PDA

View Full Version : Why dont people seem to like sorcerers



Stryke
2010-07-05, 06:13 AM
I've been onthis forum for a while now and while a lot of classes are mentioned freqently, sorcerer doesn't seem to be one of them. Is there a reason for this or am i just reading the wrong theads

Edit
for the purposes of this thread only consider info from the core books PHB 1 DMG1 MM1

Yora
2010-07-05, 06:15 AM
There's nothing wrong with sorcerers. But wizards can cast the same spells and are much more powerful when optimized.
And most threads about characters in this forum are about high level optimization.

Stryke
2010-07-05, 06:21 AM
There's nothing wrong with sorcerers. But wizards can cast the same spells and are much more powerful when optimized.
And most threads about characters in this forum are about high level optimization.

Now see, i've always wondered about that. Sure wizards can cast a bigger variety of spells but their limited to four fixed spells/level/day meaning a sorcerer can out cast any wizard of equal level and for the sake of one feat is basically the same class with more spells per day. yes a wizard of infinitly more flexable but only if he has eight hours to prepare were as a sorcerer can have the same spells and more prepared meaning on an encounter to encounter basis he is far more flexable

Boci
2010-07-05, 06:24 AM
Couple of reasons I can think of:
1. Delayed spell progression
2. Do not get a chance to try out situationally useful spells
3. Int gives more skill points, Cha gives better modifiers to social interaction. Most people feel arcane casters do not need to be the parties face anyway, so int is generally considered better.


Now see, i've always wondered about that. Sure wizards can cast a bigger variety of spells but their limited to four fixed spells/level/day meaning a sorcerer can out cast any wizard of equal level and for the sake of one feat is basically the same class with more spells per day. yes a wizard of infinitly more flexable but only if he has eight hours to prepare were as a sorcerer can have the same spells and more prepared meaning on an encounter to encounter basis he is far more flexable

Wizards will typically specialize, meaning the sorceror only has 1 more spell. Focused specialist? Yes, sorcerors are more flexible, and thus they do not require as much planning, which could another reason why thay aren't spoken about as much.
On a side note, not sure if you were trying to say otherwsie, but sorcerors also need 8 hours of preperation.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-05, 06:25 AM
Even aside from optimization concerns, it is plain from reading the class description that (1) the sorcerer gets every spell level a level later, (2) the wizard gets better skills and bonus feats, and (3) the wizard gets many more spells known than the sorc does. So at a first glance, the wizard is simply a better version of the sorc. I'm not saying this is always the case, of course, but it easily seems so.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-05, 06:31 AM
There are exactly 2 things wrong with the Sorcerer. First, they're one level behind most other spellcasters when it comes to getting new spell levels. If you not in a game where you gain levels like crazy, this can really hurt. Second, they don't get to learn that many spells compared to other full spellcasters. That means they have to be really careful about which spells they learn and can't choose many with situational usefulness.

And their only major advantage is they can cast any spell they know spontaneously (assuming they have the spell slots). That and they get a couple extra spells per day compared to a Wizard. Unfortunately, a properly prepared Wizard doesn't really need to cast spells spontaneously, since they get Scribe Scroll for free and get another bonus feat they could use for Craft Wand or something which a Sorcerer needs to spend a normal feat to get.

In the end, being a spontaneous caster just isn't as good as being able to learn every Sor/Wiz spell and stick it in a book to use whenever you want, and getting a couple extra spells per day doesn't make up for being a level behind. Not to mention the fact that Sorcs aren't as good at using metamagic, and you can see how the Sorcerer just doesn't stack up against Wizards, Clerics and Druids.

Runestar
2010-07-05, 06:32 AM
Splatbooks have a variety of abilities which make the sorcerer's abilities less unique. For example, focused specialist variant gives a wizard even more spell slots than a sorc. There are feats/features such as uncanny foresight or spontaneous divination which allow wizards to spontaneously cast spells. Wizards even get a spell which lets them rearrange their spell slots.

Simply put, yes, a sorc's spontaneous spellcasting is a very neat ability, but wotc made them pay through the nose for this benefit (no bonus feats, cannot quicken spells without external help, limited spells known, slightly slower spell acquisition).

Nevertheless, spellcasting is king in dnd, so sorcs are still a force to be reckoned with, even if they are inferior to wizards.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-05, 06:35 AM
On the plus side, as a DM I prefer using Sorcerer villains because they're easier to run and the extra spell slots can help them stay in the fight a little longer, and I can just make them whatever level I need so the late spell levels isn't really a problem anymore.

Grumman
2010-07-05, 06:51 AM
Yes, sorcerors are more flexible, and thus they do not require as much planning, which could another reason why thay aren't spoken about as much.
Actually they require more planning. A wizard has to pick how many slots to allocate to each spell, it's true, but a sorcerer has to pick what spells to learn. A wizard who makes a mistake can fix the error the next time he prepares his spells, or scribe a new spell into his spellbook if he made a more significant error (assuming he survives, of course). A sorcerer who learns a useless spell is stuck with it until he levels up a few times.

molten_dragon
2010-07-05, 06:53 AM
I actually prefer playing sorcerers to wizards myself. They're simpler and there's less bookkeeping to worry about. And although they're somewhat less powerful than wizards, a sorcerer is still a force to be reckoned with.

As a DM though, I give sorcerers some perks to help make up the gap between them and wizards.

Ecalsneerg
2010-07-05, 07:06 AM
While I think this has been said, it's worth repeating. Sorcerers are worse than most spellcasters. They're still not by any stretch of the imagination bad.

Andry
2010-07-05, 07:14 AM
I always give either bonus metamagic/or bloodline feats every five levels. To help even the playing field a little.

Roc Ness
2010-07-05, 08:03 AM
I actually prefer playing sorcerers to wizards myself. They're simpler and there's less bookkeeping to worry about. And although they're somewhat less powerful than wizards, a sorcerer is still a force to be reckoned with.

Seconded. Just put a bit of effort into choosing a couple of good, universally helpful sorcerer spells, and then never worry about them again. Much better than having to worry about using up the only fly spell you prepared and whatnot, or having to change your preparations every day for the most optimised use of less spell slots, or preparing low-level spells "just in case" that you probably won't use...


Besides, sorcerers get Arcane Fusion :smalltongue:

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 08:05 AM
If you want to play a slight better Sorcerer, there's always the Pathfinder version. Eschew Materials as a bonus beat, and bloodlines grant spells, bonus feats, and other bonuses

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/sorcerer

AstralFire
2010-07-05, 08:16 AM
While I think this has been said, it's worth repeating. Sorcerers are worse than most spellcasters. They're still not by any stretch of the imagination bad.

Slight nitpick: Sorcerers are worse than the other three core 9-level casters. They are better than most other spellcasters.

molten_dragon
2010-07-05, 08:21 AM
If you want to play a slight better Sorcerer, there's always the Pathfinder version. Eschew Materials as a bonus beat, and bloodlines grant spells, bonus feats, and other bonuses

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/sorcerer

I tend to use what I call "MD's 5 minute sorcerer fix", which consists of:

Increase skill points from 2 to 4
Add knowledge (arcana), diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, spot, and listen to list of class skills
Add eschew materials as a bonus feat at 1st level
Add a bonus feat at 5th level and every 5 levels after that, same list as wizard
Remove familiar and replace with the ability to use metamagic without increasing casting time
Bonus spells from a high CHA apply to spells known as well as spells per day

I kind of like the pathfinder version though, so maybe I'll try using that in the future.

I also have plans to someday do a much more flavorful reboot of the sorcerer, involving pacts made with powerful outsiders, and familiars who are agents of those same outsiders. This may or may not actually get done, depending on how busy I stay.

Runestar
2010-07-05, 08:26 AM
If you want to play a slight better Sorcerer, there's always the Pathfinder version. Eschew Materials as a bonus beat, and bloodlines grant spells, bonus feats, and other bonuses

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/sorcerer

I am actually against the idea of mandatory bloodlines, because I don't like the concept of sorcs necessarily being tied to a certain heritage. Wotc kinda overdid it with their "All sorcs are descended from dragons" and the load of draconic feats in races of dragon, followed by an assortment of fey/celestial/fiendish feats.

Boci
2010-07-05, 08:28 AM
Actually they require more planning. A wizard has to pick how many slots to allocate to each spell, it's true, but a sorcerer has to pick what spells to learn. A wizard who makes a mistake can fix the error the next time he prepares his spells, or scribe a new spell into his spellbook if he made a more significant error (assuming he survives, of course). A sorcerer who learns a useless spell is stuck with it until he levels up a few times.

Yes but that's not really planning you can discuss on the internet, since it depends a lot on the campaign setting.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:30 AM
I am actually against the idea of mandatory bloodlines, because I don't like the concept of sorcs necessarily being tied to a certain heritage. Wotc kinda overdid it with their "All sorcs are descended from dragons" and the load of draconic feats in races of dragon, followed by an assortment of fey/celestial/fiendish feats.

Pick arcane and reflavor that you are a rebel wizard.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-05, 08:31 AM
The problem is not that sorcerers are too weak. The problem is that wizards, clerics and druids are too strong.

2xMachina
2010-07-05, 08:36 AM
Kobold Sorc is pretty ok.

No cheese, no sorc though. Foc. Spec is much better.

Vizzerdrix
2010-07-05, 08:44 AM
I like Sorc. A lot less book keeping.

valadil
2010-07-05, 08:48 AM
The other factor that hoses them that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that sorcerer metamagic sucks. You either need to burn a feat or sacrifice your familiar to make it usable.

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 08:50 AM
Pick arcane and reflavor that you are a rebel wizard.

+1
In my campaign, almost all NPC Sorcerers have the Arcane bloodline. I've re-fluffed it a little so that any 2nd generation child of arcane magic users is guaranteed to (potentially) be a Sorcerer.
I even drew up a little table to show how likely it was for various people to have Arcane blood :smallredface:

Vizzerdrix
2010-07-05, 08:51 AM
Loosing the familiar is a blessing. The fact that you can get to use meta magic better is just icing on the cake.

If you'd like a familiar, take Obtain Familiar. You won't hurt it by taking a PrC this way.

Aasimar
2010-07-05, 08:52 AM
I'm currently playing a lvl.1 Drow Sorceress in 4e, I'm not completely sure where it's going, but I'm having fun so far.

I went for storm sorcery and Implement Expertise: Staffs, but she's effectively the party rogue, since I used a background to get access to thievery and stealth, and trained those as well as bluff. Somewhere down the line, I may grab Warrior of the Wilds to get hunter's quarry 1/encounter and training in Acrobatics.

All in all, I'm looking forward to continuing the game.

Back in 3.0, I played a Sorcerer from level 1 to level 19. I had tons of fun with that. I realize that wizards could de facto be way more powerful, but I enjoyed the charisma emphasis and the freedom of not having to prepare spells.

Also, this was back when Haste gave you an extra action, so at higher levels, I was pulling stuff like, Haste, flight, improved invisibility and then two disintegrates per turn (which was a save or die at the time). Against tougher opponents I'd cast limited wish (-7 on his next saving throw) and then disintegrate.

Not completely powergamey though, my last couple of levels were in dragon disciple (which were basically wasted, since DD doesn't get caster progression, and the strength + Natural armor are pretty wasted on such a person)

Anyway, my experience with sorcerers has been a long and happy one.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-07-05, 09:01 AM
Let's look at a Level 6 Sorcerer with decent charisma:
Casts per day: 7 1st-level, 6 2nd-level, 4 3rd-level.
Knows: 4 1st-level, 2 2nd-level, 1 3rd-level

Among his highest level of spells known, the sorcerer enjoys the amazing flexibility of the ONE spell he knows. Among level 2 spells, he has the wide range of spontaneous choices between TWO spells.

For comparison, Level 6 focused specialist Wizard with decent intelligence:
Casts per day: 6 1st-level, 6 2nd-level, 4 3rd-level.
Has in spellbook: ~10 1st-level, 4 2nd-level, 4 3rd-level (plus can learn additional spells from scrolls)

Counting spells per day, he's only one 1st-level spell down compared to the sorcerer. Counting spells known, he's light years ahead. And the sorcerer's alleged flexibility isn't much of an asset, when, for his most powerful spells, he can only choose between two spells at the most.

The wizard also gets, at this point in his career, 2 additional feats over the sorcerer, and probably a lot more skill points (INT vs. CHA as the main attribute).

Note that I was generous and compared them at an even level. At the next level, the Wizards gets 4th level spells, while the sorcerer doesn't, which further widens the gap.

And that's why people don't like sorcerers. Because they're like Wizards, but worse.

Rothen
2010-07-05, 09:05 AM
For comparison, Level 6 focused specialist Wizard with decent intelligence:


Ah! But you'd have to give up the excellent schools of evocation and...

Eh, who am I kidding. If you don't mind the bookkeeping, just play a wizard.

The Sorcerer is a great class if you like to keep things simple and still want to have more options than a fighter, though.

Stryke
2010-07-05, 09:11 AM
OK these are all fair points but unless your optimizing they're not all big problems. yes the lack of bonus feats is a big blow i wont dispute that, however if a wizard specializes he becomes even less flexible meaning his choice of "situational spells" becomes small enough to make the point moot unless you start digging out suppliments and loads of crazy races and bloodlines.
And just so you know i meant using only core books sorry i should have mentioned that earlier

elonin
2010-07-05, 09:15 AM
without a feat metamagic takes a full round action.

Gnaeus
2010-07-05, 09:18 AM
OK these are all fair points but unless your optimizing they're not all big problems. yes the lack of bonus feats is a big blow i wont dispute that, however if a wizard specializes he becomes even less flexible meaning his choice of "situational spells" becomes small enough to make the point moot unless you start digging out suppliments and loads of crazy races and bloodlines.
And just so you know i meant using only core books sorry i should have mentioned that earlier

You can't find enough "situational spells" to fill your spellbook in core Illusion, Transmutation, and Conjuration? You aren't looking very hard.

Rothen
2010-07-05, 09:20 AM
OK these are all fair points but unless your optimizing they're not all big problems.

Wait, what? You're asking why people don't talk about the sorcerer when they're discussing builds and optimization on the board. Of course the reason for that is related to optimization.


however if a wizard specializes he becomes even less flexible meaning his choice of "situational spells" becomes small enough to make the point moot

A wizard can drop one or two schools without too much trouble. Three isn't fun, but still doable if you want to be a focused specialist.

And Lin Bayaseda made the best point in an earlier post:
As a sorcerer, you often have only one spell known for your highest spell level. One. A wizards knows several more. That's flexibility right there.

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 09:22 AM
Personally, I quite like them, and I usually prefer playing them over wizards, although spell slots are fairly pointless if you aren't restricted to preparing spells.

However, the downsides they suffer in comparison to the wizard are pretty horrible. Slowed access to casting is bad enough.

I can understand the decision to make metamagic weaker for sorcerers (i.e. that they appeared to be flexible enough already, and it pays to be conservative when you don't know what might come up in the future), but it is quite a disadvantage.

Scorpina
2010-07-05, 09:40 AM
On another note, the fluff for socrcerer is more prescriptive than the fluff for wizard. To look at them as laid out in the 3.5 PHB, your sorcerer more or less has to be descended from dragons. If you don't want to play a draconic caster, you're better off with wizard. Obviously, the class can be refluffed, but you don't have to refluff wizard in the same way, usually.

Evard
2010-07-05, 10:03 AM
I always saw the Sorcerer as WoTC answer to new players...

They made the Wizard and got around playing it and realized that new players may not like how you have to prepare each spell.. Soo to counter that they made a slightly weaker version of the Wizard and called it a Sorcerer, who by default is easier to set up and play on the fly.

Since its a Sorcerer I always thought they should have free summon monster spells and get bonuses to summoning since a Sorcerer is one that makes deals with devils and such (at least that's what it used to be).

Greenish
2010-07-05, 10:05 AM
Sorcerer, who by default is easier to set up and play on the fly.Except if you mess up your spell selection, you're royally screwed.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-07-05, 10:09 AM
I always felt that the sorcerer isn't sufficiently different from the Wizard to merit its own class. For chrissake, they even have the same spell list in the PHB! They didn't even humor the sorcerer with his own spell list like they did to the druid. And they were sooooo scared of the spontaneous casting being too good, that they ended up making nothing but a slightly weakened wizard.

They should have skipped the sorcerer and went straight to Warlock. Yes, the Warlock class is what the sorcerer should have been. Not getting into considerations of power, at least there's a clear distinction between it and the wizard - it really feels like a class of its own.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 10:32 AM
They should have skipped the sorcerer and went straight to Warlock. Yes, the Warlock class is what the sorcerer should have been.Not to mention beguilers, dread necromancers and warmages.

ericgrau
2010-07-05, 10:43 AM
I like sorcerers myself for easier versatility and gameplay. They get a lot of hate on internet forums due to theoretical optimization, where wizards could theoretically have any spell prepared. In practice players don't usually spend hours and several divination spells planning their spell list and sorcerers tend to be more versatile because they have more spells prepared and because they can further adjust those on the fly as needed with metamagic. The drawback is then being a half a spell level behind on (only) the first spell or two you cast each day, which mostly only matters if you focus on direct damage as a sorcerer. I don't. And the theoretical drawbacks, of course, for those who prefer to constantly switch their spell list and somehow know exactly what's coming (general knowledge is rarely enough).

I mean, the moment someone starts mentioning contrived spells like wind wall, you know a thread has devolved into pure theory. No one even has wind wall in their spell book, at least not in any build I've seen.

El Dorado
2010-07-05, 10:58 AM
Sorcerer's also good the experienced player who doesn't have as much time to invest in wizard bookkeeping. Or for games that have limited play time.

Captain Six
2010-07-05, 11:04 AM
On another note, the fluff for socrcerer is more prescriptive than the fluff for wizard. To look at them as laid out in the 3.5 PHB, your sorcerer more or less has to be descended from dragons. If you don't want to play a draconic caster, you're better off with wizard. Obviously, the class can be refluffed, but you don't have to refluff wizard in the same way, usually.

You might want to reread the PHB. Some sorcerers claim they descend from dragons but have nothing to back it up and the sorcerer's true origin is a complete mystery. Like it was mentioned earlier the later splatbooks blew the heritage thing way out of proportion. Which is a blessing for DMs. :smallamused: Such a great assumption made by such a majority of the players about such a common class is just begging for a major twist.

balistafreak
2010-07-05, 11:14 AM
I mean, the moment someone starts mentioning contrived spells like wind wall, you know a thread has devolved into pure theory. No one even has wind wall in their spell book, at least not in any build I've seen.

You're playing with the wrong people, or play with a considerably less imaginative group/DM, then. (Sorry if that sounds condescending, but it's about as gentle as I can make it. :smallannoyed:)

Wind wall is the classic example of the "situational spell" - not something you generally prepare every day like fireball grease, but something you prepare when you have a general idea of what you're walking into.

Wind wall is the spell you prepare when you're on the classic, LoTR battlefield. Nothing says "avoid unnecessary damage from the other side's archers while pwning their headquarters" like wind wall. Bleedin' priceless. (Okay, javelins and such have a 70% of getting through, but the shorter range on throwing weapons saves you the trouble of having to run over and kill them anyways.)

Wind wall is the spell you prepare if you fear that archers on the castle battlements are going to pwn you. One spell later, you've got at least five turns of uninterrupted action - probably more, seeing as you're apparently storming a castle. Cast at a critical moment - in front of a surge towards the gate, around a siege tower as it makes contact with the wall, and so on - it can singlehandedly define an encounter by making your allies immune to the main avenue of attack at that moment.

Wind wall is the spell you prepare when you know the BBEG/Dragon is an archer of some kind. With a single 3rd level spell, you have completely made yourself immune to his main avenue of attack for several rounds. For obvious reasons very few spells can accomplish something like this, and although wind wall only does this against archers, at 3rd level that's all we need it to do.

Wind wall is extremely far from a "contrived" spell for these reasons. Very few spells at a similiar level say something along the lines of "arrows and bolts are deflected upwards and miss", no save.

Yes, the archer boss probably definitely minions with swords; yes, the boss could ride in to hit you with a sword; yes, the DM could decide that the archers are using "+ScrewYou Bows of WindWallPwnage" shooting "+Die Arrows of TPK", but to expect more from a 3rd level spell would be completely unfair. This is why wind wall is a good spell.

You don't prepare it every day because you don't have to. When you do prepare it, it's godly. This is what makes it a situational spell. Because the situations in which you would prepare it aren't at all atypical for standard fantasy affair, it is a good situational spell. You don't need to know that the boss's weak point is the mole above his left eyebrow or that the army is exactly 32.5% bowmen, you just need to know that the boss uses a bow and that you are facing a roughly stereotypical fantasy archer complete with bowmen. If you can't find either of those out without too much trouble (at the very least the arrow in your skull should give you some hint), you fail at reconnaissance forever.

That's all wind wall has to be for me to write it into my spellbook/buy a few scrolls or wand of it/badger my party mate into taking it. Nothing could be farther from "pure theory".

Eldariel
2010-07-05, 11:16 AM
I mean, the moment someone starts mentioning contrived spells like wind wall, you know a thread has devolved into pure theory. No one even has wind wall in their spell book, at least not in any build I've seen.

I always do as a Wizard. Mostly though, I scroll it; something Sorcerers can do too. Still, it's a spell with a very powerful, if niché, function in blocking off basically all normal ranged attacks from an area. I wouldn't skip it 'cause there are no spells that replicate its functionality.


That said, yeah, Sorcs are fine. Thanks to specialization, high casting stat (36 is doable by level 20 and grants you two extra level 9 slots meaning you end up with a total of 7 of them), Wand of Mnemonic Enhancer, Mage's Lucubration, empty slots & general theme of opponents (when you're going up against the Necromancer, lots of undead is a good bet; when you are up against the Pit Fiend, you're prolly dealing with Evil Outsiders - if your BBEG is a Kraken, chances are you'll be facing lots of Animals and Magical Beasts with some Humanoid thralls) though, prepared casting tends to be ultimately more versatile than spontaneous casting.

That said, let's not forget that Sorc has access to few great unique spells in Wings of Cover, Wings of Flurry & Arcane Fusion though. These bump Sorcerer's stock quite a bit. And well, Arcane Fusions come complete with stupid loops but as they tend to involve Celerity or Sanctum Spell, they're not very relevant.

Morithias
2010-07-05, 11:19 AM
Personally I fail to see how it the whole Wizard > Sorc works in game.

Elf Wizard: "I studied my butt off for 100 years to cast magic missile so I must be better."

Kobold Sorc: "um...hello, it's literally inherit in my family? No study at all? Wouldn't the fact I can do virtually the same thing with no work at all, mean I'm naturally better at it?"

On a munchkin/gameplay level. I personally fail to see why people consider wizard that best of the spellcasters anyways.

1 word: Archivist.

balistafreak
2010-07-05, 11:21 AM
Still, it's a spell with a very powerful, if niché, function in blocking off basically all normal ranged attacks from an area. I wouldn't skip it 'cause there are no spells that replicate its functionality.

Nitpick: technically any other wall spell that blocks line of sight/effect works too; wall of stone, wall of ice. Wind wall is better at the job though because as a caster, you can still shoot fireballs/scorching rays/glitterdusts/whatever across it. Of course, they can do the same, but that's why you cast wind wall in the first place.


That said, let's not forget that Sorc has access to few great unique spells in Wings of Cover, Wings of Flurry & Arcane Fusion though. These bump Sorcerer's stock quite a bit. And well, Arcane Fusions come complete with stupid loops but as they tend to involve Celerity or Sanctum Spell, they're not very relevant.

Wings of Flurry is perhaps the single best Evocation spell ever, Wings of Flurry is almost as good at Abrupt Jaunt for dodging attacks, and Arcane Fusions are just... silly. There's plenty reason to start with a Sorcerer base.

Just don't take it to twenty. :smallannoyed: PrC out ASAP.


On a munchkin/gameplay level. I personally fail to see why people consider wizard that best of the spellcasters anyways.

1 word: Archivist.

Wizard is arcane, Archivist is divine. With the same basic spellcasting/spell memorization mechanics, it's not really a step up or down but to the side, barring random shenanigans to make arcane/divine not matter.

Archivists have some more class features and that silly "any divine spell" clause, but Wizards have more ACFs and possibly some bonus feats. Again, to the side.

And of course, there's always Cleric/Druid who are spellcasters that hit things, then the Artificer who takes the broken D&D economy and turns it into a (broken) work of art.

Oh hey, look, the Big Five. :smallbiggrin:

Wolf Warhead
2010-07-05, 11:21 AM
People keep mentioning that the Sorcerer's known spells are so limited that wizards are better almost by default in versatility... Why hasn't anyone brought up Runestaffs? Knowstones? Bloodlines? I'm not going to argue that Sorcerers are as good or better than Wizards, but I've never felt them to be so limited. In early game, you don't have the gold to spend on extra spells, but it becomes less of a problem at higher levels.

Personally, I prefer Sorcerers, like many others because of the decreased bookkeeping. However, I also like that when I know a spell, I KNOW it. I don't stand there looking at my spellbook going 'Gee, if only I had prepared this spell today, I could prevent my imminent death.'

Yes, yes, scrolls, I know. But that's only more bookkeeping. Also, unless I'm mistaking, Sorcerers can use those, too. They just buy them at shops. That's what I do for situational spells.

I'd like to try out making a purely strategic Sorcerer at some point. One with no offensive or summoning spells, no way to do direct damage, only buffing, debuffing and battlefield control spells to back up the party. I think it'd be quite fun.

Morithias
2010-07-05, 11:23 AM
Limited in casting?

Like I said Archivist. A wizard is limited to the sorc/wizard list, that while large is not all the arcane magic.

The archivist can literally learn ANY divine spell, if he can find a scroll of it. Paladin spells, Druid spells, ranger, cleric, favored soul, healer. You get the idea.

If people actually just cared about limited casting, they would be using that class. I feel it's just that a lot of people are just biased cause of some dumb thing from 2 versions ago.

Eldariel
2010-07-05, 11:30 AM
Nitpick: technically any other wall spell that blocks line of sight/effect works too; wall of stone, wall of ice. Wind wall is better at the job though because as a caster, you can still shoot fireballs/scorching rays/glitterdusts/whatever across it. Of course, they can do the same, but that's why you cast wind wall in the first place.

Precisely; that's what I meant by "strict replication of the function". You retain one-way interaction with certain types of opponents which, let's face it, is precisely where you want to be.


Like I said Archivist. A wizard is limited to the sorc/wizard list, that while large is not all the arcane magic.

The archivist can literally learn ANY divine spell, if he can find a scroll of it. Paladin spells, Druid spells, ranger, cleric, favored soul, healer. You get the idea.

Archivist loses out on four things:
1) It's very DM-dependent what spells it can learn, as it requires certain obscure combinations to exist in the world to get the scrolls.
2) It's not core and thus it's less known.
3) Less Alternative Class Features.
4) Dual-attribute casting.

That is, yes, when taken to the extreme it's probably stronger than the Wizard. Mostly thanks to the fact that it can cast Wizard-spells while having actions for Move Actions though.

Still, Abrupt Jaunt, Improved Familiar (double actions!), Focused Specialization, Specialization and certain arcane PrCs mean the Wizard is at the very least competitive. But yeah, I recall Archivist causing more bans in ToS, so it's...very respectable.

balistafreak
2010-07-05, 11:31 AM
People keep mentioning that the Sorcerer's known spells are so limited that wizards are better almost by default in versatility... Why hasn't anyone brought up Runestaffs? Knowstones? Bloodlines? I'm not going to argue that Sorcerers are as good or better than Wizards, but I've never felt them to be so limited. In early game, you don't have the gold to spend on extra spells, but it becomes less of a problem at higher levels.

That's exactly what makes them better at versatility by default. You spend resources to do what the Wizard can do already. Therefore, the Wizard still has his resources to spend on whatever he wants. Everyone can UMD, but fewer can do it with ease (class skill/class features revolving around UMD) and even fewer can completely circumvent the item (Wizard/Archivist with the random spell in his spellbook). Sure, it's not very hard (and practically expected), but not very hard =!= effortless/negligible.


I'd like to try out making a purely strategic Sorcerer at some point. One with no offensive or summoning spells, no way to do direct damage, only buffing, debuffing and battlefield control spells to back up the party. I think it'd be quite fun.

It's fun until you have a DM who refuses to give you XP because "you're not contributing". :smallannoyed:

That aside, it is extremely fun and tends to make your fellow players like you a lot more. You might want a reserve feat or wand of spell that deals actual damage for those random stragglers, though.

Prodan
2010-07-05, 11:40 AM
No one even has wind wall in their spell book, at least not in any build I've seen.

I do.

Would you like to see the build?

Wolf Warhead
2010-07-05, 11:56 AM
That's exactly what makes them better at versatility by default. You spend resources to do what the Wizard can do already. Therefore, the Wizard still has his resources to spend on whatever he wants. Everyone can UMD, but fewer can do it with ease (class skill/class features revolving around UMD) and even fewer can completely circumvent the item (Wizard/Archivist with the random spell in his spellbook). Sure, it's not very hard (and practically expected), but not very hard =!= effortless/negligible.

Hmmm, point. Still, I don't think the known spell list is as restrictive as some people make it out to be. My current high level Sorcerer uses a ton of lower level spells (Cheaper to acquire) and Metamagic, plus a small set of highly useful or powerful high level spells. (Fact: Earth Glide will make DMs hate you. Also, Elemental Monoliths are silly, especially with Rashemi Elemental Summoning and Augment Elemental.)


It's fun until you have a DM who refuses to give you XP because "you're not contributing". :smallannoyed:

That aside, it is extremely fun and tends to make your fellow players like you a lot more. You might want a reserve feat or wand of spell that deals actual damage for those random stragglers, though.

Good thing the DMs I have aren't <couldn't think of any word that conveys his feelings for DMs like that that wouldn't instantly get him banned>

As for personal defence, a last line of defence I liked for casters purely because enemies wouldn't expect it: Great Mighty Wallop and True Strike or Wraith Strike. Especially since my DM would actually RP it as if the monster was hit by a massive club.

But yeah, I should really try this out if the opportunity comes up. Maybe I should look into D&Ding online for this... I don't get enough D&D opportunities in real life D:

Optimystik
2010-07-05, 12:16 PM
I do like Sorcerers - I just happen to like Psions more. :smalltongue:



Archivist loses out on four things:
1) It's very DM-dependent what spells it can learn, as it requires certain obscure combinations to exist in the world to get the scrolls.
2) It's not core and thus it's less known.
3) Less Alternative Class Features.
4) Dual-attribute casting.


Your points are all valid, but even taken collectively are not that big of a drawback.

1) You can create any scroll you need simply by cooperating with the casters in question. Divine Bards may be difficult to get a hold of, but there are plenty of Adepts, Rangers, Druids and Paladins faffing about in most settings. A lone Warlock can fill in any gaps left by the others.

2) True, but it's available free online (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3), mitigating that obscurity somewhat.

3) Again true, but their sheer spell and feat versatility can make up for this. For example, an Archivist can benefit from Battle Blessing, and indeed make better use of it than any Paladin. They can also snag Bone Talisman from the Druid list

4) All they use Wis for are bonus spells, which they don't really even need a lot of since they get such a high base (as many as a specialist wizard IIRC.) There are numerous ways to boost their spells/day as well - Persisted Owl's Insight, Uurkrau Illumians, Holt Warden + Domain Substitution to gain domain slots etc.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 12:23 PM
Pick arcane and reflavor that you are a rebel wizard.

The Arcane Bloodline is simple bad design (as is the entirety of the class IMHO). There's no reason to play an Arcane Sorcerer over a wizard.


On another note, the fluff for socrcerer is more prescriptive than the fluff for wizard. To look at them as laid out in the 3.5 PHB, your sorcerer more or less has to be descended from dragons. If you don't want to play a draconic caster, you're better off with wizard. Obviously, the class can be refluffed, but you don't have to refluff wizard in the same way, usually.
That's mostly wrong. Misconceptions of the masses is not prescriptive. Most people assume that all Half-orcs are rape babies, read the fluff of the race. Nothing indicates that such an event is common. In fact the fluff indicates that most half-orc pregnancies are planed by both parents. It's the same with Sorcerers: One line makes an attempt to explain why sorcerers have their powers. Or rather, one line indicates that either the sorcerer or the people around him make the claim as a way to separate him either out of fear ("he's related to dragons, he's a monster") or as a way to elevate him ("I'm related to dragons, I'm better than these people"). It provides no evidence either way for the assertion. Everyone but me apparently take that line to mean that they are descended from dragons, but the fluff makes no actual indication of such, at all.

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 12:28 PM
I mean, the moment someone starts mentioning contrived spells like wind wall, you know a thread has devolved into pure theory. No one even has wind wall in their spell book, at least not in any build I've seen.

It's generally seen as one of the 'gems' of evocation, really, because it's cheap and makes you impervious to an entire class of threat.

However, like the other wall spells and contingency, it's generally not seen as worth keeping evocation for if you're going to specialise.

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 01:01 PM
The Arcane Bloodline is simple bad design (as is the entirety of the class IMHO). There's no reason to play an Arcane Sorcerer over a wizard.

What do you have against Arcane Bloodline?

Sure Wizards are stronger/"better", but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe some people want to play arcane spellcasters that don't outshine their fellow party members so greatly. Also, as other people have mentioned before, playing a Sorcerer requires less time and bookeeping than a Wizard. So if I were to play a Sorcerer, it'd be for these reasons.

John Campbell
2010-07-05, 01:01 PM
The problem with trying to make up for Sorcerers' deficiencies using magic items like scrolls, wands, runestaves, etc., is that it cuts both ways... and the Wizard is better at that, too.

A Sorcerer can get magic items to make up for his pitiful selection of spells. A Wizard can get magic items to make up the extra spell slots and give him access to stuff he didn't bother to prepare. But the Wizard can also make those magic items, thus getting them at half price and giving him more of them, or more money to drop on other things. (And, yes, there's an XP cost for that. It's meaningless. Thanks to the CR system, the more XP you spend, the more you get... it's actually possible for your XP total to exceed the rest of your party's because you were spending XP and they weren't. Happened to my Runesmith on at least two occasions.)

Technically, the Sorcerer can do that, too... but you need to be able to cast the spell to make an item of it, and the spells that a Sorcerer needs items of are, by definition, the ones that he can't cast. The Wizard, on the other hand, can take some downtime, scrounge around in the back of his spellbook for the spells he sometimes needs but seldom finds worth preparing, and drop them into wands or scrolls for later consumption.

You also need feats to do this... and the Wizard gets Scribe Scroll for free, and gets bonus feats that he can use to take the others, where the Sorcerer gets bupkis.

Darklord Xavez
2010-07-05, 01:07 PM
Sorcerers ARE better in characters who fight and cast arcane spells, however, due to the fact that they have more spells per day to burn for Arcane Strike, and the Battle Sorcerer is not very disadvantaged by the -1 spell known/level, due to the fact that they won't need very many spells outside of blasting spells/a few good transmutations (i.e. improved invisibility). Also, nothing says that they need 8 hours of rest to prepare spells, so they can never be caught without spells (theoretically) unless the DM wants them to.
-Xavez

Gametime
2010-07-05, 01:41 PM
Sorcerers ARE better in characters who fight and cast arcane spells, however, due to the fact that they have more spells per day to burn for Arcane Strike, and the Battle Sorcerer is not very disadvantaged by the -1 spell known/level, due to the fact that they won't need very many spells outside of blasting spells/a few good transmutations (i.e. improved invisibility). Also, nothing says that they need 8 hours of rest to prepare spells, so they can never be caught without spells (theoretically) unless the DM wants them to.


Nothing except...


Daily Readying of Spells

Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which he spends 15 minutes concentrating.

They take less time to "prepare" their spells, but that gain is trivial compared to the eight hours both classes require.

Also, Battle Sorcerer is an awful, awful trade. As a sorcerer, you can barely afford to learn utility spells as it is; losing spells known cripples your versatility as a spellcaster.

As has already been pointed out, Focused Specialist wizards have just as many spells/day as sorcerers, and are likely to be more versatile in spite of losing three whole schools just because they can still learn so many more spells. If you really want to take advantage of Arcane Strike, Duskblade is your best bet.

Wizards also tend to make better gish entries, Sorcadin aside, because they're effectively 1 caster level up on sorcerers to begin with. A wizard who delays his spellcasting to enter a gish class is still on par with a sorcerer, and a wizard can afford to lose 3 spellcasting levels and still gain level 9 spells in comparison to the sorcerer's 2.

Crow
2010-07-05, 01:47 PM
I love how "every wizard" bans evocation.

and

I love how "every wizard" has wind wall.

Using shadow evocation to mimic Wind Wall is sketchy at best. At it's most liberal reading, you get complete immunity to arrows and such, but with most reasonable readings, you've got no better than a 3rd-level entropic shield.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-05, 02:16 PM
Regarding the whole "no real wizard prepares X" or "you can't always have the right spell" argument, two words: Uncanny Forethought. It's a feat from Exemplars of Evil that requires Int 17 and Spell Mastery, and gives you the following ability:


When preparing your daily allotment of spells, you can reserve a number of spell slots equal to your Intelligence modifier. As a standard action, you can use one of these slots to cast a spell that you selected for the Spell Mastery feat. The level of the slot used must be equal to or greater than the level of the spell you intend to cast.
Alternatively, as a full-round action, you can use a reserved slot to cast any spell that you know. The spell is resolved as normal, but for the purpose of the spell, your caster level is reduced by two. The level of the slot used must be equal to or greater than the level of the spell you intend to cast.

Two similar words that work quite nicely in this situation are "Alacritous" and "Cogitation." At the cost of those three feats, you can cast at least four spells per day spontaneously from among every spell you know--and it'll probably be closer to six or seven when you take them and nine or ten by 20th level. So for everyone talking about Schrodinger's Wizard and "why would you ever prepare that" and "you can't just say you have it prepared because it's in your spellbook" and such, keep in mind that yes, a wizard can just grab a few spells from his spellbook assuming he didn't have it on a scroll or wand and assuming he'd have no way of knowing ahead of time what to prepare.

Does this mean that every single wizard ever can pull spells out of his hat willy-nilly? Not at all, but this plus the fact that wizards get Scribe Scroll do mean that how often a spell is prepared or the percentage chance of knowing what you'll need ahead of time or the like isn't a major argument against the versatility of wizards.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 02:48 PM
What do you have against Arcane Bloodline?

Sure Wizards are stronger/"better", but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe some people want to play arcane spellcasters that don't outshine their fellow party members so greatly. Also, as other people have mentioned before, playing a Sorcerer requires less time and bookeeping than a Wizard. So if I were to play a Sorcerer, it'd be for these reasons.

It's capstone is available as a feat by level 5.

Also I have been one of the more vocal opponents of Heredity-based class features. I see no good reason as to why other characters have to eat a level of class-X to fit their "My ancestors were , this gives me superpowers" character concept. Feats could be better used for this.


Regarding the whole "no [I]real wizard prepares X" or "you can't always have the right spell" argument, two words: Uncanny Forethought. It's a feat from Exemplars of Evil that requires Int 17 and Spell Mastery, and gives you the following ability:

Adding another feat to the list of "Things the forum brought up but don't actually exist (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Discontinuity)" right alongside this Celerity, Collegiate Wizard, and Baccob's Blessed Book.

Darklord Xavez
2010-07-05, 02:50 PM
Also, Battle Sorcerer is an awful, awful trade. As a sorcerer, you can barely afford to learn utility spells as it is; losing spells known cripples your versatility as a spellcaster.


Still, a battle sorcerer would really only need combat spells.
-Xavez

balistafreak
2010-07-05, 02:51 PM
I love how "every wizard" bans evocation.

and

I love how "every wizard" has wind wall.

Using shadow evocation to mimic Wind Wall is sketchy at best. At it's most liberal reading, you get complete immunity to arrows and such, but with most reasonable readings, you've got no better than a 3rd-level entropic shield.

It's more like "every specialist" and "every wizard". Specialist =!= Wizard by my own definitions, because that's just me.

The reason that Specialists, both Focused and not, ban Evocation is pretty obvious, because truthfully it is the weakest school, and specializing in Evocation is a shot in your own foot power-wise. (That Evocation blaster Wizards still aren't bad says a lot about the power of their class. :smallbiggrin:)

Wind wall is the best thing you lose from banning Evocation, IMO. I think the Magic Missile-instahit effects are second, but I'm not sure. And yes, folks, when you ban a school, that means no wands/scrolls of it either. Your Focused Conjurer cannot cast a wind wall. Ever.

Generalist Wizards aren't common, but they're hardly an endangered species. Yeah, yeah, they'd be "better" if they were specialized, but some of us don't like banning schools whatsoever. Yeah, we don't get those juicy bonus spells, but on the other hand we have all. The. Spells.

At medium/high levels it no longer becomes a question of how many, but how good (action economy), so the bonus spell isn't nearly as important as it is in low levels. The Save DC thing is always handy but not nearly required.

And they're still Wizards, so yeah. :smallamused:

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 02:54 PM
Using shadow evocation to mimic Wind Wall is sketchy at best. At it's most liberal reading, you get complete immunity to arrows and such, but with most reasonable readings, you've got no better than a 3rd-level entropic shield.

Actually, shadow evocations that don't deal damage don't affect objects at all.

Shadow Wind Wall is completely useless, because the only things it affects -- the arrows -- are completely immune to it.

As I said, it's nice if you're a generalist, but a lot of people don't think evocation is worth their time.


The reason that Specialists, both Focused and not, ban Evocation is pretty obvious, because truthfully it is the weakest school, and specializing in Evocation is a shot in your own foot power-wise. (That Evocation blaster Wizards still aren't bad says a lot about the power of their class. )

Arguably. There are quite a few decent general-purpose spells in there, IIRC, and those spells don't ever stop being useful.

It's probably the safest school to drop -- it might hurt to lose it, but it won't hurt that much.

Bagel
2010-07-05, 02:56 PM
savevsdm.com has a revised version that uses some of the options here

eschew materials at lvl 1
umd as class skill
4+int skills
more spells per day/known
bonus feat [heritage,draconic,metamagic] at 5,10,15,20

a really nice fix if you ask me :)

The Glyphstone
2010-07-05, 03:00 PM
As I said, it's nice if you're a generalist, but a lot of people don't think evocation is worth their time.

And if they have access to Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium, they're right. The Orbs (which really should be Evocations) are head and shoulders better than any equivalent Evocation spell can be, and at the top end there's ridicubombs like Maw of Chaos.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-05, 03:05 PM
Even without SC or CArc, though, it's still not really worth it. Yeah, you might not be able to out-and-out replace it as easily, but what you're giving up really isn't as good as what you're getting.

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 03:05 PM
And if they have access to Complete Arcane or Spell Compendium, they're right. The Orbs (which really should be Evocations) are head and shoulders better than any equivalent Evocation spell can be, and at the top end there's ridicubombs like Maw of Chaos.

Nobody takes evocation for blasting, any more than they'd 'take' evocation beyond either specialising in divination and dropping enchantment instead, or by not specialising at all.

There are quite a few non-blasting staples in there -- overall, I think the general assumption is that everything decent has a viable alternative.

Wind Wall might actually be the sole exception there.

Lev
2010-07-05, 03:13 PM
'cuz DnD players on average have more Int than Cha IRL and therefore relate to it better.

I personally like sorcs better than wizards.

aje8
2010-07-05, 03:16 PM
And yes, folks, when you ban a school, that means no wands/scrolls of it either. Your Focused Conjurer cannot cast a wind wall. Ever.
Incorrect. Please see: Mage of the Arcane Order PrC. I leave a level 3 only conjuration focused specalist slot open and use it to call in Windwall. That PrC is some good. The best part is, I'd be leaving that slot open anyway and I can call in another spell if I need it. Ridiculously versatile.

Also, I'm pretty sure that there's a domain you can take via the Wizard alternate class feature which gives you domain granted power which allows you to use Spell Trigger items.... could be wrong about that.


Nobody takes evocation for blasting.
Actually yea. There's some decent spells in Evocation. They have a fog equivilent and stuff like Great Thunderclap. However, it still does very little that Conjuration or another school can't do.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 03:17 PM
Even without SC or CArc, though, it's still not really worth it. Yeah, you might not be able to out-and-out replace it as easily, but what you're giving up really isn't as good as what you're getting.

A core-only wizard is less likely to ban Evocation simply because Craft Contingent Spell isn't available. That's more necessary for duels than general play, however, assuming your DM isn't in the habit of ganking you.

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 03:19 PM
Actually yea. There's some decent spells in Evocation. They have a fog equivilent and stuff like Great Thunderclap. However, it still does very little that Conjuration or another school can't do.

I'm sure I said "no one takes evocation for blasting".

People take it because they happen to like some of the few decent spells in there.

Even if it doesn't compete too well with conjuration, evocation does have quite a bit of battlefield control floating around.

The problem is that there's usually a school with something better on offer, not that the entire school of evocation was forged from the raw essences of Fail and Terribad by the proud elven craftsmen of the Mediocre Forest of Mediocrity.

Zovc
2010-07-05, 03:22 PM
If you want to play a slight better Sorcerer, there's always the Pathfinder version. Eschew Materials as a bonus beat, and bloodlines grant spells, bonus feats, and other bonuses

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/sorcerer

Silly Pathfinder! You tried to fix the Sorcerer without either adjusting their spellcasting or adjusting everyone else's spellcasting!

The biggest problem you will run into as a Sorcerer player (compared to playing as a Wizard) is that you have to wait an extra level to get your next level of spells. This might not seem like that big of a deal, but while you're casting Sleep or Color Spray for crowd control at level 3, your wizard buddy is casting Glitterdust, or permanently making someone Blind.

Then, to top that off, you're casting off of charisma. Sure, this skill's modifier influences four(?) skills, but beyond that it does nothing more for you. Intelligence, on the other hand, applies to every knowledge skill and then some, which can arguably be worse skills--but that's not all it does, Intelligence gives you more skills every level, as well, which (most importantly) helps you qualify for prestige classes. Then, because you haven't compensated enough for being an awesome spontaneous caster, you lose the four bonus feats that a Wizard gets, and you don't even get Scribe Scroll! In case you didn't feel hosed enough, using Metamagic on a spell takes your entire turn, so it's impossible to get use out of Quicken Spell.

I think I covered everything.

(Wizards has tried to fix this outside of core by giving Sorcerers a lot of crazy options in splatbooks, but they're either extremely cheesy, or not cheesy enough.)

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-05, 03:40 PM
Sorc is weaker than Wizard ON PURPOSE because when WotC made the class they overvalued spontaneous spellcasting.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 03:43 PM
Silly Pathfinder! You tried to fix the Sorcerer without either adjusting their spellcasting or adjusting everyone else's spellcasting!

The biggest problem you will run into as a Sorcerer player (compared to playing as a Wizard) is that you have to wait an extra level to get your next level of spells. This might not seem like that big of a deal, but while you're casting Sleep or Color Spray for crowd control at level 3, your wizard buddy is casting Glitterdust, or permanently making someone Blind.

Then, to top that off, you're casting off of charisma. Sure, this skill's modifier influences four(?) skills, but beyond that it does nothing more for you. Intelligence, on the other hand, applies to every knowledge skill and then some, which can arguably be worse skills--but that's not all it does, Intelligence gives you more skills every level, as well, which (most importantly) helps you qualify for prestige classes. Then, because you haven't compensated enough for being an awesome spontaneous caster, you lose the four bonus feats that a Wizard gets, and you don't even get Scribe Scroll! In case you didn't feel hosed enough, using Metamagic on a spell takes your entire turn, so it's impossible to get use out of Quicken Spell.

I think I covered everything.

(Wizards has tried to fix this outside of core by giving Sorcerers a lot of crazy options in splatbooks, but they're either extremely cheesy, or not cheesy enough.)

Pathfinder did at least give sorcerers more spells known. It wasn't enough, but it was better than nothing.

Also, be fair: the bonus feats for wizards don't really count beyond the level 5 one. It's true that sorcerers have even more incentive to prestige class out than wizards do, but functionally speaking they both have more than enough incentive.

The fact that wizards have a much easier time qualifying for almost all of them is a real pain, though.


Sorc is weaker than Wizard ON PURPOSE because when WotC made the class they overvalued spontaneous spellcasting.

Then it's hardly on purpose. They made a poor estimation; they didn't intentionally introduce discrepancies.

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 03:49 PM
I think we're forgeting something here. Namely this: Sorcerers are by no means actually bad! It's only sub-optimal if you're comparing it to a broken class (i.e. any tier 1). Sorcerer is still a solid tier 2 class. They cast arcane spells from the best list in the game, and fairly frequently at that. Can't we give the humble (but still very powerful and potentially game-breaking) Sorcerer some love? :smallfrown:

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-05, 03:56 PM
Then it's hardly on purpose. They made a poor estimation; they didn't intentionally introduce discrepancies.

The sorcerer was made weaker than the wizard intentionally, it's just that the reasons for doing so were wrong.

Zovc
2010-07-05, 04:07 PM
Pathfinder did at least give sorcerers more spells known. It wasn't enough, but it was better than nothing.

You missed my point. I was taking a potshot at the Pathfinder team's sense of balance and 'fixing'.

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 04:09 PM
The sorcerer was made weaker than the wizard intentionally, it's just that the reasons for doing so were wrong.

They did not set out to weaken the wizard, they did so inadvertently as a result of their efforts to balance out a feature that was less valuable than they thought.

I don't call that "intentional".

Zovc
2010-07-05, 04:12 PM
I don't call that "intentional".

Indeed, I would use "Mistake" or "Oversight" to describe the act. Which instills a lot less malicious intent in the people who did it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-05, 04:35 PM
They did not set out to weaken the wizard, they did so inadvertently as a result of their efforts to balance out a feature that was less valuable than they thought.

I don't call that "intentional".


Indeed, I would use "Mistake" or "Oversight" to describe the act. Which instills a lot less malicious intent in the people who did it.

I dunno, if someone says "Hey, spontaneous casting is way better than prepared casting, let's delay the sorcerer's spell progression to compensate," that sounds like someone's compensating for the sorcerer's supposed superiority. If someone says "Hey, spontaneous casting is way better than prepared casting, let's delay the sorcerer's spell progression to compensate, and let's make their metamagic worse, and let's take away bonus feats, and let's give it fewer class skills (and fewer skill points, since wizards are Int-based), but we'll give him more proficiencies to make up for it," that's a bit much for a simple drastic overestimation. You'd think that even designers who don't know what they're doing would stick to restricting spell lists and other spellcasting features in order to balance out spellcasting instead of branching out to weakening class features and a skill list.

Maybe you're right, maybe it was simple error, but despite everything else WotC has screwed up, I can't see them being that bad when creating the sorcerer. I think it's much more likely that it was intentionally made a bit on the weak side to be conservative; after all, the sorcerer was new in terms of not appearing in AD&D like the other core classes and the sorcerer's casting was new and different. It's the same issue with the warlock, where unlimited-use abilities were seen as being too strong and so the designers erred on the side of making it underpowered rather than overpowered.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 04:36 PM
They did not set out to weaken the wizard, they did so inadvertently as a result of their efforts to balance out a feature that was less valuable than they thought.

I don't call that "intentional".

This, mostly. The features that make the sorcerer weaker than the wizard were intentionally added, in that restricted metamagic, limited spells known, and slower spell progression were intentionally given to the sorcerer. The fact that this made them weaker than the wizard in most (though not all) areas of spellcasting was not foreseen and not intended.


You missed my point. I was taking a potshot at the Pathfinder team's sense of balance and 'fixing'.

Yeah, I got that, but I figured you were not aware of the exact changes. Do you mean you deliberately undervalued the few good changes to the sorcerer for the purposes of derision? If so, just ignore the amendment.

Runestar
2010-07-05, 05:22 PM
I think that as a generalist wizard, you will come to realise that having so many spells known isn't all that great when you only have so few slots in which to prepare them. And to maximize this limited resource, you will want to prepare your most utilitarian/useful spells (barring setting aside slots for stuff like uncanny forethought). This means that most of your spells are actually just sitting around in your spellbook unused.

Treantmonk once wrote a fairly convincing article explaining why he felt a focused specialist wizard is much superior to the general wizard. Basically, his point is that he would gladly give up half his spells known for more slots. :smallsmile:

Focused Specialist is better than you think (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think)

Zovc
2010-07-05, 05:25 PM
Treantmonk once wrote a fairly convincing article explaining why he felt a focused specialist wizard is much superior to the general wizard. Basically, his point is that he would gladly give up half his spells known for more slots. :smallsmile:

Focused Specialist is better than you think (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19864630/Focused_Specialist_is_better_than_you_think)

There's also the fact that some schools of magic are utterly dwarfed by other ones, especially considering that some spells 'seem' to be placed in the wrong schools.

PId6
2010-07-05, 05:40 PM
Splatbooks have a variety of abilities which make the sorcerer's abilities less unique. For example, focused specialist variant gives a wizard even more spell slots than a sorc. There are feats/features such as uncanny foresight or spontaneous divination which allow wizards to spontaneously cast spells. Wizards even get a spell which lets them rearrange their spell slots.
On the other hand, splatbooks have also given a bunch of things that make sorcerers better and more unique.

Metamagic Specialist and Rapid Metamagic both help solve the slower metamagic problem (though why Metamagic Specialist is based on Int I'll never understand). Greater Rite of Draconic Passage solves the slower spell progression problem. Spells like Wings of Flurry and Wings of Cover give sorcerers unique capabilities beyond those of wizards, while spells like Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge makes them better at abusing action economy than wizards, even without Quicken Spell. The lack of many spells known is still a problem, but even that can be solved by items like Runestaves, Knowstones, Drake Helms, etc, not to mention various PrCs and Bloodline feats.

None of this make the sorcerers better per se than wizards, but they're at least different, rather than just a strictly worse redheaded sibling of the older, more successful class.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 05:48 PM
Greater Rite of Draconic Passage solves the slower spell progression problem.Kobold power!

[Edit]: I just realized you couldn't see it, but I made a clenched-claw salute.

Skaven
2010-07-05, 05:49 PM
Sorcerers are fine, just WotC seemed to have built a level deficit in their spellcasting progression since spontaneous was 'so much more powerful'. Then they also left the class a blank slate with nothing but spell levels. Then they forgot they built the spellcasting level deficit into the class and gave most sorc PrC's a spellcasting level hit at level 1.

Then they gave wizards extra feats as they level to make them even better and sorc was left with a blank slate of a class with double casting level deficit with PrC's.

Then to top it all off, they gave them a metamagic penalty, when it is sorcerers who are supposed to be the ones bending magic to their will into extra effects.

PId6
2010-07-05, 05:58 PM
Kobold power!

[Edit]: I just realized you couldn't see it, but I made a clenched-claw salute.
http://th02.deviantart.net/fs28/300W/f/2008/052/1/f/Kobold_Kommando_2_by_CommissarKinyaf.jpg
http://tgr316.blazeirc.net/RPGMotivational/kobolds.jpg

Karoht
2010-07-05, 06:23 PM
I find Sorcerer to be excellent for NPC's, for some of the same reasons I find Bards tend to make great NPC's. The spontanuity, and the fact that some charisma based skills can be very effective against intellect based ones, if you are creative enough in your application. I'm not saying that the Joker Bard/Joker Sorcerer can beat the Batman Wizard and his party, but set things up right and the Bard/Sorc can certainly be highly effective at harming that party.

Other reason I would ever recommend Sorcerer is that they can be easier to play for beginners, who perhaps have never dealt with the DnD style of spellcasting.

If damaging a boss was more about spamming spells rather than choosing the right one to use, a Sorcerer would be great. But if choosing the right spell is more important (for puzzles, for bosses, for general encounters), a wizard will probably trump, depending on the situation.

Just some thoughts.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 06:27 PM
the fact that some charisma based skills can be very effective against intellect based ones"Cha-based skills vs. Int-based skills" isn't really the problem, but the fact that a wizard (with it's Int-focus) will have a lot more skillpoints to throw around.

For D&D beginners, I'd suggest beguilers, dread necromancers, and psions over sorcerers.

Draz74
2010-07-05, 06:35 PM
Wind wall is the best thing you lose from banning Evocation, IMO. I think the Magic Missile-instahit effects are second, but I'm not sure.
There's a few other gems, like Contingency.


And yes, folks, when you ban a school, that means no wands/scrolls of it either. Your Focused Conjurer cannot cast a wind wall. Ever.

Except via UMD. :smallcool: (Loremaster, anyone?)

lesser_minion
2010-07-05, 06:45 PM
There's a few other gems, like Contingency.

CCS is popular as a way out of that one.

There are several other Wall spells that fall under evocation, in particular the wall of force.

Forcecage and the various otiluke's spheres might also be worth your time.

sambo.
2010-07-05, 07:16 PM
my $0.02

i like sorcerers. i prefer sorcerers to wizards.

with some wands and scrolls of situational and utility spells, a sorcerer is awesome.

Levithix
2010-07-05, 07:17 PM
One thing that I find fun about sorcerer is that I get to know the spells I have very well and find new uses for them.
Sure, always having the right tool for the job is nice and all, but sometimes its fun to get the square peg in the round hole.

Optimator
2010-07-05, 09:31 PM
Spells Known >> Spells Per Day.

Private-Prinny
2010-07-05, 09:39 PM
Sorcerers are great. I use them for most of my characters. Wizards are better for reasons already mentioned, but Sorcerers are still only outclassed by the Big 5, so saying Sorcerers are bad is like saying that Superman is pathetic because Batman keeps kryptonite on hand.

Remember, Sorcerers can do anything. It's just that Wizards can do everything, so they tend to be overshadowed.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 10:05 PM
Sorcerers are great. I use them for most of my characters. Wizards are better for reasons already mentioned, but Sorcerers are still only outclassed by the Big 5, so saying Sorcerers are bad is like saying that Superman is pathetic because Batman keeps kryptonite on hand.

Remember, Sorcerers can do anything. It's just that Wizards can do everything, so they tend to be overshadowed.

Superman's kind of pathetic because he could be killed by a lowly thug with a kryptonite bullet; and there's the fact he hasn't the understanding that your briefs go on the inside of your pants (unless he's wearing his pants inside out, in which case I can't consider that a good defense...).

DR 100/Kryptonite FTL. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Couple with the fact he was kind of an arrogant jackass in the original superman comics; and if faced with a kryptonite laced bullet, would likely mock his opponents by standing proud; expecting the bullets to bounce harmlessly off him. :smalltongue:

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 10:13 PM
On a different note; Psion is what the sorcerer should have been. A natural power source, slightly better power selection, the option within its own ruleset to increase your versatility (via Expanded Power); lack of material components; and so forth. Manifesting is almost like using a Spell-like ability anyway; which is how most magical creatures cast spells.

It's also incredibly easy for beginners; since anyone who's played a console based RPG in the last 10-15 years likely has seen some sort of point-based system for expending energy for magical effects; and is really easy to play with on the fly. "You've got 5 power points. Each time you use this, you spend 1. When you've spent 5, you're out of juice."

Knaight
2010-07-05, 10:24 PM
Plus, messing around with the details of powers by adding more power points is all sorts of fun, and meta psionics is really, really cool. Though I would consider the wilder a better sorcerer replacement.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 11:06 PM
Plus, messing around with the details of powers by adding more power points is all sorts of fun, and meta psionics is really, really cool. Though I would consider the wilder a better sorcerer replacement.

Agreed for the most part. The wilder kind of suffers from all the problems the sorcerers do; only they're more limited (but augmenting may help this, but not a whole lot). I think the wilder needs a little tweaking personally; and I think the psion does pretty much what the sorcerer is supposed to do.

On a side note, in 2E, sorcerers also used INT as their casting stat. Not that it matters; just random trivia.

Kylarra
2010-07-05, 11:09 PM
Agreed for the most part. The wilder kind of suffers from all the problems the sorcerers do; only they're more limited (but augmenting may help this, but not a whole lot). I think the wilder needs a little tweaking personally; and I think the psion does pretty much what the sorcerer is supposed to do.

On a side note, in 2E, sorcerers also used INT as their casting stat. Not that it matters; just random trivia.Educated Wilder ACF from Mind's Eye helps a fair amount, imo.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 11:15 PM
Educated Wilder ACF from Mind's Eye helps a fair amount, imo.

I'll have to check that out. Might you have the link by chance? I'll fish it up myself if you don't. :smallsmile:

Kylarra
2010-07-05, 11:18 PM
I'll have to check that out. Might you have the link by chance? I'll fish it up myself if you don't. :smallsmile:
But of course (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a).
It trades out volatile mind for an Expanded Knowledge feat at the given levels.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 11:23 PM
But of course (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a).
It trades out volatile mind for an Expanded Knowledge feat at the given levels.

Thank you very much; and yes that would help a lot I think. Only four extra powers, but that's better than nothing (and volatile mind is kind of limited anyway). :smallsmile:

Draz74
2010-07-06, 12:08 AM
Thank you very much; and yes that would help a lot I think. Only four extra powers, but that's better than nothing (and volatile mind is kind of limited anyway). :smallsmile:

Volatile Mind gets a lot of flak, but I actually think it's pretty awesome in a psionics-heavy setting. Pretty sad in a standard-magic heavy setting, of course.

But it's a much better Spell Resistance mechanic than Spell Resistance. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Regardless, of course, four extra Expanded Knowledge feats is a more powerful option than Volatile Mind, and any optimized Wilder would be insane not to take it. :smallsmile:

John Campbell
2010-07-06, 12:29 AM
On a side note, in 2E, sorcerers also used INT as their casting stat. Not that it matters; just random trivia.

Um. There weren't any sorcerers in 2E.

(There weren't any wizards, either, technically, but 3E's wizard is clearly the successor to 2E's mage and 1E's magic-user, whereas 3E's sorcerer is something new and different than anything AD&D had.)

And, for that matter, there weren't any casting stats, in the sense that 3E uses the term.

Ashiel
2010-07-06, 08:00 AM
Um. There weren't any sorcerers in 2E.

(There weren't any wizards, either, technically, but 3E's wizard is clearly the successor to 2E's mage and 1E's magic-user, whereas 3E's sorcerer is something new and different than anything AD&D had.)

And, for that matter, there weren't any casting stats, in the sense that 3E uses the term.

I'm pretty certain they showed up in a splat-book; possibly one involving Kara-tur; or perhaps Dragon magazine. They also made an appearance in Baldur's Gate II next to Barbarians as one of the expanded class options; though I suppose even though the game was released in 2000; it's possible that sorcerers were added by request of WotC.

Runestar
2010-07-06, 08:14 AM
Does no one remember the 2e netherese arcanist class? Spell point system, learns spells as a wizard, casts spontaneously any spell he knows as a sorc?

No wonder even Mystra had to hit them with a nerf bat. :smallsigh:

lesser_minion
2010-07-06, 08:48 AM
I'm pretty certain they showed up in a splat-book; possibly one involving Kara-tur; or perhaps Dragon magazine. They also made an appearance in Baldur's Gate II next to Barbarians as one of the expanded class options; though I suppose even though the game was released in 2000; it's possible that sorcerers were added by request of WotC.

Baldur's Gate II was released about the same time as 3.0, and they made it into a sort of hybrid of the two systems, but closer to 2e.

It did add in the new classes, but they were implemented using the same pseudo-2e system as everything else.

Icewind Dale II was kind of the mirror of that -- it was still a hybrid, but much more like 3.0 than 2.0.


Does no one remember the 2e netherese arcanist class? Spell point system, learns spells as a wizard, casts spontaneously any spell he knows as a sorc?

No wonder even Mystra had to hit them with a nerf bat. :smallsigh:

His spell selection was completely random -- an Arcanist had one chance to learn any given spell, and if he failed the roll, the spell was forever denied to him.

Ashiel
2010-07-06, 08:53 AM
Baldur's Gate II was released about the same time as 3.0, and they made it into a sort of hybrid of the two systems, but closer to 2e.

It did add in the new classes, but they were implemented using the same pseudo-2e system as everything else.

Icewind Dale II was kind of the mirror of that -- it was still a hybrid, but much more like 3.0 than 2.0.

Icewind Dale II never struct me as much of a hybrid between editions. It was squarely within the realm of 3E based mechanics; and I noted that Baldur's Gate was released around the same time as 3E (2000); so it was possible that WotC was influencing the design and development of the game a bit more closely; and suggesting they make a class "like this"; but I'm not certain.

I still seem to remember a sorcerer variant in 2E as a supplement; but I can't remember its source; which is a bit annoying. I guess it doesn't matter now; or to the conversation at large; so I'll drop it. But it irks me that I can't remember. :smallannoyed: