[3.5 Core] Boosting the sorcerer (PEACH)

[Fizban]

I'm getting tired of multiquoting, so I'm gonna be skipping less major details and stacking blocks together now.

Magic weapons and decent STR can help with that...more to the point, when your enemy can't see you you can afford to take a large number of shots.
You don't need to kill them at all. Manipulating others into killing them, that's the rogue way.
Naturally; if something should logically be possible but isn't in the rules, that doesn't mean it's not possible, just that it wasn't felt necessary to say that it's possible (usually because it's not magical so one can extrapolate from the real world) and if necessary the DM should make ad hoc mechanics, as per DMG p.25.

Archers have two attributes to worry about instead of one and have no ranged version of power attack for easy extra damage. If you're used to just base weapon+str+magic then sure, they can do good damage, but nothing compared to an optimized melee build. It's enough to be worth stacking another spell, but it's not nearly as bad as dealing with anyone in melee. I think you're really underestimating how good mirror image is: it'll usually give you at least 4 images, so that's four attacks soaked, not counting any that miss due to iterative penalties and botched rolls (it happens). Regarding social sklills: they just aren't that useful short-term without serious optimization. I'll give you that over time you can be as magnificent of a bastard as you can imagine, but in the course of one day there's not much room. It takes time to use those skills, and they give you very little influence below epic.

Finally, and most important for this block: just because it can be done in the real world doesn't mean it can be done in dnd. Sure, you can try to do something, and the DM can choose to make up some mechanics for it on the spot, but he is not required to do so. Many DMs don't like dealing with anything that's not in the rules and default to a simple "no" whenever faced with such questions. It doesn't matter what you personally think a class can do and would allow: unless the class (skill, spell, etc) explicitly says that you can do it, then it probably doesn't matter for game balance.

All those other things can be bypassed or are of limited use, though.
But unlike the other things, AC can be sent up to extremely high levels; a classic sword-and-board can hit the low 40s by level 20 with minimal optimization, and a character optimized for AC with a high-power point buy can reach the low 70s in melee when fighting defensively.

I almost want to start shouting, "schrodenger's gear! schrodenger's feats!" but that's a bit extreme. Still, the reason wizard advocates get away with saying they always have the answer is because they can literally change their entire spell loadout every day. Not so much with magic items and feats. And limited use doesn't matter as long as it lasts long enough. As for AC: go check the attack bonus on a couple CR 20 creatures. Red Dragon +36, Pit Fiend +30, Nightwalker +24 (and can destroy magic items). AC 40 isn't going to save you, and furthermore, it will cost a lot of your WBL that could have been spent on killing things better (which protects the whole party instead of just yourself). I'd love to see this AC70 core only build by the way.

Like the low level buffs which can negate some of the wizard's options.
Yes, but not so long for between combats.

It is very rare for a low level spell to negate a higher one. A wizard has far more options than a sorcerer of the same level, and a dragon is a sorcerer of a far lower level. Dragon casting is generally best used for things like Mage Armor and Shield to enhance their already hard enough to beat AC, then adding spells that were designed for dragons like Scintillating Scales and Blood Wind, and swift action spells like Wraithstrike. None of these really invalidate a wizard (except Scintillating Scales, which jacks up touch AC), but they do make it an even more lethal combat machine.

Why not? Assuming it takes a 10 to hit (which should be pretty reasonable), a 20% miss chance is equivalent to only +2 AC (and generally far harder to get and easier to bypass), and even a 50% miss chance (which you can't really get for more than 1 round/level) is only equivalent to +5 AC. Miss chances don't stack (a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance just mean two rolls), and if both come from concealment (most do) they don't even call for separate rolls.

And why are you assuming it would take a 10 to hit? The Shock Trooper dumps all his AC into power attack, the wizard doesn't bother aside from cheap 1st level spells, neither has nearly enough AC to make a competent fighter need a 10 to hit. And yet, 20% miss chance is still 20% miss chance. It doesn't matter how low your AC is when Displacement cuts all the attacks in half. In fact, your argument works against you: unless you can make your AC consistently 10 or more points higher than your opponents attack rolls, for less cash than getting a 50% miss chance, the AC is never going to be worth it. And the miss chance also works against touch/ranged touch spells, which are some of the nastiest.

Not all the time. Just enough to make the wizards not invulnerable.And yes, that does mean 10 min/level spells can be used for multiple fights, but most of those are relatively easy to bypass or get around (there is no combination of 10 min/level spells that will protect you well against a power-attacking enemy, or against 3 separate energy types.)

If I sounded like I thought wizards were invulnerable, I apologize, as that was not my intent. Just better defended than anyone else in the party, including the sorcerer who has fewer defensive spells available. The spells you're looking for are Overland Flight and Stoneskin, and Resist Energy three different times. Unless you're counting your fighter as prebuffed and attacking from above in an ambush, that's enough to give you the time to respond (and if it's a successful ambush then duh, he wins, that's how ambushes work). Resist energy is only 2nd level, so if you're really going somewhere you're likely to run into that much energy damage then just layer it on there.

Except for the fact that, as you pointed out, they have augmentation to make low-level powers usable as higher-level ones.
You can't have it both ways; if the psion compares well to the sorcerer in spells known, he can't also be far stronger in the same issue.

What? I don't even. . . How am I trying to have it both ways? Yes, the psion has about the same number of powers known a sorcerer does spells. Yes, the psion is actually a bit better because it can augment some powers into effectively having more 9th level powers than the sorcerer. And yes, they are the psionic/magic equivalents of each other, both casting spontaneously off a spell list they cannot expand past what they learn on level up. None of these statements contradict each other.

Heighten comes pretty close, and Maximize/Empower can actually make evocation spells better than the equivalent-level unmetamagicked spells.

No, heighten does not come close. It increases spell DC. It does somehow make a lower level spells into a drastically different (and better) effect. Empowering the right spell for your level will usually get you about +50% damage. Maximize runs into die caps and won't give you much more than that. A sorcerer can blast better than a psion, I've already agreed to that, but metamagic does not equal actual higher level spell effects. Augmenting sometimes does. And you can't really blast well in core either: you're missing both the spells and the metamagic reducers needed to make it truly powerful. It's still just a fallback when you can't do something better.

Large area and severe penalty are constant, though, so the sorcerer can get that too (and after the first few levels, they don't increase that much with level.)

Have you compared the spells? There is a big difference between a 10' radius and a 20' radius, or targeting individual foes while avoiding allies, and there are always more severe effects. I don't mean to sound insulting, but have you tried building a sorcerer, especially with an organic spell list from a low level? You absolutely will get stuck using far lower level spells than you want to, with small areas or insufficient severity. A wizard can change this the next morning. Now, with extra spells known at each level a boosted sorcerer won't be as bad off as before, but he will still eventually fall behind. It takes incredible scores to get high level bonus slots, which means at high levels the boosted sorcerer will fall back while the wizard can afford more and more.

A large part of the idea of my wizard fix was that contributing a couple spells to each fight should often not be sufficient. (Saves will also help here.)

Except that by my reckoning (and most of the thread, from what I read), it did not accomplish this. Several of the most powerful spells were untouched, and others were only "countered" by increasing the duration of cleric spells that negated them. Especially without any sort of preface stating that the fix assumed a world were there would be frequent encounters with "adventuring parties", for lack of a better term, it was insufficient.

There is no such thing as a spellcraft item, so it can't be masterwork. But yes, it will not be all that hard, it's a minor point rather than a major one.

Right under Tools and Skill Kits there's an entry for Masterwork Tool, which confers a +2 bonus on it's skill. Are you telling me you can't think of anything that could possibly give a bonus on spellcraft checks, currently being compared to knowledge skills ? Furthermore, in some of those splatbooks we're ignoring, there are stats for various libraries, books, laboratories, and magic items that can give circumstance or competence bonuses. My point being, that if it's easy enough to succeed on the check that it becomes only a minor point, why is it considered a fix?

And those are the things with DC less than your bonus (or equal, or more by 1.)
A copy that's written in a style somewhat different than your own.

Counters I anticipated when I wrote that /Mr. House. I figure that's a fine way to do it, but it makes me afraid for everyone's sudden lack of ability to cook basic food

The only spell that's really essential is Dispel Magic, and you can get that as one of your 2 free spells at level 5.
Oh, also another couple of notes about defensive buffs and wizard vs. sorcerer:
1. Even if you can fight multiple fights before they run out, a dispel can seriously wreck your day if you only have one of everything.
2. Most of the buffs aren't self-only, so while the wizard can be better protected, the sorcerer can protect the whole party (to a somewhat lesser extent.)

I've never seen Dispel Magic as all that essential. I've read some campaign journals where it definitely was, so I understand why, but those where very high op, high power campaigns with highly skilled players and a DM that threw them against full casters in a disturbing number of fights (note that one problem with this is that the enemy caster gets to use an entire day's worth of spells in one fight). My own game is mix new/old and no-op/research machines. The wizard is new but he'd already done his research before I could make any suggestions, but then he also get's KO'd in almost every fight. The only time they've used a dispel was when they were all about to die from a Confusion, and since no one remembered what the Cleric had prepared, I let them burn some of their oft-forgotten action points to have Dispel Magic ready. It did save their butts though.

As for buffing, hehe, I've taken that even farther. I've got a crackpot theory that the wizard's 4 spells per day at each level are supposed to be divided between the 4 party members, since everyone should be sharing their resources (casters share magic, tanks share hp, skills share movement). No one else seemed to give it the barest consideration last I posted it, but there it is.

[Yitzi]

I'm getting tired of multiquoting, so I'm gonna be skipping less major details and stacking blocks together now.

Archers have two attributes to worry about instead of one and have no ranged version of power attack for easy extra damage. If you're used to just base weapon+str+magic then sure, they can do good damage, but nothing compared to an optimized melee build. It's enough to be worth stacking another spell, but it's not nearly as bad as dealing with anyone in melee.

Yes, it's not as bad...on the flip side, wizards tend to have low hit points anyway, so it's going to be an issue (though to really beat fly, you want either flying of your own or else dispel.)

I think you're really underestimating how good mirror image is: it'll usually give you at least 4 images, so that's four attacks soaked, not counting any that miss due to iterative penalties and botched rolls (it happens).

4 attacks soaked doesn't really sound all that bad unless wizards also have the means to win quickly.

Regarding social sklills: they just aren't that useful short-term without serious optimization.

Indeed; short-term they aren't so great.
More to the point, they can't be used effectively with access to only the books; you also need sufficient understanding of the in-character situation to find the way to get the best circumstance bonuses and have the effects you want.

But in the long-term, with proper in-character planning...they're incredible.

Finally, and most important for this block: just because it can be done in the real world doesn't mean it can be done in dnd.

So then why not? If D&D is simulating a "real" fantasy world, rather than just being a game with somewhat unusual rules (the approach that I am taking, and frankly am not even interested in balancing D&D without), then there's no reason to ban something possible just because the simulation needs fixing in order to allow it.

I almost want to start shouting, "schrodenger's gear! schrodenger's feats!" but that's a bit extreme. Still, the reason wizard advocates get away with saying they always have the answer is because they can literally change their entire spell loadout every day.

Doesn't help if you don't know exactly what you'll face today.

Not so much with magic items and feats. And limited use doesn't matter as long as it lasts long enough. As for AC: go check the attack bonus on a couple CR 20 creatures. Red Dragon +36, Pit Fiend +30, Nightwalker +24 (and can destroy magic items). AC 40 isn't going to save you

Low 40s will give you a decent chance to be missed, and more for secondary attacks. It won't protect you absolutely, but neither will spells even if not countered.

and furthermore, it will cost a lot of your WBL that could have been spent on killing things better (which protects the whole party instead of just yourself).

It can be done with 160k or so (less if you use stuff like a potion of barkskin CL 15 instead of an amulet of natural armor +5), pretty manageable by level 20. And yes, it does come at the cost of some offensive ability...but so does spending your spell list on defenses.

I'd love to see this AC70 core only build by the way.

Ok...this is the most extreme form of the build (which actually hits nearly 80): Put 10 points (for a score of 16) in DEX and 6 each (for a score of 14) in INT and WIS; for a high-powered point buy, that'll generally give you enough to put a decent amount in CON and maybe STR (CHA is dump.) Take grey elf (or if playing Core+SRD fire elf) for another +2 DEX and INT. So so far that's 18 DEX, 16 INT, 14 WIS.
For classes, make sure to take at least 1 wizard (more is better, as you're going to be partially relying on Shield), at least 1 monk (although this can be replaced by a monk's belt; you still need a source of Tumble, though, unless you want to go cross-class), and 10 duelist. 2 barbarian is also advised, as a substantial part of that AC is lost when flatfooted.

For equipment, get +6 items to DEX, INT, and WIS (cost 108k, or 126k if using a custom item slot for the WIS bonus), and +5 inherent bonuses (from tomes and manuals) (cost 412.5k) to each. Advancement points go 1 in INT, 1 in WIS, and 3 in DEX, for a total of 32 DEX (+11 bonus), 28 INT (+9 bonus), and 26 WIS (+8 bonus). You get to add all three to your AC, so that's 10+11+9+8=38 already.
Now add +5 deflection (ring of protection costs 50k), +5 natural enhancement (amulet of natural armor costs 50k and requires a custom slot for the WIS bonus, or else just use potions of barkskin), and +8 armor bonus (bracers of armor cost 64k) to bring it up to 56.
Now add in shield, and if you took the necessary wizard levels (or have a scroll) alter self: Troglodyte for another 10, up to 66. When fighting defensively, you get not only +3 for fighting defensively with 5 ranks in tumble, but also +10 against melee from Elaborate Parry, for a total of 79. (You get deflect arrows too, so the fact that your ranged defense is 10 points lower shouldn't be too much of an issue.)
Oh, and the touch AC is 46 against ranged or 56 against melee.

(I made the basic build for the Core Coliseum.)

It is very rare for a low level spell to negate a higher one.

Death ward (which many dragons can get) negates quite a number of high-level spells, though.

A wizard has far more options than a sorcerer of the same level, and a dragon is a sorcerer of a far lower level.

The point of defensive casting isn't to block everything your opponent might use, it's to block the most powerful options. (Weaker options, such as evocation, tend to be harder to totally block than stuff like death effects anyway.)

Dragon casting is generally best used for things like Mage Armor and Shield to enhance their already hard enough to beat AC, then adding spells that were designed for dragons like Scintillating Scales and Blood Wind, and swift action spells like Wraithstrike.

And stuff like deathward and freedom of movement to totally block (no caster level checks, no "reduces X damage", no "lasts for a certain number of attacks and then is used up") most of the wizard's save-or-die and save-or-lose spells.

And why are you assuming it would take a 10 to hit?

Because that's what's generally considered balanced (varying a lot, of course.) Naturally miss chance will be more useful for low-AC builds, but when you can't really get substantially better than 50% total miss chance (blink plus displacement is worth 60%, but that's pretty much the limit, and they're both short-term spells) it's not all that incredibly powerful except against a build that utterly relies on hitting with the first blow (such as an alpha strike build) or in combination with the ability to end the fight quickly (which is the main point in which I weakened wizards.)

It doesn't matter how low your AC is when Displacement cuts all the attacks in half. In fact, your argument works against you: unless you can make your AC consistently 10 or more points higher than your opponents attack rolls, for less cash than getting a 50% miss chance, the AC is never going to be worth it.

Yes it will, as you can get both the AC and the miss chance.

If I sounded like I thought wizards were invulnerable, I apologize, as that was not my intent. Just better defended than anyone else in the party

Now this is definitely not true in a well-functioning party, as most of the defensive spells can be cast on others.

The spells you're looking for are Overland Flight and Stoneskin

Overland flight is going to be used on everyone (and at that level, enemies who can meet you in the air are not uncommon), stoneskin has a material cost and also could be used on everyone (and at that level, enemies who can do substantial damage even with 10 DR, even against aerial targets are not uncommon)

and Resist Energy three different times.

Nope, only the last one has an effect. Straight RAW.

Unless you're counting your fighter as prebuffed and attacking from above in an ambush, that's enough to give you the time to respond

Yes, time to respond. But "respond" does not mean "win".

What? I don't even. . . How am I trying to have it both ways? Yes, the psion has about the same number of powers known a sorcerer does spells. Yes, the psion is actually a bit better because it can augment some powers into effectively having more 9th level powers than the sorcerer. And yes, they are the psionic/magic equivalents of each other, both casting spontaneously off a spell list they cannot expand past what they learn on level up. None of these statements contradict each other.

And yet the psion seems more equivalent to the wizard, in that he's got a discipline (just like wizards can have specialist schools), has INT as his main ability score, and gets bonus feats. The wilder is a far better match thematically for a sorcerer, so that's the proper comparison.

No, heighten does not come close. It increases spell DC. It does somehow make a lower level spells into a drastically different (and better) effect.

There aren't that many powers that can be augmented so drastically.

And you can't really blast well in core either: you're missing both the spells and the metamagic reducers needed to make it truly powerful. It's still just a fallback when you can't do something better.

Which should be a substantial portion of the time.

Have you compared the spells? There is a big difference between a 10' radius and a 20' radius, or targeting individual foes while avoiding allies, and there are always more severe effects.

By the point the distinction is between level 6 and level 7 spells, you should be able to get the 20' radius even with level 6. You won't always have quite the right tool, but you can get pretty good...while a wizard who's used up half his spells already can't necessarily even get second-best, he might have to settle for third- or fourth-best.

A wizard can change this the next morning.

What can he change it to that a sorcerer couldn't get in the first place?

Now, with extra spells known at each level a boosted sorcerer won't be as bad off as before, but he will still eventually fall behind.

Behind in spell selection, higher in ability to cast the same spell multiple times.

Except that by my reckoning (and most of the thread, from what I read), it did not accomplish this. Several of the most powerful spells were untouched

Such as? Defensive spells that buy a bit of time are indirectly affected by offensive spells being insufficient to win in that time.

and others were only "countered" by increasing the duration of cleric spells that negated them.

And giving them the ability to be far harder to dispel.

Especially without any sort of preface stating that the fix assumed a world were there would be frequent encounters with "adventuring parties"

Well, it's adventuring parties, less-intelligent monsters (who tend to have low CR), or monsters designed to be able to handle a lot of roles.

Right under Tools and Skill Kits there's an entry for Masterwork Tool, which confers a +2 bonus on it's skill. Are you telling me you can't think of anything that could possibly give a bonus on spellcraft checks, currently being compared to knowledge skills

There's no masterwork tools for knowledge skills either.

Furthermore, in some of those splatbooks we're ignoring

There's a reason we're ignoring them; while competence bonuses make sense (being magical), circumstance bonuses for knowledge, spellcraft, etc. make no sense.

My point being, that if it's easy enough to succeed on the check that it becomes only a minor point, why is it considered a fix?

It's not; it's a minor point within the fix.

I figure that's a fine way to do it, but it makes me afraid for everyone's sudden lack of ability to cook basic food

Nah, basic tasks don't need skill checks. Doesn't everyone know that?

I've never seen Dispel Magic as all that essential.

You can manage without it, but it's definitely important, especially when fighting a buffed-up enemy (whether a caster or simply someone with a lot of potions.)

As for buffing, hehe, I've taken that even farther. I've got a crackpot theory that the wizard's 4 spells per day at each level are supposed to be divided between the 4 party members

The buffs definitely are (Not literally 4 for 4, as most wizards are assumed to be doing some offense as well). A wizard hoarding all his spells for himself, but relying on the help of party members when he needs it, will of course look overly impressive. The best counter to that is simply to make sure that he does need the other party members (e.g. make at least some encounters able to beat wizards easily), and then the party will have the ground to argue that he should be sharing his abilities just like everyone else does.

[Fizban]

So then why not? If D&D is simulating a "real" fantasy world, rather than just being a game with somewhat unusual rules (the approach that I am taking, and frankly am not even interested in balancing D&D without), then there's no reason to ban something possible just because the simulation needs fixing in order to allow it.

And that's great for you. All the other DMs that don't feel like dealing with it will ban it, or look to your fix to fix it, and then ban it when they see it wasn't fixed.

Doesn't help if you don't know exactly what you'll face today.

And Mr. Schrodenger doesn't know what he's facing either.

Ok...this is the most extreme form of the build

Ok, so it's possible, but the character will still be almost completely useless.

And stuff like deathward and freedom of movement to totally block (no caster level checks, no "reduces X damage", no "lasts for a certain number of attacks and then is used up") most of the wizard's save-or-die and save-or-lose spells.

You need a CR 18 dragon in order to have access to 4th level spells, with caster level 9. Considering you're the one advocating dispelling, I'd expect you to realize how long those would last against a real 18th level caster.

Now this is definitely not true in a well-functioning party, as most of the defensive spells can be cast on others.

Can does not mean will. The classic wizard problem is that there's no reason to help the party when you can just crush everything into jelly and wait for them to clean it up. No, I won't be casting Overland Flight and Stoneskin over the whole party, because then the party would not be functioning well at all. Oh yay, everyone's flying, and we have no magical support now!

Nope, only the last one has an effect. Straight RAW.

There was a whole thread on this. Suffice to say, I think that viewpoint is ridiculous and I'm not arguing it here. I'd give you the proper thread title to look it up, but I don't have it.

Yes, time to respond. But "respond" does not mean "win".

In normal DnD, yes it does. With your mods? Maybe a little less so, but unless this fighter also somehow has all the immunity buffs up, then he's got a very good chance of going down to something, if he doesn't just get hit with a no-save.

And yet the psion seems more equivalent to the wizard, in that he's got a discipline (just like wizards can have specialist schools), has INT as his main ability score, and gets bonus feats. The wilder is a far better match thematically for a sorcerer, so that's the proper comparison.

Wow, okay, so just ignore the actual mechanics of the class then. Primary casting stat is one word in one line, discipline focuses can be found in almost any class, and pre-written fluff isn't everything. I've already told you why they're the same, if you don't want to accept it then I can't make you.

There's no masterwork tools for knowledge skills either.

There don't need to be, that's the whole point! They give examples of specialized fancy tools like Thieve's Tools and Alchemy Labs, and then for everything else they just say "eh, it's 50gp and gives a +2 if it applies to the skill." And as I already said, there are plenty of other books that give precedent to "expensive book= masterwork bonus." The only way you can say that there's no masterwork tool for something is if you use the same logic I have been, where you don't feel like making something up. You're the one who says the DM has to make up stuff whenever his players improvise, so hey, now I wanna buy a reference book to make it easier to do spell work. Guess what entry that uses. Masterwork tool. And it's a heck of a lot easier than making up some brand new mechanic in the middle of combat for something a character can't actually do.

Nah, basic tasks don't need skill checks. Doesn't everyone know that?

And if you take a quick glance at the rules it's easy to see why. Most tasks have a DC of 10 or less (sometimes 5, sometimes even 1 or 0), which means anyone not threatened, and thus taking 10, will succeed every time.

Anyway, I don't think I've got anything else to say. I'm glad that you took some of my advice, but I don't think any more is going to matter at this point (after a whole page of multiquote wars ). Maybe your game really does work out like all that, but in my, and a lot of the rest of the board's experience, many of your assumptions are just wrong. I really do recommend putting up a preface with your campaign assumptions/style/etc if you're writing a fix that depends so heavily on them for balancing factors not present in the game mechanics. Remember that when you post a mechanical fix, it will be evaluated based on the mechanics of the game in a vaccuum, unless you've gone through great lengths to establish some world in place of said vaccuum.

[Yitzi]

And that's great for you. All the other DMs that don't feel like dealing with it will ban it, or look to your fix to fix it, and then ban it when they see it wasn't fixed.

None of my fixes are meant to address the "rules don't cover everything" issue, as that can only be dealt with case-by-case.

And Mr. Schrodenger doesn't know what he's facing either.

So then he's going to run into the fact that sometimes he won't have the optimal choice prepared. In fact, that shouldn't happen all that less often than for a well-built sorcerer.

Ok, so it's possible, but the character will still be almost completely useless.

Yes; that's why it's the most extreme form rather than the standard form. The standard form would give up a bit of that AC for a substantially better attack...it's still a defensive build, but could possibly be enough of a threat (especially with FoB and possibly grappling grapple-vulnerable enemies) to be worth something. Or he could just try to bluff enemies (duelist has Bluff as a class skill) into thinking he's a threat and wasting their attacks on him.

You need a CR 18 dragon in order to have access to 4th level spells, with caster level 9. Considering you're the one advocating dispelling, I'd expect you to realize how long those would last against a real 18th level caster.

Together with Reinforce Ward, long enough to make evocations worth considering as an alternative.

Can does not mean will. The classic wizard problem is that there's no reason to help the party when you can just crush everything into jelly and wait for them to clean it up.

Which is why I weakened his ability to crush everything into jelly.

In normal DnD, yes it does. With your mods? Maybe a little less so, but unless this fighter also somehow has all the immunity buffs up, then he's got a very good chance of going down to something

Yes, after several tries to find which of the important immunity buffs aren't up (assuming they aren't all up, which they very well could be at higher levels). During which time the wizard's protections can be eroded.

if he doesn't just get hit with a no-save.

Those are the most vulnerable to immunity buffs, the ones most likely for him to make sure to get immunity buffs against, and many of them have HP caps anyway.

Wow, okay, so just ignore the actual mechanics of the class then. Primary casting stat is one word in one line, discipline focuses can be found in almost any class, and pre-written fluff isn't everything.

But together (plus the more comparable effective spells known) they make a pretty compelling argument that psion is more analogous to wizard, and wilder to sorcerer. They aren't identical, of course, because psionics does have differences from magic, but it looks to me like it's a far closer match that way.

There don't need to be, that's the whole point! They give examples of specialized fancy tools like Thieve's Tools and Alchemy Labs, and then for everything else they just say "eh, it's 50gp and gives a +2 if it applies to the skill."

Only applies when there is such a thing as tools for the skill.

And as I already said, there are plenty of other books that give precedent to "expensive book= masterwork bonus." The only way you can say that there's no masterwork tool for something is if you use the same logic I have been, where you don't feel like making something up.

No, it can also be when you're going to make something up if and only if it makes in-character sense. Which is definitely the way to go, since in-character thinking is fundamental to D&D.

Remember that when you post a mechanical fix, it will be evaluated based on the mechanics of the game in a vaccuum, unless you've gone through great lengths to establish some world in place of said vaccuum.

Point; for the summary (once I post all the class fixes, I plan to post a summary about how they interact, as no class can really be taken in a vacuum) I'll have to note some of my assumptions.