What is the point of the Sorcerer?

[Endarire]

There are ways to trick out a Sorcerer to cast spells before a Wizard can. Sorcerers can get certain spiffy Sorcerer-only spells like wings of cover (Races of the Dragon).

These are not the point of this thread.

On almost all counts, the Wizard does things better. The two classes are very comparable. (It's called the Sor/Wiz list for good reason!) Wizards get bonus feats and, in general, access to better class features. Abrupt Jaunt is Conjurer-only.

Psions do the spontaneous thing better than Sorcerers. Psions and Sorcerers are in the same tie, but Psions are far more forgiving in their power acquisition. Instead of needing summon I, summon II... to stay current, you can augment an astral construct. Psions also get psychic reformation[/url] to reformat the party.

The generally unforgiving nature of Sorcerer spell picks makes the class a newbie trap.

Even the Wizard can go spontaneous (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7150.0), It's more resource-intensive, but Sorcerers just lack the love that Wizards got. Even in core, Wizards get more support via Pearls of Power and the Red Wizard PrC!

3.5 has Wizard spells versatile enough to account for many situations. Prepping [i]glitterdust, web, and alter self can cover far more situations than being able to spontaneously cast one of these thrice.

[Sarco_Phage]

I will answer that with a number of questions.

What's the point of the Fighter? The Rogue? The Paladin? Almost any other class besides the Cleric or Druid?

Just because the Wizard is broken as all hell, doesn't mean the other classes shouldn't be played.

[RunicLGB]

As Xykon demonstrated in SoD (it was epic an dyou had to be there):

Sorcerers have that more spells per day then any wizard, and even if their spells known limit the unique spells castable, that really only limits their utility slightly, but makes them much more capable of blasting. There is a little flexibility since in 3.5 they added the abillity to swap lower level spells as you attain higher levels (getting rid of stuff that becomes useless aginst tougher monsters (sleep) or replaced by permanant items (mage armor) so that you can get better scaling spellsbeing the choices that come to mind). And the Magic Item Compendium added the Runestaff, which the sorcerer can just carry around to gain acess to several spells that likely arent even on their list.

Plus a high charisma means sorcerers get all the chicks.

[Ravens_cry]

Thematically, I always saw Wizard verses Sorcerer been a case of Training (Wizard) verses Talent (Sorcerer).
Yes, Wizards are theoretically better, but Sorcerers are easier to play. Also, fluff and even mechanics to a degree make the untutored sorcerer a more likely choice for a charachter from out of the wild wild who is unschooled in the arcane arts.

[Figgin of Chaos]

Plus a high charisma means sorcerers get all the chicks.

This. Sorcerers are just cooler.

[ericgrau]

Sorcs are more fun to play IMO. And it's a game so...

And it's not one sided. Besides spells per day if we define spells "known" as spells actually in the caster's head (i.e., the normal non-D&D definition) the sorcerer starts the day with more and ends the day with way more. Spontaneous meta-magic compounds this further. He's much more versatile after the morning is over. If you're too lazy to swap your spell list every day he's probably the better choice; if you use also spells that aren't very level dependent, which is almost everything except blasting, he's the better choice hands down. So they're for a fun, interesting, more tactical in combat and yet relaxing, low headache and low book-keeping game of D&D. Ya, more fun IMO.

[Laniius]

Easier to play, and in campaigns where the day doesn't magically end when the wizard is out of spells potentially longer lasting (yes, yes the wizard has wands and scrolls and all that, the sorcerer does too.) Not arguing that the wizard is less powerful, just that they both have their niche.

[Coidzor]

Yes, Wizards are theoretically better, but Sorcerers are easier to play.

I've never gotten how people can say that with a straight face. :smallconfused: You have to actually plan things out with a sorcerer's spells known so that you don't accidentally fall into any traps just trying to accomplish your theme. A wizard can mess up their selection entirely on the free spells they get to fit some fluffy theme and still afford a couple of scrolls to become useful.


Plus a high charisma means sorcerers get all the chicks.

You're thinking of Bards, people with skillpoints, and Enchanters. :smallwink: Seriously, that's what the Enchantment school of magic was invented for, getting casters laid. :smallyuk:

[Ravens_cry]

I've never gotten how people can say that with a straight face. :smallconfused: You have to actually plan things out with a sorcerer's spells known so that you don't accidentally fall into any traps just trying to accomplish your theme. A wizard can mess up their selection entirely on the free spells they get and still afford a couple of scrolls to become useful.
Well, yes, but that's soemthing you can get tips on and go, done. Even without help, that's a once a level decision. With a wizard, what spells to pick something you have to decide every game day.
So yes, I can say it with a straight face.

[NNescio]

There are ways to trick out a Sorcerer to cast spells before a Wizard can. Sorcerers can get certain spiffy Sorcerer-only spells like wings of cover (Races of the Dragon).

These are not the point of this thread.

On almost all counts, the Wizard does things better. The two classes are very comparable. (It's called the Sor/Wiz list for good reason!) Wizards get bonus feats and, in general, access to better class features. Abrupt Jaunt is Conjurer-only.

Psions do the spontaneous thing better than Sorcerers. Psions and Sorcerers are in the same tie, but Psions are far more forgiving in their power acquisition. Instead of needing summon I, summon II... to stay current, you can augment an astral construct. Psions also get psychic reformation[/url] to reformat the party.

The generally unforgiving nature of Sorcerer spell picks makes the class a newbie trap.

Even the Wizard can go spontaneous (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7150.0), It's more resource-intensive, but Sorcerers just lack the love that Wizards got. Even in core, Wizards get more support via Pearls of Power and the Red Wizard PrC!

3.5 has Wizard spells versatile enough to account for many situations. Prepping [i]glitterdust, web, and alter self can cover far more situations than being able to spontaneously cast one of these thrice.

Damage-focused builds à la Cindy or Mailman, even without Sorcerer-only toppings or optional Kobold cheese?

[Thurbane]

Q What is the point of the Sorcerer?

A For people who want to play a full casting arcanist without micromanaging a spellbook or worrying about daily memorizations...

Really, that's the thought process behind the appearance of the Sorcerer in D&D, AFAIK. In many ways, it makes a lot of sense. For anyone who'd never played D&D before, but wanted to play an arcane caster out of the box, I'd recommend Sorc over Wiz.

[Coidzor]

Well, yes, but that's soemthing you can get tips on and go, done. Even without help, that's a once a level decision. With a wizard, what spells to pick something you have to decide every game day.
So yes, I can say it with a straight face.

So the ability to change from one's routinely prepared spells is a disadvantage and headache to deal with but having to dance around potential traps and pitfalls that are more or less permanent is an advantage and easier...:smallconfused:

How exactly?

[Eldan]

Well...
I've played with some players who were extremely bad with the rules. I was lucky when I could get them to remotely remember what about five spells were able to do. With these players, you sit down once and ask them "What do you want to be able to cast?" Then they reply: "A spell that makes things explode!" and you give them fireball.

Which means you have to do that once per level. Instead of every ingame day. "Should I prepare fireball today? But what if we meet an enemy that is immune? Oh, I should? How many of them? Will that be enough? I don't think so.."

Yes, Sorcerers are easier. On the DM, at least.

[Ravens_cry]

So the ability to change from one's routinely prepared spells is a disadvantage and headache to deal with but having to dance around potential traps and pitfalls that are more or less permanent is an advantage and easier...:smallconfused:

How exactly?
I didn't say it was an advantage, but it is easier. You only have to "dance around potential traps" IF you don't use the pretty easily available advice wherever the Internet or even knowledgeable fellow players may be found.

[CalamaroJoe]

It depends on what meaning to "easy" you give.
If the hard part is choosing the spells (and I think that for a lot of not-so-expert players it is), with a sorcerer you have to do it just once per level. Then, during play you have only to choose what to cast among a few options that you know well.
Yes, maybe you chose some poor or crappy spells, but it's not so hard to cast only the useful ones :smallredface:

[Runestar]

Actually, a focused specialist wizard eventually gets more slots than a sorc...:smalltongue:

[Yora]

And has like 3 schools left, or something like that?

[Eldan]

All true, of course, but consider this.

There are very few spells that are really "traps".
Sure, they might not be as power- or useful as the others, but with moderate amounts of advice ("Don't take a spell that does the same thing another already does" and "Take spells that aren't too situational" and "Take spells that are versatile") you should be fine in most cases. A sorcerer with Ventriloqism, Erase, Magic Aura and Alarm isn't very powerful or useful in most fights, but he has a few fun tricks and is still playable in a low-combat campaign.

[NNescio]

And has like 3 schools left, or something like that?
Bans Evocation (considered subpar by most people, and Conjuration can take care of most blasting needs), Enchantment (loaded with too many Will Save or Lose's, and most of those can be blocked by a single spell) and either Abjuration (if there's somebody else to cast Dispel Magic) or Necromancy (half of the school can be blocked by a single spell).

Still has far more spells to play around with than an average Sorc.

[faceroll]

@ the OP:
You seem to want to compare the Sorcerer in a Core environment to other mechanics in a balls-to-the-walls going for broke contest. You've got to realize that 3.5 is hugely piecemeal and put together by dozens of different authors. Classes naturally become obsolete. Compare Fighter and Warblade (though that could be considered intentional obsoletion).

With the feat Uncanny Forethought, from Exemplars of Evil, there's really no reason for a sorcerer, as it gives wizards spontaneous casting (as a full round action). Just load up on blasties/BC, spontaneously cast utility/buffs as needed. But that is sort of an unfair inclusion in a comparison, IMO.

I think the above posters do a pretty good job explaining both the appeal and function of a sorcerer. Wizards have a real weakness, in that not only do they have to prepare a spell, they have to prepare it multiple times. A sorcerer, with clever spell selection, is always ready, given that they have spell slots available. It's possible to drain a wizard's resources (again, removed from silly over-optimization scenarios) by simply having them face more of an encounter than they have prepared spells for.

[Coidzor]

It's possible to drain a wizard's resources (again, removed from silly over-optimization scenarios) by simply having them face more of an encounter than they have prepared spells for.

...That's not exactly a limitation unique to the wizard. The sorcerer just has maybe half an encounter longer than the wizard of spells.

[Eldan]

Yeah. I mean, imagine the game as 3.X core seems to think it should be played. You have Hunk Shieldensword, the fighter, Healy Curseaway, the cleric, Trapdisarm Staburback, the rogue and Blasty McBigboom, the Wizard. If you have a fifth player, he's Prancy Singalot, the silly bard. Utility spells are for out of combat solutions and RP, in combat, you blow stuff up. Rarely, you debuff someone. In that environment, a sorcerer with a fireball is totally viable.
He'll be able to potentially use six or more of them per day, while the wizard can only prepare two. He has to keep fly ready, in case the party finds a chasm without a bridge and Dispel Magic, because they could find a magical wall blocking their way in a dungeon corridor. The sorcerer can learn all three spells and still blast all day in case they don't meet either of these obstacles.

[DwarfFighter]

I guess the main reason why Wizards get so much "love" in the compendiums and third-party stuff is because it's one of the four core classes associated with D&D (though technically that was the "Magic User" of old). The advent of the Sorcerer and the concept of spontaneous casting may be perceived as sort of a threat to the Wizard's position as the "ultimate magic user". I don't think anyone making new Wizard material ever took into account all of the other extra stuff that was already made for the class.

Seems to me it's just a matter of a lot of people fixing the same problem: Out of the box the Sorcerer is easier to play thanks to spontaneous casting removing the challenge of preparing spells in advance.

-T10

[Serpentine]

I think the "purpose" of the Sorcerer is primarily purely fluff. The Wizard covers your "magic = education, book-learnin', spell-memorising" variety of arcane spellcaster, while the Sorcerer covers the ""dum dee dum... WHY IS THERE FIRE COMING OUT OF MY HANDS?!", raw natural talent" type.
And you know what? I like Sorcerers more than Wizards, for precisely this reason.

[Runestar]

And has like 3 schools left, or something like that?

5.

It is not as though the sorc has that many spells known to play around with anyways.

[faceroll]

...That's not exactly a limitation unique to the wizard. The sorcerer just has maybe half an encounter longer than the wizard of spells.

This isn't a matter of total spells, it's a matter of spell allocation. If the wizard prepares 4 greases and 2 glitterdusts, and ends up fighting 6 encounters of rogues, he's useful in 2 fights. The sorcerer; however, has any combination of 4 greases or rays of enfeeblement, and two glitterdusts. The sorcerer is now useful in 100% of the 6 encounters.

[holywhippet]

Keep in mind, as with all other high tier ranked classes, the wizard only pulls ahead of the sorcerer at higher levels - starting at about level 7 I'd say. For low level games the difference isn't all that large. If anything, a low level sorcerer will have an advantage with just a few well chosen spells that they can cast more times than the wizard with their spell selection.

It's only as the levels increase and the wizard player gets a larger spell selection and can plan better for each days activities that the gap starts to appear. Even then, it's dependent on player skill, some wizards will still just be played as blasters.

[TheGeckoKing]

I always found it easier to play a Sorc. Once you've picked your spells and dodged any traps, that's it. With a Wizard, every day you've got to trawl through your encyclopedia of spells every day to pick the best spells for the best situation. And if you don't have a lot of spells known like you should, you might as well be playing a Sorc anyway.

Also, Kobolds.

[Allanimal]

With a Wizard, every day you've got to trawl through your encyclopedia of spells every day to pick the best spells for the best situation. And if you don't have a lot of spells known like you should, you might as well be playing a Sorc anyway.

I hear the argument that wizards have so many more spells to choose from all yhe time. Maybe at higher levels, but my 3rd level wizard has maybe 4 additional spells above the ones he gets for free every level. Why? The cost to write a spell into the spell book is 100 gp per spell level! He simply can't afford it, especially when adding the cost of the scroll the spell comes from.

At 3rd level, WBL is 900 gp I believe. Wizards don't need much expensive equipment, but the familiar costs 100, plus his share of the party wand of CLW, I spend most of my money on scrolls and the cost of writing the spells to the spell book.

Of course, then I need to find someone that sells the scroll or is willing to let me borrow their spell book... It isn't easy. Or cheap.

Once money is no object, and I can teleport to a magic mart and back, OK, there is no excuse. But until then, it is a struggle to have a large variety of spells.

[Kylarra]

Keep in mind that a comparative 3rd level sorcerer only knows 3 [first level] spells. So you know more extra spells than his entire repertoire (or half as many more if you want to count cantrips).

[Gnoman]

It is also much easier for the GM to properly factor a sorceror into his planning, as he does not need to consider the possibility of the wizard preapring no fire-based spells before going into the troll dungeon, for example (as long as the sorc has the ability to cast fire spells, he's good.) This cn create the effect of sorc players having more fun.

[TheCoelacanth]

I hear the argument that wizards have so many more spells to choose from all yhe time. Maybe at higher levels, but my 3rd level wizard has maybe 4 additional spells above the ones he gets for free every level. Why? The cost to write a spell into the spell book is 100 gp per spell level! He simply can't afford it, especially when adding the cost of the scroll the spell comes from.

At 3rd level, WBL is 900 gp I believe. Wizards don't need much expensive equipment, but the familiar costs 100, plus his share of the party wand of CLW, I spend most of my money on scrolls and the cost of writing the spells to the spell book.

Of course, then I need to find someone that sells the scroll or is willing to let me borrow their spell book... It isn't easy. Or cheap.

Once money is no object, and I can teleport to a magic mart and back, OK, there is no excuse. But until then, it is a struggle to have a large variety of spells.

3rd level WBL is 2,700 gp but this argument mainly applies to mid to high level play. A blessed book only costs 12,500 gp and it negates spell copying costs, leaving only the cost of getting access to the spells. There's also the Collegiate Wizard feat that leaves you swimming in free spells at all levels.

[Particle_Man]

You're thinking of Bards, people with skillpoints, and Enchanters. :smallwink: Seriously, that's what the Enchantment school of magic was invented for, getting casters laid. :smallyuk:


Bans Evocation (considered subpar by most people, and Conjuration can take care of most blasting needs), Enchantment (loaded with too many Will Save or Lose's, and most of those can be blocked by a single spell) and either Abjuration (if there's somebody else to cast Dispel Magic) or Necromancy (half of the school can be blocked by a single spell).

So much for the Wizard getting laid, then. :smallamused:

[Particle_Man]

Personally, a Sorcerer is less paperwork than a Wizard. That said, it is on a continuum. I like the Wilder too, but a lot of DMs ban psionics, so that's out. I like the Warlock, but a lot of DMs are core only (or Pathfinder core + Advanced only) so sometimes that's out (as is a lot of the feats, prestige classes, etc., that make a wizard do what a sorcerer can do in core). Sorcerer is relatively low paperwork and not often banned. Plus the bluff skill use can be hilarious.

But for some it comes down to temperment. I have an engineer friend who was new to D&D and I gave him a Wizard, boccob's blessed book x2, and every spell in the SRD that I could buy for him with his starting 11th level wealth. But he likes being McGyver and trying stuff out a la Science!

[Kylarra]

So much for the Wizard getting laid, then. :smallamused:Presumably the specialist wizard, the Enchanter, would not be banning enchantment. :smallwink:

[Allanimal]

3rd level WBL is 2,700 gp but this argument mainly applies to mid to high level play. A blessed book only costs 12,500 gp and it negates spell copying costs, leaving only the cost of getting access to the spells. There's also the Collegiate Wizard feat that leaves you swimming in free spells at all levels.

Well, we just turned 3rd... I guess the DM hasn't given us the jackpot to bump us up to WBL... Or else I have been spending more than I thought on booze...

Oh, and the game is core only, so I can't get Collegiate Wizard. The blessed book will be great in a few more levels...

[true_shinken]

It's called flavor.

[Orsen]

I'm studying in a different city then my main group plays in so whenever I come back I just come in with a one mission character to join them. The most recent time this happened I wanted to play arcane and went sorcerer over wizard just so I would only have to choose spells once. I had tons of fun and was able to complete this one shot character faster then if I had chosen wizard. If I was there for the whole campaign, I might have gone wizard but for just one adventure, a quick sorcerer was lots of fun, especially with bluff and the flavor of being a cocky charismatic caster. Not that a wizard couldn't be cocky either.

[Vladislav]

I will answer that with a number of questions.

What's the point of the Fighter? The Rogue? The Paladin? Almost any other class besides the Cleric or Druid?

Just because the Wizard is broken as all hell, doesn't mean the other classes shouldn't be played.The point is that the Paladin, fighter and rogue are significantly different from the Wizard. If you're a Wizard, you're playing a mystic guy who wields arcane powers. If you're a Paladin, you're playing a Knight in Shining Armor with a Big Sword. If you're a Rogue, you're playing a sneaky guy who picks locks and stabs people from behind. While not as powerful as the Wizard, the Paladin and Rogue are interesting, because they are not a Wizard.

Sorcerer, on the other hand, is a mystic guy who wields arcane powers; not as powerful as the Wizard, and (according to many) not sufficiently different from the Wizard to be interesting.

[true_shinken]

Sorcerer, on the other hand, is a mystic guy who wields arcane powers; not as powerful as the Wizard, and (according to many) not sufficiently different from the Wizard to be interesting.
Rubbish. Duskblade is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Beguiler is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Bard is mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Dread Necromancer is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Warmage is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Warlock is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Spellthief is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers and Lightning Warrior is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers (and lacks a familiar).

There is not much difference, mechanically, when you look at a Sorcerer statblock and a Wizard statblock. But they play completely different, the flavor is also completely different and even their options during advancement are completely different.

I like Sorcerers. One of my favorite classes, ever. But I wouldn't ever play a Wizard.

[Coidzor]

At 3rd level, WBL is 900 gp I believe. Wizards don't need much expensive equipment, but the familiar costs 100, plus his share of the party wand of CLW, I spend most of my money on scrolls and the cost of writing the spells to the spell book.

No, your DM is short-shrifting you.


So much for the Wizard getting laid, then. :smallamused:

Good thing my name is only on one of those posts, isn't it? :smallamused: Also, Enchanter. Can't ban Enchantment. <_< >_>


Rubbish. Duskblade is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Beguiler is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Bard is mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Dread Necromancer is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Warmage is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Warlock is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers, Spellthief is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers and Lightning Warrior is a mystic guy who wilds arcane powers (and lacks a familiar).

All of those classes are widely considered sufficiently differentiated from both Wizard and Sorcerer, whereas Sorcerer is being argued as/considered not sufficiently differentiated from Wizard. So what's your point in bringing up examples that just highlight the lack of differentiation when differentiation is possible?

I mean, other than Lightning Warrior who combines all of the weakest features of most of the classes in the PHB, which still don't even compare to the lowliest of familiars.

[Vladislav]

A Duskblade wields a sword enhanced by magical powers.
A Beguiler "wields" thieving skills and trickery/enchantment spells.
Dread Necromancer "wields" undead minions.
A Bard wields a lute in one hand, a rapier in the other, and motivates all around him, and sometimes casts spells.
Warmage deals damage.

They are different from either Wizard or Sorcerer. Wizard and Sorcerer are not very different from each other. For crying out loud, it's even the same spell list... it's called "Sorcerer/Wizard spells". They didn't even humor the Sorcerer with his own spell list. The Sorcerer is like a Wizard, only better in 1.5 aspects (1. more spells per day, although with a Focused Specialist even that is questionable, and 2. spontaneous casting) worse in many other aspects (very few spells known, no bonus feats, no specialization perks, later access to new spell levels, less skill points due to Cha, and not Int, being the casting stat, etc).

[ZombyWoof]

I don't understand this "sorcerers are easy" idea. Sorcerers are the MOST difficult arcane class to play. At level 4, you get 1 2nd level spell... so you had better have picked one of the three 2nd level spells that are useful in every encounter.

Yes, you can cast spells every encounter and be free with your slots in a way a Wizard cannot. That's great for you, and imma let you finish, but each one of my spells is tailored to end an encounter one way or another. Besides, if you pick a bad spell as a sorcerer, have a fun level! If you pick a bad spell as a Wizard, hey, at least you'll get to switch it out tomorrow. And you don't have to waste one of your replacement spells switching it out, just pay some wizard like 100gp/spell level and pick a new one.

EDIT: As for getting laid, just Polymorph into a nymph! :smallwink:

[DeltaEmil]

Just summon/call that nymph. Or a succubi, if you're into that.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

IMO the limited spells known wouldn't be such a downer if the sorcerer wasn't half a spell level behind. Just think of a sorcerer and a wizard at odd levels, but especially 3, 7, and the higher levels.

Wizard am winning again! Wizard am the greetest! Now he leaves the Sorcerer in the dust for no good raisin!

[Sacrieur]

What's the point of playing any character when there is pun-pun running around?

You don't have to be the absolute best to enjoy playing a character

{Scrubbed}

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

What's the point of playing any character when there is pun-pun running around?

You don't have to be the absolute best to enjoy playing a character

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}This argument applies equally well to the merits of playing a Truenamer with all of his skill ranks in craft: baskets of fail. Ironically, sorcerers actually start catching up at high levels of optimization. It's the creamy middle levels of optimization* where the sorcerer is merely an inferior version of the wizard. Even then, they're playable, and the flavor is good, but it's still silly.

*Anywhere between "fireball, fireball, fireball" and "Look ma, I can cast ten spells per round!"

[Draz74]

I think the "purpose" of the Sorcerer is primarily purely fluff. The Wizard covers your "magic = education, book-learnin', spell-memorising" variety of arcane spellcaster, while the Sorcerer covers the ""dum dee dum... WHY IS THERE FIRE COMING OUT OF MY HANDS?!", raw natural talent" type.

This. This was the original purpose of introducing the Sorcerer class.

Of course, nowadays it's arguably easier to reproduce this kind of character concept by using a Dragonfire Adept, Warlock, Binder, Psion, or something else ...

[Etrivar]

I like Sorcerers. One of my favorite classes, ever. But I wouldn't ever play a Wizard.

Fervently Seconded!

[Reluctance]

I don't understand this "sorcerers are easy" idea. Sorcerers are the MOST difficult arcane class to play. At level 4, you get 1 2nd level spell... so you had better have picked one of the three 2nd level spells that are useful in every encounter.

Yes, you can cast spells every encounter and be free with your slots in a way a Wizard cannot. That's great for you, and imma let you finish, but each one of my spells is tailored to end an encounter one way or another. Besides, if you pick a bad spell as a sorcerer, have a fun level! If you pick a bad spell as a Wizard, hey, at least you'll get to switch it out tomorrow. And you don't have to waste one of your replacement spells switching it out, just pay some wizard like 100gp/spell level and pick a new one.

EDIT: As for getting laid, just Polymorph into a nymph! :smallwink:

This only applies if the sorcerer's character is made ineptly, but then somebody at the table can give them pointers later. This doesn't make much sense. If there are any old hats at the table, they can help the sorcerer pick decent spells. If there aren't, or if the sorcerer's player bullheadedly insists on not taking advice, they'd make the exact same choices if they were a wizard. Can this tired old argument please be put to rest?

If anything, the sorcerer is a better pick for the new guy, since someone else can pick useful spells for him and let him go to town. Wizards, he'll have to juggle his spell needs every day, and will probably end the day with unspent spell slots filled with ineffective spells. Psions and warlocks and other classes do fill this niche better, granted, but you're far less likely to find a game that pointlessly bans sorcerers.

[Particle_Man]

Heck, given the issues with Tier 1 classes, I would be more likely to ban the Wizard as too much of a headache for me as DM.

Myself, I like the "theme" arcane classes, like beguiler, warmage, true necromancer. I once played a sorcerer in pathfinder that only took illusion spells and had fun with it.

[DeltaEmil]

If you're going to be told what spells you should take as a sorcerer, then you're also going to be told what spells your wizard should take, so that's not really a point in favor for the sorcerer.

It means however that the wizard/sorcerer player won't learn that much compared to the other, more experienced players who have greater system mastery...

[Coidzor]

This only applies if the sorcerer's character is made ineptly, but then somebody at the table can give them pointers later.

Which do them no good by RAW as they've already picked several bad spells if that's the case. The wizard, well, if they're picking bad spells, they can see this by actually looking at what they've used and what they haven't used and even switch out spells without having to beg the DM to change the rules for them.

[pilvento]

The point of the sorcerer is to become and gish and get laid in game!

[TheGeckoKing]

The way I see it, the Sorc has to ask spell-related advice exactly 20 times, not including prestige classes, feats, and other sources of spells.
The wizard has to ask every day about what to prepare. Once they get the spells right after leveling up, that's it until the next leveling up.
Mind you, if your getting enough help, I would agree with just playing a Wizard anyway.

[Coidzor]

The wizard has to ask every day about what to prepare. Once they get the spells right after leveling up, that's it until the next leveling up.

And where do you get that idea?

[jiriku]

Don't think forward, think backwards.

You're comparing the sorcerer to all of the spontaneous casters that came after it. However, if you compare the sorcerer to the spontaneous casters that came before it (i.e. before 2rd edition), you'll find... nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. There were none.

The sorcerer was created because there were a hell of a lot of 1e and 2e D&D players with magic-user and mage and illusionist characters who were sick and tired of preparing spells. I played throughout the late 80's and 90's with a group that dispensed with the spell preparation rules altogether because everyone thought they were a pain in the butt.

So, along came 3rd edition, and the designers said "HERE! The Superman exists, and he is an American THE SORCERER!"

And people loved it so much that the designers created warmage, and dread necromancer, and beguiler, and guild mage, and all manner of spontaneous casting feats. And the sorcerer, who started it all, became obsolete and was forgotten. Sad story. (sniff, sniff)

[TheGeckoKing]

And where do you get that idea?

Get which idea? I'm talking about Sorcerers just asking about spells known, while a Wizard would ask about spells known (At low levels, it can be a pain to scribe spells down) AND spells prepared.
Mind you, this would only be for newbies. I know various feats, ACFs and other stuff makes the Sorcerer cry, but still.

[Coidzor]

Get which idea?

The idea that a wizard has to ask everyone else what spells to prepare every single day.

[TheGeckoKing]

Well, that's not what I meant to say. :smallconfused:
I was thinking about someone who wanted advice and...........you know what, forget it. Just make them play a Psion, and forget Wizards and Sorcerers even existed.

[Frozen_Feet]

So much for the Wizard getting laid, then. :smallamused:

That's what Summon Monster and Planar Binding are for. And Black Tentacles. And Wish.

[Tal_Akaan]

Depending on your interpretation of the rules Sorcerers are not restricted to learning new spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list.


d20 SRD
These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however.

Again this depends on you interpretation of RAW. I know a lot of people that don't play it this way, and a lot that do.

Just my 2 cents.

-Tal

[Tvtyrant]

I always thought the purpose of the Sorcerer was being able to spontaneously apply metamagic to spells. This also eliminates the need to learn a lot of combat spells; Meteor Swarm is the most damaging core spell without metamagic (96 damage average) while a Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray does 144 with the same slot. If a Wizard needed to deal damage in a round they would have either had to have tied up a 9th level slot with a plain damage dealing spell, or not have had one available. Other examples of this is Magic Missile, which is only useful once in a blue moon but when you need it, you need it.

A Sorcerer can take all of the same spells like Time Stop and Shapechange as a Wizard, and can deal with slots more flexibly. Personally I think the Sorcerer is as good in play as the Wizard, its only when talking about its potential abilities that it falls behind.

[jguy]

I like to think of a Sorcerer as a litmus test for how a player looks at the game. Since there are so few Spells Known for a Sorcerer, what the player picks shows a lot about them.

If a player selects mostly blaster spells like Fire Ball, Shocking Grasp, Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile ect then they are very much into blowing stuff up and don't want to focus too much on subtly.

If a player picks mostly Enchantment/Illusion spells then they really like the social parts of it and like being the Face of the party. They are also interested in finding creative solutions to problems. Why storm the castle when you can Disguise Self with Ghost Sound to imitate a guard and sneak in?

If the player goes with Batman Wizard spells, like Glitterdust, Web, Solid Fog, Summon Monster X, with a few Blaster spells when needed then that player like to be in the background, having a strong influence, but likes a challenge.

On another note, I've danced around with the idea in my head to make all Sorcerers Battle Sorcerers but without the drawback. So they have d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, and good Fort/Will and can cast in light armor. That would make someone have an honest quandary on whether why want to play a Sorcerer or Wizard since they are both different enough but each have unique benefits.

[JKTrickster]

Well, that's not what I meant to say. :smallconfused:
I was thinking about someone who wanted advice and...........you know what, forget it. Just make them play a Psion, and forget Wizards and Sorcerers even existed.

I'm sorry but I think this is the best thing said in the whole thread.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm sorry but I think this is the best thing said in the whole thread.

Third'd.

I'm all for the flavour of the Sorc (FIRE), and I tend to play them on scale with about Tier 3. Because they're FUN that way, dammit.

But mechanics... give me a psion any day.

[Sacrieur]

Depending on your interpretation of the rules Sorcerers are not restricted to learning new spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list.

Again this depends on you interpretation of RAW. I know a lot of people that don't play it this way, and a lot that do.

Just my 2 cents.

-Tal

Interpretation? Interpretation of what exactly! What the word unusual means?

[ZombyWoof]

Depending on your interpretation of the rules Sorcerers are not restricted to learning new spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list.



Again this depends on you interpretation of RAW. I know a lot of people that don't play it this way, and a lot that do.

Just my 2 cents.

-Tal
Technically speaking wizards are allowed to research their own spells as well.



Independent Research
A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one.

[Ravens_cry]

Ah, spell research, one of my favourite parts of the game because it allows my character to contribute something new to the world.:smallsmile:

[Yahzi]

This was the original purpose of introducing the Sorcerer class.
The original point of the Sorc was "Why does my wizard have to memorize the right spells and the cleric doesn't?"

TSR feared that spontaneous casting would be game-breaking, since preparation was supposed to be the wizard's weakness, so they crippled Sorcerers to keep them "balanced."

And we all know how well they did with balance. :smallbiggrin:

[Stone Heart]

The point is that the Paladin, fighter and rogue are significantly different from the Wizard. If you're a Wizard, you're playing a mystic guy who wields arcane powers. If you're a Paladin, you're playing a Knight in Shining Armor with a Big Sword. If you're a Rogue, you're playing a sneaky guy who picks locks and stabs people from behind. While not as powerful as the Wizard, the Paladin and Rogue are interesting, because they are not a Wizard.

Sorcerer, on the other hand, is a mystic guy who wields arcane powers; not as powerful as the Wizard, and (according to many) not sufficiently different from the Wizard to be interesting.

I think you may have missed part of the point, I don't believe he meant why play a rogue instead of a wizard, simply why play a rogue at all.

Also you say the paladin is different notably from the Wizard, and I agree but since again I don't think thats how he meant it, what about, why play a paladin instead of a Cleric?

[ZombyWoof]

More importantly, why play a Paladin rather than a Cleric or a Fighter?

Frankly though the Sorcerer is the WORST offender of this outside of the Barbarian vs Fighter choice... except those are usually best in some sort of multiclass combination so even then...

Tongue-in-cheek the "best" way to play a Rogue is to invest in UMD and scrolls and pretend you're a wizard.

Not even tongue-in-cheek but the actual BEST way to play a Sorcerer is to buy a bunch of scrolls and pretend you're a wizard. Most of the Sorcerer guides are pretty much this: "get xyz spells because you will use them in 90% of encounters. Buy scrolls for spells AB and C because you will use them in 10% of the other encounters."

I feel like the Sorcerer was horrible from a design standpoint and they should have given them their own spell list.

[Aricandor]

Its purpose is to give players options when picking classes.

As much as I love the bookish, supremely intelligent archetype of a character, I'll usually go with a sorcerer (or psion if the game allows for it, but whatever, it's the sorcerer we're going with here) over it. That's all it really needs. I personally feel the mechanics of spontaneous vs. prepared is enough to warrant separate classes alone; though I will concede a different spell list would have done a lot for it, even if it was just some hodge-podge of a-j of the wizard and k-z of the druid list slapped into one.

Now, if you had a wizard class that allowed you to pick whether your Int-based casting was spontaneous or prepared (actually not a bad idea...), then I'd question the sorcerer's class feature-less existence too.

[Coidzor]

I think you may have missed part of the point, I don't believe he meant why play a rogue instead of a wizard, simply why play a rogue at all.

Easy point to miss when he didn't actually state that clearly and was replying to something on the subject of distinctiveness without changing the subject.

[ZombyWoof]

Its purpose is to give players options when picking classes.

As much as I love the bookish, supremely intelligent archetype of a character, I'll usually go with a sorcerer (or psion if the game allows for it, but whatever, it's the sorcerer we're going with here) over it. That's all it really needs.
But fluff is mutable. One could just as easily say that the "spells" that a Wizard learns are when he innately unlocks his power, by accident or design. That every morning instead of "studying" he reaches out with his powers and feels what he wants to use for that day, unlocking the potential within.




I personally feel the mechanics of spontaneous vs. prepared is enough to warrant separate classes alone; though I will concede a different spell list would have done a lot for it, even if it was just some hodge-podge of a-j of the wizard and k-z of the druid list slapped into one.

The Bard says "hi!"

[Coidzor]

The Bard says "hi!"

The Bard has separate issues and you know it.

[acelegna]

When i created my first "spellcaster" I first wanted to play a wizard. But, i realized that because wizards can basically, learn NAY spell he wants and can prepare new spells each day, I would reaaaally have to study the spells and there combinations really well.

Because I (unlike the other players) had a job and...well...a life; I didn't want to spend so much time studying a wizard and figuring out strategies based on his flexibility. So, I chose a sorcerer instead. Concentrated on offensive Evocation spells and a few defensive and it was still preety powerful and lots of fun to play.

Sorcerers (in my experience) are looked down on, because most players feel superior when playing a wizard (that requires more strategy) rather than a "noob" sorcerer who just knows what he's going to do on the spot without planning ahead. But that doesn't mean that they aren't fun to play.