Sorcerer vs. Wizard [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Killer Angel

2011-09-12, 09:50 AM

I often hear about wizards... but rarely do I hear about sorcerers. I don't understand why this is. Since Sorcerers get more spell, aren't they more powerful?

Nah, sorcerers get more spells per day (and even that isn't always true, it depends on the level of specialization of the wiz.), but mr. wizard get more spell known. A lot of.
This makes a huge difference: with preparation (divination spells, and so on) a wizard can set its daily allotments accordingly to the challenge, while a sorc. is stuck with its unchangeable spell list.

They're both powerful, but the wiz. got more ways to triumph.

Conners

2011-09-12, 09:55 AM

John Campbell

2011-09-12, 10:11 AM

By the by.... if a Wizard who specializes gets as many spells per day as a sorcerer, and wizards can know more spells--isn't that an unfair advantage?

Yes. Wizards are big cheaty cheaters. It is known.

Daftendirekt

2011-09-12, 10:15 AM

Killer Angel

2011-09-12, 10:18 AM

Larpus

2011-09-12, 10:43 AM

Also, on a less stat-based point, the Wizard is usually the only "brainy guy" in the party, filling arole that usually has no one to fill and with enough skills to give the Rogue/Bard some brething room.

The Sorcerer...has hich Cha and 2~5 skills...which isn't anything to write home about sadly, so they're also less versatile outside of spellcasting.

But again, Sorceres aren't half bad by any means, and can make better blasters than Wizards usually.

Killer Angel

2011-09-12, 10:49 AM

Two other points in favor of wizards:
1 - They learn new spells' levels, before than the sorcerer
2 - Quicken spells. They can break action economy.

Hirax

2011-09-12, 10:53 AM

Sorcerers can quicken too, at the cost of their familiar. Wizards are more powerful, but sorcerers are more enjoyable to play and have in the party due to there being much less bookkeeping.

dextercorvia

2011-09-12, 10:56 AM

Sorcerers can quicken too, at the cost of their familiar. Wizards are more powerful, but sorcerers are more enjoyable to play and have in the party due to there being much less bookkeeping.

This is limited by their Int.

Even in their ACF's Sorcerers get the Wizards leftovers. I guess it is important to note that the company isn't called Sorcerers on the Beach.

Eldariel

2011-09-12, 10:57 AM

This is limited by their Int.

Even in their ACF's Sorcerers get the Wizards leftovers. I guess it is important to note that the company isn't called Sorcerers on the Beach.

Rapid Metamagic however alleviates that particular issue. Besides, it's not like you really want to go without a familiar anyways so this saves you a feat on Obtain Familiar giving you a ±0 outcome with better features anyways.

shadow_archmagi

2011-09-12, 11:02 AM

It's a question of short-term vs long term versatality; a sorcerer can choose from a much greater selection of spells from round-to-round, where a wizard can choose from a much greater selection day-to-day.

As such, I greatly prefer sorcerers, simply because my DMs never give me detailed descriptions of what we'll be fighting tomorrow. Also, Divination doesn't have much in the way of "What will I fight tommow" until you get into the upper levels, and our games rarely stay there for long.

MrRigger

2011-09-12, 11:08 AM

Doug Lampert

2011-09-12, 11:11 AM

I often hear about wizards... but rarely do I hear about sorcerers. I don't understand why this is. Since Sorcerers get more spell, aren't they more powerful? :xykon: was shown to outdo most wizards as far as the comic goes.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm far from a DnD expert, so this is just based on a vague examination of the core rules.

This is the sort of thing the tier list is designed for. And Sorcerers are Tier 2, which a quick glance at the descriptions of the tiers will tell you is STILL strong enough to break the game, but a bit less versatile and able to break the game in fewer ways than a Tier 1. In fact in terms of raw power optimized tier two is as strong as 1 (broken game is broken game, and both classes can do it).

The biggest problem sorcerers face is that running out of slots is an utter and complete joke as a ballance factor by level 6 or so anyway. You can make too many items which grant additional casting, scrolls and wands mostly. And of course the wizards are the ones with unlimited spell lists to craft stuff and with free feats to spend on crafting.

A level 17+ cleric can give a crafting wizard a run for his money, but nothing else in core can.

Once you get staffs at level 12 or 15 and can make your own pearls of power at level 17 any remaining ballance based on limited slots spends the rest of the campaign whimpering quitely in a corner while the wizard and cleric point and laugh at the silly drooling idiot who thought THAT would limit their power.

Of course the wizard is limited by the cost of spells known, at least until he notices the core item of Blessed Book. Basically, wizards are half a spell level ahead of sorcerers and get 5 free useful feats at the cost of not being able to spam spells without a cheap item that the wizard can make himself in his spare time.

AmberVael

2011-09-12, 11:28 AM

Sorcerers are generally not as good as Wizards, but I think it is generally regarded that they're easier to play (so long as you make a decent spell selection, but that only occurs once per level as opposed to the poor Wizard who has to do it just about every day), and that they're certainly powerful enough (oh no, I am only tier 2, not tier 1, whatever will I do).

I personally enjoy playing a Sorcerer far more than I enjoy playing a wizard, just due to the fact that they're a great combination between streamlined and versatile, capable of using a lot of powers but not requiring nearly as much book keeping as the Wizard. Further, their capability for metamagic on the fly, their awesome Sorcerer only spells like Arcane Spellsurge, Arcane Fusion, and Wings of Cover, pretty much ensure that I never play a Wizard over a Sorcerer. Those extra options may not make them better, but they sure are shiny.

So, a really good Wizard probably beats out a really good Sorcerer. But who cares- at the end of the day, they can both rule the world, and the Sorcerer can do it with more style, 'cause they got the Charisma. :smalltongue:

noparlpf

2011-09-12, 11:39 AM

Wizards get more spells known (they can eventually learn every Wizard spell ever, unless they have prohibited schools) and get five bonus feats.
Sorcerers only know a limited number of spells, but they can use any spell they know any time they want to and aren't limited by preparation. They don't get the five bonus feats Wizards get.

Personally, I prefer spontaneous casting, so I often use the UA generic Spellcaster nowadays. They don't get quite as many spells per day and their spells known develop more slowly, but they have access to many more spells to choose from for their limited list and they get bonus feats.

Gnaeus

2011-09-12, 11:45 AM

One thing many people overlook is the ease of use to a new player. In my opinion, Sorcerers are a lot easier for a new player (or even just a player who hasn't played casters before) to use. The sheer number of spells a wizard can use can easily overwhelm new players, and they'll likely find a setup they like and keep that most days, at which point they're just a sorcerer with fewer spells and less versatility. Yes, a wizard can be prepared for every eventuality and situation with good prediction skills and some liberal use of divination, but for the most part, new players won't do that sort of thing (not saying they can't, just saying it isn't likely to be common). A sorcerer serves as a better introduction to the spellcasting system, in my mind.

MrRigger

Sorcerers are generally not as good as Wizards, but I think it is generally regarded that they're easier to play (so long as you make a decent spell selection, but that only occurs once per level as opposed to the poor Wizard who has to do it just about every day), and that they're certainly powerful enough (oh no, I am only tier 2, not tier 1, whatever will I do).

Disagree. If I make a sorcerer, and I pick bad spells, I am stuck with those bad spells for multiple levels. As a wizard, I get a lot more spells at start, and at least 2 new spells known per level. I can improve organically in play as I realize what spells are more or less effective. A sorcerer who chooses poorly is in a pit that will take multiple game sessions to dig out of, A wizard who chooses poorly can fix it with 8 hours sleep.

Weezer

2011-09-12, 11:47 AM

For me the main breaking point for sorcerers is that they get spell levels one level later than wizards, it's a major pain to wait to unlock abilities that way outshine your current ones for an extra level.

Hirax

2011-09-12, 11:50 AM

Yeah, it's pretty obvious the game was tested in an extremely low op environment, where they though that spontaneous casting was so amazing that they gave bonus feats to wizards and kicked sorcerer spell progression back a level.

AmberVael

2011-09-12, 12:05 PM

Disagree. If I make a sorcerer, and I pick bad spells, I am stuck with those bad spells for multiple levels. As a wizard, I get a lot more spells at start, and at least 2 new spells known per level. I can improve organically in play as I realize what spells are more or less effective. A sorcerer who chooses poorly is in a pit that will take multiple game sessions to dig out of, A wizard who chooses poorly can fix it with 8 hours sleep.

...see, I put that qualifier in my quote because I knew someone was going to say this, because it always gets said. But apparently my qualifier didn't deter it.

so long as you make a decent spell selection

Yes, you gotta pick decent spells. Yes, a mistake can be annoying and hard to reverse. But that doesn't mean the Sorcerer isn't easier to play, it means that it is less forgiving to build.

They're easier to play in the sense that you can pick from any of your spells so long as a slot is left to cast from. They're easier to play in the sense that you don't have to pick what spells you're going to have every day, and keep track of which ones you've used. They're easier to play because you don't have to hunt down and purchase scrolls or spend time backing up and protecting their spellbook, and carefully choosing how to use and apply their metamagic before they even get into a situation where they need it. They're easier to play because your shorter list of spells that you can cast is easier to keep in mind and keep track of, where with a Wizard you're far more likely to have to hunt down precise spell descriptions in your books.

Flickerdart

2011-09-12, 12:15 PM

Wizards get the ridiculously good Spontaneous Divination. Wizards get Uncanny Forethought, which makes them mini-Sorcerers. Wizards get all the sweet specialist ACFs. Wizards get bonus feats. Sorcerers get simple weapon proficiency and Wings of Cover. It's not even a consideration.

That's not to say the Sorcerer is underpowered, by any means. They still have access to the same list, and to a handful of nice PrCs. But while they have the same vertical power, they don't have the same lateral power - a Sorcerer who decides he wants to be a Necromancer from now on needs a few levels to adjust, while a Wizard just drops a pouch of gold on the MagiMart counter and starts flipping through scroll racks, or takes his backup spellbook out of his pocket.

sonofzeal

2011-09-12, 12:24 PM

I really like the Sorcerer mechanic, but Focused Specialist Wizards get more Spells Per Day, more Spells Known, higher level spells, more Bonus Feats, more Variant Class Features, and can qualify for mage-type PrCs more easily. It's pretty lopsided.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2011-09-12, 12:35 PM

Wizards actually get just as many spells per day between specialization and Focused Specialist. A Sorcerer can greatly make up for the spells known dilemma via Runestaves, particularly if he has one or more designated as an Ancestral Relic or Item Familiar since he can choose what spells it contains, and even switch around what it contains when he upgrades it with an Ancestral Relic.

Kobold Sorcerers are actually better than Wizards, but a Spellhoarding Kobold makes a Wizard stronger than any other caster.

Xykon beats other casters because of his level, not his class.

Talya

2011-09-12, 12:44 PM

I won't pretend to argue that Sorcerers have the versatility of Wizards. They most certainly do not. And with "Focused Specialist" options for wizards, they don't have more spell slots, either.

They are, however, much easier to play effectively, and people always overlook the ability to spam the same useful spell repeatedly.

Assume both focused specialist wizard and sorcerer have 7 spell slots of a particular level (6 from class, 1 from ability modifier.) Assume the wizard memorizes 6 different spells --everything he likely knows-- (with one useful spell repeated in two slots) in those slots, while the sorcerer only knows 5 total (4 + bloodline spell).

On that particular day, the sorcerer still has an advantage. She can use her spells for any combination of the spells she knows. The Wizard can cast each one of his spells once and only once (other than the one he memorized twice, which he can only cast twice.) If he doesn't need one of those spells that day, it is wasted. If it would benefit him to be able to spam three instances of a spell he only memorized once, he's screwed.

The wizard has a huge advantage over the sorcerer, but much of that advantage is predicated on being able to predict exactly which spells are ideal for every round. The sorcerer only has to pick useful spells at level up, and then they always have them available. The wizard has to decide which spell will be most useful in each slot every single day.

Not to mention that wizards are a bookkeeping nightmare.

Now, with all that said, a wizard still has huge advantages over a sorcerer, and in the end, their early entry into each new spell level puts the sorcerer far, far behind. I do think, however, that optimizers consistently underestimate spontaneous casting in real play. The gap is not nearly as big as it is made out to be, and for the average player, the sorcerer is probably going to actually be more effective at even levels (at odd levels, wizards win due to that extra spell level) thanks to how much harder the wizard is to play well.

Tenebris

2011-09-12, 01:05 PM

I think it is not about being less versatile that makes sorcerer a worse choice. With nothing but few spells you can easily do all the jobs needed. In my opinion it is mostly about being that one level behind wizards in spellcasting, which is terrible.

That being said, kobold sorcerers break the whole thing in half, by effectively matching wizards in their spellcasting (or even beating them when loredrake is allowed, but this is GM's fault, and we shall not discuss it any further :smallsmile:). Now, there is little difference between them, they can compete on equal ground.

Moreover, in certain situations sorcerers are just better. Not only in Eldritch Theurge (other Cha-focused) builds... It is argued that they can learn spells other than those on their spell list, whereas wizards cannot (specifically through Extra Spell feat: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194978 ). Sorcerers can pick Versatile Spellcaster feat. They have spells restricted just for them. And so on... There are plenty more, I'm sure.

EDIT: Plus, GM can cripple wizards really badly by stealing/destroying/confiscating their spellbook. It's sad, but sometimes just happens :smallfrown:

Godskook

2011-09-12, 01:06 PM

Now, with all that said, a wizard still has huge advantages over a sorcerer, and in the end, their early entry into each new spell level puts the sorcerer far, far behind. I do think, however, that optimizers consistently underestimate spontaneous casting in real play. The gap is not nearly as big as it is made out to be, and for the average player, the sorcerer is probably going to actually be more effective at even levels (at odd levels, wizards win due to that extra spell level) thanks to how much harder the wizard is to play well.

The difference that 'optimizers' around here place between Sorcerers and Wizards is one of versatility, not power. A Sorcerer is capable of doing almost everything a Wizard is capable of doing, and in a few instances, more. However, he must 'commit' to his choices, making him very unflexible, especially if he specializes in something that's not as generally useful as other options.

Gnaeus

2011-09-12, 01:53 PM

Yes, you gotta pick decent spells. Yes, a mistake can be annoying and hard to reverse. But that doesn't mean the Sorcerer isn't easier to play, it means that it is less forgiving to build.

O.K. if someone else is going to build my character FOR ME, sorcerer is easier to play. If I have to build my character, wizard is. For that matter, if the build isn't good, it is going to be very hard to play that sorcerer, because he is basically a commoner.

They're easier to play in the sense that you can pick from any of your spells so long as a slot is left to cast from. They're easier to play in the sense that you don't have to pick what spells you're going to have every day, and keep track of which ones you've used. They're easier to play because you don't have to hunt down and purchase scrolls or spend time backing up and protecting their spellbook, and carefully choosing how to use and apply their metamagic before they even get into a situation where they need it. They're easier to play because your shorter list of spells that you can cast is easier to keep in mind and keep track of, where with a Wizard you're far more likely to have to hunt down precise spell descriptions in your books.

But picking your spells is way harder than that. As a sorcerer, I have to plan my spell selection several levels in advance. I need to pay attention to which spells will be coming up later so that I am not duplicating spell effects, damage types, multiple saves on same stats, buffs, debuffs, utility.... Do I take Fly, or Overland flight? Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, or Vanish (PF)? If I want to do item creation, it becomes even harder, because then I also need to plan around spell prereqs (except in PF). A sorcerer PLAYER, or the guy who builds the character, needs to know all the most versatile spells, not only of that level, but 2 spell levels higher. A wizard can just shrug and say "Sleep. Putting people to sleep sounds like a good thing to be able to do!". And when that spell becomes obsolete he just laughs and starts memorizing a different spell.

Yes, sorcerers require less bookkeeping time, if that is your definition of easy. Wizards require a lot less system mastery going in.

Talya

2011-09-12, 02:21 PM

Yes, sorcerers require less bookkeeping time, if that is your definition of easy. Wizards require a lot less system mastery going in.

That's not true.

A sorcerer can select useful spells just looking at a typical wizard or sorcerer handbook. (Unsurprisingly, TLN's guide to Being Batman works just fine. You only need to make a few little adjustments here and there.) Select useful spells from that list. Pick a save-or-die/lose/suck for each saving throw. Pick a couple battlefield control spells. Pick your favorite buffs. Suddenly you've got a useful spell for every occasion.

Does it require a bit of planning? yes. Planning a sorcerer's spells known from 1-20 is far less onerous or time-consuming, and requires less system mastery than a mid-level wizard selecting his spells for the day. I suppose YMMV.

Big Fau

2011-09-12, 02:39 PM

Of course, the wizard's versatility wouldn't be so useful, if they weren't expecting a big fight with a sorcerer, I'd guess?

Not quite. A prepared caster is suprisingly versatile if you prepare a majority of your spell slots as Battlefield Control or Debuffs (depending on the focus), and in a straight-up fight, it comes down to playing Xanatos Speed Chess, not pure power or endurance. The person with the most contingent plans wins, and unfortunately for the Sorcerer, the Wizard is the Goddamn Batman.

Thespianus

2011-09-12, 02:49 PM

A sorcerer who chooses poorly is in a pit that will take multiple game sessions to dig out of, A wizard who chooses poorly can fix it with 8 hours sleep.

Depends on if you can get in-game access to the spells you really want. If you're "on a deserted island", it's not an easy thing to swap out all poor spell choices for a Wizard either.

Easier, yes, But not necessarily "Sleep 8 hours"-easy.

dextercorvia

2011-09-12, 03:00 PM

Rapid Metamagic however alleviates that particular issue. Besides, it's not like you really want to go without a familiar anyways so this saves you a feat on Obtain Familiar giving you a ±0 outcome with better features anyways.

Sure, but I was responding to the other post. My main beef with Rapid Metamagic, is that I would usually like to wait to take Quicken until I can use it, but then it is fighting with Rapid Metamagic over that 9th level feat slot. This means spending 3,6, or 9 levels with a dead weight feat.

Talya

2011-09-12, 03:03 PM

Sure, but I was responding to the other post. My main beef with Rapid Metamagic, is that I would usually like to wait to take Quicken until I can use it, but then it is fighting with Rapid Metamagic over that 9th level feat slot. This means spending 3,6, or 9 levels with a dead weight feat.

This is especially burdensome because sorcerers get no bonus feats. (yet another thing that gives wizards an edge.)

I consider the sorcerer's lack of class feature to be a feature, however! Yessirree, just like the iPod Shuffle. The sorcerer has no pesky class features that make it require thought whether you want to PRC-out to another full spellcasting progression option. With a sorcerer, you always will!

Yeah, right. Taking "The glass is half full" too far?

dextercorvia

2011-09-12, 03:12 PM

One of my favorite Sorcerer Tricks which helps with the versatility is to take Apprentice Spellcaster, Mother Cyst, and possibly a Bloodline feat.

You have to stay sorcerer for 8-14 levels to get full effect, but 2 feats for 11 choice spells known, or 3 feats for 19 is a pretty good deal.

DeAnno

2011-09-12, 03:17 PM

I would go so far as to say that Sorcerers are better at specializing for a specific role than Wizards, but at the cost of being married to the role. The arguments about more versatile spells round by round are the cornerstone of this. If a Sorcerer is always doing mostly the same thing, he doesn't have to change his spells day by day, but having only Invisibility left when he needs a Scorching Ray to kill something, or not enough Invisibilities when the whole party needs to disappear, is a situation a Sorcerer never has to deal with.

Beyond that, Sorcerers are actually much better at breaking the action economy than Wizards from level 10 onwards. Arcane Fusion, Greater Arcane Fusion, and Arcane Spellsurge are tricks that only a Sorcerer can really pull off, and they are much more efficient (and stackable!) than Quicken is. With a Sorcerer, you are only getting one thing, but you are probably not only getting more of it but getting it faster.

Lastly, the wizard is weak to plot. If the plot is blocking the wizard from divining tomorrow's perfect spell list, or the plot is attacking the wizard's spellbook, or the plot has sent the party to a dungeon dimension where no scrolls are for sale, the wizard suffers a little bit. Short of killing him or not letting him sleep, there isn't really that much to ruin a Sorcerer's day.

All that being said, versatility is god, Tier I/Tier II, yadda yadda yadda, etc, etc.

Eldariel

2011-09-12, 03:21 PM

This is especially burdensome because sorcerers get no bonus feats. (yet another thing that gives wizards an edge.)

I consider the sorcerer's lack of class feature to be a feature, however! Yessirree, just like the iPod Shuffle. The sorcerer has no pesky class features that make it require thought whether you want to PRC-out to another full spellcasting progression option. With a sorcerer, you always will!

Yeah, right. Taking "The glass is half full" too far?

Sorcerers also annoyingly qualify for most PRCs one level later than Wizards due to their lagging spell progression, and there's no Master Specialist meaning taking the 5th level (where Wizards would get the bonus feat but not for you, sir!) is almost inevitable in direct Sorcerers. Luckily Mindbender falls into the 6th level and tends to be pretty interesting for Sorcs to boot.

And Mage of the Arcane Order can be entered level 6 regardless of lacking 3rd level spells so there are some options. Of course Incantatrix, the would-be logical Sorcerer PRC (being Metamagic focused and all) requires 3rd level spells and is Int-based to boot. Meh.

Pigkappa

2011-09-12, 03:32 PM

Why do you think sorcerers learn their spells a level later? That's what sounds really awful to me.

Optimator

2011-09-12, 03:35 PM

The lack of versatility is a weakness. Combine that with the lamest casting stat, delayed progression, and no class features... Wizards are just better.

tyckspoon

2011-09-12, 03:37 PM

Whoever was design lead on them vastly overestimated the power of spontaneous spell selection, basically. Same reason their Spells Known chart is less generous- a Wizard 20 will have 40 spells known for free, at least 4 of every level (assuming every selection is used on his current highest-level spell.) A Sorcerer gets 34 (neglecting 0 level because the wizard gets *all of those*), and is always behind on his highest level spells. I'm pretty sure there's a developer blog/commentary to that effect somewhere, possibly the same one where they admit they overvalued armored spellcasting in early design as well.

Eldariel

2011-09-12, 03:37 PM

Why do you think sorcerers learn their spells a level later? That's what sounds really awful to me.

'cause the design team hated them.

noparlpf

2011-09-12, 03:39 PM

Why do you think sorcerers learn their spells a level later? That's what sounds really awful to me.

See, it's to make up for the "versatility" granted to them by casting spontaneously. Even though having a limited number of spells known already makes up for that. Oh, and to make up for said versatility, we're not going to give them the bonus feats a Wizard gets.
If you look at the Spontaneous Divine Casters variant from UA, you can see that WotC considers slower spell progression and limited spells known to be the fair trade for being able to cast spontaneously. Now if that's the case, what I don't get is why the Sorcerer doesn't get any other class features or bonus feats or anything when the Cleric gets Turn Undead, the Wizard gets five bonus feats, and the Druid gets tons of stuff.

Pigkappa

2011-09-12, 03:46 PM

When you get your level n-th spells, you just know one of them. Casting those spells spontaneously doesn't help you at all, since you could do the same if you were a wizard (just prepare the same spell in all slots). That just sucks.

Gnaeus

2011-09-12, 03:50 PM

Does it require a bit of planning? yes. Planning a sorcerer's spells known from 1-20 is far less onerous or time-consuming, and requires less system mastery than a mid-level wizard selecting his spells for the day. I suppose YMMV.

You know, saying YMMV does not, by itself, turn a false statement into a true one. You don't usually start playing D&D with mid level characters. A first level wizard probably has 8 spells, and is likely to pick some good ones based on random chance or what sounds good. That requires next to no system mastery. A sorcerer would have to realize his issue, find a guide, compare all those good sounding spells, plan out his progression over the next 5 levels etc. By the time the two casters are mid level, the wizard has a pretty good grasp on his class and knows what to do, and the sorcerer is asking his DM for a character rebuild or just getting himself killed off.

faceroll

2011-09-12, 03:56 PM

Of course, the wizard's versatility wouldn't be so useful, if they weren't expecting a big fight with a sorcerer, I'd guess?

By the by.... if a Wizard who specializes gets as many spells per day as a sorcerer, and wizards can know more spells--isn't that an unfair advantage?

Most playgrounders seem to forget that wizards cannot spontaneously cast spells (unless they use a dirty trick, and even then, they'll get half their allotment of spells). So a wizard has to resort to several days of using mid level divination spells to figure out what his opponents are doing so that he may prepare appropriate spells.

Wizards also have the problem of having to choose how many of what spell to cast ahead of when they'll need to cast it.

In real games, I think sorcerers are more versatile than wizards because, with proper spell selection, they can do all the same tricks a wizard can. If you look at any wizard guide, they'll all have the same handful of spells, and realistically, a sorcerer can pick up enough of them that you won't be able to tell much of a difference. "I didn't prepare that spell today" is much more of a common issue than "there are no spells in my repertoire to even remotely sole this situation." At the very least, the sorcerer can always be doing a fistful of d6 damage. A wizard doesn't have that luxury.

It's mainly the utility spells that a sorcerer misses out on, like picking up rope trick, phantom steed, teleport AND overland flight. A wizard can nab those spells as soon as he has access to those levels without giving up too much power.

The caveat to that, though, are items. There's enough splat out there for a sorcerer to put his wealth into purchasing items that give him more spells/day known, which, for practical purposes, allows the sorcerer to close the gap.

And once the sorcerer has access to limited wish, he can reconfigure his spells known however he wishes, thanks to psychic reformation.

Talya

2011-09-12, 03:56 PM

You know, saying YMMV does not, by itself, turn a false statement into a true one. You don't usually start playing D&D with mid level characters. A first level wizard probably has 8 spells, and is likely to pick some good ones based on random chance or what sounds good. That requires next to no system mastery. A sorcerer would have to realize his issue, find a guide, compare all those good sounding spells, plan out his progression over the next 5 levels etc. By the time the two casters are mid level, the wizard has a pretty good grasp on his class and knows what to do, and the sorcerer is asking his DM for a character rebuild or just getting himself killed off.

That's not system mastery. You're talking about a basic level of game knowledge. You don't need to be an optimizing expert to pick a few good spells.

Yes, an utterly clueless player can screw up a sorcerer when playing for the first time, if they don't do any research at all and randomly pick what looks good from the SRD. That sorcerer will take longer to become useful, without question. They will likely die before they do.

That same player would be just as useless as a wizard...probably for a longer time, because they are many times harder to play and master.

Big Fau

2011-09-12, 03:57 PM

Depends on if you can get in-game access to the spells you really want. If you're "on a deserted island", it's not an easy thing to swap out all poor spell choices for a Wizard either.

Easier, yes, But not necessarily "Sleep 8 hours"-easy.

You are completely missing the point. If the Wizard prepared nothing but Fireball, Scorching Ray, Wall of Flames, Flaming Sphere, and other fire spells is only screwed over for the 24 hours he has those spells prepared. He's able to undo that whole problem by virtue of being a prepared caster, provided he has access to the spellbook and enough scrolls to fill it. This matters if the entire campaign takes place in the City of Brass, where everyone is immune to fire to begin with.

A Sorcerer who took Fireball, Scorching Ray, Wall of Flames, Flaming Sphere, and other Fire spells is SOL when the entire campaign is placed in the City fo Brass, because he has dead spells known and cannot replace them easily (the only methods are PsiReform, retraining, or the level up method, and two of those are very commonly banned for various reasons).

The wizard is not hurt by having a spellbook of nothing but Fire spells, because he can sell the spellbook, buy a new one, and scribe some scrolls into it to make up for the problem entirely. Hell, selling the spellbook even provides a majority of the gold needed to purchase some low-level spells, and Metamagic can help fill the gap left until he levels up and can learn new spells.

Talya

2011-09-12, 03:59 PM

Sorcerers also annoyingly qualify for most PRCs one level later than Wizards due to their lagging spell progression, and there's no Master Specialist meaning taking the 5th level (where Wizards would get the bonus feat but not for you, sir!) is almost inevitable in direct Sorcerers. Luckily Mindbender falls into the 6th level and tends to be pretty interesting for Sorcs to boot.

And Mage of the Arcane Order can be entered level 6 regardless of lacking 3rd level spells so there are some options. Of course Incantatrix, the would-be logical Sorcerer PRC (being Metamagic focused and all) requires 3rd level spells and is Int-based to boot. Meh.

Versatile Spellcaster and Heighten Spell hijinx will get you in a level earlier than wizards, and that's not even remotely questionable by RAW, but...I'm not sure that that is worth the feats unless you're human in a campaign that allows flaws.

(On the other hand, both spells are rather useful to sorcerers in general, so...)

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-12, 04:13 PM

The whole "you get to change your spell list" thing matters more for low op and high op, but not mid op.
-At low op, you can make a dumb mistake like taking all fire spells known (and no searing spell), as Fau pointed out. As a wizard, this mistake can be corrected, at least somewhat. As a sorcerer... sorry, bub.
-At high op, the wizard can truly tailor his list to what he thinks he's going to face via contact other plane or other divination shenanigans.
-In the creamy middle of optimization, though, wizards generally have a "go-to" list of prepared spells that they're not going to deviate from unless something obvious comes up (go clear the graveyard of undead tomorrow... guess I'll prepare command undead). Sorcerers aren't making stupid mistakes with their spell lists.

So in the middle, it's tough to say that prepared gives a versatility advantage by itself, ceteris paribus. That said, all else is not equal. At odd levels, the wizard has a whole new level of spells to work with that the sorcerer does not. At even levels the sorcerer has *one* spell known, and the wizard has at least four known by default (with 4-6 slots to put them in). This advantage in highest level spells available is what puts wizards over the top in practical, mid-op play IME.

The_Jackal

2011-09-12, 04:19 PM

Reasons Wizards are better than Sorcerers:

1) Permanency. This awesome spell, while available to sorcerers, would basically require the permanent sacrifice of a known spell, plus all the supporting spells you wished to make permanent. By level 11, a Wizard should be able to have the following effects always on:

Arcane Sight, Comprehend Languages, Tongues, Darkvision, See Invisibility.

In addition, you can stick greater magic fang on all the familiars, companions and monks, enlarge person on your meatshield, resistance on everybody and telepathic bond.

2) Contingency. Here's another hat trick spell that lets you leverage downtime to make yourself safer in the line of fire. Having a teleport contingency lets you save your party's bacon whenever things go south.

3) Int vs. Cha. Don't get me wrong, charisma is nice to have, but it's not nearly as useful (outside the spellcasting sense) as int. The mage get an extra skill every level for each +2 int. The sorcerer? Well, he boosts his diplomacy and seduction rolls, but since the wizard can actually afford to BUY diplomacy and seduction if he chooses, he'll actually wind up better in that regard in the long run, if he chooses to.

4) Metamagic. Sorcerers and metamagic feats don't always mix well. Having to use a full-round action to modify your casting with a metamagic feat really limits the flexibility and effectiveness of the Sorcerer.

5) Flexibility. I've saved the best for last. Even the most badly-chosen specialist wizard gets far, far more options in their arsenal than the most mini-maxed sorcerer.

KoboldCleric

2011-09-12, 04:20 PM

I find with newer players sorcerers are much easier. If all they pick are burning hands and variations thereof I'm not all that unconcerned; that's also all they would have cast as a wizard anyway. At least now they can spam it a few more times. Eventually they'll pick a gem of a spell and start to understand that the real power of casters is the openended-ness of spells rather than the mechanical effect ... and that's when I know it's time to start looking for another group :p

faceroll

2011-09-12, 04:40 PM

5) Flexibility. I've saved the best for last. Even the most badly-chosen specialist wizard gets far, far more options in their arsenal than the most mini-maxed sorcerer.

Total hyperbole. An optimized sorc will outperform a poorly specialized wizard 9 days out of a tenday.

Pigkappa

2011-09-12, 04:48 PM

DeAnno

2011-09-12, 05:04 PM

First, there is no reason Sorcerers can't use Contingency. It's only one spell known, and often a Sorc will have plenty of things on his list that are very useful with it (Undying Vigor of the Dragonlords, Celerity, and don't forget that Arcane Fusion is Range: Personal, Target: You.)

I think the mental divide is that Sorcerers are very hard to build at maximum efficiency, and that a great deal of their power comes from specific combinations they can pull off requiring very specific sources. A Sorcerer can push the limits of PO in combat to a degree very few other classes (cough Druid) are able to do. People who don't know about these specific tricks and combinations will understandably think Sorcerers have no advantages over Wizards to make up for their delayed progression and lack of bonus feats. If you are playing a Core-only game, Sorcerer is a lot more disadvantaged than Wizard.

And lastly, while Cha is fun to bash and all, it's the best defensive stat for gishing due to Paladin 2. Saving Throws are by far a character's most important defensive statistic, and being able to link your casting stat to all of them at once is pretty impressive.

Talya

2011-09-12, 05:14 PM

The_Jackal

2011-09-12, 05:17 PM

I've only played a couple of campaigns at high levels (11+), but I found Dispel Magic to be quite common there. Even with a ring ready to counterspell Dispel Magic, I wouldn't feel safe. If you are really unlucky, you can lose 5000 XP.

Well, I play Pathfinder so they cost money, not XP. Also, the PF version of Permanency makes your self-permanent spells immune to dispellers who aren't of a higher caster-level than yourself. Sure, you can lose the odd buff to your allies, but the costs are low enough as to be worth risking the odd recast every so often.

I think the mental divide is that Sorcerers are very hard to build at maximum efficiency, and that a great deal of their power comes from specific combinations they can pull off requiring very specific sources.

Translation: If you stack 5 different prestige classes from four different sourcebooks, you can create a monstrosity that can out-power a stock Wizard 20. Which is not to say you can't do the same thing with a Wizard as a foundation and come up with something just as abusive.

The topic is Sorcerer vs. Wizard, not Sorcerer/Gish/Paladin/Incantatrix/Cheesehat/Munchkin-kin vs. Wizard.

TehLivingDeath

2011-09-12, 05:24 PM

The delayed spell progression is a deal breaker for me. As a Sorcerer you're less powerful than a Wizard for 8 levels. That's pretty much half of your career. Even when you do get that tasty new spell level, you know one spell for it.

Talya

2011-09-12, 05:26 PM

Translation: If you stack 5 different prestige classes from four different sourcebooks, you can create a monstrosity that can out-power a stock Wizard 20. Which is not to say you can't do the same thing with a Wizard as a foundation and come up with something just as abusive.

Actually, he's referring to spells, not classes. There are a number of sorcerer options wizards can't use. While they're very effective, they also tend to use up spells known for the ability to cast multiple sorcerer spells at once. To break the action economy, the sorcerer sacrifices even more versatility.

That said, neither wizard 20 nor sorcerer 20 exist. Everyone PrCs out. We're just comparing spellcasting types and what can be done with them.

The delayed spell progression is a deal breaker for me. As a Sorcerer you're less powerful than a Wizard for 8 levels. That's pretty much half of your career. Even when you do get that tasty new spell level, you know one spell for it.

Yeah. This is the big problem.

DeAnno

2011-09-12, 05:30 PM

Which is not to say you can't do the same thing with a Wizard as a foundation and come up with something just as abusive..

I believe I may have been misunderstood. You can't. Their top end action-economy is inferior in both cost and speed, due to just three spells: Arcane Fusion, Greater Arcane Fusion, and Arcane Spellsurge. Out of combat, their versatility is obviously far superior, but in the middle of a fight, speed is king.

NNescio

2011-09-12, 05:35 PM

Wizard: I have a friggin' utility belt. I have the right tool for any job.
Sorcerer: When you have a big enough hammer, anything can be nailed in.

Thespianus

2011-09-12, 05:38 PM

The wizard is not hurt by having a spellbook of nothing but Fire spells, because he can sell the spellbook, buy a new one
You know, when you start off by saying that I completely miss the point in my post about how a Wizard can't change his spells on a "deserted island" type of scenario, and then proceed to say that the Wizard can just sell his spellbook and buy a new one, I *think* you might be missing my point.

The Wizard can't buy a new spellbook if there is no other spellbook to be found.

It's entirely up to the setting/scenario/situation.

He CAN, however, research new spells, but it takes more than the postulated "8 hours of sleep".

faceroll

2011-09-12, 06:01 PM

From a flavor perspective, I hate playing a character with low charisma. I will never ever dump charisma. I'm playing one of the heroes of the campaign. The rule of cool applies...and a total genius in any profession who mumbles everything they say and has the social magnetism of a dead fish doesn't apply. No matter how badass you are, if your charisma is 9 or less? You look lame to me. Even if I don't have any abilities to key off of it, my charisma must be at least passable (10-12 is as low as I will ever dump it.)

Needless to say, given a chance to play a class that thrives on a charisma, I take it.

Of course, then I can't completely dump INT, either...but Int always gives certain bonuses.

Here's something I don't like about the system:
A wizard taking cross class ranks in diplomacy with an 8 charisma has, by level 20, a modifier of +10 to his diplomacy checks, with no gear. Assuming a starting int of 18, the wizard still has 4 class skills he can max out.

A sorcerer that has no ranks in diplomacy and a 30 charisma by level 20 also has +10 to diplomacy.

Being skillful has more to do with int than any of the other statistics. It's lame.

Raendyn

2011-09-12, 06:11 PM

Wizards have the potencial to become able to overcome ANYTHING.

That's the only benefit.
Wizard or Sorc, you will pick 2-3 things you wanna do & you'll focus on doing it well. Even wizards when they try to do everything they end up *meh*.

That said & considering that all the builds & the tier system assume the higher possible potency, wizards win!
The truth is of course that Most DM's will not give you "just because you have the potency" any spell you found in any book, nor any spell you thought of(adding that all the broken spells violate the spell creation guidelines DMG presents). Nor they will allow you Illumian with Krau & (whatever it is called) so you send your STR to a three-digit number so you have 15 9ths as bonus spells and so on.

As a mental excersice, yes they are better, more powerfull, with infinate aces in their hands.
In thruth they benefit from more skill points, and the few more utility spells can have over the sorc.

Not a big deal. Sorc's just choose a more specialized role & they do it well. just as well!

faceroll

2011-09-12, 06:13 PM

That's the only benefit.
Wizard or Sorc, you will pick 2-3 things you wanna do & you'll focus on doing it well. Even wizards when they try to do everything they end up *meh*.

That's been my experience, as well. A wizard that tries to be good at everything, at most levels, ends up being good at one thing a day, then gets to suck on his pipe. Not impressive, imo.

Retech

2011-09-12, 06:17 PM

Spellhoarding makes dragonwrought kobold move into wiz casting.

Something I would take everytime if I was even allowed to play such a kobold.

navar100

2011-09-12, 06:32 PM

Neither is better than the other, but one might be more suited to your style. I find Sorcerer suited me best when I decided to play an arcane spellcaster for my current game. When I played clerics and even a crusader/master of nine, I preferred to have a standard operating procedure of spells prepared/maneuvers readied. I'll switch them around once in a while out of boredom or when I know for certain a particular spell will be needed, but for the most part I tend to prepare the same spells. There's variety within the spells of attack, defense, and utility, but it will be the same spell every game session.

Since I know I'd do that when I'm about to play an arcane spellcaster, I might as well play a Socerer that has that style built in. I'm consoled by the delayed gratification of higher level spells with being able to cast more spells per day, use metamagic when I want as I want, and spam a spell if I need to. Bias: I'm playing Pathfinder Sorcerer which gets more juicy stuff via bloodlines than 3E Sorcerer, but Pathfinder Wizards get juicy stuff too.

However, other people may prefer a more strategic spellcasting style. Not only will they change spells each game session, they'll change them within a game session when more than one game day passes. They like taking into account what awaits in the adventure and plan accordingly. They like to try out different tactics due to necessity or just because. They want as many spells as possible to carry out their plans. A wizard is more suited to their playstyle.

Emmerask

2011-09-12, 06:40 PM

Raendyn

2011-09-12, 06:48 PM

faceroll

2011-09-12, 06:55 PM

Spellhoarding makes dragonwrought kobold move into wiz casting.

Something I would take everytime if I was even allowed to play such a kobold.

They can also learn any spell they counterspell. Including level 1 arcane eye from a trap smith or domain spells or whatever. Pretty crazy.

Pigkappa

2011-09-12, 07:00 PM

People who don't know about these specific tricks and combinations will understandably think Sorcerers have no advantages over Wizards to make up for their delayed progression and lack of bonus feats.

Actually, even if I know some of those tricks, I still think that Sorcerers have no advantages over Wizards to make up for their delayed progression and lack of bonus feats. That is because those tricks sound cheesy as hell and they wouldn't be allowed in any campaign I played or DMed in. Even Wings of Cover deserves a banhammer.

This isn't true for all the campaigns out there, but I think it's true for most of them. Many DMs will ban your Sorcerer-using-8-books, while few ones will ever say "oh, yeah, a wizard. Well, houserule: you gain your spells 1 level later", even if that would be balanced.

In thruth they benefit from more skill points, and the few more utility spells can have over the sorc.

And they are one level ahead in spell progression. And a few more feats. Those things make Wizards much better than Sorcerer in most games you're likely to play in.

Talya

2011-09-12, 07:07 PM

Actually, even if I know some of those tricks, I still think that Sorcerers have no advantages over Wizards to make up for their delayed progression and lack of bonus feats. That is because those tricks sound cheesy as hell and they wouldn't be allowed in any campaign I played or DMed in. Even Wings of Cover deserves a banhammer.

This isn't true for all the campaigns out there, but I think it's true for most of them. Many DMs will ban your Sorcerer-using-8-books, while few ones will ever say "oh, yeah, a wizard. Well, houserule: you gain your spells 1 level later", even if that would be balanced.

Any DM who allows Tier 1 classes has either high-op in mind, has plans to compensate to ensure everyone feels useful, or is at such low-op that fighter keeps up with tier-1s. In none of those scenarios is Arcane Fusion, Greater Arcane Fusion (both Complete Mage), or Arcane Spellsurge (Dragon Magic) likely to be banned (at the low-op end, nobody would know enough to ban it.) They're pretty straightforward, both in source and effect.

Raendyn

2011-09-12, 07:10 PM

Spellhoarding makes dragonwrought kobold move into wiz casting.

Something I would take everytime if I was even allowed to play such a kobold.

Doesn't Spellhoarding requires True Dragon?

Dragonwrouht gives dragon, not true dragon.

Did I miss something?

Pigkappa

2011-09-12, 07:26 PM

Any DM who allows Tier 1 classes has either high-op in mind, has plans to compensate to ensure everyone feels useful, or is at such low-op that fighter keeps up with tier-1s.

Nope. All the parties I've been in had players with different experience. In the party I'm in now, two players have good optimization abilities from the internet. Two players have been playing for years but they don't seem to understand how the system works (they can play crazy characters who exploit stupid bugs in the system and then switch to core monk when whose get banned!). One player is totally new to the game.

In the game I'm going to DM soon, we'll have 2 players who have played for years and are likely to know the game more than I do, and 3 players who have never played D&D nor any other RPGs.

Is it better to tell the experienced players to play some non-broken characters and let the new ones play the game as they want to, or is it better to tell them all to play a Bard, Rogue, Beguiler, Crusader, Factotum, or Warblade (which requires them looking all of those classes on various splatbooks while they don't even know that the Monk sucks so bad)? I prefer the first option, even if it's more dangerous and requires the DM to carefully notice if something is going bad (supersucky monk or wizard with polymorph).

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-12, 07:30 PM

There are ways to play T1 and/or optimize the most, be the MVP, and still have everyone contribute... until/unless other characters can't contribute without the T1 character's help, but that's getting into DMing/encounter planning.

tyckspoon

2011-09-12, 07:36 PM

Doesn't Spellhoarding requires True Dragon?

Dragonwrouht gives dragon, not true dragon.

Did I miss something?

True Dragon is defined as 'a Dragon that gets more powerful with age categories' or something very similar (via Draconomicon.) Dragonwrought Kobolds are of the Dragon type, have the draconic age categories, and gain age benefits without penalties, such that an older Dragonwrought Kobold is unequivocally better than a young one. It's probably not what was intended- the writer likely had 'gains HD when aging' or something in mind- but the words they actually put in the book are loose enough to fit Dragonwrought Kobolds in there.

Big Fau

2011-09-12, 07:40 PM

True Dragon is defined as 'a Dragon that gets more powerful with age categories' or something very similar (via Draconomicon.) Dragonwrought Kobolds are of the Dragon type, have the draconic age categories, and gain age benefits without penalties, such that an older Dragonwrought Kobold is unequivocally better than a young one. It's probably not what was intended- the writer likely had 'gains HD when aging' or something in mind- but the words they actually put in the book are loose enough to fit Dragonwrought Kobolds in there.

It's actually a combination of the text in the Draconomicon and RotD that gives Dragonwrought Kobolds the qualifications of "True Dragon".

What they should have done is just retroactively labeled the appropriate creatures as True Dragons, instead of having this convoluted text that results in a PC getting access to abilities that they were not intended to have at LA0.

TheJake

2011-09-12, 08:04 PM

The trade off is that the more focused a wizard gets to get those additional spells per day, the less schools he can choose from for those spells. And having a whole school's access banned does kinda suck.

Yeah but let's be real, a conjurer or transmuter doesn't give much at all. Only when you hit master specialist (giving up 3 schools) do you really feel the pinch. You can also get the feat out of LEoF that lets you regain a lost school too...

- J.

Talya

2011-09-12, 08:11 PM

Yeah but let's be real, a conjurer or transmuter doesn't give much at all. Only when you hit master specialist (giving up 3 schools) do you really feel the pinch. You can also get the feat out of LEoF that lets you regain a lost school too...

- J.

I believe it takes two feats to regain the lost school. The first one just nets you a single spell from the banned school.

Edit: It's actually three feats to regain a banned school. (1) Spell Reprieve - learn to cast a single spell from a banned school. (2) Item Reprieve - gain the ability to use spell completion and spell trigger items from the banned school. Only then can you take (3) Arcane Transfiguration - the ban on one of your forbidden schools is lifted completely. You can only take arcane transfiguration once.

DeAnno

2011-09-12, 08:15 PM

You can also get the feat out of LEoF that lets you regain a lost school too...
- J.

If we're talking using feats to get around this style of thing, the Kobold web enhancement gets Sorcs onto an even spell level footing with Wizards. Unlike Loredrake shenanigans, Greater Draconic Rite of Passage involves a real cost (most sorcs are feat strapped) and is actually intended to be used in that manner.

Jack_Simth

2011-09-12, 08:19 PM

Even an unprepared wizard is more versatile than a sorcerer, 'cause its spell list will be more varied... maybe with only 1 or 2 slots per spell, so the wiz. won't abuse any combo, but will be ready for a great variety of situations... greater than the sorcerer.
BTW, a simple specialization won't suffice to fill the gap of the spells per day, the wiz. will need more tricks.
Focused Specialist closes the spells-per-day gap (base three specialist slots/day, costs an extra banned school and one general spell per day per spell level).

That said, one of the advantages of the wizard, is in the skills known: its Int will be sky high, while the sorcerer will pump Cha.
And the maximized wiz's. Int, will usually be higher than the maximized Sorc.'s Cha: given an equal Wis, Dex, Str and Con, the wizard can easily have a low Cha, while the sorcerer cannot have a too low Int, or its skill points will be really pitiful.
Yes, for most purposes, the Wizard has the better primary casting stat.

But really, Wizard is tier-1, Sorcerer is tier-2. The defining difference? The Wizard can change his entire spell list from one day to the next to accomodate a variant challenge; the Sorcerer can't (well, there's ways to do it at high levels, but it costs xp)

Dante & Vergil

2011-09-12, 09:20 PM

One has dragon or demon blood and draws his power from this ancient legacy,
the other reads and studies and bores the universe until it just decides to roll over and play dead...

yeah sorcerers are way better :-P

Who says I can't do the same thing with the Wizard's flavor with no real mechanical change? Flavor 9 times out of 10 is mutable, and doesn't really belong in this topic.

Flickerdart

2011-09-12, 09:57 PM

One has dragon or demon blood, the other kills the first and uses his dragon or demon blood to scribe spells. I know which flavour I like better.

Delcor

2011-09-12, 10:03 PM

:xykon: was shown to outdo most wizards as far as the comic goes.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm far from a DnD expert, so this is just based on a vague examination of the core rules.

tldr;

However, here is what I have to say:

Sorcs aren't "less powerful" as much as they are "less versatile".

Also keep in mind that Xykon is extremely high level, and a lich. Two factors that aid significantly in his victories.

Also I enjoy roleplaying sorcs more because of their flavor, I just find raw arcane power to be more interesting than a guy who brags about getting an A+ in AP Evocation.

Coidzor

2011-09-12, 10:08 PM

Sorcerers are generally not as good as Wizards, but I think it is generally regarded that they're easier to play (so long as you make a decent spell selection, but that only occurs once per level as opposed to the poor Wizard who has to do it just about every day), and that they're certainly powerful enough (oh no, I am only tier 2, not tier 1, whatever will I do).

Indeed, I've never understood how that disadvantage is spun to be a positive for the sorcerer.

Why does anyone enjoy having to second guess the entire campaign the DM is going to throw at them when planning the spell list that they're going to be stuck with from level 1 to 20 before the game has even started?

Also keep in mind that Xykon is extremely high level, and a lich. Two factors that aid significantly in his victories.

Also, Dorukan fought like a chump, but then, it wouldn't be very interesting if a horde of angels had ganked the BBEG before we had met him.

Calanon

2011-09-12, 10:16 PM

EDIT: Plus, GM can cripple wizards really badly by stealing/destroying/confiscating their spellbook. It's sad, but sometimes just happens :smallfrown:

Thats literally the entire reason why I always prepare Scholar's Touch (Go to your local magical library and steal it with a single spell) OH look at that? i just got 6 spell books to replace the 1 that you stole! My DM was pissed and decided to make an evil wizard attack me right than and there... it was funny when the monk broke his neck...

Talya

2011-09-12, 10:18 PM

Indeed, I've never understood how that disadvantage is spun to be a positive for the sorcerer.

Why does anyone enjoy having to second guess the entire campaign the DM is going to throw at them when planning the spell list that they're going to be stuck with from level 1 to 20 before the game has even started?

At medium op, wizards always prep the same spells every day. They may occasionally swap them out for those rare instances they know ahead of time what they will need, but in reality, most of the time, they fill each spell slot with a different useful spell, and keep that same loadout day after day.

Sorcerers know almost as many spells as the average wizard has spell slots. They also will pick a bunch of useful spells that can be good in multiple situations. Unlike the wizard, they will be able to use them all at will, spamming them until they are utterly spent if necessary. If a particular spell is not useful in an encounter, the spell slot does not go wasted.

In the end, at medium op, a wizard and sorcerer are played the same way, except the sorcerer doesn't have to keep track of what they've cast, only how many spells. If they suddenly need to cast three Polymorphs, they've got three polymorphs, and it's done.

At medium op, the sorcerer is easier to play because that whole reactive style of play --simply using whatever tools you have to wipe the enemy out, rather than preparing specifically for each encounter-- is what the sorcerer is best at. At high op, the wizard might actually take control of the flow of the game and pull "scry & die" shenanigans and pretty much ignore the DM, but most people don't play there.

NNescio

2011-09-12, 10:19 PM

Thats literally the entire reason why I always prepare Scholar's Touch (Go to your local magical library and steal it with a single spell) OH look at that? i just got 6 spell books to replace the 1 that you stole! My DM was pissed and decided to make an evil wizard attack me right than and there... it was funny when the monk broke his neck...

Wait what? Scholar's Touch doesn't let you copy books, and there's an explicit clause forbidding you from preparing spells with it anyway.

Coidzor

2011-09-12, 10:45 PM

At medium op, the sorcerer is easier to play because that whole reactive style of play --simply using whatever tools you have to wipe the enemy out, rather than preparing specifically for each encounter-- is what the sorcerer is best at. At high op, the wizard might actually take control of the flow of the game and pull "scry & die" shenanigans and pretty much ignore the DM, but most people don't play there.

And that has what, exactly, with making it enjoyable to have to go over the master spell list before hand and carefully decide how much utility one can afford to have this game with as little or as much intel as a DM may allow before the game has started?

Or are you saying that there's only ever one right sorcerer spell list and they always go with that once they finally figure out how to play a sorcerer? :smallconfused:

Talya

2011-09-12, 10:56 PM

Or are you saying that there's only ever one right sorcerer spell list and they always go with that once they finally figure out how to play a sorcerer? :smallconfused:

Closer to this, except there are plenty of variations on it, and they'll all be roughly the same amount of use in any campaign.

Sorcerers should not specialize. They need heighten spell to keep their lower level spells useful longer, Energy Substitution of some kind (sonic if your DM allows 3.0 material) and then they simply grab a bunch of great all-purpose spells:

Save-or-Die/Lose/Suck: Fort
Save-or-Die/Lose/Suck: Will
Save-or-Die/Lose/Suck: Reflex (yes, they exist!)
A wall spell
A dispel
Some teleportation/travel
A powerful summon/calling or three.
A Wide-Area Control spell
One big area blasty of your choice (optional, but fun, and occasionally quite effective)
Method of flight (Alter Self is the nobrainer here)
Self-protections (Protection from [x], mirror image, blink, etc.)
Specific Must-Haves if sourcebooks that contain them are available: Ruin Delver's Fortune, Nerveskitter, Assay Spell Resistance, Orb of [energy] (pick one), Arcane Fusion and its Greater version. (I'm not a huge fan of spellsurge, but it's powerful)

If you can get any of these things on a runestaff, leave it off your list.

Grab whichever versions of these suit your fancy, and you're set. You'll have plenty of slots left over for flavor stuff you just like. I like Limited Wish and the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation line, for their versatility in duplicating spells I never took. Also Ruby Ray of Reversal, just as an example.

elvengunner69

2011-09-12, 11:25 PM

I think after reading this if I have newbies starting a campaign and one wants to be a Wizard or Sorcerer, since he is a newbie I should encourage him being a sorcerer as it is more newbie friendly?

Optimator

2011-09-12, 11:29 PM

Wizards also can scribe scrolls better than Sorcerers and they can leave slot open for emergencies. I've saved a party by leaving a few slots unprepped in campaigns before and I'm sure others have too. Versatility is power, often enough.

tyckspoon

2011-09-12, 11:40 PM

I think after reading this if I have newbies starting a campaign and one wants to be a Wizard or Sorcerer, since he is a newbie I should encourage him being a sorcerer as it is more newbie friendly?

Find out what he wants a spellcaster to do. If there's just one or two basic and relatively specific things- he says "I wanna be a blaster" or "I was thinking a shapechanging specialist would be really cool"- then point him to Sorcerer. He'll be able to do his thing, he'll be able to do it a lot, and he'll probably be happy. If he has a more general idea or he wants to be like some fictional wizard from a setting with pretty versatile magic, he'll want to be a Wizard; D&D's spells are complex enough already that being a full caster is not especially 'newbie friendly' for any of the classes, and only Wizard can let him screw around relatively freely with the more unusual spells. Especially if you start with or plan to later open up more sources for spell choices than just the PHB.

elvengunner69

2011-09-12, 11:43 PM

Find out what he wants a spellcaster to do. If there's just one or two basic and relatively specific things- he says "I wanna be a blaster" or "I was thinking a shapechanging specialist would be really cool"- then point him to Sorcerer. He'll be able to do his thing, he'll be able to do it a lot, and he'll probably be happy. If he has a more general idea or he wants to be like some fictional wizard from a setting with pretty versatile magic, he'll want to be a Wizard; D&D's spells are complex enough already that being a full caster is not especially 'newbie friendly' for any of the classes, and only Wizard can let him screw around relatively freely with the more unusual spells. Especially if you start with or plan to later open up more sources for spell choices than just the PHB.

Thanks - yeah he indicated he wanted to be more of a blaster type. Since they are new I'm doing a pretty basic campaign. Only 3 members in the party so I figured a Fighter (Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, etc) type, Wizard/Sorcerer and a Cleric (or Evil Druid :smallbiggrin:) would be a good trio. I don't want to bog them down in other character types at this point.

Thanks again.

Delcor

2011-09-12, 11:44 PM

Also, Dorukan fought like a chump, but then, it wouldn't be very interesting if a horde of angels had ganked the BBEG before we had met him.

As did Soul-Spliced V, but whos counting :smalltongue:

*cough* dimensional anchor *cough*

Zaq

2011-09-13, 12:28 AM

Thanks - yeah he indicated he wanted to be more of a blaster type. Since they are new I'm doing a pretty basic campaign. Only 3 members in the party so I figured a Fighter (Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, etc) type, Wizard/Sorcerer and a Cleric (or Evil Druid :smallbiggrin:) would be a good trio. I don't want to bog them down in other character types at this point.

Thanks again.

If he's a brand-new player and you want to keep things simple, DFA and Warlock make excellent blasters for neophytes, and are really less complex than what you're already allowing. (The DFA is also available for (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2) free (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=3) on the WotC website.)

LordBlades

2011-09-13, 01:15 AM

It's actually a combination of the text in the Draconomicon and RotD that gives Dragonwrought Kobolds the qualifications of "True Dragon".

What they should have done is just retroactively labeled the appropriate creatures as True Dragons, instead of having this convoluted text that results in a PC getting access to abilities that they were not intended to have at LA0.

This has been highly debated in various places, and so far nobody has been able to come with an interpretation of the definition of 'True Dragon' that excludes Dragonwrought Kobolds and doesn't exclude other things widely accepted as 'True Dragons'. And TBH there's nothing really broken about them being True Dragons apart from epic feats at level 1, but nobody in his right mind (hopefully) uses that for anything else than TO.

As for wizard vs. sorc versatility: even in mid-op, where you don't divine much , sometimes you will know what you're going to fight. Some quests can be as straightforward as 'a dragon is threatening the village; go kill it'. As a wizard you can just go and buy some anti-dragon spells, scribe them in your spellbook and go to town. As a sorc, you're stuck with what you have(unless you want to waste gold on a runestaff).

Yahzi

2011-09-13, 06:06 AM

Most playgrounders seem to forget that wizards cannot spontaneously cast spells (unless they use a dirty trick, and even then, they'll get half their allotment of spells).
You mean a dirty trick called "scrolls," which Wizards get for free at 1st level?

Sure, it costs some gold/xp, but you get to emulate an entire class's reason for being. Just like the animal companion is the Druid's pet Fighter, a scroll book is the Wizard's pet Sorcerer.

Talya

2011-09-13, 07:01 AM

You mean a dirty trick called "scrolls," which Wizards get for free at 1st level?

Sure, it costs some gold/xp, but you get to emulate an entire class's reason for being. Just like the animal companion is the Druid's pet Fighter, a scroll book is the Wizard's pet Sorcerer.

And when the rest of the party is at level 20 with over 700,000 gold, and you are a destitute level 10 who has been primarily casting spells that even level 1 commoners have a good chance of saving against, you'll regret that emulation. Scrolls are HORRIBLE.

LordBlades

2011-09-13, 07:21 AM

And when the rest of the party is at level 20 with over 700,000 gold, and you are a destitute level 10 who has been primarily casting spells that even level 1 commoners have a good chance of saving against, you'll regret that emulation. Scrolls are HORRIBLE.

Some spells don't require saves, or you're screwed anyway even if you save; scrolls of those and utility spells are really nice.

Pigkappa

2011-09-13, 07:23 AM

Scrolls are great for utility spells you don't want to prepare every day.

Talya

2011-09-13, 07:25 AM

Scrolls are great for utility spells you don't want to prepare every day.

Sure, but they are terrible at what Yahzi described: Emulating sorcerers.

Sorcerers don't have any utility spells they don't want to prepare every day. (Instead, they buy scrolls/wands to do that.) To use scrolls to emulate a sorcerer, you are using them to repeatedly spam your favorite spells without need for plan or forethought. That would be insanely cost prohibitive, in both XP and gold, and not work nearly as well as it does for a sorcerer.

Wands work a touch better in that regard, especially eternal wands, for the few spells they can hold -- at least the ones not reliant on CL or saving throws.

Emmerask

2011-09-13, 08:10 AM

Who says I can't do the same thing with the Wizard's flavor with no real mechanical change? Flavor 9 times out of 10 is mutable, and doesn't really belong in this topic.

Rule one: don´t insult teh wizards? ^^

Lighten up a bit, and take the remark for what it was, a not entirely seriously meant comment about what the out of the box flavor for wizards is :smallwink:

Big Fau

2011-09-13, 08:58 AM

Sure, but they are terrible at what Yahzi described: Emulating sorcerers.

Agreed. Even an Artificer would suck if he tried to use scrolls to do that.

Scrolls are the second-worst magic items in DnD.

Pigkappa

2011-09-13, 09:24 AM

Big Fau

2011-09-13, 10:07 AM

Using them to spam high level spells is a bad idea, but how are they the second-worst magic items? A cleric with a bunch of low-level scrolls will have the handy spell when you need it.

From the SRD only: Comprehend Languages, Detect Evil, Endure Elements, Hide from Undead, Protection from Evil, Remove Fear, Align Weapon, Enthrall, Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Lesser Restoration, Silence, Invisibility Purge, Locate Object, Magic circle against Evil, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Water Walk.

For a wizard it's more complicated because he needs to learn a spell before he can write a scroll, but there are a lot of handy Sor/Wiz spells too.

Comparing the cost to create verses the cost of a wand or schema. Odds are, you are going to be creating scrolls of 5th level or lower spells because you don't want to prepare them. If the spell doesn't have a saving throw entry or rely on caster level, the wand or schema is a much better investment.

Every one of the spells you listed would be better off in a Wand or Schema. The only major exceptions are Magic Circle, Resist Energy, and Enthrall, as those are better off if you actually prepare them instead of putting them if magic item form. And you really do not want a scroll of Detect Evil. You can get that at will for 1,000gp (Lenses of Revelation, from the Vestments of Divinity, MIC).

Schemas are actually much better than scrolls too, since they're like Eternal Wands for 6th level spells or lower.

dextercorvia

2011-09-13, 10:28 AM

Big Fau

2011-09-13, 10:33 AM

Where are Schemas?

Lesser Restoration is probably better on a Wand (once you can afford it), but I doubt that it is worth the extra the extra to buy a Wand of Comprehend Languages unless no one in your campaign ever speaks common. Having a couple of scrolls handy for the really weird language that no one knows might be worth it.

I actually like Lesser Restoration in Eternal Wand form. But Schemas are in Magic of Eberron.

Talya

2011-09-13, 10:39 AM

Where are Schemas?

Lesser Restoration is probably better on a Wand (once you can afford it), but I doubt that it is worth the extra the extra to buy a Wand of Comprehend Languages unless no one in your campaign ever speaks common. Having a couple of scrolls handy for the really weird language that no one knows might be worth it.

Languages are more important if you're infiltrating. (Although then you want tongues, not comprehend languages.) Pretending to be a drow and infiltrating menzoberranzan rather requires the ability to speak the drowish dialect of elvish, if you don't already speak it.

dextercorvia

2011-09-13, 10:43 AM

Languages are more important if you're infiltrating. (Although then you want tongues, not comprehend languages.) Pretending to be a drow and infiltrating menzoberranzan rather requires the ability to speak the drowish dialect of elvish, if you don't already speak it.

Agreed. If it was that sort of campaign, I would have several ranks in Speak Language, and have prepared Tongues if I was going to be doing infiltration work an thought I'd need an unfamiliar dialect.

John Campbell

2011-09-13, 10:44 AM

And when the rest of the party is at level 20 with over 700,000 gold, and you are a destitute level 10 who has been primarily casting spells that even level 1 commoners have a good chance of saving against, you'll regret that emulation. Scrolls are HORRIBLE.
Hahahaha no. Because of the way the XP reward system works, you're maybe level 19. Or 20. Or maybe even 21! Depends how often the DM gives out XP, and where you happen to be on the cycle of dropping behind and catching up again.

I played a crafting wizard from 2 to 17, and spent practically all of my gold on materials for magic item crafting, or spells to meet prereqs for magic item crafting, and then on top of that made stuff for the rest of the party using their gold at 75% base cost, and fed my profit margin from that back into making stuff for myself. Basically, I was spending every XP I could on item crafting, and more on making spells permanent, and on top of that got my familiar killed once. I never fell more than a level behind the rest of the party, and on a couple of occasions, when I'd been a level down for a large encounter, actually got enough more XP that I passed them. I was a level down for the last fight, and ended the campaign a level ahead.

I didn't make scrolls, admittedly, but that was just because the character had moral objections to making anything that wasn't intended to last forever. No scrolls, wands, wondrous items with non-renewing charges, or the like. But that doesn't change the fact that scrolls and wands are a cheap and easy way for a wizard to supplement his already-superior versatility, or to emulate the sorcerer's ability to spam the one spell he actually knows 'til the cows come home. Scrolls for the stuff you might need, but don't generally find worth preparing on a daily basis, wands for the stuff you might have to cast ten times a day.

Sorcerers can use them to make up their deficiencies, too, but they don't get free crafting feats, and they have a hard time meeting the prereqs to make what they actually need - items of spells that they don't know - so they're usually stuck buying them for twice the price the wizard can craft them for, so they end up as destitute as the wizard, but with half as much stuff to show for it.

(And, seriously, everyone is always destitute, unless they're saving up for something that they can't afford yet. Adventurers aren't smart enough to take that king's ransom, buy a fief, put the rest into safe investments, and spend the rest of their life swilling ale and swiving wenches. They go and buy some insanely expensive magic item that makes them marginally better at killing things instead.)

Vladislav

2011-09-13, 10:52 AM

And when the rest of the party is at level 20 with over 700,000 gold, and you are a destitute level 10 who has been primarily casting spells that even level 1 commoners have a good chance of saving against, you'll regret that emulation. Scrolls are HORRIBLE.I believe you are being overly dramatic here. Let's run some numbers, ok?

Conventional wisdom says there are ~10 encounters per level. Let's say that, along the way from level 1 to level 3 (3,000 XP), you have 20 encounters, and you're sufficiently crazy to use a 1st level scroll in every one of them. That makes up for a loss of stunning 20 XP, which is less than 1% of your total XP. Further, let's assume that between level 3 and level 5 (7,000 XP), you're now using a 2nd level scroll in every encounter. That makes up for 6x20 = 120 XP. Still less than 2% of your total XP.

As for the gold cost, you can always reach some kind of deal with your party. Even though you don't have Diplomacy as class skill, you can always say: "I scribe scrolls to keep you alive, help me with materials".

Scrolls are great for utility spells you don't want to prepare every day.
Also, this. Carry around a scroll of Knock with you. Just one. You don't need a lot. As long as the rogue is capable of handling the locks your party encounters, keep it. When, once in a blue moon, he runs into the one lock he can't handle - you're there for the rescue.

Talya

2011-09-13, 11:07 AM

Hahahaha no. Because of the way the XP reward system works, you're maybe level 19. Or 20. Or maybe even 21! Depends how often the DM gives out XP, and where you happen to be on the cycle of dropping behind and catching up again.

The way I cast spells in combat when playing my sorcerer, it was typically 6-8 spells of various levels (usually 1-2 of top level, 3-4 at levels 4-5, and 2-3 from levels 1-3) per encounter. Assume 4 encounters per day. At mid levels (11-12), that's an average of 3750gp and 300+ xp per encounter to make scrolls for those. In "boss" type battles, it might be substantially more, as someone starts pulling out the arcane fusion spell stacking, bumping you to 3 spells per round instead of just two.

Tell me that's not gonna keep you way behind the party.

Doug Lampert

2011-09-13, 11:20 AM

The way I cast spells in combat when playing my sorcerer, it was typically 6-8 spells of various levels (usually 1-2 of top level, 3-4 at levels 4-5, and 2-3 from levels 1-3) per encounter. Assume 4 encounters per day. At mid levels (11-12), that's an average of 3750gp and 300+ xp per encounter to make scrolls for those. In "boss" type battles, it might be substantially more, as someone starts pulling out the arcane fusion spell stacking, bumping you to 3 spells per round instead of just two.

Tell me that's not gonna keep you way behind the party.

It won't. Seriously do the math.

300 XP at level 11 when the rest of the party is 12?
patrol gives them 900 XP each, and you 1,100 XP.

You're barely falling behind even WITH an absurd six mid to high level spells per patrol encounter NOT ONE OF WHICH is from your slots, which you still have.

In fact, factoring in slots, you're advancing FASTER than the rest of the party despite the absurd burn rate.

Quit talking nonsense, you CAN'T fall behind by more than one level by crafting in any real game, we've had someone who specifically was spending almost the entire loot collected by the entire party on crafting and he STILL couldn't fall behind more than one level from low level to 20.

Your outright silly claim that crafting will somehow make you level 10 when everyone else is level 20 discredits your entire argument. What, you think this wizard is a sorcerer spaming limited wish because it's his only way to emulate a wizard? Because THAT can burn fast enough to make you fall behind, but scrolls? You're either an idiot or joking.

If you're 10 when they're 18 then EVERY patrol encounter will peg you to the top of the next level's XP allowance, the only reason it may not jump you two or three levels is because of the maximum of one level gain per encounter.

Souhiro

2011-09-13, 11:24 AM

Well, in Pathfinder, crafting no longer takes XP. And only level draining effects can cause any XP losing.

Back in the main topic, the Sorc had the main weakness not only that he have a limited spell selection, but also, those will end being known by everybody! The wizard change his spells everyday.

If a sorcerer decides to focus into fire spells, a wizard only have to prepare some spells that protect against fire. Sure, that is a very simple vision, but that's what wizards can do.

Also, a Sorcerer had to prepare against anything. He can take a lot of abjuration and protection spells, but then, most of the adventure is spent in town areas, where an invisibility sphere would be useful, but dissintegrate and flesh to stone not.

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 11:25 AM

That's not system mastery. You're talking about a basic level of game knowledge. You don't need to be an optimizing expert to pick a few good spells.

True, but you DO need to be an optimizing expert to plot out that effective sorcerer spell list you listed in a later post several levels in advance so that you can get the distribution right.

That same player would be just as useless as a wizard...probably for a longer time, because they are many times harder to play and master.

Nope. If the wizard just picked 8 spells at random, he would probably get a few winners. If he stopped memorizing ones that he found to be useless, he would have a more optimized spell list than the sorcerer in 5 days or less. Fortunately, even a non-optimizer can usually pick spells better than that.

-In the creamy middle of optimization, though, wizards generally have a "go-to" list of prepared spells that they're not going to deviate from unless something obvious comes up (go clear the graveyard of undead tomorrow... guess I'll prepare command undead). Sorcerers aren't making stupid mistakes with their spell lists..

Well, even the mid-op wizard can leave spaces in their spell list, which they can fill with whatever they need in only 15 minutes.

Big Fau

2011-09-13, 11:30 AM

It won't. Seriously do the math.

300 XP at level 11 when the rest of the party is 12?
patrol gives them 900 XP each, and you 1,100 XP.

You're barely falling behind even WITH an absurd six mid to high level spells per patrol encounter NOT ONE OF WHICH is from your slots, which you still have.

In fact, factoring in slots, you're advancing FASTER than the rest of the party despite the absurd burn rate.

Quit talking nonsense, you CAN'T fall behind by more than one level by crafting in any real game, we've had someone who specifically was spending almost the entire loot collected by the entire party on crafting and he STILL couldn't fall behind more than one level from low level to 20.

Your outright silly claim that crafting will somehow make you level 10 when everyone else is level 20 discredits your entire argument. What, you think this wizard is a sorcerer spaming limited wish because it's his only way to emulate a wizard? Because THAT can burn fast enough to make you fall behind, but scrolls? You're either an idiot or joking.

If you're 10 when they're 18 then EVERY patrol encounter will peg you to the top of the next level's XP allowance, the only reason it may not jump you two or three levels is because of the maximum of one level gain per encounter.

If you actually try to craft a scroll for every spell/day you could possibly use, yes, you can fall behind a full level. That's what we mean when we say "Using scrolls to pretend you are a Sorcerer".

However, scrolls still aren't a very good option. If the spell you want to scribe is 4th level or lower, it's cheaper to buy a partially charged wand from a merchant in Sigil than it is to craft the scroll. And if you need a spell above 4th level, odds are you are going to need it more than once, and the Schema becomes a much more valuable option. And if you need spells above 6th level, it's time to consider playing an Erudite instead.

Well, in Pathfinder, crafting no longer takes XP.

Pathfinder is not a focus of this subject.

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 12:11 PM

If you actually try to craft a scroll for every spell/day you could possibly use, yes, you can fall behind a full level. That's what we mean when we say "Using scrolls to pretend you are a Sorcerer".

But no one does that. So why impute that meaning to it at all? A much more likely meaning is "I keep a scroll or two of each of the niche spells in my book that I don't regularly memorize just in case I need that effect. Therefore, I can use any effect that is in my spell book, but I fill my daily spells with ones that I expect to use (leaving a few slots blank to be filled at need)." That is how more normal wizards duplicate spontaneous casting.

However, scrolls still aren't a very good option. If the spell you want to scribe is 4th level or lower, it's cheaper to buy a partially charged wand from a merchant in Sigil than it is to craft the scroll.

And this is why rogues and experts are tier 3, and monks are high tier 4. Because it is easy to find a 5 charge wand of Greater Mighty Wallop any time you need it. For that matter, Mr. Wizard can take craft wands with one of his bonus feats and make wands with less cost than the sorc can also.

Infernalbargain

2011-09-13, 12:20 PM

Pathfinder is not a focus of this subject.

Since when? I don't see it specifying [3.5] in title or OP.

Talya

2011-09-13, 12:45 PM

But no one does that. So why impute that meaning to it at all? A much more likely meaning is "I keep a scroll or two of each of the niche spells in my book that I don't regularly memorize just in case I need that effect.

Right, but that has nothing to do with the stated "scrolls can emulate a sorcerer."

Sorcerers don't even have niche spells. "Emulating a sorcerer" would be using up all of a very large number of spell slots every day because you cast as many spells as you possibly can every round, frivolously and with gleeful abandon, attempting to have your character portrait placed beside the dictionary definition of "overkill." Because that's how a sorcerer plays in practice.

(And damn, is it fun.)

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 12:51 PM

Right, but that has nothing to do with the stated "scrolls can emulate a sorcerer."

Sorcerers don't even have niche spells. "Emulating a sorcerer" would be using up all of a very large number of spell slots every day because you cast as many spells as you possibly can every round, frivolously and with gleeful abandon, attempting to have your character portrait placed beside the dictionary definition of "overkill." Because that's how a sorcerer plays in practice.

(And damn, is it fun.)

No, wizards do that with their spell slots, of which they have more than enough. They use the scrolls to have quasi-spontaneous access to the spells in their spellbooks that they didn't choose to memorize. That quasi-spontaneous access is what people mean by emulating a sorcerer. I will admit that it isn't the best term, but "retaining all the superior spell choice of a wizard while enjoying the flexibility in actions of a spontaneous caster" is just too long to say.

Big Fau

2011-09-13, 01:09 PM

And this is why rogues and experts are tier 3, and monks are high tier 4. Because it is easy to find a 5 charge wand of Greater Mighty Wallop any time you need it. For that matter, Mr. Wizard can take craft wands with one of his bonus feats and make wands with less cost than the sorc can also.

No, Rogues are Tier 4, Experts are Tier 5. UMD is only enough to put a class into Tier 5, and Rogues are inferior to Factotums.

Since when? I don't see it specifying [3.5] in title or OP.

Because we are talking about crafting magic items in reference to 3.5.

DarkEternal

2011-09-13, 01:31 PM

The problem with sorcerers are the amount of spells known, that doesn't rise with your charisma modifier as far as I know. It's set in stone by level how many spells you know. I'm playing on level seven at the moment with a sorc, and I know like two level three spells. Yeah, I maybe have more slots then wizard, and that is influenced by the charisma, but only two spells that I can fill those slots with. It's very limiting.

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 01:42 PM

No, Rogues are Tier 4, Experts are Tier 5. UMD is only enough to put a class into Tier 5, and Rogues are inferior to Factotums.

OK, clearly I needed a sarcasm flag.

I am well aware of what tier they are. If buying items was as easy as you suggest, UMD would be much more powerful. Most games, you CAN'T do what you suggested, which was buy a wand of anything with any number of charges. That is a big part of the reason why the UMD monk with all his partially charged wands was such a joke. Even DMs who otherwise tend to be magic-martish may shy away from discount wands. "Go to sigil and buy a 1 charge wand of X" is the exception, not the rule in my experience. The wizard, unlike the sorc, can make items for cheap out of his own giant spell list and bonus feats.

(In PF, the sorc can likely do this too, although he might need a little spellcraft optimization to guarantee making the DCs on the crafting checks. If he is lucky, he might even get the crafting feat free from bloodline)

Talya

2011-09-13, 01:51 PM

No, wizards do that with their spell slots, of which they have more than enough. They use the scrolls to have quasi-spontaneous access to the spells in their spellbooks that they didn't choose to memorize. That quasi-spontaneous access is what people mean by emulating a sorcerer. I will admit that it isn't the best term, but "retaining all the superior spell choice of a wizard while enjoying the flexibility in actions of a spontaneous caster" is just too long to say.

But the wizard cannot emulate the sorcerer with their spell slots.

it is not even a matter of how many slots they have. Ignoring focused specialist options or the like, it doesn't matter. The wizard could have MORE spell slots than a sorcerer (which they rarely do...on average, a sorcerer is 1-2 spell slots ahead of them. A focused specialist pulls even with a sorcerer for spell slots) and the sorcerer would still have an advantage with them.

The wizard's spell slots are inflexible. Once prepared, he can cast one and only one spell from each slot. Once cast, he cannot cast that same spell again that day unless he memorized it in more than one slot that day. If he has five spells he thinks he'll find useful, and it turns out only one or two of them are ideal for the situations he's in that day, he only has one or two useful spells to cast. The others become less than ideal. He may find a way to make them useful, but at that point he ends up wishing he had memorized only those two spells in all his slots.

The ability to use your spell slots on the fly however you choose, applying whatever metamagic and in whatever combination however you like is always underestimated by wizard fanboys.

People keep claiming that the sorcerer has no advantages at all over the wizard. This is just wrong. The sorcerer has MAJOR advantages over the wizard, spontaneous casting really is quite good. The problem is those advantages are not quite enough to overcome the MAJOR disadvantages the class has been given.

To understand the advantage best, let's break it down to it's most basic comparison: having four different spells, that you can cast each once per day, is not even half as good as having four different spells that you can cast in any combination that adds up to four in one day. The latter is far, far superior to the former. That's the spontaneous advantage. now where it gets compensated for is by the many disadvantages the sorcerer has been given, and in this respect, they far overcompensated.

Disadvantages:
-Low number of spells known: Honestly, this is overstated. If they had given the sorcerer two more spells known per spell level, they'd have more than they knew what to do with. But as it stands, yes, it's a minor issue. In the campaigns I play in, spontaneous casters tend to get one bonus spell known per spell level, which actually allows them to compare very favorably against prepared casters even as it stands.
-Lack of ANY class features beyond level 1.
-Lack of skill points due to lower intelligence score
-Delayed Spell Progression: This is the single biggest reason the wizard is more powerful than a sorcerer, not the spells known.

dextercorvia

2011-09-13, 02:22 PM

The problem with this is that a Wizard can in large part replicate a Sorcerer by only preparing one of his highest level spells in all of his highest level slots.

From 3rd -18th, at any odd level, the wizard has a brand new level of spells to play with, and can spam a spell with all those slots that the sorcerer can't even learn yet. At the even levels, the sorcerer only knows one of his highest level spells, and therefore, if the wizard is even in spell slots (by FS or whatever), he can do the same thing. A wizard might be forced to diversify his lower level spells for utility, but that won't affect the big picture much. The only difference comes about when they decide to use metamagic. I will say that spontaneous metamagic is the less talked about real advantage of playing a sorcerer (even with the feat tax to overcome the action cost).

Andre

2011-09-13, 02:26 PM

Has anyone mentioned the Domain Wizard, by the way? It's one spell known and one spell slot to be filled with that spell every spell level for FREE, with a CL+1, and you can have a few spells wizards/sorcerers normally don't even have.

(sorry if anyone did, kind of skimmed through the posts)

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 02:36 PM

But the wizard cannot emulate the sorcerer with their spell slots.

The wizard doesn't WANT to emulate a sorcerer with his spell slots, because that would be a reduction in his power.

it is not even a matter of how many slots they have. Ignoring focused specialist options or the like, it doesn't matter. The wizard could have MORE spell slots than a sorcerer (which they rarely do...on average, a sorcerer is 1-2 spell slots ahead of them. A focused specialist pulls even with a sorcerer for spell slots) and the sorcerer would still have an advantage with them.

At level 5+, the specialist wizard with a single bonus spell of each level from Int always has at least 12 spells from his 3 highest spell levels per day. 3 spells from your highest 3 spell levels tends to be more than enough to win any combat. As an aside, even a regular specialist has as many spell slots from the highest potentially available 3 levels as a sorcerer at odd numbered levels (Even, wiz has 5+5+4=14, Sorc has 7+6+4=17, Odd, wiz has 5+4+3=12, Sorc has 7+5+0=12).

The wizard's spells are MORE effective on a spell per spell basis than a sorcerer, because he had the advantage of choosing which of his spells was going to be most useful on that day. And of course, he has much easier access to scrolls and other magic items, because he can make them (the sorcerer can't make items if he doesn't have the spell), and a combat which he can quickly put away because he has the right tool for the job will take up even less of his resources. The focused specialist, of course, has more AND better slots.

The wizard's spell slots are inflexible. Once prepared, he can cast one and only one spell from each slot. Once cast, he cannot cast that same spell again that day unless he memorized it in more than one slot that day. If he has five spells he thinks he'll find useful, and it turns out only one or two of them are ideal for the situations he's in that day, he only has one or two useful spells to cast. The others become less than ideal. He may find a way to make them useful, but at that point he ends up wishing he had memorized only those two spells in all his slots.

And half the time, a sorcerer has only one spell known of his highest level. If that spell happens not to be useful, tough. The wizards 5 spells are each likely to be AT LEAST as useful as the sorcerer's 2, because he picked them with that day in mind. If he thinks he needs extra fire spells, he will memorize extra fire spells. Or, as you keep conveniently forgetting, he can memorize spells as the day goes on when he realizes he needs them.

And then there is the fact that Pearls of Power are core + cheap, Runestaves are splat + expensive, so it is much easier for the wizard to gain more slots and repeat casting on his slots than it is for the sorc to know more spells.

ranagrande

2011-09-13, 02:46 PM

DeAnno

2011-09-13, 02:50 PM

Again, not to toot the Kobold horn or anything, but official web enhancements tend to have a pretty good chance of being allowed (simply because they can be found and read easily), and Greater Draconic Rite of Passage is not only RAW but also RAI (unlike Spellhoarding, Loredrake and other such TO hijinx).

It has rather high opportunity cost of a feat and a race, but Sorcs can make up their spell level disadvantage, and there is no similar method for wizards to "hold serve" and rise up a spell level over ECL themselves. In high level PO, this is pretty much the Sorcerer's Natural Spell, and the huge amount of extra slots it generates will easily put the volume game back in the Sorc's favor.

dextercorvia

2011-09-13, 02:56 PM

It's probably more expensive to play a Wizard than a Sorcerer. That's especially true once the Wizard starts taking levels in a prestige class and no longer even gets the two free spells for gaining s level.

That's still a very minor consideration, of course.

Wizards don't have to buy runestaves.

And spells known progressions apply to spells learned. WOTC was sloppy, but you can connect the dots withing the pages of the PHB that spells known and spells learned by a Wizard are the same.

NNescio

2011-09-13, 03:00 PM

Wizards don't have to buy runestaves.

And spells known progressions apply to spells learned. WOTC was sloppy, but you can connect the dots withing the pages of the PHB that spells known and spells learned by a Wizard are the same.

And in case he wants something explicit... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=)

Talya

2011-09-13, 03:05 PM

I would recommend a wizard buy/make a runestaff or two, anyway. It adds an element of spontanaity to their spell choices that benefit from their full caster level and casting ability score, allowing them to prepare other spells and sub out in case they need something (even repeatedly.)

Several runestaves are quite cheap. Most are moderately priced, between 14k-32k. A few are exhorbitant...but the Runestaff of Passage (74k) is probably worthwhile by the time you get there anyway. It's not like sorcerers are spending money on item creation, they might as well...

Souhiro

2011-09-13, 03:52 PM

...And if you need a spell above 4th level, odds are you are going to need it more than once, and the Schema becomes a much more valuable option.
Well, in Pathfinder, crafting no longer takes XP. And only level draining effects can cause any XP losing.
Pathfinder is not a focus of this subject.

Well, Eberron weren't a focus on this subject, too.

Nevermind. In D&D 3-3.5, I still don't know why the wizard is given a few feats each 5 levels, while the poor sorcered receive... Nothing. Seriously, I think that was WotC way to say "Hey Sorcerer, take a prestige class ASAP!"

But as it was said that a wizard can emulate a sorcerer carrying scrolls, the same sorcerer can emulate a wizard the same way: Carrying scrolls. Yes, he'll have to buy the scrolls instead of just writing them, but the sorcerer only want the "Versatility" spells instead of the "Spamming" ones. He wants that Knock, or that Shatter, or that Stone to Flesh scroll, since he can launch all the fireballs he needs (and will need) everyday, but you won't find the big dumb fighter petrified on daily basis!

About the "An specialist wizard can have as many spells than a sorc"... yeah, that's true. But an specialist wizard will have to renounce to some schools of magic. And this weakens the main assets of the wizard: To have any spells he needs.

An specialist can be even worse than a sorcecer, since the Sorc can draw an scroll and cast the spell that is needed, even if he doesn't know it. But if the wizard is an specialist and have barred a certain school, those spells are lost forever to him. He isn't more able to cast them than a Int-3 Barbarian while raging.

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 03:59 PM

About the "An specialist wizard can have as many spells than a sorc"... yeah, that's true. But an specialist wizard will have to renounce to some schools of magic. And this weakens the main assets of the wizard: To have any spells he needs..

OH NO! I only know 30+ 9th level spells! Well over 100 1st level spells! Wait, you say you only know 3-5? Ouch!

Seriously, a focused specialist wizard who only got Conjuration and Transmutation would still be stronger than the sorc. Assuming Enchantment, Evocation and Necromancy barred, the wizard is only really missing a dozen or so spells. He can fill his spell slots with a full range of useful spells every day. The sorcerer is going to have to make much harder choices than that in terms of which spells he is never going to know.

ranagrande

2011-09-13, 04:00 PM

And in case he wants something explicit... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=)
OK, I stand corrected.

I guess Wizards really are better than Sorcerers in almost every way. That's disappointing, but not really surprising.

Fortunately, the same cannot be said of most other spontaneous casters. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and Warmages can all be considerably more powerful and versatile than either Sorcerers or Wizards.

Big Fau

2011-09-13, 04:29 PM

Fortunately, the same cannot be said of most other spontaneous casters. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and Warmages can all be considerably more powerful and versatile than either Sorcerers or Wizards.

Please pardon this outburst, but

WHAT?!

Do you have any idea why the guys at BG put the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler in Tier 3, and the Warmage in Tier 5? Whereas the Wizard and Sorcerer are Tiers 1 and 2 respectively?

It's because the Wizard and Sorcerer are capable of completely ending a campaign with proper spell selection. They have so many spells that just ruin the plot of a campaign that it isn't funny.

The DN/Beguiler/Warmage are only capable of this if they can enter Rainbow Servant at level 1 and the DM agrees that it's a 10/10 Casting PrC. And even then, it's because they get access to the entire Cleric spell list, which means they are effectively Tier 1s themselves (but only in that circumstance).

Gandariel

2011-09-13, 04:36 PM

IF Wizards have focused specialist, specialist wizard, etc.

you should let Sorcerers have Dragonwrought Kobolds with (greater) Rite of passage.

so wizard gets more spells/day(for their inferior number of spells slots) and Sorcerer gets higher CL (for their delayed spell progression)
They both offset a penalty they have, why not let both have it.

Theoretically? Wizard wins.
in versatility? Wizard wins.

But i think in actual play Sorcerer is more useful , requires less thought (do i prepare two dispel magic or should i prepare a Flight?) and bookkeeping, and is actually more fun (a sorcerer can buy a scroll of every one of those situational but useful spells, and otherwise spam his normal spells)

ranagrande

2011-09-13, 04:56 PM

Please pardon this outburst, but

WHAT?!

Do you have any idea why the guys at BG put the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler in Tier 3, and the Warmage in Tier 5? Whereas the Wizard and Sorcerer are Tiers 1 and 2 respectively?

It's because the Wizard and Sorcerer are capable of completely ending a campaign with proper spell selection. They have so many spells that just ruin the plot of a campaign that it isn't funny.

The DN/Beguiler/Warmage are only capable of this if they can enter Rainbow Servant at level 1 and the DM agrees that it's a 10/10 Casting PrC. And even then, it's because they get access to the entire Cleric spell list, which means they are effectively Tier 1s themselves (but only in that circumstance).
I was indeed referring to Rainbow Servant.

There is no question that Rainbow Servant is 10/10 on casting levels. It clearly says so in the text for "Spells per Day/Spells Known." No, that is not reflected in the advancement table. However, in the errata for all three core books, it states that whenever there is a discrepancy between the text and a table, the text takes precedence.

Without early entry shenanigans, the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage won't outclass the Wizard until level 16, but at that point they are, in fact, better than all of the other Tier 1 classes.

Gnaeus

2011-09-13, 05:07 PM

IF Wizards have focused specialist, specialist wizard, etc.

you should let Sorcerers have Dragonwrought Kobolds with (greater) Rite of passage.

I am going to assume that you mean from a fairness standpoint. From the standpoint of what is more likely to be allowed in a game, a basic option from the PHB or complete mage or a 121 year old kobold from races of the dragon and web supplement, I don't think the kobold is likely at all.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-13, 05:13 PM

I was indeed referring to Rainbow Servant.

There is no question that Rainbow Servant is 10/10 on casting levels. It clearly says so in the text for "Spells per Day/Spells Known." No, that is not reflected in the advancement table. However, in the errata for all three core books, it states that whenever there is a discrepancy between the text and a table, the text takes precedence.

Without early entry shenanigans, the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage won't outclass the Wizard until level 16, but at that point they are, in fact, better than all of the other Tier 1 classes.If we're allowing cheesy PrCs then the wizard took Incantatrix. Spontaneous casting of the entire cleric spell list, or persist every possible buff ever + other ridiculous tricks? Hard to say, but I'd go with Incantatrix.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-13, 05:25 PM

The ability to use your spell slots on the fly however you choose, applying whatever metamagic and in whatever combination however you like is always underestimated by wizard fanboys.

We don't underestimate it, we just take Versatile Spellcaster so it's a moot point.

I was indeed referring to Rainbow Servant.

There is no question that Rainbow Servant is 10/10 on casting levels. It clearly says so in the text for "Spells per Day/Spells Known." No, that is not reflected in the advancement table. However, in the errata for all three core books, it states that whenever there is a discrepancy between the text and a table, the text takes precedence.

Without early entry shenanigans, the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage won't outclass the Wizard until level 16, but at that point they are, in fact, better than all of the other Tier 1 classes.

I disagree, you are overlooking the fact that during those same levels the Wizard has the freedom to take levels in classes that will enhance his metamagic abilities exponentially which adds it's own form of versatility.

ranagrande

2011-09-13, 05:27 PM

If we're allowing cheesy PrCs then the wizard took Incantatrix. Spontaneous casting of the entire cleric spell list, or persist every possible buff ever + other ridiculous tricks? Hard to say, but I'd go with Incantatrix.
That's a matter of personal preference -- unless you're using the early entry tricks or the campaign goes epic. In either of those cases, the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer or Warmage can spontaneously cast the entire cleric spell list and be an Incantrix with all that that entails, and without losing access to any spells at all from School Specialization.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-13, 05:28 PM

That's a matter of personal preference -- unless you're using the early entry tricks or the campaign goes epic. In either of those cases, the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer or Warmage can spontaneously cast the entire cleric spell list and be an Incantrix with all that that entails, and without losing access to any spells at all from School Specialization.

It will still lack the metamagic capabilities of a straight tier 1 caster with prcs.

Edit: And sure you'll get 4 levels of Incantatrix but that's a long shot from the full ten levels + Halruaan Elder.

DeAnno

2011-09-13, 05:37 PM

I am going to assume that you mean from a fairness standpoint. From the standpoint of what is more likely to be allowed in a game, a basic option from the PHB or complete mage or a 121 year old kobold from races of the dragon and web supplement, I don't think the kobold is likely at all.

In the interests of factual correctness, the Kobold doesn't have to be Dragonwrought or 121 years old or anything, he just has to go starve himself in the wilderness for half a week or so (and burn a feat), which is about ten times less downtime than the Wizard will probably want by level 6.

ranagrande

2011-09-13, 05:38 PM

It will still lack the metamagic capabilities of a straight tier 1 caster with prcs.

Edit: And sure you'll get 4 levels of Incantatrix but that's a long shot from the full ten levels + Halruaan Elder.

Using early entry tricks, you can be a (Beguiler or Dread Necromancer or Warmage) 2/Rainbow Servant 10/Incantrix 8.

That gives you plenty of metamagic tricks in addition to spontaneously casting the cleric spell list, which by itself is better than anything a wizard can get.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-13, 05:45 PM

Using early entry tricks, you can be a (Beguiler or Dread Necromancer or Warmage) 2/Rainbow Servant 10/Incantrix 8.

That gives you plenty of metamagic tricks in addition to spontaneously casting the cleric spell list, which by itself is better than anything a wizard can get.

I still disagree. I personally would rather have Incantatrix, Halruaan Elder, and a dip of Loremaster in the same build than the cleric spell list. The much bigger flaw with your argument though is that you're not proving that the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, or Warmage are more versatile than a Wizard you're proving that a class with levels in Rainbow Servant is more Versatile than a Wizard. That statement is true even if a Wizard takes the class it does not in anyway imply that the base classes are more versatile.

Edit: The build you've posted also lacks access to the Wizard spell list. To get that you would need to spend an additional 4 levels in Paladin.

DeAnno

2011-09-13, 05:51 PM

Edit: The build you've posted also lacks access to the Wizard spell list. To get that you would need to spend an additional 4 levels in Paladin.

Wait, what?

Wings of Peace

2011-09-13, 05:54 PM

Wait, what?

Sword of the Arcane Order, Champions of Valor. It gives Paladins the ability to learn Wizard spells. The idea is that you then take 4 levels of Prestige Paladin so they get added to your list.

Edit: I lied, it's from Champions of Valor.

Lans

2011-09-13, 07:39 PM

The DN/Beguiler/Warmage are only capable of this if they can enter Rainbow Servant at level 1 and the DM agrees that it's a 10/10 Casting PrC. And even then, it's because they get access to the entire Cleric spell list, which means they are effectively Tier 1s themselves (but only in that circumstance).

Or Kobold Child of Ebberon/Guide the Weak/Light Keeper/Master of the Horde/Stalking Wyrm or Passions Flame.

ranagrande

2011-09-13, 08:53 PM

I still disagree. I personally would rather have Incantatrix, Halruaan Elder, and a dip of Loremaster in the same build than the cleric spell list. The much bigger flaw with your argument though is that you're not proving that the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, or Warmage are more versatile than a Wizard you're proving that a class with levels in Rainbow Servant is more Versatile than a Wizard. That statement is true even if a Wizard takes the class it does not in anyway imply that the base classes are more versatile.

Edit: The build you've posted also lacks access to the Wizard spell list. To get that you would need to spend an additional 4 levels in Paladin.
Yes, I am proving that a class with levels in Rainbow Servant is more versatile than a Wizard, and yes it is also true that a Wizard with levels in Rainbow Servant is also more versatile than a Wizard without levels in Rainbow Servant.

However, a Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, or Warmage with ten levels in Rainbow Servant is more versatile than a Wizard with ten levels in Rainbow Servant.

A Wizard X/Rainbow Servant 10 can choose to prepare and cast any Wizard or Cleric spell.

Contrast that with a (Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage) X/Rainbow Servant 10 who can spontaneously cast any spell on its or the Cleric's spell list.

The Wizard needs to prepare spells in advance. It needs to have some idea of what it might be up against. The Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage does not. In any situation, they can choose whatever Cleric spell they need and cast it immediately.

And there are enough good Cleric spells that not having access to the full Sorcerer/Wizard list isn't a big deal.

dextercorvia

2011-09-13, 09:10 PM

Yes, I am proving that a class with levels in Rainbow Servant is more versatile than a Wizard, and yes it is also true that a Wizard with levels in Rainbow Servant is also more versatile than a Wizard without levels in Rainbow Servant.

However, a Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, or Warmage with ten levels in Rainbow Servant is more versatile than a Wizard with ten levels in Rainbow Servant.

A Wizard X/Rainbow Servant 10 can choose to prepare and cast any Wizard or Cleric spell.

Contrast that with a (Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage) X/Rainbow Servant 10 who can spontaneously cast any spell on its or the Cleric's spell list.

The Wizard needs to prepare spells in advance. It needs to have some idea of what it might be up against. The Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage does not. In any situation, they can choose whatever Cleric spell they need and cast it immediately.

And there are enough good Cleric spells that not having access to the full Sorcerer/Wizard list isn't a big deal.

That doesn't come online until ECL11 or later. Wizards can be rocking Versatile Spellcaster and Uncanny Foresight from level 1. It isn't full list casting, but there are plenty of things we can do to max out spells known.

LordBlades

2011-09-14, 01:11 AM

Without early entry shenanigans, the Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage won't outclass the Wizard until level 16, but at that point they are, in fact, better than all of the other Tier 1 classes.

Archivist will want a word with you. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage spells+cleric spells are still worse than any spell in existence IMHO.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-14, 04:22 AM

And there are enough good Cleric spells that not having access to the full Sorcerer/Wizard list isn't a big deal.

I don't agree with this. Considering that the Dread Necro/Beguiler/Warmage lists aren't nearly as good as the Wizard list you're really just playing an extremely versatile Cleric with extra options. I'm not saying the non-cleric spells are useless, they get a lot of good debuffs, but they're far from the versatility of the Wizard list for which you're going to need the 4 levels of Prestige Paladin.

Yahzi

2011-09-14, 06:27 AM

But the wizard cannot emulate the sorcerer with their spell slots.
The coolest thing about the Sorcerer is he is never caught napping: if one of his spells is just the right thing to win the day, then he can win.

The bad thing about the wizard is that he might know the spell that could win, but not have it ready to cast.

Scrolls turn the wizard's bad thing into the sorcerer's good thing. And wizards get to make scrolls at level 1. :smallannoyed:

True, the wizard can't spam the same spell over and over without a large cost, but if he finds himself doing that, he can just memorize that spell multiple times. How often are you going to need to cast Fireball 7 times one day, and then Cone of Cold 7 times the next day? That's not what happens; what happens is, "Dang if we just had 3 invis spells (or more likely, 1 dispel/knock/illusion/divination), we could win!"

And for that scenario, the wiz is actually better than the sorc. Which sucks.

Seriously, I am having trouble figuring out why anyone would ever play anything but a wizard, cleric, or druid. Fighters are something you hire. Oh wait... that's 1E creeping back in. :smallbiggrin:

Talya

2011-09-14, 06:35 AM

I don't agree with this. Considering that the Dread Necro/Beguiler/Warmage lists aren't nearly as good as the Wizard list you're really just playing an extremely versatile Cleric with extra options. I'm not saying the non-cleric spells are useless, they get a lot of good debuffs, but they're far from the versatility of the Wizard list for which you're going to need the 4 levels of Prestige Paladin.

I don't know. Having spontaneous access to the ENTIRE cleric and beguiler list ... vs. having the ability to seek out those who will help you scribe divine scrolls of non-cleric spells...all the while having split casting ability scores and fairly low number of spells per day with no specialization tricks or ability to gain any spontaneous tricks...honestly, i'm not sure the average archivist will ever catch up to the spells that ridiculous rainbow beguiler already knows. But yes, they do have the potential to do so. I suspect the rainbow beguiler ends up being more useful, though. (assuming they already have level 9 spells. There's always those levels where the archivist is one whole spell level ahead, again...)

LordBlades

2011-09-14, 07:10 AM

I don't know. Having spontaneous access to the ENTIRE cleric and beguiler list ... vs. having the ability to seek out those who will help you scribe divine scrolls of non-cleric spells...all the while having split casting ability scores and fairly low number of spells per day with no specialization tricks or ability to gain any spontaneous tricks...honestly, i'm not sure the average archivist will ever catch up to the spells that ridiculous rainbow beguiler already knows. But yes, they do have the potential to do so. I suspect the rainbow beguiler ends up being more useful, though. (assuming they already have level 9 spells. There's always those levels where the archivist is one whole spell level ahead, again...)

Past a certain level number of spell slots cease to matter very much (more is better of course, but it's not a deal breaker anymore). Given the rocket tag nature of upper-mid and high level tier 1 play (and rainbow servant trick doesn't come into play before this point), you either finish the encounter in 1-2 spells, or you're (in the process of becoming) very dead.

Archivist has higher potential (and that's what the Tier system measures) but in an actual game, whichever ends up being more useful is entirely DM dependent IMO. In a high magic campaign, where an Archivist often encounters spellcasters to get more spells from and where divinations are not nerfed, the archivist will probably be better, since he can usually have the perfect solution to any problem and he knows of them in advance. In a world where spellcasters aren't commonplace and/or the DM doesn't like plot-breaking divinations the Rainbow Beguiler is probably more useful.

Thespianus

2011-09-14, 08:10 AM

LordBlades

2011-09-14, 08:53 AM

Waitaminute.... *picks up jaw from the floor*

..I'd just like to say that whoever wrote the Rainbow Servant PrC should _really_ have put more care into the phrasing of the Cleric Spell Access entry. *WOW*

I wasn't aware of the Rainbow Beguiler before, and this is just.. crazy.

Now, continue with the thread.

Rainbow Beguiler is somewhat less known than Rainbow Warsnake (Warmage/Rainbow Servant) mainly because going into Shadowcraft Mage for free Miracles on 1st level spell slots is a somewhat better (here 'better'='more abusable') trick.

noparlpf

2011-09-14, 08:55 AM

..I'd just like to say that whoever wrote the Rainbow Servant PrC should _really_ have put more care into the phrasing of the Cleric Spell Access entry. *WOW*

Welcome to the experience of WotC's editing department.

Anyway, what's this prestige Paladin trick?

Big Fau

2011-09-14, 09:06 AM

Welcome to the experience of WotC's editing department.

Anyway, what's this prestige Paladin trick?

Using PrC Pally to get Battle Blessing (CC) and getting a free Quicken Spell on every single spell you can cast as a Cleric.

LordBlades

2011-09-14, 09:11 AM

Anyway, what's this prestige Paladin trick?

Sword of the Arcane Order is a feat in Champions of Valor that allows you to prepare and cast wizard spells in your paladin spell slots. Since Prestige Paladin advances the spellcasting of a preexisting class, you can prepare wizard spells in those slots.

Kerrin

2011-09-14, 09:46 AM

Pigkappa

2011-09-14, 10:03 AM

If I ever played a sorcerer, I'd want some of the fixes applied to help out the class.

That is tricky because, well, Sorcerers don't suck. They are tier 2 and buffing them up would reasonably cause Bards, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins and so on to be quite angry.

Unless the game is Tier 1 only, of course.

Emmerask

2011-09-14, 10:09 AM

I have to say, I do like the flavor and the overall mechanics of the sorcerer class, but it does have the problems folks have pointed out in this thread (e.g. lack of bonus feats, slower spell level progression, no bonus spells due to stat, low skill points, etc).

If I ever played a sorcerer, I'd want some of the fixes applied to help out the class.

Hm it does´t really matter, because the thing is if you really play a wizard or the sorcerer to its maximum capacity, wizards might have 100 ways to end the encounter the first round, sorcerers have only 50 ways...

During actual play however that is not really important because well you only need one way to end the encounter the first round :smallwink:

(a bit exaggerated to make the point clearer)

navar100

2011-09-14, 07:37 PM

Well, in Pathfinder, crafting no longer takes XP. And only level draining effects can cause any XP losing.

Also, you don't need every spell of the prerequisite. It's +5 DC to the spellcraft check for each missing spell, but you can do it. Skill Focus (Spellcraft) will help. Sorcerers have an easier time crafting.

On the Pathfinder wizards' side, specialists can prepare and cast spells of their opposing schools by using up two spell slots of the level in preparation.

Infernalbargain

2011-09-15, 01:10 AM

Also, you don't need every spell of the prerequisite. It's +5 DC to the spellcraft check for each missing spell, but you can do it. Skill Focus (Spellcraft) will help. Sorcerers have an easier time crafting.

On the Pathfinder wizards' side, specialists can prepare and cast spells of their opposing schools by using up two spell slots of the level in preparation.

Also they can ban divination. Although a number of people spec divination for the massive +init.

TOZ

2011-09-15, 02:19 AM

Sword of the Arcane Order is a feat in Champions of Valor that allows you to prepare and cast wizard spells in your paladin spell slots. Since Prestige Paladin advances the spellcasting of a preexisting class, you can prepare wizard spells in those slots.

Using PrC Pally to get Battle Blessing (CC) and getting a free Quicken Spell on every single spell you can cast as a Cleric.

*bangs head against desk* These are both beautiful and painful at the same time.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-15, 04:56 AM

Also they can ban divination. Although a number of people spec divination for the massive +init.

I thought you might say that, because I specialized in the Foresight School. :smallcool:

tyckspoon

2011-09-15, 02:13 PM

*bangs head against desk* These are both beautiful and painful at the same time.

They also don't work. At best, you might get Battle Blessing on the unique Paladin spells you add to your list. Otherwise, Prestige Paladin does not grant Paladin spells or slots for those feats- because it advances your previous casting, you're still casting Cleric or Wizard spells out of Cleric or Wizard slots. (And the Rainbow Servant abuse would have to go out of its way to qualify for Prestige Pally anyway- it needs to pick up both Turn Undead and a way to cast Prot. From Evil as divine.. since Prestige Paladin doesn't actually work for it, it's not worth torturing the build to do.)

sreservoir

2011-09-15, 02:45 PM

They also don't work. At best, you might get Battle Blessing on the unique Paladin spells you add to your list. Otherwise, Prestige Paladin does not grant Paladin spells or slots for those feats- because it advances your previous casting, you're still casting Cleric or Wizard spells out of Cleric or Wizard slots. (And the Rainbow Servant abuse would have to go out of its way to qualify for Prestige Pally anyway- it needs to pick up both Turn Undead and a way to cast Prot. From Evil as divine.. since Prestige Paladin doesn't actually work for it, it's not worth torturing the build to do.)

rainbow servants without prot evil get it as divine, and turning is a dip away.

it sucks for wizards, but I don't think any of warmage, beguiler, dread necromaner get protection from evil.

(the fact that it doesn't actually work, on the other hand...)

Elitarismo

2011-09-15, 04:18 PM

Wizards are better than Sorcerers, but both are still good.

Tr011

2011-09-15, 05:02 PM

Wizards are more versatile, but if a sorcerer does pick his spells very well he can be outrageous in battle, while he will still lack the versatility out of fight and thereby will have more problems handling other kinds of encounters.

The big problem of a sorcerer is, he gets his spells one level later (and has less class features, but who doesn't pick PrCs anyway?)

But you always have to consider that a sorcerer makes his spell choices once, while a wizard has to pick them every day (meaning more work for the player).

Souhiro

2011-09-16, 01:05 PM

That is tricky because, well, Sorcerers don't suck. They are tier 2 and buffing them up would reasonably cause Bards, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins and so on to be quite angry.

Unless the game is Tier 1 only, of course.

The sad part is that kerrin said that he likes sorcerers, but he would like some backpunch, since they get spells later, are more limited, and don't get free feats as the wizard do.

It REALLY had to hurt, to play a Sorc when a Wizard is in the campaing. He gets his spells one Lvl before you, having the variety... and assuming that you choose a nice spell when you level up, then you have to hear "Oh, that's a good spell. I shall research it, and with my bonus Wand Creation feat will make a wand of it, so I'll be able to spam your spell long after you have burned out your reserves!"

Think about it: When a wizard is offered a PrC with full spell progresion, he loses a feat each 5 levels and free spells to his spellbook. You can consider it.
When a sorcerer is offered the very same PrC, he has NOTHING to lose.

About Fighters and Paladins complains, they don't have a class that is "Just whatever you do, but I can do it before, and better".

But again, Sorcerers and Monks can laught on the wizard and fighter's faces when they're playing a "Jailed and Plundered" scenario.
"Oh.. you are without your spellbook? and you without the sword? Don't worry. We are here. Sit down, look, and try don't get in trouble"

Flickerdart

2011-09-16, 01:20 PM

But again, Sorcerers and Monks can laught on the wizard and fighter's faces when they're playing a "Jailed and Plundered" scenario.
"Oh.. you are without your spellbook? and you without the sword? Don't worry. We are here. Sit down, look, and try don't get in trouble"
Except a Monk without his gear is even more useless than he is with the gear. Besides, a Wizard doesn't suddenly forget all the spells he had prepared yesterday - even if he's captured at the end of the day, he's going to have a decent amount of spells left over. If their captors are smart, they'll also make it impossible for the spellcasters to regain spells anyway, such as only letting the prisoners have 7 hours and 59 minutes of rest.

Coidzor

2011-09-16, 01:41 PM

That is tricky because, well, Sorcerers don't suck. They are tier 2 and buffing them up would reasonably cause Bards, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins and so on to be quite angry.

Might as well put some effort into resolving their issues too, yes, and fortunately there's been quite a number of people who've put time into doing that so there's a plethora of material to crib anyway, but the sorcerer having access to powerful spellcasting does not alleviate the whole redheaded stepchild thing they've got going on.

To wit, they suck compared to their siamese twin, which is the biggest point of comparison. If you've already got T1 on the table, then only by making sorcerer worse than T1 for game balance would you have actually affected game balance negatively.

elvengunner69

2011-09-16, 10:57 PM

Wizards are better than Sorcerers, but both are still good.

And so we come full circle :smallwink:

Arbane

2011-09-17, 01:11 AM

About Fighters and Paladins complains, they don't have a class that is "Just whatever you do, but I can do it before, and better".

Warblades and Clerics?

Elitarismo

2011-09-17, 07:42 AM

And so we come full circle :smallwink:

I just thought I'd summarize the thread.

Qwertystop

2011-09-17, 08:38 AM

Warblades and Clerics?

Or Warblades and Crusaders, for something a bit closer to Paladin. Cleric is a spellcaster, it just happens to get spells at higher levels that let it imitate a weapon-fighter. A Crusader is Paladin-but-better through every level.

elvengunner69

2011-09-17, 10:02 AM

I just thought I'd summarize the thread.

Absolutely - pretty much what the consensus seems to be at any rate.

Midnight_v

2011-09-17, 10:44 AM

To wit, they suck compared to their siamese twin, which is the biggest point of comparison. If you've already got T1 on the table, then only by making sorcerer worse than T1 for game balance would you have actually affected game balance negatively.

Hmm... I have a sorcerer = to wizard class I created. I felt it didn't get the attention it deserved. What I found, is while people will applaud Paladin Fixes, and fight endlessly over the latest fighter fix.
When you fix the sorcerer to equal a wizard, I don't think anyone cares, really (in general) because "Sorcerers are already TIER 2" and what can you do except make them tier 1.
I tried to make a sorcerer that was more flavorful, and had class features other that spell casting. People spoke on it, but I found the reception to be non-plused. So my question is how does one fix the red-headed stepchild feeling?

Jack_Simth

2011-09-17, 11:02 AM

I tried to make a sorcerer that was more flavorful, and had class features other that spell casting. People spoke on it, but I found the reception to be non-plused. So my question is how does one fix the red-headed stepchild feeling?Well, anything you attempt to do for the purposes of adding flavor to the class will give it a more fixed flavor - "Yes, you're a sorcerer because your Great-Great-Granddaddy was an [X]". Almost anything you pick will force it towards being some form of blood ability. Meanwhile, the Core Sorcerer has almost no inherent flavor, and seems intended to be a flavor-yourself class (they're called "self-taught", and it's mentioned that "some claim draconic ancestry", but that's as far as it goes). Some people object to that. Others will go: "Great... yet another take on the Sorcerer".

Midnight_v

2011-09-17, 11:13 AM

Almost anything you pick will force it towards being some form of blood ability
Ha! Well you're right, I did do that but thats really all they have and so I tried to expand on what that might mean exactly. Uhm.. Here's an excerpt.

The mortal races were not always the masters of the world we inhabit. In the long night before our age dawned, creatures of unchallenged might built vast empires on the backs of our ancestors, empires of privlege, and power, and blood.
Inevitably, as all rules must thier era came to a close; though it is not difficult to see the remnants of what they wrought, ancient monoliths yet stand in every corner of the world, sentient artifacts still calls out tirelessly warring against long vanished foes and every humanoid child still fears the coming of the night.
Thus, while the age of monsters came to an end, the most terrifying reminder of what once was, and could be yet again lives on... in you.

Making a Sorcerer

YOU ARE NOT DESCEDED FROM DRAGONS. . . unless you want to be. Many sorcerers have many different creatures that provide much variety to their ancestry. That being said some sorcerers actually are descended from dragons, while other are descended from angels, and still others from much darker origins.
The point is your ancestry is a particularly unique thing that varies from pc background to pc background.
My Sorcerer I used to playtest in an actually game as mentioned in the title quote, had Rakshash blood in his veins. Make your ancestry your own. Its a roleplaying point not a mechanical one but a point that needed to be made.
Some sorcerers aren't even descended from the time before some of them are the results of magical accidents, or creations, thats something each player that wants to run a sorcerer should keep in mind.
You are an full arcane spellcaster with a unique tie to magic, in that you're born into it.Y ou're life is often a mission of discovery and a personal journey into your own power and past. Your class is the counter as well as counter part to a wizard and that is the class you're most balanced with.
While you don't gain access to spells as quickly the wizard does, you gain class features that make up for it, access to sorceror only spells as well as a greater selection of spells though at a higher cost.
Lastly some of the class features exsit only as long as you continue down the path of sorcery this means that there is a definite trade off for multiclassing and prc'ing. Anytime it says in a description "You lose this ability if you leave the sorceror class unless you are a level X sorceror" this is intended to include Prestige classing out. -M