making lemonaide out of lemons

[Clovenhoof]

Yeah, poisoned daggers are a much better idea. I'm not that familiar with poisons (and they seem to have changed in 2nd ed), but basically it should be a viable option (although poison will easily be more expensive than a bunch of axes).

 

[LilithsThrall]

As I've said, the Sorcerer is insanely weak, *but* there are a few spells which are game breaking in the other direction. Greater Telekinesis is one of them. Flying bardiches are okay, but look at what alchemical weapons can do in the same build.
In any event, the end point is the same. The Sorcerer class sucks as a PC. It isn't balanced in any conceivable manner. In the majority of cases, it is far weaker than the other PCs. In a few ways, it overwhelms the game.
It makes me wonder how much game design experience the guy had who wrote the class and why mongoose doesn't fix it.

Didn't the example I wrote about that flaming bull show that sorcerers are extremely useful, simply by the virtue of being able to do things that would not be otherwise possible and that even the most basic spells can be used very succesfully to change things at a larger scale?

What comes to using Greater Telekinesis to lob alchemical items being somehow game breaking - it will cost a lot. Throwing, say, five Kothic Fires with the same spell means that the shot you just sent flying cost 2500 sp! Even if the character made the bombs himself, it still was worth half of that. It is simply so expensive that it is not a viable tactic to be used all the time and there is not endless amount of alchemical stuff available on the market - or opportunity to make them everywhere. I really don't have trouble with a sorcerer hitting someone with five Kothic Fires in the same round with Greater Telekinesis. First, he will need to hit with each with his poor BAB. Second, he can most likely only do that once and it will take considerable amount of resources since the bombs are so valuable. If it takes out some big bad guy, well, I guess the money was well spent. Hidden Death use makes hitting with them more likely, sure, but it is not as overpowering in any way at all.

Your example was interesting and highly entertaining. Kudos to your group for coming up with such a clever ploy! And your example doesn't change the fact that the Sorcerer is in no way balanced with the rest of the party. It still is usually far too weak and it still has a handful of game breaking spells. What your example shows is that, despite the flaws of the class, it is still possible, with significant setup, to be useful every once in awhile.
I still maintain that it is possible to create a Sorcerer which captures REH's concept of what Sorcerers should be like and which is far better balanced. I know it is possible because I've seen an alternative here in these forums (Thulsa, I think, wrote it) which is.
So, why not create a Sorcerer which is and make it official? Why continue to put the same piece of garbage in the rule book over 2 different rewrites of the rules (AE and 2nd ed)? I'd sincerely like to know why they've done this.

 

[Scorpion13]

Yeah, poisoned daggers are a much better idea. I'm not that familiar with poisons (and they seem to have changed in 2nd ed), but basically it should be a viable option (although poison will easily be more expensive than a bunch of axes).

Eh, Im not sure. I mean, I only have first edition. Ill take a look there.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Let's see if we can improve the quality of this discussion by being a bit more specific. Let's look at pieces of the Sorcerer system, one bit at a time, and see what's wrong with it. With time, provided we don't get off topic, we should be able to look at every part of it.

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

 

[Scorpion13]

Let's see if we can improve the quality of this discussion by being a bit more specific. Let's look at pieces of the Sorcerer system, one bit at a time, and see what's wrong with it. With time, provided we don't get off topic, we should be able to look at every part of it.

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

Well, just speaking from my point of view, a -1 would be in line with what a normal, beginner sorceror would cast. I mean, he wouldnt be going after many heroes with that, but a commoner who displeased him would be in trouble if he was hit with that. And that that kind of guy a low level sorceror would be going after: low level commoners or soldiers, or whoever.

 

[Majestic7]

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

Curses are vital - it is another question what they should do. From a game mechanics point of view, by using Lesser Ill Fortune a first level sorcerer can in practice negate BAB of fighting class of the same level. It as well causes penalty to everything else from skill rolls to saves. It can be significant at lower levels, less so at higher levels.

The main beef I actually have with D20 Conan (AE) sorcery is that many spells are too combat-orientated! For example, Telekinesis can only be used to throw around objects, when it could have so more usages. Likewise, I think Ill-Fortunes should have other options than just causing -1, -2, -4 on everything - for example, in the case of Greater Ill-Fortune, being allowed to choose from -4, all criticals auto-confirming on the target, all attempts to deal with animals being +N to DC harder, all attempts to deal with other humans peacefully being +N to DC harder, the next thing the victim does end miserably (with natural 1, but ending the curse instead of lasting for a year) and so forth. Considering that sorcerers don't get that many spells, making it possible to have variable ways to use the same spell would be very nice. Of course, some spells like Death Touch are fine having just one purpose...

 

[LilithsThrall]

Let's see if we can improve the quality of this discussion by being a bit more specific. Let's look at pieces of the Sorcerer system, one bit at a time, and see what's wrong with it. With time, provided we don't get off topic, we should be able to look at every part of it.

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

Well, just speaking from my point of view, a -1 would be in line with what a normal, beginner sorceror would cast. I mean, he wouldnt be going after many heroes with that, but a commoner who displeased him would be in trouble if he was hit with that. And that that kind of guy a low level sorceror would be going after: low level commoners or soldiers, or whoever.

You believe the power is balanced because a first level character can put a commoner in trouble with that? A first level sorcerer can cast this spell about twice before running out of PP and, so, he can, in your opinion, put two commoners in trouble and that makes it balanced?
Remember, sorcerer powers are not d20 spells. You usually only get one per level so they should remain useful over a lot longer span of time than one level. Also, you mentioned a beginning sorcerer going up against a low level soldier. How much trouble do you think a -1 penalty will put a low-level soldier in? Is it enough for it to be the only spell a sorcerer can cast?

 

[LilithsThrall]

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

From a game mechanics point of view, by using Lesser Ill Fortune a first level sorcerer can in practice negate BAB of fighting class of the same level. It as well causes penalty to everything else from skill rolls to saves. It can be significant at lower levels, less so at higher levels.

Fighter classes don't much care about their BAB bonus at first level. The majority of their to-hit bonus comes from their stats, secondarily their feats and BAB.
So, negating BAB at first level isn't that note worthy.

 

[Majestic7]

Fighter classes don't much care about their BAB bonus at first level. The majority of their to-hit bonus comes from their stats, secondarily their feats and BAB.
So, negating BAB at first level isn't that note worthy.

If a first level soldier has Str 16 and BAB +1, his total attack bonus in melee is +4. Being cursed takes away 25% of that. I think it is a rather significant penalty. Besides, it is more than just attack penalty - he will as well do all skill checks with -1, on which he may have maximum of four ranks. So in effect, 25% penalty at skills at maximum ranks in regards to skill points. Saves will be much affected as well. Ref and Will saves will actually turn in to negative unless he has stats to boost them.

Curses as a spell style are one of the stronger ones in Conan, so you should as well think about the Lesser Ill-Fortune as a payment for access to some really nasty stuff like Foxing (everything victim eats and drinks turns in to ash in his mouth) or Doom of the Doll (classic voodoo doll). Other spell styles, such as Counterspells and Nature, have basic spells that are good at first level and continue being good throughout the game.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Indeed, most Basic Spells are not very good. Usually they are too limited even for their intended situational use. Actually I think that's the intention. You need to study magic for quite while in order to get anything powerful in return.

The magic level in the Conan universe is so-and-so, and the game rules try (imho successfully) to simulate the nature of magic in the Hyborian Age. By the way we usually don't encounter low-level sorcerers in Conan stories. We encounter powerful badasses who more often than not have lived for centuries by means of their dark magic.
If you want magic to be more powerful at low levels, you _will_ need to houserule it. There will never be official rule changes in that direction because it is simply not canon. It's sort of like expecting to see "beaming" in Star Wars or lightsabres in Bonanza. Not. gonna. happen.

If you want to throw some love at magic users, you can easily alter existing spells to make them more useful, invent new spells, write up more generous spell progressions, and so forth.

For example, "Warding" would be really swell if you could cast it on the fly when you see an NPC sorcerer trying to cast a spell on you, but no, you need to have readied it on your turn. So allow to cast the spell as Immediate Action or whatever it's called.

Likewise, increase all penalties by the various ill-fortune spells by 2, so LIF would be -3. That's the easiest change ever.

And so on. You want spellflingers in your game, you make them (or pick a different game). But don't expect a licensed product to change the entire official universe because you like it better that way.

 

[kintire]

For me, using scripted attacks and spend my time in number crunching simply doesn't have anything to do with roleplaying. It might be OK for WoW or FF but it doesn't fit my (narrow? ) vision of roleplaying. Anyway, it's a personal view and I'm as free to see things that way as others are to build up improbable combos...

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I'm not going to get into a long debate. However, I would like to point out three things: 1) People are perfectly capable of roleplaying and having combat sequences in the course of a game. 2) In a debate specifically about system mechanics its hardly surprising that the system is at the fore. 3) D20 is a very simple game. It has a number of optional enhancements, but at its core its very straightforward. If you think its complicated, I can only suggest that if anyone suggests a game of Rolemaster, Hero System, Harn or Chivalry and Sorcery you RUN SCREAMING AWAY.

Actually, I'd mostly suggest that anyway.

So, why not create a Sorcerer which is and make it official? Why continue to put the same piece of garbage in the rule book over 2 different rewrites of the rules (AE and 2nd ed)? I'd sincerely like to know why they've done this.

Because there is no need to. The current Scholar class is fine as written, though a few of the spells need work.

Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

I have no idea why any one mechanical effect in a system he'd never heard of would be "vital to the REH view of Sorcerers". It certainly is balanced.

You believe the power is balanced because a first level character can put a commoner in trouble with that? A first level sorcerer can cast this spell about twice before running out of PP and, so, he can, in your opinion, put two commoners in trouble and that makes it balanced?
Remember, sorcerer powers are not d20 spells. You usually only get one per level so they should remain useful over a lot longer span of time than one level. Also, you mentioned a beginning sorcerer going up against a low level soldier. How much trouble do you think a -1 penalty will put a low-level soldier in? Is it enough for it to be the only spell a sorcerer can cast?

LilithsThrall, this has been pointed out before, but I'll do it again. The name of the class is "Scholar". It is NOT a DnD Wizard, with no important contribution to party success other than it's magic. The class has a list of handy class features, and a butt load of skill points, rivalled only by the thief. The spell casting is an optional class feature. It is perfectly possible to build a scholar with no magic at all.

As far as Lesser Ill Fortune goes it is a spell of usefull point power and massive versatility. It will reduce the target's every quality by 1, not just BAB. With a -1 to listen and spot you might not have to fight that soldier at all, and if you are seen he has a -1 to sense motive. Enemy diplomats have -1 to diplomacy, and merchants you are bartering with can have a -1 to bluff. It penalises saves in prepation for a followup spell or poison, and if you have a connection to the target it has no range limitation or line of sight requirement. And its duration is long enough that that -1 is actually likely to be decisive to a low level adversary on a couple of occasions.

Yes, its not going to defeat an enemy all by itself, but it is just one part of the Scholar's arsenal at level 1.

 

[LilithsThrall]

LilithsThrall, this has been pointed out before, but I'll do it again. The name of the class is "Scholar".

That's overly pedantic and no particular contribution to the discussion. Do you have something meaningful to add or do you wish to merely pick nits?

 

[LilithsThrall]

And so on. You want spellflingers in your game, you make them (or pick a different game). But don't expect a licensed product to change the entire official universe because you like it better that way.

I like to believe that the game designers, while fallible, do want to create the best system they can. To do that, they need discussion of the pros and cons of the game system in this forum.
Only a person suffering from Helsinki syndrome would imagine that the game system is perfect. Why then not point out the flaws and discuss making the system better?

 

[Csmallo]

LilithsThrall, this has been pointed out before, but I'll do it again. The name of the class is "Scholar".

That's overly pedantic and no particular contribution to the discussion. Do you have something meaningful to add or do you wish to merely pick nits?

It is very meaningful to the discussion. You are pigeonholing the class into one area then claiming it doesn't work.

What I am reading from you is that: in YOUR group, with YOUR GM, in YOUR campaign; the scholar doesn't work. In someone else's it will work just fine.

Set the campaign in a major city with lots of intrigue and very little combat, your barbarian is pretty much useless at best and is jailed and executed at worst.

Even in an outdoors "Wolves Across the Border" campaign, a scholar with no spells but the right skills can make a major contribution to party survival.

 

[Scorpion13]

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

Curses are vital - it is another question what they should do. From a game mechanics point of view, by using Lesser Ill Fortune a first level sorcerer can in practice negate BAB of fighting class of the same level. It as well causes penalty to everything else from skill rolls to saves. It can be significant at lower levels, less so at higher levels.

The main beef I actually have with D20 Conan (AE) sorcery is that many spells are too combat-orientated! For example, Telekinesis can only be used to throw around objects, when it could have so more usages. Likewise, I think Ill-Fortunes should have other options than just causing -1, -2, -4 on everything - for example, in the case of Greater Ill-Fortune, being allowed to choose from -4, all criticals auto-confirming on the target, all attempts to deal with animals being +N to DC harder, all attempts to deal with other humans peacefully being +N to DC harder, the next thing the victim does end miserably (with natural 1, but ending the curse instead of lasting for a year) and so forth. Considering that sorcerers don't get that many spells, making it possible to have variable ways to use the same spell would be very nice. Of course, some spells like Death Touch are fine having just one purpose...

Im gonna back you up on that Telekinesis thing. Why would it only be good for throwing things around? If they lifted that restriction, it would be awesome.

 

[Scorpion13]

Let's see if we can improve the quality of this discussion by being a bit more specific. Let's look at pieces of the Sorcerer system, one bit at a time, and see what's wrong with it. With time, provided we don't get off topic, we should be able to look at every part of it.

Let's start with curses.
Who here believes that it is vital to the REH view of Sorcerers that Lesser Ill Fortune inflicts only a -1 to the opponent?
Who here believes that -1 is balanced?

Well, just speaking from my point of view, a -1 would be in line with what a normal, beginner sorceror would cast. I mean, he wouldnt be going after many heroes with that, but a commoner who displeased him would be in trouble if he was hit with that. And that that kind of guy a low level sorceror would be going after: low level commoners or soldiers, or whoever.

You believe the power is balanced because a first level character can put a commoner in trouble with that? A first level sorcerer can cast this spell about twice before running out of PP and, so, he can, in your opinion, put two commoners in trouble and that makes it balanced?
Remember, sorcerer powers are not d20 spells. You usually only get one per level so they should remain useful over a lot longer span of time than one level. Also, you mentioned a beginning sorcerer going up against a low level soldier. How much trouble do you think a -1 penalty will put a low-level soldier in? Is it enough for it to be the only spell a sorcerer can cast?

Well, what exactly are you looking for, here? Should the sorceror be able to make his head explode at first level? Spells becoming less and less useful as the magic-user becomes more and more powerful with more access to better spells is pretty consistent throughout just about any RPG system.

 

[Scorpion13]

LilithsThrall, this has been pointed out before, but I'll do it again. The name of the class is "Scholar".

That's overly pedantic and no particular contribution to the discussion. Do you have something meaningful to add or do you wish to merely pick nits?

I have to ask, do YOU actually have real evidence to support your claim? Because Ive read this entire thread, and you haven't really done any of that so far.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Well, just speaking from my point of view, a -1 would be in line with what a normal, beginner sorceror would cast. I mean, he wouldnt be going after many heroes with that, but a commoner who displeased him would be in trouble if he was hit with that. And that that kind of guy a low level sorceror would be going after: low level commoners or soldiers, or whoever.

You believe the power is balanced because a first level character can put a commoner in trouble with that? A first level sorcerer can cast this spell about twice before running out of PP and, so, he can, in your opinion, put two commoners in trouble and that makes it balanced?
Remember, sorcerer powers are not d20 spells. You usually only get one per level so they should remain useful over a lot longer span of time than one level. Also, you mentioned a beginning sorcerer going up against a low level soldier. How much trouble do you think a -1 penalty will put a low-level soldier in? Is it enough for it to be the only spell a sorcerer can cast?

Well, what exactly are you looking for, here? Should the sorceror be able to make his head explode at first level? Spells becoming less and less useful as the magic-user becomes more and more powerful with more access to better spells is pretty consistent throughout just about any RPG system.

Sticking to curses, here's an example
Set Lesser Ill Fortune's penalty equal to the magic attack bonus of the Sorcerer. That way, it increases in power as the Sorcerer does.
I have no idea if this'll work. I don't have my book with me right now and can't see how it'll scale, but its pretty common in RPGs to create spells which scale per level.

 

[LilithsThrall]

LilithsThrall, this has been pointed out before, but I'll do it again. The name of the class is "Scholar".

That's overly pedantic and no particular contribution to the discussion. Do you have something meaningful to add or do you wish to merely pick nits?

I have to ask, do YOU actually have real evidence to support your claim? Because Ive read this entire thread, and you haven't really done any of that so far.

We are -right now- discussing the merits of a particular spell, aren't we?
While I have real world evidence, everyone's real world evidence is anecdotal. We need to look at it from a mathematical and heuristic perspective.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Well, what exactly are you looking for, here? Should the sorceror be able to make his head explode at first level? Spells becoming less and less useful as the magic-user becomes more and more powerful with more access to better spells is pretty consistent throughout just about any RPG system.

I also should point out that I've not asked for a sorcer to make his head explode at first level. Further, Conan is not most RPGs. Conan gives Sorcerers about one spell per level. The games I think you are comparing it to are games where the Sorcerer gets a far broader spell selection.