Cliche Question Time: Sorcerers or Wizards?

[zoobob9]

Which of these classes do you think is better? Explain your answer.

Feel free to start a discussion about any other topics as well, including race vs. race, class vs. class, or anything else.

My personal opinion is that the Sorcerer is better. They may not know as many spells, but spontaneous casting is a lifesaver. Its the difference between being out of fireballs and having enough to kill everyone in sight. Outside of battle they can be better too- a high charisma score can lead to one being the lead negotiator for the group. Intelligence isn't used much in skill checks, while charisma is used everywhere. In game, Wizards are powerful because they learn how to cast their spells. One with the inherent power of a Sorcerer could learn everything a wizard knows, he instead just has a few shortcuts. Spell books aren't really ideal-if it gets lost, it has to be rebuilt over who knows how long. The power that a Sorcerer has is far more efficient.

[Aron Times]

Wizards are more powerful, but I prefer sorcerers because they require less bookkeeping and it's harder for the DM to take away your primary class feature.

[Ozymandias]

Taking better as "more effective at solving encounters," Wizards by a mile.

Sorcerers are slightly more powerful, while wizards are significantly more versatile. And the edge in power that sorcerers have is usually gratuitous anyway.

[Yukitsu]

Wizards if you have good skill are superior, but if you don't have much game knowledge, sorcerers are often better.

[NNescio]

Focused Specialist: Wizards now have the same number of spell slots on even levels, and a significant advantage over a sorcerer on odd levels. The wizard still has access to far more spells known than a sorcerer, even with the loss of three schools.

Spontaneous Divination: Cast any known divination spell spontaneously.

Spellpool (from Mage of the Arcane Order): Don't have the spell you need? Swap one.

Don't want to take levels in MotAO? Scrolls. Scribe Scroll is a wizard class feature. Have a spare feat, because you are a wizard? Alacritous Cogitation.

Metamagic: Prepared casters can use metamagic without lengthening casting time. This is a particularly sore point with Quicken.

Wizards also have access to various ACFs, including the infamous Abrupt Jaunt. They are also far more PrC-friendly, having more support in various splatbooks, and they qualify easier regardless because they gain spell levels one level earlier.

Tyrannical DM who loves to destroy your spellbook? Eidetic Spellcaster. Or Geometer + Tattooed Spellbook. Or Secret Page for backups.

Really, sorcerers can't compete with wizards except when kobolds are involved. There's a reason why wizards are Tier 1 and sorcerers are Tier 2. The former has access to far more spells than a sorcerer, gain spell levels one level early, and can swap out their spell selection every day. Sorcerers can be screwed up significantly if they pick the wrong spell when levelling up.

[Zaq]

Wizards are mechanically stronger, and I prefer their fluff (such as it is) over Sorcerers' fluff (again, such as it is).

That said, at the table, I much prefer Sorcerers (no matter whether I'm the one playing 'em or not). They just tend to lend themselves to a smoother experience.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Wizards. I like the fluff of Sorcerers, someone who simply wills and things happen, but Wizards are close enough to that in fluff and so drastically better mechanically that I have a hard time choosing Sorcerer.

And the other thing is, spontaneous spellcasting can be achieved by a Wizard. It takes PrCs or Feats+ACFs, but that can't be considered an advantage to the Sorcerer, with enough optimization.

[Deimess]

One of my players greatly prefers playing a sorcerer for a couple of reasons, mainly because he doesn't have to deal with the stress of preparing spells, and he lasts significantly longer in dungeon delves. He also likes the smaller perks like quicken spell, and virtually always being able to cast the spells he likes, and being able to use his ring slots for something other than rings of wizardry.

On a different note, Sorcerers are almost unarguably better than Wizards at lower levels, seeing as they can contribute in more than 1 or 2 encounters before running out of steam. As for skills, wizards win by far. Knowledge checks are useful in and out of combat, and help virtually everywhere.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Neither one. I'm not a big fan of per day effects, which is how they both use magic.

I'd much rather have Warlock's at will powers, or ToB's encounter powers to carry the day.

[Talya]

One of my players greatly prefers playing a sorcerer for a couple of reasons, mainly because he doesn't have to deal with the stress of preparing spells, and he lasts significantly longer in dungeon delves. He also likes the smaller perks like quicken spell

You know without delving into ACFs, a sorcerer can't quicken spells...and doesn't have nearly as many feats as a wizard to get it with even if he could.

A prepared wizard is unquestionably better. (What's questionable is cheesy attempts to pretend you can predict what's coming to that degree so you're always prepared, even with divination.) When unprepared, the wizard is typically less than useless, when ill-prepared he's less than impressive, and the sorcerer gets to shine.

One strength of the spontaneous caster that rarely gets mentioned, is the ability to spam a useful spell over and over again. The wizard might prepare well, and have one perfect spell to use in an encounter. If it gets resisted, or fails to break SR, or he simply needs three of them, he's out of luck unless he prepared three. The sorcerer will just cast it over and over again--if he's got the appropriate spell to start with. Note that a sorcerer has nearly as many known spells as the wizard has spell slots, and most wizards end up hedging their bets and prepping the same few spells every day unless they have advance knowledge they're going to need something else.

While a properly prepared wizard will beat the sorcerer just about everywhere, where the wizard especially outclasses the sorcerer, though, is out of combat. Both skills and utility spells, the sorcerer will never have them.

As for Shneeky's concerns, playing a sorceress over a tabletop campaign that lasted 5 years, I never ran out of spells past about level 4. I wasn't known to ration them, either. On the other hand, I had a stratospheric charisma score...


(Also, Ruin Delver's Fortune {spell compendium}. If you play a sorcerer, you should always, always, always have that spell from the moment you can cast level 4 spells.)

[NNescio]

One of my players greatly prefers playing a sorcerer for a couple of reasons, mainly because he doesn't have to deal with the stress of preparing spells, and he lasts significantly longer in dungeon delves. He also likes the smaller perks like quicken spell, and virtually always being able to cast the spells he likes, and being able to use his ring slots for something other than rings of wizardry.

On a different note, Sorcerers are almost unarguably better than Wizards at lower levels, seeing as they can contribute in more than 1 or 2 encounters before running out of steam. As for skills, wizards win by far. Knowledge checks are useful in and out of combat, and help virtually everywhere.

Focused. Specialist. Also, wizards have a significant spell level advantage on odd levels. Furthermore, Quicken Spell explicitly mentions that it cannot be applied to spontaneously-cast spells.

[Talya]

Furthermore, Quicken Spell explicitly mentions that it cannot be applied to spontaneously-cast spells.

While I also mentioned this above, i also pointed out with splatbooks and ACFs it's possible. A sorcerer can trade away their familiar for some metamagic lovin'. Since they're going to PrC out anyway (as the only class feature they really have is their spellcasting, which a PrC will advance), they might as well trade away that familiar that's not going to advance very far, anyway.

[Deimess]

Missed that about quicken spell :smalleek:, the character doesn't have the feat yet, but was planning on taking it and is looking at a rod instead (for a class that doesn't melee much, it's better than nothing).

As for Focused Specialist and all that, my small group doesn't delve much outside of core. If you have access to that, then the only argument left for sorcerers would be simplicity/less bookkeeping, and other situational things.

I can see how a sorcerer might be better in an extremely prolonged fight though, like defending a fort.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You know without delving into ACFs, a sorcerer can't quicken spells...and doesn't have nearly as many feats as a wizard to get it with even if he could. Until after you pick up Rapid Metamagic at 9th level, like every other sorcerer out there...


A prepared wizard is unquestionably better. (What's questionable is cheesy attempts to pretend you can predict what's coming to that degree so you're always prepared, even with divination.) When unprepared, the wizard is typically less than useless, when ill-prepared he's less than impressive, and the sorcerer gets to shine. To be fair, it is relatively easy to predict what is going to happen, with careful divination and reading the GM's intentions. But yes, that is a point of exploitation which my Joker Bard concept takes advantage of to negate much of the Batman Wizard's power.


One strength of the spontaneous caster that rarely gets mentioned, is the ability to spam a useful spell over and over again. The wizard might prepare well, and have one perfect spell to use in an encounter. If it gets resisted, or fails to break SR, or he simply needs three of them, he's out of luck unless he prepared three. The sorcerer will just cast it over and over again--if he's got the appropriate spell to start with. Note that a sorcerer has nearly as many known spells as the wizard has spell slots, and most wizards end up hedging their bets and prepping the same few spells every day unless they have advance knowledge they're going to need something else. Focused Specialist Wizard has more spells per day than a Sorcerer does, much less spells known.


As for Shneeky's concerns, playing a sorceress over a tabletop campaign that lasted 5 years, I never ran out of spells past about level 4. I wasn't known to ration them, either. On the other hand, I had a stratospheric charisma score... Actually, that underscores the problem I have.

It isn't that you run out, it's that the creators expect them to run out, and consider it a balancing force (since they run out, they can be more powerful, because once you blow through them, you're just a commoner with fancy clothes).

However, if you never run out, then you're just plain overpowered. The other reason I prefer the Invocation or Initiation methods is that both of them are fully aware that they can be spammed, and so they aren't as absolutely powerful as magic can quite easily be.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

You know without delving into ACFs, a sorcerer can't quicken spells...and doesn't have nearly as many feats as a wizard to get it with even if he could.

The easy way to do this is to get the feat Rapid Metamagic. But it's unfortunate that the Sorc has to go to a Feat or ACF to do what a Wizard can just do anyway.


A prepared wizard is unquestionably better. (What's questionable is cheesy attempts to pretend you can predict what's coming to that degree so you're always prepared, even with divination.) When unprepared, the wizard is typically less than useless, when ill-prepared he's less than impressive, and the sorcerer gets to shine.

But a Wizard, after level five or so, doesn't really need to worry about what spells she's prepared. She just takes the Spontaneous Divination ACF and the feat Versatile Spellcaster, and now she can spend two slots of one level to cast any spell she knows (i.e. in her spellbook) of one level higher. Or she goes Hathran and gets an Acorn of Far Travel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a) for a tree in Rashemen, and therefore counts as if she's in Rashemen, and can trade any spell she's prepared for any spell in her spellbook of equal level. With that, you're effectively a Spontaneous Caster.

And even without optimization such as the above, I disagree with the idea that an ill-prepared wizard is next to useless. If he's prepared Grease, or Colorspray, or Web, or any of the just generally useful spells he has access to, then he's still got something to contribute. Yeah, he may not have the specific spell that would be best, but it is a rare thing when he has nothing that is at all useful.

[Talya]

Focused Specialist Wizard has more spells per day than a Sorcerer does, much less spells known.


That actually isn't a response to the sorcerer strength I mentioned. It isn't the number of spells you can cast that's the advantage - it's the ability to use them for any spell you know at any time. The focused specialist's 6 spell slots per spell level are dedicated to specific spells - which you can swap out each day, but not in the middle of combat. (Three of them are even locked in to specific schools.) While there are some ways around this, most wizards don't take them, and several (like mage of the arcane order) help sorcerers more than wizards. The sorcerer's 6 slots per spell level can be used to cast anything they know, at any time.

Note I'm not saying that this makes a sorcerer better, because they're not. Wizards are definitely better. But one cannot deny this is an advantage. You run into a battle where you realize the four big tough enemies all have low fortitude saves, so you start Save-or-Dying them all one by one. Wizard probably only had that spell prepped once. Maybe twice. Sorcerer doesn't even blink.

If all the other classes ceased to exist other than sorcerer, druid, cleric and wizard, and I were buffing the sorcerer to equal the wizard, I'd give them an extra spell known at every spell level, rapid metamagic as an automatic class feature, bonus feats as a wizard gets, (including one at level 1 for scribe scroll, but they could use it on any bonus feat) a d6 hit die, and 4 skills/level. I wouldn't change the levels at which they get spells (if I changed my mind on this, i'd give them 0 spells of a particular spell level one level earlier, so they'd only get them if they had a charisma high enough to get bonus spells of that level.) I think this alone would move the sorcerer into tier 1...and while they'd still be outclassed by a well prepared wizard, they'd be close enough that it wouldn't matter.

[Big Fau]

Wizards are more powerful, but I prefer sorcerers because they require less bookkeeping and it's harder for the DM to take away your primary class feature.

Actually, it's hard to take away a Wizard's spellbook if they are smart enough. Or if they took a level in Geometer and tattoo'ed their spellbook onto their body (enough space for 80 spells, so up to 4 spells/level).

Seems I was ninja'ed on that though.



Scrolls. Scribe Scroll is a wizard class feature.

Scrolls are a horrible waste of XP and GP. No one should use them for anything except scribing spells.

[Pigkappa]

Scrolls are a horrible waste of XP and GP. No one should use them for anything except scribing spells.

That scroll of Tongues might really save your life eventually.

[Big Fau]

That scroll of Tongues might really save your life eventually.

We wouldn't be in that situation if you hadn't crafted that scroll out of actual tongues.

[holywhippet]

Or she goes Hathran and gets an Acorn of Far Travel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a) for a tree in Rashemen, and therefore counts as if she's in Rashemen, and can trade any spell she's prepared for any spell in her spellbook of equal level. With that, you're effectively a Spontaneous Caster.

That is a setting specific trick which might not work if you are playing in that setting.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

That is a setting specific trick which might not work if you are playing in that setting.

True, but Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster is not, and will work so long as you have access to the necessary books.

[Deimess]

Actually, it's hard to take away a Wizard's spellbook if they are smart enough. Or if they took a level in Geometer and tattoo'ed their spellbook onto their body (enough space for 80 spells, so up to 4 spells/level).

While the idea of a wizard covered head toe in tattoos and using them as a spellbook sounds awesome, it also sounds rather odd. While that might be a good way to circumvent the spellbook problem and even be an optimal choice, it just sounds a little... weird.

This is unfortunate, because there are DMs out there (cruel ones, at that) who know that very intelligent foes who knowingly go into a fight with a wizard can, if dedicated enough, cut off almost all of a wizard's power. Wizard's still have other ways to defend their books, but if they were ever captured and stripped of gear, they might be at a disadvantage.

[Elric VIII]

If all the other classes ceased to exist other than sorcerer, druid, cleric and wizard, and I were buffing the sorcerer to equal the wizard, I'd give them an extra spell known at every spell level, rapid metamagic as an automatic class feature, bonus feats as a wizard gets, (including one at level 1 for scribe scroll, but they could use it on any bonus feat) a d6 hit die, and 4 skills/level. I wouldn't change the levels at which they get spells (if I changed my mind on this, i'd give them 0 spells of a particular spell level one level earlier, so they'd only get them if they had a charisma high enough to get bonus spells of that level.) I think this alone would move the sorcerer into tier 1...and while they'd still be outclassed by a well prepared wizard, they'd be close enough that it wouldn't matter.

Just a note, Sorcerers might want to be able to increase casting times to one round when they start casting Arcane Spellsurge. I had a Sorcerer friend in a campaign that took the Rapid Metamagic feat and eventually trained it to Invisible Spell so that he could use spellsurge to get off 2 spells/turn.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards. Because they can cast Miracle using cantrip slots.

(Yes, I love Shadowspell Mage, how did you know?)


Scrolls are a horrible waste of XP and GP. No one should use them for anything except scribing spells.

Actually given the mechanics of xp gain, being a level behind the rest of the party means you basically get infinite bonus xp for crafting small stuff like scrolls...

And, well. You're a Wizard. Who cares about being a level behind? You get your spells at the same time as the Sorcerer, in that case. Oh no the horror.

[Big Fau]

Wizard's still have other ways to defend their books, but if they were ever captured and stripped of gear, they might be at a disadvantage.

Any Wizard that gets captured in such a way either allowed it to happen or wasn't played intelligently. Regardless, such a Wizard would only needed to have Dimension Door prepared (or another spell that only has a Verbal component and can teleport the Wizard) to start escaping and recover his stuff.

And if, by some unholy miracle, such a Wizard were captured, the captors would be idiots to not execute such a dangerous hostage on the spot (as keeping someone like a Wizard alive is really dangerous).


Actually given the mechanics of xp gain, being a level behind the rest of the party means you basically get infinite bonus xp for crafting small stuff like scrolls...

It's better to craft wands in those cases, as scrolls just cost too much to be practical.

[Alleran]

For a skilled player, wizards are better.

I prefer sorcerers in concept, though. Something about turning reality over your knee and spanking it by sheer brute force of will/personality/whatever (as opposed to learning the cheat codes to the universe) appeals to me. Sure, the latter is like having hax in a game, but the former is just making the game do what you want through sheer awesome. I also like the concept of spontaneous casting, where you just toss spells off the top of your head.

Combining the two (Beholder Mage, Manipulate Form: Mystical Force [Dragon #337], and other methods), though? Even better.

[AslanCross]

I appreciate the versatility and unlimited potential that wizards have. Sorcerers also get their higher-spells one level later than wizards.

The Pathfinder version of the Sorcerer is far more interesting, though, with the cool bloodline powers and extra spells.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Can it be both? All the Kobold shenanigans, Stalwart Battle Sorcerer, then throw Spellhoarding on there. You end up with a Wizard who's casting at +3 levels higher than his character level, gets d8+2+Con HP/level and 3/4 BAB until he prestiges, plus all the other Spellhoarding benefits. Go SBS 4/ Swiftblade 9/ Abjurant Champion 5/ Dragonslayer 1/ Spellsword 1 and you have 20th level casting at 20, +19 BAB, and tons of amazing class features. In E6 you can have 5th level spells with a Spellhoarding Kobold. Combining the two this way is definitely the strongest choice.

[Doc Roc]

I feel sorcerers are more powerful From mid-op to ultra-high op. I can back it up if you so care to hear the ruminations of a dinosaur like me.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I feel sorcerers are more powerful From mid-op to ultra-high op. I can back it up if you so care to hear the ruminations of a dinosaur like me.

I would be interested.

[King Atticus]

I'm on team Sorc. But mostly for purposes of flavor and ease of use. To me a Sorcerer is what a mage should be, actually having control of the magic and be able to release it as you see fit rather than just being able to channel spells that your spellbook knows. To me it's choosing to be the whole gun rather than just the trigger.

Plus I prefer to do all my research all at once as to keep it fresh in my mind. When I'm choosing spells as a Sorc I go throw all the spells I have available to select, choose the ones I think best fit my character and get to know them completely rather than know every spell in the game and have to read throught hem everytime I need to prepare my spells. I tend to like to make highly specialized casters, voluntarily giving up versatility to flesh out a specific type of caster, right now I'm playing a "Ray Mage" (Sorc/Spellwarp Sniper/Incantatrix) my spell list is highly speciallized to ray spells and spells that I will be able to warp into rays when I get into Spellwarp, and while he isn't the "I have a spell for every little problem you have" type mage he swaggers around like a special forces sniper feeling like a badass. I don't need to be able to cast every possible spell to love playing a mage.

I will grant that for optimization purposes Wizard is the way to go but to me it's not worth giving up the individuality that low number of spells known provides (Yes, I said I think it's an advantage to know fewer spells :smallwink:)

[Knaight]

I vastly prefer the flavor and mechanics of sorcerers, though I view the D&D Vanican magic system in general as a rather unimpressive system.

[Devmaar]

I know Wizard is the stronger class, but I also know that the strongest Sorcerer I could build would rip to shreds the strongest Wizard I could build, at (probably) any level.

[Geigan]

I feel sorcerers are more powerful From mid-op to ultra-high op. I can back it up if you so care to hear the ruminations of a dinosaur like me.

If you wouldn't rather use that time on Legend, I'd love to see what big teeth you have grandpa.

[drake_azathoth]

I'd say wizards have an edge in potential utility but a well-built sorcerer will usually outshine them when it comes to an adventure where extensive prep-time isn't allowed. There are feats that let them use metamagic, the Stalwart Sorcerer ACF can give 40 extra hp overall and Imbue Familiar w/Spell Ability makes decent familiars worth it. Ruin Delver's Fortune gives some nice immunities and some unbelievable save bonuses with a high Charisma. And a sorcerer's metamagic feats might be slower to use in some circumstances but they can be used any time on any spell instead of being prepared. Should I make that Teleport spell silent and still but pay the price of a 7th level spell? Is a silent still charm person spell worth the 3rd level slot? A sorcerer doesn't need to make that decision.

Things like Spontaneous Divination are nice but seldom vital in the adventures I play in. As for a wizard's versatility? Well, how many spells are really good at each level? Not as many as you'd think, that's for sure, especially if you're going Focused Specialist and cutting out a good portion of your potential options. If a wizard does want to capitalize on that so-called versatility, they typically end up paying a price of some sort for it. Even if you can manage get other wizards to open up their spellbook and create Boccob's Books like crazy there's still a significant cost to scribe spells which a sorcerer can use otherwise to to their gain.

I'm sure that some optimizers would argue the lack of Prestige Class features like Incantrix and Shadowcraft Mage are a reason to say the wizard MUST be stronger... But these theoretical builds often get downplayed in practice to keep the peace. Or have you met many DMs happy to have you twin maximize your enervation spell or silent image a wish? Part of a sorcerer's appeal is that it works with the DM to an extent. Acid orbing people in the face through their spell resistance isn't such a nasty surprise to the DM if he knows you can do it, and contrary to what some would think, surprising the DM and disrupting the night's adventure isn't a great idea.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I'd say wizards have an edge in potential utility but a well-built sorcerer will usually outshine them when it comes to an adventure where extensive prep-time isn't allowed.

A Wizard need not be prepared for a specific encounter, if she's taken precautions to be ready for any encounter (i.e. made her Wizard into a spontaneous caster, as detailed here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12083.msg410682#msg410682)). So prep-time isn't an issue, if you plan for it from the get go.

[Psyren]

*takes a third option* (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion)

[Doc Roc]

If you wouldn't rather use that time on Legend, I'd love to see what big teeth you have grandpa.

It turns out that arcane spellsurge is a big deal in real play. It's just an obscenity. Further, the fusion line is phenomenal, particularly for trying to test defenses. This is going to sound odd, but most wizards I've seen played ran on a pretty tight list of spells, a lot of them pretty specialized. Wider than a sorcerer's knowns, but still not that broad. ~120 spells, which sounds like a huge number, but it really isn't, particularly not with the capacity to use mage of the arcane order, the phenomenal drakehelms, the excellent runestaves, and the inimitable joys of dragonspawn+loredrake.

Further, there's the hilarity of Favored Soul + Dragonsblood Pool, which is probably my single favorite hack in the entire game.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Further, there's the hilarity of Favored Soul + Dragonsblood Pool, which is probably my single favorite hack in the entire game.

And what exactly does this hack achieve?

[Doc Roc]

And what exactly does this hack achieve?

A single classed divine\arcane caster, who (due to some language in.... dragon magic?) can qualify for Initiate of Mystra.

[Dr.Epic]

My personal opinion is that the Sorcerer is better. They may not know as many spells, but spontaneous casting is a lifesaver. Its the difference between being out of fireballs and having enough to kill everyone in sight.

Yes, it's better to not be able to cast the necessary spell at all (like a sorcerer) then to know the spell required and just not have it prepared and have to wait a little bit while to prepare it(like a wizard).


Outside of battle they can be better too- a high charisma score can lead to one being the lead negotiator for the group.

Yes, because the vast amount of spells a wizard can choose from - compared to the limited amount the sorcerer is stuck with - surely can't help him outside of combat. I mean, it's not like a player can be creative with spells to help them outside of blasting fireballs and summoning stuff to attack people.


Intelligence isn't used much in skill checks, while charisma is used everywhere.

Yes, intelligent doesn't matter, well except half of the sorcerer's skills use int and only one of their skills uses cha. Also int. determines number of skill points which for a wizard can allow them to both be a powerful caster and have enough skill points to put into non-wizard skills (like bluff, diplomacy, intimidate). Not to mention intelligence is added to every knowledge roll which are all wizard class skills and thus with such great knowledge of everything they can be prepared for anything.


In game, Wizards are powerful because they learn how to cast their spells. One with the inherent power of a Sorcerer could learn everything a wizard knows, he instead just has a few shortcuts.

Well if by "shortcuts" you mean "nowhere near as many options as wizard and the chance your spells might not be useful" then yes.


Spell books aren't really ideal-if it gets lost, it has to be rebuilt over who knows how long. The power that a Sorcerer has is far more efficient.

Or you could just find a new one. You can prepare a spell from any spell book, even one you didn't make. Not to mention there are alternatives like tattooing the spells on your body.

[Psyren]

And what exactly does this hack achieve?

IIRC, it gives your FS arcane slots. You thus become capable of casting both arcane and divine spells without multiclassing, unlocking a number of other useful feats and PrCs.

[Kantolin]

I like wizards a lot due to really enjoying vancian casting. This is primarily because it's different - most other styles of magic are really common around various RPGs (Many use MP, many just go on forever, whatever), but vancian casting is neat to me.

And even in D&D, there are tons of spontaneous casters or prestiges or variants, and a few divine-style casters, but I think there's only three spellbook casters? Wizard, Archivist, and Wu Jen?

My problem then comes from the potency of wizards, which bugs me as I don't like that in general. I really should try a Wu Jen out...

[The Shadowmind]

The other question is Psion or Erudite.

[CigarPete]

Or you could just find a new one. You can prepare a spell from any spell book, even one you didn't make. Not to mention there are alternatives like tattooing the spells on your body.

You can only prepare a spell you already have scribed in your own book from any spellbook. You can copy it and then prepare it, but unless you are houseruling the requirement away, you can't just use someone else's spellbook. There is language in CA to allow you to spend time to learn another wizard's spellbook, but that costs almost as much time as just scribing the contents.

I think I'm going to go on the side of Wizard for theoretical but Sorcerer in actual play. The ability to use any or all of your abilities means that as long as you have selected your spells well, you are much more flexible in the moment. There are not many instances where you can just say hold on, I'll be back in a day.

[Talya]

A Wizard need not be prepared for a specific encounter, if she's taken precautions to be ready for any encounter (i.e. made her Wizard into a spontaneous caster, as detailed here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12083.msg410682#msg410682)). So prep-time isn't an issue, if you plan for it from the get go.

I find it telling that you're basing your entire argument on a convoluted, rare and obscure bit of linguistic cheese that nobody will actually ever encounter. (And one that relies on your DM having blinders on, too.)

[Dr.Epic]

You can only prepare a spell you already have scribed in your own book from any spellbook. You can copy it and then prepare it, but unless you are houseruling the requirement away, you can't just use someone else's spellbook. There is language in CA to allow you to spend time to learn another wizard's spellbook, but that costs almost as much time as just scribing the contents.

I think I'm going to go on the side of Wizard for theoretical but Sorcerer in actual play. The ability to use any or all of your abilities means that as long as you have selected your spells well, you are much more flexible in the moment. There are not many instances where you can just say hold on, I'll be back in a day.

I literally checked the PHB before I made this post to double check myself. You can use any spell book, but there is a chance you don't prepare the spell successfully. First you decipher it with a spellcraft check, then you make a roll to see if you successfully prepare it.

Directly from the PHB (page 179):


ARCANE MAGICAL WRITINGS
To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex
notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The
notation constitutes a universal arcane language that wizards have
discovered, not invented. The writer uses the same system no matter
what her native language or culture. However, each character uses
the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing
remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until
she takes time to study and decipher it.
To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in
written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must
make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check
fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again
until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical
writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical
writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.
Once a character deciphers a particular magical writing, she does
not need to decipher it again. Deciphering a magical writing allows
the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as
explained in the spell description). If the magical writing was a
scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use
the scroll (see the information on scrolls in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide).
Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already
knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation
success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in
the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from
another spellcaster’s book is deciphered, the reader must make a
Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level) to prepare the spell. If the
check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. She must repeat
the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times she
has prepared it before. If the check fails, she cannot try to prepare
the spell from the same source again until the next day. (However,
as explained above, she does not need to repeat a check to decipher
the writing.)

[Psyren]

The other question is Psion or Erudite.

Without ACFs: At low levels Psion wins, at high levels they are about the same.
With ACFs: The Erudite's ACFs are much stronger than the Psion's; it rapidly takes the lead and then strides away.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The other question is Psion or Erudite.

Easy - Erudite, always. Getting around the Unique Powers Per Day limit is trivial.


I find it telling that you're basing your entire argument on a convoluted, rare and obscure bit of linguistic cheese that nobody will actually ever encounter. (And one that relies on your DM having blinders on, too.)

I fail to see how either of those are convoluted, rare, or obscure (ok, I'll grant that the Hathran of Far Travel, using web material and FR material might be a bit obscure). I also fail to see how the DM would have to have blinders on, for either to work. Spontaneous Divination lets you spontaneously cast spells. Versatile Spellcaster lets two of those spells of a given level count as any spell you know of one level higher. Wizards know all spells in their spellbooks, ergo, a Spontaneous Diviner with Versatile Spellcaster can cast pseudo-spontaneously. Likewise, a Hathran in Rashemen can cast any spell she knows, substituting it for a spell she's prepared (of the same level). A Hathran with an Acorn of Far Travel to a tree in Rashemen counts as being in Rashemen, therefore etc.

What exactly does it tell you that I base my argument on these tricks? I find them to be rather elegant solutions to a tricky problem (well, I'll admit that the Hathran option is less so, relying as it does on setting specific material, but the other trick uses nothing but Core + Completes + Races Of material) and therefore they are worthy of wider play.

Edit: Oh, and come August, I'll be playing a Wizard using one or both of these tricks, so they do, or at least will, see play.

[Psyren]

Easy - Erudite, always. Getting around the Unique Powers Per Day limit is trivial.

I wouldn't say always. There are indeed ways around UPD (I wouldn't really call them trivial either :smalltongue:) but even without that particular hurdle you're still hampered by the need to learn discipline powers piecemeal and acquisition of said powers being delayed. For instance, an Erudite can focus on morphing like an Egoist, but he has to wait two more levels to have the same capability at it.

The ACFs more than make up for this, but the base Erudite has little over a base Psion besides an extra feat.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I wouldn't say always. There are indeed ways around UPD (I wouldn't really call them trivial either :smalltongue:) but even without that particular hurdle you're still hampered by the need to learn discipline powers piecemeal and acquisition of said powers being delayed. For instance, an Erudite can focus on morphing like an Egoist, but he has to wait two more levels to have the same capability at it.

The ACFs more than make up for this, but the base Erudite has little over a base Psion besides an extra feat.

I suppose this is true, however, after a certain point (both in levels and optimization) it doesn't make sense to be a Psion over an Erudite (once you're pulling the Erudite Concerto, for example - that's one of yours isn't it?). Though the first time I had the opportunity to play a Psion versus an Erudite, it was level 3, so before any of the real fun stuff comes online, and that extra feat (I think I took Psionic Meditation) made all the difference, at least to me.

[Gnaeus]

Feel free to start a discussion about any other topics as well, including race vs. race, class vs. class, or anything else.

I have a related question regarding which I wanted to check the playgrounds opinion.

I am firmly on the side that thinks that the wizard's massive range of spells available gives them a solid edge in this debate. My question (for those of you who agree that wizard is stronger) is:

How many spells known per level would a Sorcerer need to be better than a wizard? Pretty clearly, a spontaneous caster with all spells on the sor/wiz list known is stronger than a wizard. A spontaneous caster with 20 spells known of each level is also probably stronger than a wizard except for extremely unusual cases. Where would the tipping point be?

(The reason I was thinking about it: Pathfinder gives one additional spell per spell level from bloodline, and adds an ACF (favored class bonus) which adds an extra spell known per level. That is a total of about 26 extra spells known over the full progression. I think that is still weaker than an open list prepared caster, but I'm not certain).

[Talya]

I fail to see how either of those are convoluted, rare, or obscure. I also fail to see how the DM would have to have blinders on, for either to work. Spontaneous Divination lets you spontaneously cast spells.

You're taking two different splatbook feats that combine in a way nobody ever intended to do something that gives a class an ability the designer never intended it to have. Every DM i've ever met will simply say "No." All splatbook material is optional, not RAW. Combine that with the fact that most books were written in a vacuum taking into account only the SRD and perhaps a few others, all by different people, and not playtested against each other. You're taking advantage of cheese, wizards do not really have the capability you are describing.

Furthermore, most wizards will never have either of those feats.

[CigarPete]

I literally checked the PHB before I made this post to double check myself. You can use any spell book, but there is a chance you don't prepare the spell successfully. First you decipher it with a spellcraft check, then you make a roll to see if you successfully prepare it.

Directly from the PHB (page 179):

From your quoted passage of the PHB:


Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already
knows and has recorded in her own spellbook,


It was a surprise to me as well, once I read through and understood the implications. The deciphering indicated earlier in the passage refers to reading a spell to be copied into your own spellbook. That portion says nothing about preparing the spell, only understanding it, which is a prerequisite for scribing it.

[Psyren]

I suppose this is true, however, after a certain point (both in levels and optimization) it doesn't make sense to be a Psion over an Erudite (once you're pulling the Erudite Concerto, for example - that's one of yours isn't it?). Though the first time I had the opportunity to play a Psion versus an Erudite, it was level 3, so before any of the real fun stuff comes online, and that extra feat (I think I took Psionic Meditation) made all the difference, at least to me.

Indeed it is one of mine :smallsmile: The Concerto has several drawbacks to keep in mind before relying heavily on it, most notably how late it comes online, it's reliance on DM or party generosity (remember that psicrystals are not actually psionic creatures by default) and that it is all but useless in combat, or in a rushed situation. In most cases this is fine - after all, you generally don't need your entire catalogue of utility powers at a moments notice anyway, and those that you would you can just make power stones/dorjes for - but it's definitely a versatility advantage to the Psion. Note also that the XP you spend building such a repertoire in the first place will delay your ability to use the trick.

It works by RAW but is very much a band-aid.

In addition - even at high levels Psions can do things Erudites can't do. A base Erudite can't get Metafaculty, or Greater MM, or Psychic Chirurgery etc. until epic levels.

So there is definitely a case for going either way.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

You're taking two different splatbook feats that combine in a way nobody ever intended to do something that gives a class an ability the designer never intended it to have. Every DM i've ever met will simply say "No." All splatbook material is optional, not RAW. Combine that with the fact that most books were written in a vacuum taking into account only the SRD and perhaps a few others, all by different people, and not playtested against each other. You're taking advantage of cheese, wizards do not really have the capability you are describing.

Furthermore, most wizards will never have either of those feats.

I do agree that combining those abilities does lead to some interesting, if definitely (well, probably) unintended consequences. And while every DM you've ever met will simply say "No," that does not mean that every DM will say no.

I find it interesting, however, that you say "All splatbook material is optional, not RAW." I would agree with the first part, however, if a splatbook is in play (and in my experience the Completes and Races of series are both fairly ubiquitous) then the rules contained within are RAW unless specifically banned by the DM, which is then a houserule.

I would also agree that I am taking advantage of a rules interaction that was unintended. However, it is perfectly viable, if the sources necessary are in play.

And yes, most Wizards won't have taken that ACF and Feat combination. But if those sources are in play, that doesn't mean they couldn't.

Edit:

Indeed it is one of mine :smallsmile: The Concerto has several drawbacks to keep in mind before relying heavily on it, most notably how late it comes online, it's reliance on DM or party generosity (remember that psicrystals are not actually psionic creatures by default) and that it is all but useless in combat, or in a rushed situation. In most cases this is fine - after all, you generally don't need your entire catalogue of utility powers at a moments notice anyway, and those that you would you can just make power stones/dorjes for - but it's definitely a versatility advantage to the Psion. Note also that the XP you spend building such a repertoire in the first place will delay your ability to use the trick.

It works by RAW but is very much a band-aid.

In addition - even at high levels Psions can do things Erudites can't do. A base Erudite can't get Metafaculty, or Greater MM, or Psychic Chirurgery etc. until epic levels.

So there is definitely a case for going either way.

Yes, getting ninth level discipline powers is a pain, but not totally impossible pre-epic. Mostly it involves getting Psychic Chirurgery and using that to teach yourself new powers (typically by Metaconcert with someone who knows said powers). And yes, it costs a non-trivial amount of XP to build your repertoire, but XP is a river and all of that.

[Doc Roc]

More than that, Tayla, the question isn't:
Can I, in play, with a GM who is an unknown quantity, effectively estimate the approximate strength of sorcerer and wizard, given a nebulous ban-list?

It is:
Which is more with the strong and the big?

I'm not sure either of these is an intrinsically good question, much less which is better. I do know that the second one is a lot more fun to talk about, and involves mental calisthenics more sophisticated than cowering and waiting for the Fairness to Happen. This is the game as it was penned. Avoiding these mistakes is actually not that hard. Fixing them once they are found by someone else, this is also not so hard. Laughing about them as a designer, talking intelligently about them, and accepting them openly as hilarious but unintended consequences of large systems? This is both easy and valiant.

It's not what happened. The fact that it isn't what happened has, again, no bearing on this discussion as more than a footnote. I certainly respect you. I certainly agree that the Hathran trick is very silly. I however find it quite charmingly clever, and relevant to a discussion of what a wizard, a heavily optimized wizard, might do for the sake of his beloved power.

[Big Fau]

Easy - Erudite, always. Getting around the Unique Powers Per Day limit is trivial.

Actually, you don't even have to go around it. You just gotta get the DM to agree to one of three interpretations:


An Erudite has ◊UPD, where ◊=the number on the chart (AKA 11 UPD at 20th level).
An Erudite has ◊ UPD/Power Level (so 11 1st level, 11 2nd level, 11 3rd level, etc. This coincides with the original Erudite, which was designed with 3.0 Psionics in mind).
An Erudite has ◊ UPD/Class Level (220 UPD).



All three of those can be extrapolated from the actual text, with no cheese or cheating involved.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Actually, you don't even have to go around it. You just gotta get the DM to agree to one of three interpretations:


An Erudite has ◊UPD, where ◊=the number on the chart (AKA 11 UPD at 20th level).
An Erudite has ◊ UPD/Power Level (so 11 1st level, 11 2nd level, 11 3rd level, etc. This coincides with the original Erudite, which was designed with 3.0 Psionics in mind).
An Erudite has ◊ UPD/Class Level (220 UPD).



All three of those can be extrapolated from the actual text, with no cheese or cheating involved.

While this is true, getting around UPD means not having to worry about which interpretation is correct.

But in a Sorcerer v. Wizard thread, this is probably neither here nor there.

[Greenish]

Spontaneous Divination lets you spontaneously cast spells. Versatile Spellcaster lets two of those spells of a given level count as any spell you know of one level higher. Wizards know all spells in their spellbooks, ergo, a Spontaneous Diviner with Versatile Spellcaster can cast pseudo-spontaneously.You may combine the best sides of prepared and spontaneous, but since you're burning lower level spells to fuel higher level ones, the sorcerer can cast more cantrips each day. So ha!

:smalltongue: