the Subtle Spell feature. But they haven't gone to Rome yet... that's coming up eventually (right now they are trapped in the Astral Plane after being sucked into it by a magical maelstrom). But if he wants to cast a charm person spell, say, in the forum, without being caught, that is a great way to do it. If he tried it without Subtle Spell he might be arrested.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yes I would think all that fire and dinosaur damage would be a lot more significant than gravy.
Edit: Wait... you're playing a halfling sorceress? Don't you realize that is not optimized????
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
How can you even play the character?
I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge, heck it's probably been given a 25-line mathematical proof in some academic journal, that if you aren't playing a race that gives you a starting +2 stat bonus in the prime stat, the character is completely unplayable. Do you realize that by playing this character, you are breaking the laws of not just D&D, but he universe and all it contains??
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
lol
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Erm, no. Not really. Four sorcery points lets you recover 2 1st level spell slots or 1 2nd level spell slot (in the latter case you'll have one sorcery point to spare. Arcane recovery lets a wizard recover the exact same.
If a sorcerer recovers as many spells as a wizard per long rest, he's basically giving up 90% of his metamagic. Depending on the type of metamagic chosen, if they're expensive options, he might give up metamagic completely for the day. And of course the wizard can use ritual casting to supplement his daily allotment of spell slots, which the sorcerer has to take a feat for if so desired.
In practice the sorcerer gives up arcane recovery, ritual casting and the wizard's theoretically unlimited number of spells known in return for being able to apply metamagic to his scant spell selection. Given the number of sorcery points and the few metamagics he can choose (just two until level 10), it's really not a great trade.
I enjoy playing sorcerers. I particularly like Shadow Sorcery and Clockwork Souls. But enjoying a class doesn't mean it's necessarily well designed. WotC could add quite a bit to the sorcerer class without making them overpowered at all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) What part of "more" is in doubt here? "At least as much" is not "more".
2) I pulled it out of thin air. Should make it easy to disprove if I'm wrong, no? In any case, wizards can recover 6th level spell slots and sorcerers can't. Wizards can use ritual magic and sorcerers can't. Wizards have many more spells to choose from, particularly ritual ones since those don't even need to be prepared. More options for the sorcerer? Pssh.
3) Which most of the time is a poor trade.
4) Metamagic is great. That some people think it's incredible doesn't mean much to me though. Just about every class ability has people who really like it.
5) They could streamline the sorcerer class even more and just give them all the metamagics at once too. Wouldn't be problematic at all and would be even simpler than it is now. No need to be so pessimistic about change.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So no, wizard can't recover 6th level, plus arcane recovery is usable during short rest once per day, the sorcery points are a bonus action. And generally you indeed recover more slots via points than arcane recovery
5th level: 3 vs 3
6th level: 4 vs 3
10th level: 6 vs 5
15th level 9 vs 8
I sure there is also a short mathematical proof somewhere of why moving racial ASIs to alternative attributes absolutely destroys the game in all its entirety, making it no longer be D&D at all...
That one's still going through peer review... and I think it is 50 lines long (which is why the review is taking longer)....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.