Sorcerer blues

[LilithsThrall]

Frankly, the class can be designed better.

I am wondering how you can do that and still keep it true to REH's writing. To me, the greatest thing about the scholar class is that most (or all) the 1E spells and abilities (other than Defensive Blast) appeared in the original Conan stories - and in my games the scholar has been a perfectly playable class.

I think the class and its design is on the genius level. The only real flaw was Defensive Blast, and the 2E author fixed that admirably.

I don't think its really necessary to be so restrictive as to allow only spells which appeared in the REH books. (though it is certainly an admirable and, no doubt, labor intensive effort to make sure that all of his spells are possible in the game system)
But to limit the game system to -only- what was in the REH books is to suggest that the world had nothing going on off camera/behind the scenes. Such a two dimensional sense doesn't reflect the proper atmosphere.
I would argue that it is imperative that magic convey the -feel- of the world. That requires something other than a one-to-one translation of every spell and only every spell which existed in his stories to the game system.

I am curious. You believe the design of the class is on the genius level. Is it fair to say that you believe the class isn't unbalanced?
If so, would you help me by showing a level-by-level progression of a sorcerer character which isn't either overpowering compared to other characters or underpowered compared to other characters?

My character has the necro style and the summoning style. He's fourth level. He's going up against a demon. He can wait until he's about to die and cast "Master, Aid Me!" and take over the combat (which is too much power) or he can send a couple of zombies after the demon - such zombies doing practically nothing compared to the Barbarians in the party (which makes him underpowered). How do you balance it?

 

[VincentDarlage]

I don't think its really necessary to be so restrictive as to allow only spells which appeared in the REH books. But to limit the game system to -only- what was in the REH books is to suggest that the world had nothing going on off camera/behind the scenes. Such a two dimensional sense doesn't reflect the proper atmosphere.

I think the core book should take that approach, and additional magic should be in the supplements - or designed by the sorcerers (players) themselves.

I am curious. You believe the design of the class is on the genius level. Is it fair to say that you believe the class isn't unbalanced?

That would be fair to say.

If so, would you help me by showing a level-by-level progression of a sorcerer character which isn't either overpowering compared to other characters or underpowered compared to other characters?

Just about any progression should be playable. I have not had any issues with any of the combinations I or my players have tried. Of course, no one tries to be a DnD mage in my group.

My character has the necro style and the summoning style. He's fourth level. He's going up against a demon. He can wait until he's about to die and cast "Master, Aid Me!" and take over the combat (which is too much power) or he can send a couple of zombies after the demon - such zombies doing practically nothing compared to the Barbarians in the party (which makes him underpowered). How do you balance it?

Well, without knowledge of the GM style, there are a lot of ways that could be balanced. I also don't know what is around the demon. The zombies could throw straw or oil on or around the demon so it can be set on fire.

Anyway, that is situation specific. To be more generic, I would presume the scholar has access to alchemical weapons. That is the balancing aspect.

The problem, I think, is that too many people want the scholar to be a DnD wizard who can solve all of his problems with spells. Notice that you have not told me your scholar's other weapons: dagger? mace? alchemy? crossbow? It is telling that you neglected to think those things important to an adventuring scholar (or at least not important enough to mention as an option). Not everything needs to be solved with magic, and that is as it should be. If magic were 100% effective in any given scenario, then everyone would use it. Sometimes bashing its head in with a mace is better than using a spell.

The REH scholar saves his spells for the optimum moment - not wasting spell points or anything else. Everything else is smoke and mirrors (one of my players is so slick with alchemical weapons that he has the other players convinced he is casting spells! Sleight-of-hand is useful for this).

Reread "Rogues in the House." Most of the priest's "magic" was smoke & mirrors, not sorcery. Even Thoth-amon relied on a magic ring. Xaltotun felled Conan not with magic, but with an alchemical weapon. Tsotha-lanti also did not fell Conan with magic, but with an alchemical weapon also.

Remember that a scholar is proficient with all simple weapons. That includes maces (both heavy and light), hunting spears, and hunting bows! If you don't like those choices, give him a level in something else or a martial feat. I once played a sorcerer that shot a crossbow (I either gave him a level of soldier or a martial weapon feat; I don't remember). He was pretty darn effective (and, although I never tried it, I suppose one could put an alchemical weapon on a crossbow bolt at the expense of range).

Anyway, at fourth level, your base attack bonus is only one less than the warriors in the party - you can swing your heavy mace around just about as good as anyone else with a similar strength! If you would rather keep your distance, pick up a hunting bow - or spend a feat to use one of the better bows.

In my campaigns, the spells are actually rarely used - the scholars use Intimidate and Diplomacy (and claim to be using magic to the other players; they see opposed die rolls, but don't always know it is not a spell but a skill check. The player claims he is hypnotizing them to the other players), and they use a lot of alchemy. When fighting a demon, one summoned his demon to learn where a bane-weapon could be found and/or made.

At high levels, sorcerers can do things like the Master of Yimsha can do (rip out people's hearts), but at low levels, they really can only do things like most of the other sorcerers can do.

If you think scholars should be able to cast spells applicable in combat at all levels, then you misunderstand how REH used scholars in the stories. I have not had a player complain about scholars, nor feel like they don't contribute in combat. Then again, they rarely actually cast spells in combat until they get high level. At that point, they begin to feel invincible - it is fun watching the players switch from pretending to use magic to actually using it.

Most of them use things like Raise Dead as distractions, not as a primary means of fighting something.

To sum up:
1. Use alchemical weapons. Mixed with ranged attack feats (throwing) and/or sleight-of-hand, people think you are using magic.
2. Pick a useful weapon. You are allowed any of the simple weapons, and that has quite a range of options to it.
3. Use skills to get out of combat (Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc.) or to affect combat (such as Intimidate) - and call it sorcery.

So, yes. I do think the scholar, as originally written and as improved in 2E, is a work of sheer genius and REH scholarship. I offer a tip of my hat to both Ian Sturrock and Gareth Hanrahan, and to anyone else involved in the development of the Conan scholar.

 

[LilithsThrall]

I really have to disagree here.
The Sorcerer needs to put a priority on some stats relative to others. His lucky rolls are going to go into CHA, INT, and WIS. That means he's probably going to have quite poor STR, DEX, and CON.
I've got a dagger and no bonuses on Str, Dex, or Con (actually, -1 on Str).
I'm surrounded by players who are doing 20 points of damage a round on average. I can do, er, 4? I've got no armor and my parry and dodge rolls are terrible.
Alchemy is good in theory, but -far- too expensive for me to use and I'd have to cross about three countries to get my hands on anything that'd make herbalism useful.
So, while the guys around the table are going into crimson mist and slashing the demon quite heroically, your suggestion is for me to run up and poink the demon with a dagger for about a quarter to a fifth of the effect they're having?
That really sounds balanced to you?

 

[VincentDarlage]

Why are you using a dagger instead of a mace - or better yet, a bow?

The issue with the alchemical weapons is a GM issue. As a GM, I simply allow scholar characters to have a certain amount (depending on level) on hand. As a scholar, I figure they have sources (if they have a demonic pact, I presume the demon brings it, otherwise I presume they have some network or other). The GM always has the liberty to add to a character's equipment list, according to the rules.

I keep it vague because my Conan games aren't shopping trips.

I don't think the class is unbalanced in your game because of a weakness in the class itself, but it is unbalanced in your game because the GM doesn't understand it.

You can disagree, but I have played it this way for several years now - and played it successfully and with a lot of fun.

 

[LilithsThrall]

The issue with the alchemical weapons is a GM issue. As a GM, I simply allow scholar characters to have a certain amount (depending on level) on hand. As a scholar, I figure they have sources (if they have a demonic pact, I presume the demon brings it, otherwise I presume they have some network or other). Part of the "High Living" rule goes toward this.

The rules don't say that. So, your argument boils down to "its a great class as written as long as you change it".

I don't think the class is unbalanced in your game because of a weakness in the class itself, but it is unbalanced in your game because the GM doesn't understand it.

The GM is playing by the rules, the best he understands them. If I'm mistaken and the rules do state that a sorcerer gets so much alchemy stuff as part of his high living, please show me where so that I can show him.

You can disagree, but I have played it this way for several years now - and played it successfully and with a lot of fun.

I'm not going to disagree with you. It sounds like you agree with me. You changed the rules to make the class fun.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Which rule did I change?

I can see where I applied an understanding of REH's sorcerers to game scholars, but I don't know that I changed any actual rules.

Some of these hints are spelled out in Hyboria's Finest (and others, such as using Steely Gaze and Menacing Aura to stop foes cold so your friends can bash them), if your GM needs "official" encouragement.

 

[Ichabod]

The scary thing is the other party members may fail their Terror checks and leave the scholar to do the slayage.

But, getting back to the subject, really, I'd say that if all the party does is take on things that you can't do anything about, that's the GM's fault. There should be opportunities for you to contribute. Maybe zombies can soak a few attacks, add to multiple attacker bonuses, and set up flanks even if they themselves don't do any damage.

Note that the sorcery styles you have are not normally ones scholars start with. The ones that would likely be more fun for a PC would be hypnotism, prestidigitation, nature as they all have much greater flexibility. The GM should work with you to determine what it is you should be doing with your sorcery.

You could make the character better at combat, a la the greatsword wielding example provided earlier in the thread, but I'd be more inclined to work on contributions outside of combat and think up as many different uses for the sorcery as possible ahead of time, so you can whip out a maneuver as necessary.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Which rule did I change?

The one regarding high living. It states the things the character can spend the high living wealth on and alchemical weapons isn't one of those things.
The closest it comes to that is "ancient scrolls or other obscure materials, most of which will prove worthless in the long run".

It also states "Golden lunas can be no substitute for a personal trip to the fiend-haunted jungles of Khitai if you are in search of lotus blossoms."
The implication seems to me to be that herbal ingredients shouldn't be readily available to anyone regardless of class.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Well, I mispoke then. Consider my point of view as part of this rule: "Likewise, their equipment may well have altered. The Games Master is always at liberty to remove from (or add to) the characters' equipment between adventures" (page 394, 2E; page 331, Atlantean edition; page 332, 1E; page 360, pocket edition).

(I am not a rules-lawyer, but I think I am in keeping with that rule, although I mislabeled it as High Living. No actual rule was broken or changed here, I just forgot which rule I was using.)

Of course, my scholar with the crossbow didn't use a lot of alchemy. It was mostly skills and crossbows. I also contributed by usually being the one to figure out the plot and come up with the plans for action.

 

[VincentDarlage]

I'd say that if all the party does is take on things that you can't do anything about, that's the GM's fault. There should be opportunities for you to contribute.

I would agree with that. I think most of Lilith's Thrall's problems with the class are more of a GM issue than with the class.

 

[Benedict]

The following is my first rough sketch (I wouldn't even dignify it to call it a 'draft' yet) of my rewrite of the Sorcerer class.

Interesting that you have made counterspells and summoning part of the character class as a whole rather than options. Why those schools in particular?

I do rather like the idea of thaumaturgy, but couldn't this be handled by a feat? I've always felt that scholars could do with a few more options when it comes to feats. Boons could also be implemented as feats. I would imagine there would be plenty of 15th level scholars that have no contact with nobles, being locked away in their crystal fortresses in the middle of lakes, so having Boon as a character level ability assumes things about all scholar characters. The same would apply for Leadership.

If your intent is to make scholars more useful during combat, then I would suggest, for the purposes of overall balance, that you make them less useful in other circumstances. Namely, reducing their skill points. This will fundamentally change the nature of the class, but I think shifting the focus of the character more towards combat already fundamentally changes it.

 

[Krushnak]

it's fairly easy to have a combat able scholar, all it requires is that you dont min/max and make all your physical stats dump stats. i can assure you that if you played any class with all your physical stats at 10 or less you would suck in combat.

 

[Axerules]

My largest gripe I suppose is that alchemical and herbal items, while logically rare, should be easy and accessible for scholar characters to be throwing around. As is, much depends on the flow of gold in the game obviously, yet the cost even to have a decent lab and make yourself some of the lesser alchemical items is rather crippling to the budget... and in my opinion takes them out of the hands of lower level scholars. Exactly the characters that need them the most.

Now... as for the sorcerous abilities of a scholar... Basically you need a pick a niche for your sorcerer to focus on until they have mastered it if you want to be good at anything. And realize that said niche can either be a style of sorcerous combat, or, well... not combat. You have to pick between having utility spells and combat spells rather sharply. (One reason sorcerers should have easier access to alchemy/herbalism.)

Exactly my thoughts. The alchemical items are too expensive to create. To make some, which implies to pay a share of its price in components is quite impossible if you're not VERY wealthy.

Note that it isn't only a scholar issue, any character with ranks in Alchemy (the INT rule for skills rocks !) will have this kind of problem. Nobody plaid a PC scholar thus far in my games, but some had ranks in Herbalism or Alchemy. I houseruled that the price for creating those items would be 1/10. They're still sold, which is very rare because I consider that the few people able to craft some keep them for personal uses, at their listed prices. Prices who need to be expensive to reflect their rarity. The hell with D&D's costs to create and stupid craft rules ! There is also a real need to reduce the length of time for crafting things (not only alchemical items).
BTW, my PCs are allowed to use the Craft skill ONLY between scenarios during "down-time" and weren't able to do so during an adventure, I'm also not interested in managing that during my game sessions.

Vincent's solution is another possibility, a more valid one according to the rules, but why would someone put ranks into Alchemy, if it's an almost useless skill ?

 

[Vortigern]

Hmm. I'd say either are an option. (Meaning putting said items into your Scholar's inventory between adventures vs. making crafting them easier)

I'd say that depends on game style. I tend to go with continuous play without flashes through game-time to get to adventures. Hence I'd favor crafting rules to make them accessible. If however my games had those movements through time-space to the next adventure, I'd probably do a -lot- of GM modifications to inventories inbetween.

I'd be interested in seeing a set of general guidelines for both. My knee-jerk reaction for the crafting rules is to drop the base price by a factor of ten and simply assume that such items can not be bought without the proper illicit connections to prevent them from being too available/common. Then creating them is however both faster and cheaper. This does not address the requirement of a lab however... and the fact that the size and space requirements for a lab assume that seeming fleeting idea of a 'home-base' for an adventurer. A Priest scholar might be able to reasonably argue using a larger temple's facilities if they are a priest of a sect that uses sorcery... but that could also be viewed as abuse of that feat by other folks.

As for the GM-modification of inventory... Not much is really said about that to my recollection. I'd be curious to see some, perhaps, level and/or skill based guidelines for such. And then ways to factor in adjustments to said guidelines based on individual characters. A baseline of starting gear templates for several types of generic scenario templates... then allowing the character to adjust that based on their own feats/skills. An example, staying with the alchemy line of thought, would be a level + skill factor to give you so many 'slots' or 'gold value' of expendables at the beginning of an adventure. Another approach could be allowing someone with armorer or bowyer to have bought the privilege of being assured to start with at least comparatively better armor to the rest of the group, or their favored bow type and arrows... without it counting towards the GMs limits/adjustments for the adventure. i.e. folks with these skills could still see some utility out of them in this craftless envirionment by being assured at least a minimal access to their selected type of gear... or greater access than the other players without similar skills. Otherwise... I'd agree they then become worthless skills save for the very rare event of using alchemy to identify an unknown substance for example.

 

[VincentDarlage]

You guys are way more mathematical and formulaic about it than I am. I give them an amount I think would lead to a fun game (sometimes less is more fun than more, sometimes more is more fun) and allow them a decent amount of contribution and/or challenge. It also depends on the type of game I am running them through (lots of combat, mystery, horror, intrigue, hunt the foe, capture the flag, kill the demon, et. al.) - which makes more of a difference on my choices than just level/skill points.

For me, it is all about what makes for a good story and a fun, yet challenging time.

 

[Vortigern]

I suppose I'm just detail oriented at times. I could just as easily be satisfied that in a game using the gm-determined-inventory rules it simply be spelled out that such skills as crafting skills or other long-term applicable things are removed from play. I just think that if someone invests in a given stat they should see some return, somehow, somewhere. The 'template modification' idea was simply the first thing that occured to me as an answer to that personal conviction in this instance.

 

[LilithsThrall]

The following is my first rough sketch (I wouldn't even dignify it to call it a 'draft' yet) of my rewrite of the Sorcerer class.

Interesting that you have made counterspells and summoning part of the character class as a whole rather than options. Why those schools in particular?

I do rather like the idea of thaumaturgy, but couldn't this be handled by a feat? I've always felt that scholars could do with a few more options when it comes to feats. Boons could also be implemented as feats. I would imagine there would be plenty of 15th level scholars that have no contact with nobles, being locked away in their crystal fortresses in the middle of lakes, so having Boon as a character level ability assumes things about all scholar characters. The same would apply for Leadership.

If your intent is to make scholars more useful during combat, then I would suggest, for the purposes of overall balance, that you make them less useful in other circumstances. Namely, reducing their skill points. This will fundamentally change the nature of the class, but I think shifting the focus of the character more towards combat already fundamentally changes it.

Thanks for the response.
I gave all Sorcerers access to countermagic and summoning because those seem like key traits of the class in a swords and sorcerery style setting. I actually sat down and tried to think of any example of a sorcerer in sword and sorcery style literature which notably lacked the ability and I couldn't come up with any such examples.
As sorcerers gain power, they need access to more and more pp. A high level sorcerer who secludes himself in a crystal palace under a frozen lake is not going to have such access. He -needs- orgies, human sacrifices, or something else to get that pp. Leadership is given to assist in that. However, the Sorcerer's followers don't need to be human. They can be something else as long as the GM approves (demons, animals, elementals, ghosts, whatever).
And as he continues in power, he'll need more and MORE pp. Its an addiction (the rule of obsession) and that is going to mean that he'll be even more tightly tied in with nobles and the like. Depending on the sorcerer's temperament, this can take the form of blackmailing, massive work in the slave trade, or something else. Boon represents the sorcerer's ability to get the nobility to do what he wants - whether peacefully or by other means.

 

[VincentDarlage]

Boon represents the sorcerer's ability to get the nobility to do what he wants - whether peacefully or by other means.

Why not use Diplomacy or Intimidate for that?

How would that class feature work for someone like Zelata from "The Hour of the Dragon" who does not seem to have regular meetings with nobles?

However, the Sorcerer's followers don't need to be human. They can be something else as long as the GM approves (demons, animals, elementals, ghosts, whatever).

You are encroaching on Steve Perry pastiche territory here. This really does not explain Zelata, who does not come across as having much in the way of leadership.

Also, isn't Lotus a way to increase PP in your system? A lot of sorcerers in REH writings used lotus to increase their power. This would allow for the sorcerer in the crystal castle to have a lot of power.

 

[Benedict]

I gave all Sorcerers access to countermagic and summoning because those seem like key traits of the class in a swords and sorcerery style setting.

I like the idea of sorcerers having some sort of meta-magical abilities, such as wars of souls or the ability to take over other sorcerer's spells. The Counterspells spells Warding and Greater Warding could fit into that category, so I can see how it might be appropriate for all sorcerers to get these powers. But Incantation of Amalric's Witchman, Rune of Jhebbal Sag and all the Summonings spells are clearly spells that have to be learnt. It seems odd to me that these should be made compulsory.

 

[LilithsThrall]

isn't Lotus a way to increase PP in your system? A lot of sorcerers in REH writings used lotus to increase their power. This would allow for the sorcerer in the crystal castle to have a lot of power.

I hadn't thought of that earlier. Thanks. I'm taking leadership out of the class abilities.

But Incantation of Amalric's Witchman, Rune of Jhebbal Sag and all the Summonings spells are clearly spells that have to be learnt.

Summoning is expanded in my system and reflects the Sorcerer's sense of alieness. It includes spells which currently are not summoning spells (like those in the nature style which summon animals). The choice of creatures a specific Sorcerer can summon are determined by what styles he chooses to learn (so a Necromancer might be able to summon ghosts, a Nature style character might be able to summon animals, Hermetic (what used to be called prestidigitation) might summon elementals, etc.) so there's some feedback between the styles he chooses and his summoning power. The summoning ability isn't spells per se but are a result of the Sorcerer's pact with whatever supernatural forces he binds himself to (whether those forces be the wilderness, ancestral spirits, or whatever).
Incantation of Amalric's Witchman and Rune of Jhebbal Sag aren't counterspells in my system. Incantation is probably a Hermetic spell and Rune is a Nature spell.