making lemonaide out of lemons

[Spectator]

Probably one of the best feats to have is ADEPT. I prefer the hypnotist specialization because you can make you full round prep spells go off in a free action so if you do have the axe wielding barbarian across the room from you, your domination spell goes off instantaneously and you can tell the barbarian to chill out, give me your weapon, go to sleep on the big marble altar thing, and don't mind the 59 foot cobra.
wow nice run-on sentence.

 

[LilithsThrall]

See, when I read the Conan stories, I read of Sorcerers ripping peoples' hearts out of their chests when face-to-face, of mind controlling them, of killing them with a touch of the hand, etc.

So? All of these spells have been carried over to the game. An able sorcerer can always try to pull these off. But still there is little that would protect him from an axe blow to the chest.

I'm confused as to what your argument is. You seem to be all over the place. First you argue that sorcerers -should- be weaker than barbarians, then, when its pointed out that the books show otherwise, you reply "so?"

I'm trying to get a grasp of the thought processes going around in your head and I'm not having any luck.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Look in the mirror, the more you write, the more I fail to see your entire point. First you say that the sorcerer is too weak and useless in combat, then after several pages of discussion you list a bunch of powerful spells yourself.
I really can only repeat my question: so?

The sorcerer _can_ cast spells that lead the victim to a gruesome and untimely death. He'd better do so at range or in a moment of surprise. He _cannot_ go toe-to-toe with a melee fighter and expect to live, because the fighter (esp. if he has high Ref save) usually goes first and can strike hard enough to one-hit an unarmoured target if he means to.

At low levels however, that's true, a Scholar has very little to oppose a Bardiche-wielding Fighter with. Great power comes with great suffering.

 

[LilithsThrall]

First you say that the sorcerer is too weak and useless in combat, then after several pages of discussion you list a bunch of powerful spells yourself.
I really can only repeat my question: so?

Actually, the first two posts in this thread were by me and I stated right at the beginning of this thread that the sorcerer had a few spells which were unbalanced in the other direction (that is, too powerful).
Is the miscommunication problem that you aren't actually reading what other people are writing? The problem is that the class is poorly written. Most spells are too weak. A few spells are too powerful. Nothing is balanced. The class is overly complex - overly complicated prereqs for the spells. All in all, the class sucks.

 

[Scorpion13]

First you say that the sorcerer is too weak and useless in combat, then after several pages of discussion you list a bunch of powerful spells yourself.
I really can only repeat my question: so?

Actually, the first two posts in this thread were by me and I stated right at the beginning of this thread that the sorcerer had a few spells which were unbalanced in the other direction (that is, too powerful).
Is the miscommunication problem that you aren't actually reading what other people are writing? The problem is that the class is poorly written. Most spells are too weak. A few spells are too powerful. Nothing is balanced. The class is overly complex - overly complicated prereqs for the spells. All in all, the class sucks.

Yes, we know, in your opinion the class sucks. I for one love it. I love the complexity in the spell casting, and I love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. I think it fits in great with the setting, and Id need far more proof than what your giving us to change my view of things.

 

[LilithsThrall]

First you say that the sorcerer is too weak and useless in combat, then after several pages of discussion you list a bunch of powerful spells yourself.
I really can only repeat my question: so?

Actually, the first two posts in this thread were by me and I stated right at the beginning of this thread that the sorcerer had a few spells which were unbalanced in the other direction (that is, too powerful).
Is the miscommunication problem that you aren't actually reading what other people are writing? The problem is that the class is poorly written. Most spells are too weak. A few spells are too powerful. Nothing is balanced. The class is overly complex - overly complicated prereqs for the spells. All in all, the class sucks.

Yes, we know, in your opinion the class sucks. I for one love it. I love the complexity in the spell casting, and I love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. I think it fits in great with the setting, and Id need far more proof than what your giving us to change my view of things.

I'm going to ignore your statement that you love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. If you don't yet understand that I'm not pushing for a DnD style magic-user, you never will.
But the idea that you love the fact that the character class is a pain to build? I'm not sure how to respond to that.
So, tell me, what kind of proof would change your mind about the sorcerer class as written? I mean, I assume its safe to say that you aren't just being bull headedly dogmatic about your position - that something can change it.

 

[Krushnak]

What kind of proof do you need?

something like it's a known fact that if you make a sorceror your eyeballs implode from the sheer amount of suckiness.

 

[Der Rote Baron]

I'd really LOVE to see some of those spell write-ups! Being a fan of both Howard and Lovecraft I'd like to throw some mean Things-men-wasn#T-meant-to-know-meanies at my sword-slashing soldiers, axe-bashing barbarians, arrows-shootin' borders and nomads and throat-cutting pirate-thieves ... and give them a taste of magic from beyond the stars!

 

[Clovenhoof]

Yay, I second that! Show those spells!

FWIW, yes I do know the Scholar is a difficult class to build with. My first (testing-only) attempt at a Scholar got stuck in a dead-end around 5th level or so, because he didn't fulfill any Advanced Spell's prereqs.
However, I don't really mind. If a player wants to have a brainy Scholar, they will have to dig through those tomes and do some mind-jogging of their own. ^^

 

[Scorpion13]

Actually, the first two posts in this thread were by me and I stated right at the beginning of this thread that the sorcerer had a few spells which were unbalanced in the other direction (that is, too powerful).
Is the miscommunication problem that you aren't actually reading what other people are writing? The problem is that the class is poorly written. Most spells are too weak. A few spells are too powerful. Nothing is balanced. The class is overly complex - overly complicated prereqs for the spells. All in all, the class sucks.

Yes, we know, in your opinion the class sucks. I for one love it. I love the complexity in the spell casting, and I love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. I think it fits in great with the setting, and Id need far more proof than what your giving us to change my view of things.

I'm going to ignore your statement that you love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. If you don't yet understand that I'm not pushing for a DnD style magic-user, you never will.
But the idea that you love the fact that the character class is a pain to build? I'm not sure how to respond to that.
So, tell me, what kind of proof would change your mind about the sorcerer class as written? I mean, I assume its safe to say that you aren't just being bull headedly dogmatic about your position - that something can change it.

Ah, and the ad hominem begins. I disagree with you, and do you give proof and evidence to support your position? Nope. You attack me. Nice. It was only a matter of time.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Yes, we know, in your opinion the class sucks. I for one love it. I love the complexity in the spell casting, and I love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. I think it fits in great with the setting, and Id need far more proof than what your giving us to change my view of things.

I'm going to ignore your statement that you love the fact that its far different from the plug-and-play magic users from Dungeons and Dragons. If you don't yet understand that I'm not pushing for a DnD style magic-user, you never will.
But the idea that you love the fact that the character class is a pain to build? I'm not sure how to respond to that.
So, tell me, what kind of proof would change your mind about the sorcerer class as written? I mean, I assume its safe to say that you aren't just being bull headedly dogmatic about your position - that something can change it.

Ah, and the ad hominem begins. I disagree with you, and do you give proof and evidence to support your position? Nope. You attack me. Nice. It was only a matter of time.

Nope, I didn't attack you. In fact, I said "its safe to say that you aren't just being bull headedly dogmatic about your position".
But I do note that everyone seems to be avoiding saying what would make them change their mind- other than Krushnak's humorous post.

 

[kintire]

But I do note that everyone seems to be avoiding saying what would make them change their mind- other than Krushnak's humorous post.

But they don't. I've made it clear. the problem is, you are not responding.

The Scholar is fine. Its completely canonical: There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules. I've explained this, and you've ignored me.

 

[LilithsThrall]

But I do note that everyone seems to be avoiding saying what would make them change their mind- other than Krushnak's humorous post.

But they don't. I've made it clear. the problem is, you are not responding.

The Scholar is fine. Its completely canonical: There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules. I've explained this, and you've ignored me.

That's not saying what will change your mind, unless, per haps, it is saying that -nothing- could change possibly your mind - which would be a very dogmatic position to take.

 

[kintire]

That's not saying what will change your mind, unless, per haps, it is saying that -nothing- could change possibly your mind - which would be a very dogmatic position to take.

It is presenting my reasons for believing what I believe. As should be be obvious, addressing those reasons and showing them to be flawed will change my mind.

I might also add that someone who's only support for the suggestion that scholar's "suck" is to repeat the assertion over and over again is in a poor position to complain about dogmatism!

 

[LilithsThrall]

I'm not ignoring you, though there's clearly a communication breakdown going on here. I don't see where in this quote

The Scholar is fine. Its completely canonical: There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules. I've explained this, and you've ignored me.

you are

presenting my reasons for believing what I believe. As should be be obvious, addressing those reasons and showing them to be flawed will change my mind.

 

[kintire]

I'm not ignoring you, though there's clearly a communication breakdown going on here. I don't see where in this quote
Quote:
The Scholar is fine. Its completely canonical: There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules. I've explained this, and you've ignored me.

you are
Quote:
presenting my reasons for believing what I believe. As should be be obvious, addressing those reasons and showing them to be flawed will change my mind.

I've bolded the part in this post. May I also remind you of this post:

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

To which you whinged about one comment and ignored the rest, or this one:

He really only needs intelligence, not wisdom and charisma as well. That means that he's likely going to be able to max out his intelligence, which will give him significantly more skill points than just 2.


But still far less than the scholar. In fact, even if he has Int 18 it will only be 6 per level, 7 if he's human, which is less than a Scholar with Int 10. Not to mention the Scholar's much better class skill list.

When I'm talking about what I said, I'm not just talking about the last post, you know.

 

[LilithsThrall]

This is where the communication breakdown between you and I occurs, I think.
On the one hand, you state that the mechanics of the game are immaterial to whether or not the class is according to canon. Specifically, you write

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".

and on the other hand, you say the mechanics of the class are perfect because

There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules

.

Taken together, you imply that what makes the system so good is that every spell in the canon is in the rules, but you also insinuate that there is a great deal of room in which game mechanics can manuever and remain true to canon - there's more than one way to write the game mechanics and, yet, have every spell from canon exist in the game mechanics.
Given that, I have no idea what your objection is to this discussion since this discussion isn't about changing the flavor of the Sorcerer (I've said this so many many times that I've been tempted to create a macro to repeat myself rather than retype it every single time over and over again ad nauseum). This discussion is about changing the game mechanics to better reflect the canon and improve playability. And, again, as you yourself have insinuated, there is plenty of room to change game mechanics without moving away from canon.

 

[thulsa]

The problem is that the class is poorly written. Most spells are too weak. A few spells are too powerful. Nothing is balanced. The class is overly complex - overly complicated prereqs for the spells.

I agree. The spells are not balanced. My alternative Scholar class (the Savant) includes a number of revised spells, in an attempt to make them more balanced (if broken) and usable (if useless).

I also included a few new spells, and plan to expand the Savant download in the future with even more new spells to fill in the gaps with more useful spells.

All in all, the class sucks.

Not sure I agree fully with this; in my view it's mainly the unbalanced spells and the complex spell prereq system that makes the class problematic.

- thulsa

 

[kintire]

This is where the communication breakdown between you and I occurs, I think.

It occurs because you insist on cherry picking and quote mining.

Oh, and finagling your own position.

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".
and on the other hand, you say the mechanics of the class are perfect because Quote:
There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules
.

Taken together, you imply that what makes the system so good is that every spell in the canon is in the rules,

No, I don't. There are two debates going on about the about the Scholar. One is its mechanical usability:

Sorcerers suck. We all know it. The rules are atrocious and the class is woefully inadequate.

And the other is its adherence to Canon:

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

You have lifted two quotes from me talking about canonicity and claimed that they are my support for my belief they mechanically work. And you have again ignored my reasons for believing they mechanically work, despite the fact that I have posted them twice now, and I know you read them the first time because you complained about the post. Oh, and other people have posted the exact same argument. And several people have pointed out that you've presented no support for your belief they don't work. And you've ignored all that, apart from accusing people who think the Scholar works of suffering from Helsinki syndrome.

That's where the miscommunication lies.

 

[LilithsThrall]

I asked what would change your mind - what kind of evidence do you need that the sorcerer class sucks.
You replied (and repeated and bolded)

Its completely canonical: There's hardly a spell cast in any of Howard's Conan tales that isn't in the rules.

and

It is presenting my reasons for believing what I believe. As should be be obvious, addressing those reasons and showing them to be flawed will change my mind.

So, I addressed those reasons. Now that you have no response to my counter argument, you respond with

you have again ignored my reasons for believing they mechanically work

I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole. I'll repeat myself. What kind of evidence do you need that the sorcerer class sucks?