Some 3.5 D&D Tinkering

[Corvus]

This is a thread for discussion of some 3.5 D&D house rule/house change ideas I have had and/or used in my games. This thread is for d20 fans only -- not for those who don't like d20 to get up on their soapboxes.

Here they are, in no particular order:

1.) Sorcerors

I love the Sorceror concept, as I hate Vancian arcane magic, but the core Sorceror has been screwed since 3e. Wizards are the golden boys and girls of the arcane world, as far as WotC is concerned; Sorcerors get the short end of the stick on anything except spells per day. I do not see the lack of need for preparation of spells to be as advantageous as WotC and many Wizard players do.

To correct the imbalance I see, I make the following changes to Sorcerors in my games:

* Sorcerors operate on Wisdom, not Charisma. Sorcerors look inside for their magic and are contemplative. Charisma is not the Ability Score related to this. Official text contradicts Charisma being a Sorceror's casting Ability Score, by making them outcasts. It has been acknowledged by WotC that Sorcerors use Charisma because they wanted another Charisma-based arcane class, with no other reason.

* Sorcerors no longer receive familiars. A Sorceror is concerned with her own power, not with an external liability in the form of a pet or companion.

* Sorcerors receive the Eschew Material Components feat free at first level.

* Sorcerors keep the spell-swapping rules. However, they may swap a spell every three levels (3, 6, 9, 12, etc.) instead of every four levels.

* Sorcerors receive bonus feats as Wizards. Their bonus feat list includes all Metamagic feats as well as all non-Item Creation feats on the Wizard bonus feat list. Wizards no longer may use their bonus feats on Metamagic feats; the Metamagic feats are removed from their bonus feat list. Sorcerors may not use their bonus feats on Item Creation feats. This means Wizards, who work with magic as an external force, are great at item creation, but not so good at metamagic. Sorcerors, who work with magic as an internal thing, are great at metamagic, but not so good at creating items.

* Sorcerors now use the Wizard class skill list.

* Wizards must have an Arcane Focus on which to "hang" their prepared spells, an idea borrowed mostly from Roger Zelazny's Amber universe. Wizards must protect their Arcane Foci; without their Foci they cannot "hang" spells, and can only "memorize" one spell at a time.

2.) Clerics

As a counterbalance to changing Sorcerors, I made a small change to Clerics as well:

* Clerics in my games operate on pure Charisma. They are arbiters and representatives of their deities, which relies on force of personality and ability to interact. Divine magic is derived an external and sentient force; using it is akin to making a bargain or deal. One person argued that this made dwarves "doubly screwed"; I returned that no other class attempts to compensate for one race's Ability penalties, so nor should Clerics. The -2 Charisma penalty is easily overcome with a simply magic item.

* If a DM still feels dwarven Clerics are disadvantaged, I thought up the following alteration to the dwarf: Dwarven Clerics gain bonus spells and turn as if their Charisma were 2 points higher, so long as they are Clerics of dwarven gods (the dwarf pantheon, gods with the Dwarf Domain, etc.)

3.) Hobby Skills

In an effort to increase diversity among characters, I have adopted the following regarding class skills:

* At character creation, the player may select a number of skills equal to the character's Intelligence bonus that are not already class skills. These skills become class skills for the character for all the character's classes. This means that no matter what class the character advances, he may spend skill points on these skills as if they were class skills. These skills must use Int, Wis or Cha as their Ability. (No cherry-picking traditional Rogue skills without spending levels in Rogue.)

This rule came into effect because of the limitations on cross-class skills, which are sometimes fair but other times overly-strict. This rule allows Fighters, especially, to diversify somewhat with hobby skills such as Perform (Cha-based; traditional/fantasy samurai were often warrior poets, but they didn't have to dip into Bard training!), Heal (Wis-based; battlefield first aid!) and most especially Knowledge (Int-based; not all fighters only knew how to kill!) The number of hobby skills is fixed; if the character's Int bonus changes later, the number of hobby skills does not change.

[Renus]

I'm not really sure if I agree with this. I'll admit that the sorcerer was nerfed a little bit in the transition to 3.5e, but not so much to warrant all of your changes.

You say that a sorcerer's magic is contemplative, but the PHB has always said that a sorcerer's power is instinctive, and that it stems from having a very distant relation to dragons in their bloodline. From this, I think it would make more sense to have their magic stem from Constitution, rather than Wisdom.

Also, just defaulting them to the Wizard skilll list doesn't really make sense, because the class skill list comes from past experiences, training, etc. So I think that creating a new skill list for them would be a better option.

Removing the familiar completely from the sorcerers class abilities also doesn't make much sense. As far as my experiences go, the ability to have a familiar is a major draw for arcane spell casters, and removing that gives many players that much more reason to play a Wizard. Rather, I think that a sorcerer should gain a familiar as if he were two levels lower than he is (e.g. He cannot summon a familiar until third level, and all of the familiar's abilities advance as if he was a wizard two levels lower).

The addition of Bonus Feats to Sorcerers also doesn't make as much sense as some other ideas. Rather, try giving the sorcerers more spells known, though not as many as a wizard. That increases the versatility of the class more than simply allowing them to choose metamagic feats, because metamagic feats are almost useless before 4th level anyway.

Requiring wizards to have a Focus is not too bad, as long as the focus isn't something too off the wall. I'll draw an example from Hackmaster for this one: A cleric is required to have their deities holy symbol as a focus for all spells, but said holy symbol appears on the equipment list with a low cost. Making the wizard's focus off the wall would mean that if he lost said focus, the class would be almost completely useless. Until he went on a big quest to get it back. Also, it would need to be something small, because if it was something like a staff, and the wizard generally fought with a crossbow, that would mean he would need to spend at least one round changing weapons before he could cast his spells.

Taking away the Wizard's ability to choose metamagic feats as bonus feats also makes very little sense because Wizard spells and Sorcerer spells work completely differently, meaning that a wizard applying metamagic to his spells comes from study and experimentation, which can still be attained through bonus feats.

Your changes to Clerics make some sense, but not much, because changing them to Charisma can really screw up the class skill list. If you are going to do this, make a new skill list for clerics, and then allow players to choose whether they want their character to be Wisdom-based, or Charisma-based, and then give them their class skill list based on that.

As for hobby skills, its a good idea on the basic level, but it could use a few tweaks. You should make players choose between a hobby skill or a bonus language (Meaning that with a +3 int bonus, they can get 1 Hobby Skill and 2 Bonus languages, 3 Skills and no Languages, etc.). Otherwise their intelligence bonus gives them an outright benefit for two different things upon character creation, making intelligence an overbalanced trait.

[Corvus]

Originally Posted by Renus

I'm not really sure if I agree with this. I'll admit that the sorcerer was nerfed a little bit in the transition to 3.5e, but not so much to warrant all of your changes.

A lot of this has built up over years.

Originally Posted by Renus

You say that a sorcerer's magic is contemplative, but the PHB has always said that a sorcerer's power is instinctive, and that it stems from having a very distant relation to dragons in their bloodline.

You are correct, I misspoke. From the PHB, page 52, under Characteristics: "Their magic is intuitive rather than logical."

Originally Posted by Renus

From this, I think it would make more sense to have their magic stem from Constitution, rather than Wisdom.

However, also, page 9, under Wisdom: "Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, perception and intuition."

Same page, Constitution: "Constitution represents a character's health and stamina."

Also page 9, under Charisma: "Charisma measure's a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism and physical attractiveness."

Wisdom directly matches. A case could be made for Constitution, and I think that's a cool idea. Under no circumstances is Charisma justified, I think we agree?

Originally Posted by Renus

Also, just defaulting them to the Wizard skilll list doesn't really make sense, because the class skill list comes from past experiences, training, etc. So I think that creating a new skill list for them would be a better option.

Agreed 100%, I'm just lazy when it comes to doing that.

Originally Posted by Renus

Removing the familiar completely from the sorcerers class abilities also doesn't make much sense. As far as my experiences go, the ability to have a familiar is a major draw for arcane spell casters, and removing that gives many players that much more reason to play a Wizard. Rather, I think that a sorcerer should gain a familiar as if he were two levels lower than he is (e.g. He cannot summon a familiar until third level, and all of the familiar's abilities advance as if he was a wizard two levels lower).

Or the ability to spend a feat on Summon Familiar, perhaps? I find a familiar to be a complete and total liability. It requires special care, cannot be put at risk and offers far too little benefit for the potentially damaging cost. Also, I removed it in order to counterbalance the "goodies" I gave Sorcerors.

Originally Posted by Renus

The addition of Bonus Feats to Sorcerers also doesn't make as much sense as some other ideas. Rather, try giving the sorcerers more spells known, though not as many as a wizard. That increases the versatility of the class more than simply allowing them to choose metamagic feats, because metamagic feats are almost useless before 4th level anyway.

A Wizard is capable of great diversity; as it is, a Sorceror is restricted as badly as a Fighter. There is absolutely no call for this; it was written this way because WotC believe spontaneous casting to be the Single Most Powerful Ability Ever. It is not. Sorceror diversity should be encouraged, and allowing for different feats to be chosen enhances this. It also rectifies the Wizard > Sorceror power imbalance.

Originally Posted by Renus

Requiring wizards to have a Focus is not too bad, as long as the focus isn't something too off the wall.

Dull gray Ioun stones are perfect for this requirement.

Originally Posted by Renus

Taking away the Wizard's ability to choose metamagic feats as bonus feats also makes very little sense because Wizard spells and Sorcerer spells work completely differently, meaning that a wizard applying metamagic to his spells comes from study and experimentation, which can still be attained through bonus feats.

A Wizard sees a spell as a formula. Experimentation takes far too much time for such formulae to simply be whistled up without extreme practice, which means it should cost -- a full-on Character Level-based feat. Wizard bonus feats are for Wizard magic, and Wizards see magic as an external thing. Item Creation is perfect for them. Metamagic is internal and, to me at least, intuitive, which is what Sorcerors are all about.

In short, I did it mostly to create more flavor difference. There simply is not enough, to me, as written -- other than "Wizard gooood, Sorceror baaaaaaaad!"

You did note, I am thankful to see, that I do allow Sorcerors and Wizards to "dabble" in each other's "specialties" if they truly wish to do so.

Originally Posted by Renus

Your changes to Clerics make some sense, but not much, because changing them to Charisma can really screw up the class skill list. If you are going to do this, make a new skill list for clerics, and then allow players to choose whether they want their character to be Wisdom-based, or Charisma-based, and then give them their class skill list based on that.

No, it doesn't screw up the class skill list at all. I've run several games with this setup and no Cleric has suffered in the slightest. Tweaking a skill list to a character's primary stat encourages Min/Maxing. I would not allow a player to choose Wisdom for a Cleric because that violates the reason given for the change, whish is that Clerical Divine magic is not Wisdom-based, it is Charisma-based. (Druid Divine magic is still Wisdom-based.)

Originally Posted by Renus

As for hobby skills, its a good idea on the basic level, but it could use a few tweaks.

Tweaking is good, yes.

Originally Posted by Renus

You should make players choose between a hobby skill or a bonus language (Meaning that with a +3 int bonus, they can get 1 Hobby Skill and 2 Bonus languages, 3 Skills and no Languages, etc.). Otherwise their intelligence bonus gives them an outright benefit for two different things upon character creation, making intelligence an overbalanced trait.

I don't see it as overbalanced; other stats already multi-dip in a character's capabilities. But, the way you present it also makes sense, and I would have no problem running or playing it that way either. I like it just as much as I like the way I have been doing it.

Thanks a million for your input!

[Renus]

As before you raise some very good points. We've already spoken on this in PM, so I'm mostly putting this up there for the benefit of others.

Since the PHB really doesn't ever concretely say that sorcerer's powers stem from dragon lineage, we should scrap the Cha based sorcerer and divide it into two different base classes: One that is Wisdom based, per your ideas; and one that it Constitution based, to represent dragon lineage. Each class would be unique, with its own spell progression, skill lists, etc. I've always wanted more options in my arcane spellcasting class choices anyway. This would lead to some tweaking in the Dragon Disciple prestige class, making it only available to the Con based sorcerer, and another class could be written up to go with the Wisdom based sorcerer.

As for the focus. As we discussed, it should be something decided on upon during character creation. It can open some new in game things as well. Such as, if a character has detect magic cast while he is within range of a casting wizard, the focus should glow the color associated with magic items of the school of the spell that is being cast.

I'll get to work writing up the Constitution based Sorcerer (Likely to be called the Dragonsblood Sorcerer, or something similar), and you write up the Wisdom one, and we can post them both up here. That way we get two Arcane casters for the price of one, and they both make a hell of a lot more sense than the original sorcerer.

[TheElf]

These ideas have several flaws, first of all, they seriously thinker with ability score balance, and in several cases has very very little to justify them. Lets see why? A cleric should offer guidance, and understand the written and unwritten laws of chuch well. It is pretty much wisdom related, so the change for clerics wouldn't stand for too long time. And the change you mentioned wouldn't only change important things for dwarves, but it would be a major change for other characters as well. Say a cleric needs high wisdom, since with his understanding and faith he faces temptations and mental attacks efficiently and relatively often. Changing the casting score from wisdom (important here, and for many skills) to charisma is a serious disadvantage.

The reverse is also true: If you give an otherwise strong stat as casting stat for sorcerers (Wisdom, constitution) they can make these stats higher and leave a stat they would never use low (say where would they use charisma) which increases the bonuses they would have on an average roll quickly.

For Constitution, it can be hardly considered as a casting stats, when it says nothing about how you affect the world, it shows how you are unaffected (separated) from the forces of the world, so that would be unjustified and a munchkins wet dream. Even dragons are charismatic creatures. Why? By the sheer force of their personality, and when it isn't just enough to make others feel its effects, but strong enough to manipulate the world with it... Now that is sorcery and that is why charisma is here. Wisdom would require understanding, not sudden intuition and a strong personality in harmony with the world, etc. So charisma is perfectly justified.

With skills your decision are just as unjustified: A wizard is trained in the arts of magic, related sciences, etc. a sorcerer just seen how he is strange, and even if he is the oddball everyone, he should live in the society, and use his/her personality to make communities to accept his presence.

Metamagic feats as bonus are hard to justify for sorcerers: They doesn't learn much about magic by default. Some can decide to study magic but it isn't universal, and metamagic needs such understanding. So I would say it isn't a wise idea.

Familiar: You say it is a liability, and treat it as a disadvantage, then you say, you swap it for important advantages, it doesn't look right, but luckily enough a familiar is optional and can have some advantages too. If you can't use it, your own problem, and your own lack of understanding.

Should we see the rest?

[Corvus]

Originally Posted by TheElf

Changing the casting score from wisdom (important here, and for many skills) to charisma is a serious disadvantage.

That encourages the dangerous viewpoint that a character is built only around one Ability Score. A character is based around six Ability Scores, none of which is unimportant in its own way. The belief that a spellcaster must have everything tagged to one particular Ability Score is a mistaken one that in many cases is damaging to the game (encourages players to load up one stat and dump others), and creativity related to it.

Keeping the Cleric's skill list the same encourages a good Wisdom score, which increases Will saves and also generates the "wise guiding hand" notion for roleplay. Think, however, of all the priests and preachers you've probably heard of in your lifetime who were more concerned with their own power, and who were very well-spoken and fooled a lot of people. High Charisma, questionable Wisdom. Did they have great power anyway? Yes. Have you ever known a powerful religious figure to not have an incredibly strong force of personality? I'd be willing to bet you haven't.

Originally Posted by TheElf

The reverse is also true: If you give an otherwise strong stat

There are no "strong" or "weak" Ability Scores. That is a falacious belief. For example, in 3e the physical Ability Scores were considered "stronger" than the mental Ability Scores. This has since been officially corrected. Charisma is not weaker than Wisdom, and in fact more justified uses for it should be found to enhance this. Changing Clerical divine spellcasting to Charisma means Charisma is now tagged to one of the most popular classes in the game.

I should also point out that one of the major arguments used by those who believe the Cleric is overpowered is that tagging Clerical spellcasting to Wisdom means high Wisdom gives them both extra casting power and a high Will save, as well as benefits on their skills. This is seen as overloading Wisdom.

Originally Posted by TheElf

as casting stat for sorcerers (Wisdom, constitution) they can make these stats higher and leave a stat they would never use low (say where would they use charisma) which increases the bonuses they would have on an average roll quickly.

And again I point out that it has been admitted that Sorcerors were tagged to Charisma simply because there was only one other Charisma-based caster, the Bard. This is weak and bad reasoning on the part of the creators.

Originally Posted by TheElf

For Constitution, it can be hardly considered as a casting stats

I'll let Renus tackle that one, as it's his idea.

Originally Posted by TheElf

when it says nothing about how you affect the world, it shows how you are unaffected (separated) from the forces of the world, so that would be unjustified and a munchkins wet dream.

Your first statement is correct in the R.A.W. Your second statement is only partially correct. Justification would be hard to find. Claims of munchkinism are reactionary and unprofessional, and lead to flamewars. I would ask that you please refrain from making such statements in this thread.

Originally Posted by TheElf

Even dragons are charismatic creatures. Why? By the sheer force of their personality, and when it isn't just enough to make others feel its effects, but strong enough to manipulate the world with it...

Something I disagree with. The mechanics do not make sense from a cold, logical standpoint. The only justification for dragons using Charisma for more than their Presence-based abilities is streamlining, making things quicker. Streamlining and logic are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by TheElf

Now that is sorcery and that is why charisma is here. Wisdom would require understanding, not sudden intuition and a strong personality in harmony with the world, etc. So charisma is perfectly justified.

I refer you to the above quoted text from the PHB. Sorcerors are described as intuitive, and intuition is under Wisdom, not Charisma.

Originally Posted by TheElf

With skills your decision are just as unjustified: A wizard is trained in the arts of magic, related sciences, etc. a sorcerer just seen how he is strange, and even if he is the oddball everyone, he should live in the society, and use his/her personality to make communities to accept his presence.

The reason a Sorceror's skill list is so small is because of the belief that Spontaneous Casting is the most powerful ability ever. It is not. Sorcerors need a larger Class Skill list, as do Fighters.

Originally Posted by TheElf

Metamagic feats as bonus are hard to justify for sorcerers: They doesn't learn much about magic by default. Some can decide to study magic but it isn't universal, and metamagic needs such understanding. So I would say it isn't a wise idea.

Metamagic is about changing the way a spell works. Inherent and intuitive understanding is much more important to that process than book knowledge. It is something that must be felt, not just known. That is, however, a personal belief only. I have not found much hard evidence for flavor either way, and I believe your view of metamagic is just as correct. I simply don't like it.

Originally Posted by TheElf

Familiar: You say it is a liability, and treat it as a disadvantage, then you say, you swap it for important advantages *snip*

It is my personal belief that familiars are, in the end, liabilities. That is not why I removed them from the Sorceror. They do provide some benefits, especially at lower levels, and most people see them as a benefit. Therefore I removed them to provide more balance. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by TheElf

Should we see the rest?

I caught myself in an error: Sorceror spell-swapping begins at 4th level and is allowed gain at every even-numbered level thereafter, meaning once every two levels. I was actually making things worse. I may keep things as I have them anyway, having it every three levels instead of two, just to satisfy those who believe I'm giving the Sorceror too much of a boost.

[TheElf]

Corvus: Read rules about creating PC races, and you will see that there is an order of importance for ability scores. And it is pretty simple to find solid proof for it And from this point the main problem with your "tweaking" is evident: You make some class MUCH stronger and another one MUCH weaker.

Also you speak Sorcerers are charisma based because there is only 1 arcane caster with charisma as casting stat besides it in PHB. How many arcane casters from the PHB use Intelligence? What about Wisdom? So your justification fails misserably. But lets see it from a better perspective: How bards have magic spells, if they don't refine their magical skills that much and almost noone uses the same type of magic? You see the problem. So to make bard justified you need another charisma based spellcaster, and you would need a background and a class for it. Strongly justifies the NEED for charisma based arcane casters. The question, is sorcerer a good charisma based arcane caster or far from the perfect one?

So from 2 core points (important and unimportant scores, and need for charisma based caster) you are wrong.

Something I disagree with. The mechanics do not make sense from a cold, logical standpoint. The only justification for dragons using Charisma for more than their Presence-based abilities is streamlining, making things quicker. Streamlining and logic are not the same thing.

Again, you are wrong, since streamlining is questionable if high charisma for dragons predate their current charisma based abilities, and when monsters had no usefull modifiers from charisma dragons were still described as charismatic. Should I refer to Dragonlance chronicles? So dragons by their nature are considered charismatic. Again, you don't know the fact and end up in wrong lands.

Sorcerors are described as intuitive, and intuition is under Wisdom, not Charisma.

Again: Charisma is mostly about personality, and it includes some intuition aspect, and same can be said about Wisdom too. The question, when a character tries to find his/her role in a community, which is mostly charisma, do she/he use intuition? The answer is a clear yes.

The question is: Sorcery is understanding of the world, and learned? No, that is wizards magic. Is sorcery part of personality, personal power, and feeling your place in the world and interacting with it? Yes it is. And this is strongly for charisma. Wizards needed a charisma based caster (see reasoning) and made it

Metamagic is about changing the way a spell works. Inherent and intuitive understanding is much more important to that process than book knowledge.

That would be called Wild Magic at best. Metamagic is about VERY specific changes. And while you say, there is no information about it, there is some: Wizards have an advantage here, so Metamagic suits their ways of thinking.

It is my personal belief that familiars are, in the end, liabilities. That is not why I removed them from the Sorceror.

Yet they were justified before, and as I said, removing something you don't consider as usefull for something you consider as usefull isn't the best idea

Back to clerics and your example: Tell me in our world, how many clerics cast spells? In a fantasy game where they do it is easy to distinguish between a charlanatan who can't cast divine magic, and a real cleric, who lives by his faith, so your justification wouldn't work well.

[Corvus]

You make several good points, but you also hold very strongly to views I completely disagree with, such as the purpose and source of metamagic or the "importance" of some Ability Scores; neither really need any kind of response, since in the latter case we simply will not agree no matter how much wrangling we do . However, there are two things I can respond to, and the first is the key to your belief about sorcery and Charisma:

Originally Posted by TheElf

Is sorcery part of personality... *snip*

No. It is not. Assuming that personality has something to do with sorcery is akin to saying that what a Sorceror does is bullsh** the universe into doing what he wants. That is what a Bard does, not a Sorceror.

This is not what sorcery is or does. Sorcery is an innate understanding of magic and how it works, which is a Wisdom-based concept. The Rules As Written use the keyword intuitive. The keyword intuition is a Wisdom component, not a Charisma component. Sorcery is not described at all using keywords relating to personality. The flavor text describing Sorcerors as charismatic is there to play up the possible draconic origins of their magic for story purposes; it lends no credence to sorcery being Charisma-based.

The idea of sorcery as a Charisma-based concept does not make sense from everything that has been written and described. Sorcery, the innate and unprepared use of magic, would have to be totally rewritten to be justified as a Charisma-based concept. This is supported by the text of the RAW.

Now, the second:

Originally Posted by TheElf

Yet they were justified before, and as I said... *snip*

They were not "justified" before. They were given to Sorcerors because of any one of several notions, including "all arcane casters except Bards should have them", which isn't true, or "We have to give them something to make up for the total lack of class-based powers on the chart!" which is true.

If these arguments still do not sway you, consider this: everything I do increases flavor difference between Sorcerors and Wizards. As it is there is no reason to play a Sorceror; everything she can do, the Wizard does better, and the Wizard gets all the goodies to boot. I have not barred Sorcerors from taking familiars, just as I have not barred Wizards from taking the time and putting forth the effort to learn Metamagic concepts in a logical, Wizardly-way. I have made it so that each class has a different focus. Clerics and Druids are vastly separated out, even though each is a type of priest, a divine agent; Sorcerors and Wizards should have more flavor difference as well.

As well, also please keep in mind that playtesting has been done with the revamped Cleric, Wizard and Sorceror, and they have been shown to be balanced, playable and flavorful. Now, some of this might have to do with the DMs that were running the games in which these playtests were being made, as a good DM can make up for any bobbles in balance, but not even the best DM can compensate for something which is completely broken. Which means that unless you think I'm lying, I have the proof of experience on my side. Of course I don't demand that everyone use these changes, and I can still play the classes as written in the PH and try to compensate for a shortcoming in "kewl powerz" and conceptual logic with roleplay. But this is how it goes in my games.

(EDIT) By the way, Elf, your defense of Charisma-based sorcery is probably the best I have seen. It's obvious that you, at least, have given it some thought, unlike many folks who defend it simply because WotC wrote it. I still don't agree, but it's nice to see somebody actually thinking about his opinions!

[zergnase]

hello folks,

first of all your ideas Corvus are not bad.

in our D&D group which has more combat based, we all agree that the on-the-flay casters are majorly screwed

exspecialy the sorcerer which should be the direct on the fly-casting counterpart to the wizard

• he gets not enough know spells
• he gets not more HPs
• he does not get more skill points
• his class skills are a joke
• he does not get any class abilites after the 1st

explanations of the points above:

1) know spells
they suck since there are soooo many usefull spells that u hardly have enough slots to pick the minimum needed (exspecialy for the favored soul).
we introduced a house rule for the on the fly caster, they get bonus known spells on each spell LVL forumlar :
ability socre modifier (permscore, no temp spells, no magical items) * caster / [2,3,4]
2 for classes which majorly relay on casting like sorcerer favored soul and so on
3 for medium relaying classes like psychic warrior
4 for minor relaying classes like hexblade and so on

max number of bonus known spells is limited to the number of the knowspells on that LVL (aka 1 base 3rd LVL knowspell for a 6th sorcerer and 1 bonus knowspell)two levels after the class got his last base known spell on a level, the cap for bonus known spells is removed

to your hobby skills:
i wouldn´t allow spot, listen and such stuff
personaly i would prefer a list of skills which could be taken as hobby skills, stuff like climb, jump, concentration should be on that list also

climb: there is a mountain, lets look if there is a flower on the top

concentration: yoga-class, or an annoying partymember who always tells jokes or plays tricks on you.

all da knowledge skills are good, if it does not go crazy (aka capped)

disable decive, yes

apprise ... hm... wouldn´t allow it uncapped

profession for those who don´t have it, and the background is not the totaly diametral opposite, surely

same for craft and perform

bluff, disguise also sound cool for that

gtg, bbl perhapse

Z stands for Zerg

[TheElf]

Corvus: it is easy to tinker with these classes, and making differences. I tend to make difference easily:

• Learning spells with a wizard needs some spellbooks, and each school in the world (not as in school of magic, but as a place of learning) have different repertoire, adventuring related spells are rare, and hard to come by.
• Spellbooks are heavy, bulky, and vulnerable, wizards depend on them, sorcerers doesn't. Also they can be stolen, storing extra spellbooks need a safe place, etc. Most wizards aren't happy with this. Neither with encumberance problems.
• Can add encounters when they would prepare spells, and make sorcerers more reliable.
• Make sure, most wizards choose wisely, who can learn their spells, so they might need to learn some lower level spells first, higher levels can come later. Also alignment checks.
• Making sure, a wizard need to understand langauges to read the comments in spellbook, and so on.
• Would probably make memorizing spells a longer process (same speed as in 2nd edition)
• Would say, wizards have to store their comments, understandings, etc in their spellbook to help them to memorize in addition of spell formula (and again it would come out like in 2nd edition)

Imho charisma (force of your personality over the world), the origins, the link with bardic magic justifies charisma for sorcerers, but wisdom can be important for understanding, but a sorcerer understands magic, but doesn't have to understand other stuff, so wisdom isn't the most important stat, yet the intuitive aspect of magic are emphasized in games