Teach me why wizards > sorcerers

[Lynam III]

Hello everybody,

I am not a hardcore D&D optimizer; but whenever I hear the argument that wizards are unambiguously superior to sorcerers, I cringe. This is possibly because my lack of knowledge on divination spells, so I decided to ask you.

The basic argument is as follows:

Wizards have a wider spell selection, so can deal with anything, given prior information so that proper preparation can take place.

Sorcerers have a very constrained set of spells, but they can choose which spell to cast on the spot, which provides them with very high versatility.

This in itself would mean that sorcerers would outperform wizards in scenarios involving very high uncertainty about the future. However, I have heard that there is the divination argument - an argument which posits that wizards can have foreknowledge of all possible events so that they can optimize their spell list and outperform the sorcerer.

What I don't know is through which spells, and to what extent?

Another problem: if the DM says tomor,row the weather will be dragony, what would happen if a PC caused the predicted event not to take place? Would the DM retro the prediction and allow the wizard to pick the spells again? Would the DM accept the info given to the wizard as fate, and disallow any PCs to prevent the weather to be dragony?

I would be grateful if you could explain me the argument, and any links to past discussions would be greatly appreciated.

In addition; I know that there are advantages to the wizards beyond the basic comparison that I gave. For the purpose of this thread, assume no multiclassing, and using stuff only from player's handbook.

[Emperor Ing]

Primarily because wizards get bonus feats, and a wider variety of spells from which to choose from. The primary disadvantage is that they have to predict how many times certain spells will be useful, so they have to predict situations where these spells will be useful. However there's spells to get around that hurdle (scrying, others I can't think of off the top of my head) Though mostly because they get bonus feats. IMO, the wizard would be significantly less powerful without them. Not that this will totally equalize them mind you, but it will put them on more even footing.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards get Scribe Scroll for free - he can have one shot of every single spell he knows at quite a reasonable price, all things considered. He also gains access to spells one level earlier, and gains bonus feats. Oh, and he can Quicken spells, meaning he can cast two in one round, whereas the Sorcerer can't.

Wizards can also afford to prepare spells with very situational uses, or simply spells that can't be used a lot for practical reasons. How often is a Sorcerer going to cast Wish, or for that matter any other spell with a costly XP component?

Sorcerers have essentially no support in-core that isn't also Wizard support. Outside core, Sorcerers get some special stuff, but...

When you go outside core, Wizards get quite a lot of boosts too, but as you said inside core I won't discuss them.

[Lynam III]

Primarily because wizards get bonus feats, and a wider variety of spells from which to choose from. The primary disadvantage is that they have to predict how many times certain spells will be useful, so they have to predict situations where these spells will be useful. However there's spells to get around that hurdle (scrying, others I can't think of off the top of my head) Though mostly because they get bonus feats. IMO, the wizard would be significantly less powerful without them. Not that this will totally equalize them mind you, but it will put them on more even footing.

I don't particularly care about the freebies that come with the wizard, as I explicitly mentioned on my post. I want to hear this scrying argument out - I don't buy it

[deuxhero]

See every spell with an expensive material/XP component? That's all effectively off limits to a Sorcerer (until Epic) because they can't prepare it when needed.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Wizards can leave slots unopened and spend some time to fill it if there is a situational spell needed. Clerics can in theory, but the Forgotten Realms and possibly other campaign settings disallow it by forcing you to prepare spells at a specific time of day.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards can scry on opponents to work out their defenses, and prepare spells accordingly. They can also play 'twenty questions with the universe', with spells like Augury, Divination or Contact Other Plane.

Sorcerers can cast these spells too, of course, but it doesn't really help him prepare in advance because he's stuck with his chosen spells.

[Lynam III]

Wizards get Scribe Scroll for free - he can have one shot of every single spell he knows at quite a reasonable price, all things considered. He also gains access to spells one level earlier, and gains bonus feats. Oh, and he can Quicken spells, meaning he can cast two in one round, whereas the Sorcerer can't.

Wizards can also afford to prepare spells with very situational uses, or simply spells that can't be used a lot for practical reasons. How often is a Sorcerer going to cast Wish, or for that matter any other spell with a costly XP component?

Sorcerers have essentially no support in-core that isn't also Wizard support. Outside core, Sorcerers get some special stuff, but...

When you go outside core, Wizards get quite a lot of boosts too, but as you said inside core I won't discuss them.

Again, I don't care about the freebies. I just don't see how wizards can attain a level of foresight to put them at equal footing with sorcerers on scenarios involving high uncertainty in terms of what will be faces, and the outcome of the rolls, which are by definition independent of previous forecasts.

[The-Mage-King]

Wizards can leave slots open to prepare again. If, halfway through the day, a Wizard realizes that he's going to be needing that specific spell before the end of the day, and he left a couple of slots open, he can take 15 minutes and prep it.



And the freebies are part of the reason.

[deuxhero]

Wizards can prepare a divination spell, use it, then prepare something else when they actually act on this info and fight the BBEG. Sorcerers are stuck with that divination spell that often has a long casting time.

[Yuki Akuma]

If the DM is deciding everything with random rolls, of course forecasting isn't going to work. But most DMs will have actual established enemies to build something approaching a cohesive story. Do your investigative work on them, not the random encounters.

Most Wizards have a standard spell load out that'll help them in many situations. Very rarely will you actually investigate your opponents, but the fact is that Wizards can do that, and change their spells to match.

Sorcerers can only have the standard spell load out and nothing else. Which is still good - Sorcerers are just as good as Wizards at pure brute force (they're level 9 spellcasters with the same spell list), but Wizards are more versatile.

Class abilities don't exist in a vacuum. Wizards aren't better than Sorcerers just because they can ask the DM what's going to happen and change their spells to suit. They also get more feats, also know more spells, also have the ability to cast spells a Sorcerer would have to be an idiot to know...

[Lynam III]

See every spell with an expensive material/XP component? That's all effectively off limits to a Sorcerer (until Epic) because they can't prepare it when needed.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Wizards can leave slots unopened and spend some time to fill it if there is a situational spell needed. Clerics can in theory, but the Forgotten Realms and possibly other campaign settings disallow it by forcing you to prepare spells at a specific time of day.

Expensive material component: Can the sorcerer not buy scrolls to cast those expensive material/XP component spells anyway?

I never heard of this 'lite sleep' thing. Was it introduced on 3.5, or 3? How does it exactly work?

And for argument's sake, any challenge that can wait for the wizard to rest can also be surpassed by a sorcerer that can buy the relevant scroll; so I don't see the exact advantage.

[Lynam III]

Wizards can prepare a divination spell, use it, then prepare something else when they actually act on this info and fight the BBEG. Sorcerers are stuck with that divination spell that often has a long casting time.

I am exactly asking how that works. Please see original post (the dragony weather scenario). It creates some "fate" problems

[hamishspence]

Being one spell level ahead might make a big difference at the relevant (odd numbered) character levels.

[Yuki Akuma]

Expensive material component: Can the sorcerer not buy scrolls to cast those expensive material/XP component spells anyway?

Sure. But the scroll's cost includes the expensive material component in its pricing. And if the Wizard casts it himself, well, it ends up being cheaper in the long run - he only has to buy the scroll once, and can cast it as many times as he likes afterwards.

[Lynam III]

If the DM is deciding everything with random rolls, of course forecasting isn't going to work. But most DMs will have actual established enemies to build something approaching a cohesive story. Do your investigative work on them, not the random encounters.

Most Wizards have a standard spell load out that'll help them in many situations. Very rarely will you actually investigate your opponents, but the fact is that Wizards can do that, and change their spells to match.

Sorcerers can only have the standard spell load out and nothing else. Which is still good - Sorcerers are just as good as Wizards at pure brute force (they're level 9 spellcasters with the same spell list), but Wizards are more versatile.

Class abilities don't exist in a vacuum. Wizards aren't better than Sorcerers just because they can ask the DM what's going to happen and change their spells to suit. They also get more feats, also know more spells, also have the ability to cast spells a Sorcerer would have to be an idiot to know...

As I stated, I am not talking about scenarios where there is low uncertainty. If there is low uncertainty, the party must have to be stupid or below the level of the encounter to lose any way. The life and death situations for a party are situations that involve uncertainty.

If investigation is an option, I don't see why the sorcerer cannot buy respective wands or scrolls to be as prepared as the wizard.

I know the static advantages of the wizard. But "the divination argument" I have heard is that wizards can also be as good as sorcerers in scenarios with uncertainty. I don't see how *that* works out. Seems like an ex-post fallacy to me.

[Yora]

This in itself would mean that sorcerers would outperform wizards in scenarios involving very high uncertainty about the future. However, I have heard that there is the divination argument - an argument which posits that wizards can have foreknowledge of all possible events so that they can optimize their spell list and outperform the sorcerer.

What I don't know is through which spells, and to what extent?
I've tried to find out about this myself a couple of times, but I never got anyone to give me an answer that I think would work even with a DM who is pretty laid back about letting players get through with their plans, even if they are not perfectly within the rules as they are written.

As I see it, it is not possible and actually an urban myth.

[Namfuak]

One thing I've always noticed is that people seem to either ignore or have willful ignorance of the rules regarding a wizard's spellbook and the spells contained. People always seem to assume wizards have a huge repertoire of spells at their disposal - however, in order to actually have a spell in their spellbook, besides the few spells they get per level, they have to either find another wizard's spellbook or find the spell on a scroll. Assuming they pass the related spellcraft checks, it still takes 48 (24 for learning + 24 for writing, IIRC) hours per spell to scribe them into the spellbook. RAW, that means a couple of days per spell, because the wizard will presumably have to spend time eating and sleeping (and going to the bathroom, though that is not technically RAW I suppose). On top of this, as written spellbooks have exactly 100 pages for spells, with spells taking up one page per spell level (0 level spells take one page each as well). A wizard's starting book contains all 0 level spells, by RAW every one that exists in the universe (so if your DM allows homebrew, your first spellbook is basically just 0 level spells). Note how I say "first" spellbook. If you follow these rules to the letter, you will definitely need at least 3 spellbooks by the time you are around 5th level spells if you are taking a lot of time to get new ones.

What can a DM do about this? Well, he can certainly have people stealing, destroying, and otherwise separating the wizard from his spellbooks. He doesn't even need to steal them all - steal one, and if the Wizard hasn't been specifying which spell is in which book say that it was the one with all his high level spells. Now the next day the wizard has to prepare only the spells he has of 6th level or lower, since his spellbook full of 7s is gone (for example).

[Gavinfoxx]

I am exactly asking how that works. Please see original post (the dragony weather scenario). It creates some "fate" problems

Okay. So every Tuesday or so, the Wizard loads up on various divination spells.

He casts a bunch of them, asking questions about the universe about various threats that he might have to deal with in the coming week.

Here are some core divinations that a Wizard gets access to:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyes.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vision.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyesGreater.htm

Some are useful when you are right outside a dungeon, some (with xp costs) you only use when you need to, some are in your weekly divining session.

Now, with stuff like Scrying, you can basically find where the main threat is, and get sufficient visual information to be able to teleport to it. So, determining the main threat and its weaknesses, the next day you prepare spells specifically to counter it, teleport to it, destroy it, and teleport out.

Problem solved. Stuff like "need to find and contact the resistance leader" is solved by specific spells. What the Wizard does is use his massive spell access to proactively find and solve problems, without having to slug through dungeons and stuff. He just bypasses all the trudging around or working through enemies or whatever, and immediately solves problems.

Mostly, its that the wizard has greater spell access. He gets more spells, can scribe spells, can get spells of higher level earlier, can prepare spells specifically to determine the nature of a problem, prepare targeted spells specifically against a particular problem, can use a wider variety of utility spells, etc. etc.

[Jeraa]

Clerics can in theory, but the Forgotten Realms and possibly other campaign settings disallow it by forcing you to prepare spells at a specific time of day.

That limitation (a specific time of day) isn't limited to the Realms. Its the rule for all divine casters from the Players Handbook. Link. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/divineSpells.htm#preparingDivineSpells)


Time of Day

A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells.

[Dr Bwaa]

I am exactly asking how that works. Please see original post (the dragony weather scenario). It creates some "fate" problems

People have already answered your question with specific spells/tactics, such as "playing twenty questions with the universe", etc. And to clarify, I don't think anyone would argue that wizards (pre-epic) can have "foreknowledge of all possible events", but they can certainly have enough advance information to know, say, whether they will have time (15 minutes) to prepare some more spells between the time they learn that they will need them and the time that need actually arises. "Will I know what kind of monster it is at least 15 minutes before I fight it?"

As to your fate "problem", that's an issue for the DM to figure out and has nothing to do with the argument as far as I can tell. Worst case, after the first time the future is changed/not changed, the Wizard now understands how predicting the future works, and can ask future questions accordingly.

Re: Expensive Material Components/XP Costs: sure, you can buy scrolls of them. But that means wasting the (full) cost of an X level scroll with an EMC, compared to a wizard who only pays component cost. Still useful for a spell you don't need often, but also still inferior to the Wizard.

e: get ninja'd by ALL the people!


If investigation is an option, I don't see why the sorcerer cannot buy respective wands or scrolls to be as prepared as the wizard.

Of course he can, if it comes down to it, but now you're getting into giacomo monk territory: anyone can be as strong as the Wizard, if they're willing to spend money to catch up. But the Wizard doesn't have to spend that money to have those abilities (most do, as people have pointed out regarding spellbook costs/etc. But they don't have to).

[Gavinfoxx]

One thing I've always noticed is that people seem to either ignore or have willful ignorance of the rules regarding a wizard's spellbook and the spells contained. People always seem to assume wizards have a huge repertoire of spells at their disposal - however, in order to actually have a spell in their spellbook, besides the few spells they get per level, they have to either find another wizard's spellbook or find the spell on a scroll. Assuming they pass the related spellcraft checks, it still takes 48 (24 for learning + 24 for writing, IIRC) hours per spell to scribe them into the spellbook. RAW, that means a couple of days per spell, because the wizard will presumably have to spend time eating and sleeping (and going to the bathroom, though that is not technically RAW I suppose). On top of this, as written spellbooks have exactly 100 pages for spells, with spells taking up one page per spell level (0 level spells take one page each as well). A wizard's starting book contains all 0 level spells, by RAW every one that exists in the universe (so if your DM allows homebrew, your first spellbook is basically just 0 level spells). Note how I say "first" spellbook. If you follow these rules to the letter, you will definitely need at least 3 spellbooks by the time you are around 5th level spells if you are taking a lot of time to get new ones.

What can a DM do about this? Well, he can certainly have people stealing, destroying, and otherwise separating the wizard from his spellbooks. He doesn't even need to steal them all - steal one, and if the Wizard hasn't been specifying which spell is in which book say that it was the one with all his high level spells. Now the next day the wizard has to prepare only the spells he has of 6th level or lower, since his spellbook full of 7s is gone (for example).

That's why most people come up with a gentleman's agreement to not target the wizard's spellbook. Most of the time, if you are strictly enforcing the drudgework of these rules, the wizard will come up with ways of protecting his spellbook... also, he will invest in that spellshard or a boccob's blessed book immediately. Also note that, by RAW, most villages of a certain size and above have scrolls of every wizard spell ever.

[Yuki Akuma]

What can a DM do about this? Well, he can certainly have people stealing, destroying, and otherwise separating the wizard from his spellbooks. He doesn't even need to steal them all - steal one, and if the Wizard hasn't been specifying which spell is in which book say that it was the one with all his high level spells. Now the next day the wizard has to prepare only the spells he has of 6th level or lower, since his spellbook full of 7s is gone (for example).

Sure, and while you're at it, why not steal the Fighter's magic weapons and armour he channelled all of his WBL into?

[Lynam III]

Okay. So every Tuesday or so, the Wizard loads up on various divination spells.

He casts a bunch of them, asking questions about the universe about various threats that he might have to deal with in the coming week.

Here are some core divinations that a Wizard gets access to:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyes.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vision.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyesGreater.htm

Some are useful when you are right outside a dungeon, some (with xp costs) you only use when you need to, some are in your weekly divining session.

Now, with stuff like Scrying, you can basically find where the main threat is, and get sufficient visual information to be able to teleport to it. So, determining the main threat and its weaknesses, the next day you prepare spells specifically to counter it, teleport to it, destroy it, and teleport out.

Problem solved. Stuff like "need to find and contact the resistance leader" is solved by specific spells. What the Wizard does is use his massive spell access to proactively find and solve problems, without having to slug through dungeons and stuff. He just bypasses all the trudging around or working through enemies or whatever, and immediately solves problems.

Mostly, its that the wizard has greater spell access. He gets more spells, can scribe spells, can get spells of higher level earlier, can prepare spells specifically to determine the nature of a problem, prepare targeted spells specifically against a particular problem, can use a wider variety of utility spells, etc. etc.

I will meditate on the spells you linked, they probably contain most of the answer.

Still the scenario you mentioned is not how most narrative driven games work. Finding out the main "villain" of the plot is not always possible. Given that we are talking about nonlinear scenarios that unfold according to the choices of the PC, rather than a linear CRPG, I don't see the point.

Plus, I perhaps should have clarified the term uncertainty. There is uncertainty about what you will face AND uncertainty about dice rolls. Here's the example:

Wizard casts dispel. It doesn't work. He didn't memorize 2 dispels so his is screwed.

The sorcerer could have cast a second one if the first one failed.

This is exactly what happened on the PbP I am playing at the moment, BTW.

[Morph Bark]

As I stated, I am not talking about scenarios where there is low uncertainty. If there is low uncertainty, the party must have to be stupid or below the level of the encounter to lose any way. The life and death situations for a party are situations that involve uncertainty.

If investigation is an option, I don't see why the sorcerer cannot buy respective wands or scrolls to be as prepared as the wizard.

I know the static advantages of the wizard. But "the divination argument" I have heard is that wizards can also be as good as sorcerers in scenarios with uncertainty. I don't see how *that* works out. Seems like an ex-post fallacy to me.

If there would be a high level of uncertainty, why are you so certain the Sorcerer would have access to magic items to buy? :smallconfused:

[Piggy Knowles]

Even if (for some reason) you're not taking into account the "freebies" (feats and ACFs), or the fact that Intelligence is a more useful stat than Charisma, or the fact that wizards can leave spell slots unprepared, or divination spells, or the fact that wizards get access to spells a level earlier (that one's a biggie), or the ability to quicken spells...

...I STILL don't see how you can claim that a sorcerer is more versatile in most situations.

Let's take level 10. (We won't take level 9, because wizards have a clear advantage on odd levels, and at level 9 a wizard is teleporting while a sorcerer is stuck with dimension door).

At level 10, a wizard should be casting 4 5th level spells - 2, plus one from specialization, plus a bonus spell from a high ability score.

At level 10, a sorcerer should also be casting 4 5th level spells (3, plus one bonus spell). But how many spells does he actually know? One. He knows one 5th-level spell, and if that one spell isn't useful, well, he's SOL.

Because of this, a sorcerer has to be extraordinarily general in spell selection. He CAN'T pick up, say, teleport or break enchantment at level 10, because the likelihood of needing to cast them as his sole 5th-level spell is slim-to-nil. Meanwhile, a wizard CAN afford to keep a teleport spell prepared.

Also, there's a logical fallacy with a lot of the sorcerer vs. wizard arguments, where people argue that, barring crazy divination shenanigans, a wizard can't know what to prepare every day, and therefore is weaker than the sorcerer. The thing is, the sorcerer is in the exact same boat as a wizard, only the sorcerer can't self-correct. If you made a bad choice as a wizard, you're stuck with that bad choice until tomorrow. If you made a bad choice as a sorcerer, you're stuck with that bad choice and nothing BUT that bad choice until you gain a level. Heck, you may even need to wait as many as four levels just to drop the spell.

[Namfuak]

Sure, and while you're at it, why not steal the Fighter's magic weapons and armour he channelled all of his WBL into?

There's a big difference between taking away all of a character's power and taking away a bit of it. Also, if your wizard player is mature enough to handle it, it can be fun to force him to improvise without a spellbook for awhile. Part of the reason I'm advocating it is that it is a much better way of breaking apart ridiculous spell combinations than simply telling the wizard player that he cannot do what he wants to do.

[Denamort]

Using divination is only one of the strategies a Wizard. The thing is, the wizard is not better than the sorcerer because of it's ability to use divination, is much more basic.
Let's look a the math: The wizard gets 4 daily spells of every level, the Sorcerer 6. How many spells does the sorcerer know? 4 per level. In other words, the Sorcerer has as many spells know as the wizard has daily (let's ignore extra spells for high Int./Cha for now).
What does that mean for the Sorcerer. If Sorcerers prepared spell, the Sorcerer could prepare as many spell as a wizard and the repeat two spells. But the wizard gains extra spells. The wizard now has, in every level where he gets an extra spell because of high Intellect, a fifth spell prepared (or sixth, and so on). The Sorcerer, on the other hand, has the same spells abailable, he just can repeat them more often.
"BUT!" You may say "The Sorcerer doesn't prepare spells, he's an spontaneous caster. He can cast 4 diferent spells on one day or repeat the same spell 6 times, or two spell 3 and 3. He has versatility, right?"
No, he doesn't. Because of the nature of spells in D&D, a spellcaster rarely needs to repeat a spell. The only spell that need to be repeated are those that deal damage, wich are considered (rigthly so) the weaker ones. There are some exceptions, of course. Enervation is one of them. The usual spells are "Save or Something" (Baleful Polymorph,Slow), or Buffs (Haste) or No-Save (Solid Fog) that requiere a single casting. Even if the enemy saves the spell, using it again is as useful as using a diferent spell. Baleful Polymorph failed? Try Slow. Or Cloudkill. Or Phantasmal Killer. The Sorcerer uses the same spell over and over, the wizard simply changes it. And because the wizard has variety, he is sure to have at least one spell that can go trough the enemy's defenses, whereas the Sorcerer may end with 6 fireballs against a Demon. The wizard will be better prepared 75% of the time than the Sorcerer. There will be some encounter in wich the Sorcerer will shine more than the wizard, because he has the rigth spells.

But, you asked how divinations work. Well, first you start with Contact Other Plane, Legend Lore and the like, to know what will you face. The DM must guess what will the party do next, but since the wizard must ask specific quesitons, the party is most likely alredy planning to go somewhere. So, the DM gives the players a clue about what they are going to face. Then the wizard uses direct divination (Scrying) to see the enemy directly and find it's weaknesesse. If posible, he may then teleport with the party already buffed and ready. Of course, the DM may give them a clue about what they will face when they enter the Evil Temple of Malevolence, but he doesn't mention anything about the random encounter they will face in the way because he doesn't know what they are going to encounter (hence, Random), but for most of the cases, let's say 90%, divination will tell you more or less exactly what you will face. Also, the Wizard has Knowledge (Any) as a class skill, wich lets him identify monsters more easily than a Sorcerer.

So, is not that the wizard is always, without exceptions, totally above the lame, pathetic Sorcerer. They just have more resources at their disposition, making them ususally more efficent and reliable.

[Johel]

Sure, and while you're at it, why not steal the Fighter's magic weapons and armour he channelled all of his WBL into?

Hey !! That's a nice idea !! :smalltongue:

More seriously, the "your spellbook is stolen" scenario can be good to put in a game.
But only as long as the wizard has a way to get it back.
The player might appreciate the challenge of having 9th level spell slot but only 6th level spells to fill them.
And the stolen spellbook can be an adventure hook to lead to something bigger.

[Lynam III]

If there would be a high level of uncertainty, why are you so certain the Sorcerer would have access to magic items to buy? :smallconfused:

I don't. I say that in cases with low uncertainty, the sorcerer can match the wizard, albeit at a higher material cost. It is a disadvantage, yes, but it also shows that the wizard's advantage in certain situations is one that hinges on the resource constraints of the party.

[Yuki Akuma]

There's a big difference between taking away all of a character's power and taking away a bit of it.

Yes, there is. Which is why you don't take the Wizard's spellbook and arbitrarily decide that it's the one with his best spells in it.

What if he's using Boccob's Blessed Book, or is a Geometer and only needs one spellbook?

[Piggy Knowles]

Here's the example:

Wizard casts dispel. It doesn't work. He didn't memorize 2 dispels so his is screwed.

The sorcerer could have cast a second one if the first one failed.

This is exactly what happened on the PbP I am playing at the moment, BTW.

What I see more frequently is this:

SCENARIO 1: It's level 5. The wizard casts dispel magic. The sorcerer casts... scorching ray, I guess?

SCENARIO 2: It's level 6. The wizard casts dispel magic and fails his check. His other third level spells for the day are stinking cloud and fly, so he can't dispel again. Instead, he casts stinking cloud and takes out a crowd of mooks.

Meanwhile, the sorcerer casts dispel magic. It fails, so he casts dispel magic again, and it works. Hurrah! Except that the reason he had those extra spell slots is because he doesn't know anything EXCEPT dispel magic, so he can't cast anything else. Sad trombone.

[Talya]

While everything stated is technically true, the difference is often overstated, relying on incredibly unlikely levels of "preparation." Try as they might, PCs will never be Batman. That level of preparation and foresight doesn't exist, and divinations are hardly reliable. A sorcerer is generally better (at even levels, anyway) in the normal situation where characters playing wizards prep a bunch of general purpose spells and hope for the best (which is 99% of the time anyway.) With splatbooks, and heavy metamagic investment, a sorcerer is, most of the time, going to be just as effective as a wizard, and possibly even more so, except for a few other problems:

(1) Starting at 3rd level and at every odd level thereafter, the wizard is 1 spell level ahead. At those levels, the wizard completely dominates the sorcerer. At even levels, the sorcerer knows only one spell from their top tier, which compounds the problem.
(2) Just to pile insult on top of injury, the wizard gets scribe scroll at level 1 and a bonus feat at level 5. (Also, 10, 15 and 20...but who hasn't PrCed out by then anyway?)
(3) Both classes get 2+int skills per level. Based on the casting ability, who does that favor?


I'm a big fan of the sorcerer, and if you roam outside of core, you can really start to laugh in the face of that small spells known limit with quite a few tricks and neat bits of gear, and manage an incredible amount of versatility. But ultimately, most of the time, due to the problems above the wizard will feel like he's a sorcerer 2 levels ahead of you.

[Gnaeus]

As I stated, I am not talking about scenarios where there is low uncertainty. If there is low uncertainty, the party must have to be stupid or below the level of the encounter to lose any way. The life and death situations for a party are situations that involve uncertainty.

That does not necessarily follow.
Example: Your 5th level party has broken an infernal contract. Every day at noon an Ice devil will appear and kill one of you.

Certain? Yes. Lethal? Yes.


If investigation is an option, I don't see why the sorcerer cannot buy respective wands or scrolls to be as prepared as the wizard.

1. Its more expensive.
2. Maybe you aren't in a big city.
3. Maybe you have a day, and it takes longer than that for ye olde magic marte to work


I know the static advantages of the wizard. But "the divination argument" I have heard is that wizards can also be as good as sorcerers in scenarios with uncertainty. I don't see how *that* works out. Seems like an ex-post fallacy to me.

Try this one: When exploring the Island of X, are we likely to encounter creatures with spell resistance?
When exploring the Island of X, are we likely to encounter creatures with damage reduction?
When exploring the Island of X, are we likely to encounter creatures with energy resistance?
When exploring the Island of X, are we likely to encounter creatures with energy attacks?
When exploring the Island of X, are we likely to encounter creatures which can attack invisible opponents without penalty?

Do you think that any of those answers might alter which spells you prepare? I do.

[Yuki Akuma]

I think the main thing to remember is that, while the Wizard is better than the Sorcerer in some situations (mostly versatility-based), the Sorcerer is still one of the best classes in the game.

Sorcerer is solidly tier 2.

(Tier 1 actually means 'as powerful as tier 2, with more versatility', by the way.)

[Lynam III]

@Gnaeus

1) That is an anectode.

2) Yes, your concerns are valid in that case. But it also shows that the problem is a material one (you need money), not a capability one.

3) If I was playing a campaign as boring as cleansing the island of X, that might have been the case. Luckily, I generally choose campaigns in a city setting with political intrigues thrown in, and there is no way you can be prepared against each and everything a metropolis can throw at you.

[Particle_Man]

In the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide, the balance shifts, as Sorcerers can get rather easy access to more known spells.

[Lynam III]

While everything stated is technically true, the difference is often overstated, relying on incredibly unlikely levels of "preparation." Try as they might, PCs will never be Batman. That level of preparation and foresight doesn't exist, and divinations are hardly reliable. A sorcerer is generally better (at even levels, anyway) in the normal situation where characters playing wizards prep a bunch of general purpose spells and hope for the best (which is 99% of the time anyway.) With splatbooks, and heavy metamagic investment, a sorcerer is, most of the time, going to be just as effective as a wizard, and possibly even more so, except for a few other problems:

(1) Starting at 3rd level and at every odd level thereafter, the wizard is 1 spell level ahead. At those levels, the wizard completely dominates the sorcerer. At even levels, the sorcerer knows only one spell from their top tier, which compounds the problem.
(2) Just to pile insult on top of injury, the wizard gets scribe scroll at level 1 and a bonus feat at level 5. (Also, 10, 15 and 20...but who hasn't PrCed out by then anyway?)
(3) Both classes get 2+int skills per level. Based on the casting ability, who does that favor?


I'm a big fan of the sorcerer, and if you roam outside of core, you can really start to laugh in the face of that small spells known limit with quite a few tricks and neat bits of gear, and manage an incredible amount of versatility. But ultimately, most of the time, due to the problems above the wizard will feel like he's a sorcerer 2 levels ahead of you.

Those are all the static advantages, and I readily accept that they make the wizard a lot more awesome than the sorcerer. My problem is with the divination argument that wizards are superior to sorcerers under any possible scenario, including those involve uncertainty.

[Yuki Akuma]

Those are all the static advantages, and I readily accept that they make the wizard a lot more awesome than the sorcerer. My problem is with the divination argument that wizards are superior to sorcerers under any possible scenario, including those involve uncertainty.

I don't think anyone has every argued that divination makes Wizards better than Sorcerers in every conceivable situation. It's simply an advantage that sometimes works.

[Stubbazubba]

Those are all the static advantages, and I readily accept that they make the wizard a lot more awesome than the sorcerer. My problem is with the divination argument that wizards are superior to sorcerers under any possible scenario, including those involve uncertainty.

Divination exists to reduce uncertainty; uncertainty is something a Wizard can actively reduce, maximizing the utility of his class choice, therefore, he can mitigate whatever advantages the Sorceror supposedly has over him, even when situations are supposed to be uncertain.

[Dr Bwaa]

I don't. I say that in cases with low uncertainty, the sorcerer can match the wizard, albeit at a higher material cost. It is a disadvantage, yes, but it also shows that the wizard's advantage in certain situations is one that hinges on the resource constraints of the partyother players.

Effectively, you're saying that a sorcerer can match a wizard if they have more money. As I mentioned earlier, this is true of almost any character with a good UMD skill. But since you keep bringing up "how most narrative driven games work", I feel like I should mention that in general, everyone in the party has about the same amount of wealth.


Wizard casts dispel. It doesn't work. He didn't memorize 2 dispels so his is screwed.

If the wizard knows what he's up against, there is almost no reason he should have to prepare spells that require rolls that he might fail. If he determines that yes, he will absolutely have to use a dispel and succeed at dispelling whatever it is, and he doesn't have Arcane Mastery, then he spends some time scribing a few scrolls of Dispel first and/or buys a Rope of Dispelling, etc etc. Problem solved.

[GreenSerpent]

Sorceror gets Wings of Cover and Wings of Flurry. Those help a great deal - as Wizards cannot learn them.

[Yuki Akuma]

Sorceror gets Wings of Cover and Wings of Flurry. Those help a great deal - as Wizards cannot learn them.

You are aware he said core-only, yes.

[Talya]

Yeah, that also gets rid of metamagic-sorcerers and Arcane Fusion/Spellsurge.

Core only, the wizard destroys the sorcerer, as most of the sorcerer's best optimization tricks disappear, as well as quite a number of incredible sorcerer only (or at least, only USEFUL to sorcerers - thanks Ruin Delver's Fortune) spells.

[KutuluKultist]

@Gnaeus

Who is not me, but there are general answers to be had.


1) That is an anectode.

It's a counter example. A counter example can be an anecdote or, as is more likely in this case, a thought experiment or made-up example. It doesn't matter.
What matters is that to argue against a statement of the form "all A are B" by showing a case of an A that isn't B is valid and common.



2) Yes, your concerns are valid in that case. But it also shows that the problem is a material one (you need money), not a capability one.

With enough money and use magic device (and enough money can buy you enough use magic device) you can do anything. That real question is what can they do with equal amounts of money?



3) If I was playing a campaign as boring as cleansing the island of X, that might have been the case. Luckily, I generally choose campaigns in a city setting with political intrigues thrown in, and there is no way you can be prepared against each and everything a metropolis can throw at you.

While counter example is a good response to a general statement, it is not a good response to an example.
Simply put: situations in games can be different and divination magic is not a sure-fire way to be well prepared, but it helps and if the player is smart and attentive, it can help a whole lot.
Here are some questions that can break up a political intrigue in a handful of spells:
"Is the one who hired this assassin a local noble?"
"Is the one who hired this assassin male?"
"Is the one who hired this assassin of house X"
I think you see where this is going.

[Particle_Man]

Does core include MM?

Gray Elf Wizards are a +0 LA race that get a bonus to the wizard's casting stat.

No +0 LA grants a bonus to the sorcerer's casting stat in core, IIRC.

*******

Another thing - sometimes a party runs into a situation they can't handle and instead of TPK they run away. If they have one day to prepare after running away, the wizard has a huge advantage, without even needing divination, but just based on what the party faced and would need to face once more.

Or the wizard can ask the bard/rogue buddy to do some Gather Info (or even Bardic Knowledge!) to get more needed info. Sorcerer can too, but is still stuck with what he has.

Or the wizard can use his knowledge skills, which are class skills, and of which the sorcerer has a distinct lack, to learn more, and ahead of time.

That said, Warlocks are *cooler* than both of them. :smallcool:

[Doug Lampert]

I don't think anyone has every argued that divination makes Wizards better than Sorcerers in every conceivable situation. It's simply an advantage that sometimes works.

And it need not work in every conceivable situation, because wizards are VASTLY stronger even if it never works.

It's not the reason wizards are stronger, it's one part of an overwhelming suite of reasons wizards are stronger, taken in isolation it need not be that good.

For levels 3-18 there are two, and only two, possible situations.
1) The sorcerer is a spell level behind.
2) The sorcerer only knows one spell of his highest level, so much for versatility, his supposed advantage.

Basically the sorcerer STARTS under a crushing disadvantage, then it gets worse!

Sorcerers can make better use of metamagic (except the golden quicken), but rods make up for that for the wizard in core.

Sorcerers have more slots of really low level spells and can spam those spells. We're in core, let me introduce you to an item called a pearl of power.

Int>>charisma unless abusing UMD or Diplomacy (whoops, neither is on the sorcerer skill list).

Then there's free feats, especially scribe scroll which works really well for a wizard and is really trash for a sorcerer.

Wizards do need to find and pay for spells, let me introduce you to a Blessed Book and to the DMG rules on item availability. Then there's the fact that when a sorcerer gets his FIRST known spell of level X the wizard is getting his fourth free one.

Divination can miss every time, and the wizard is better. But in a reasonable game world divination WON'T miss every time and you'll often have a pretty good idea in advance of what you might be facing even without divination, and that means that the wizard can simply prepare spells he's likely to need and actually is MORE likely to have the right spell than a sorcerer even for low level trash where the sorcerer may have a decent list of known spells. Divination isn't why wizards are better, it's the icing on the cake of utter domination, scrape off the icing and the cake is still there.

[Harry]

Another reason wizards are stronger is with a 1 level dip in hathran and a friendly druid and a feat they gain spontaneous casting and they keep all there versatility in the games I have played in people always use prestige classes a wizard can at 6 a sorcerer has to wait to level 7 so at level 6 a wizard can gain the sorcerers versatility with a single dip while the sorcerer can't ever gain the wizards versatility unless they are kobolds:smalltongue:

[Lynam III]

Who is not me, but there are general answers to be had.

It's a counter example. A counter example can be an anecdote or, as is more likely in this case, a thought experiment or made-up example. It doesn't matter.
What matters is that to argue against a statement of the form "all A are B" by showing a case of an A that isn't B is valid and common.



With enough money and use magic device (and enough money can buy you enough use magic device) you can do anything. That real question is what can they do with equal amounts of money?



While counter example is a good response to a general statement, it is not a good response to an example.
Simply put: situations in games can be different and divination magic is not a sure-fire way to be well prepared, but it helps and if the player is smart and attentive, it can help a whole lot.
Here are some questions that can break up a political intrigue in a handful of spells:
"Is the one who hired this assassin a local noble?"
"Is the one who hired this assassin male?"
"Is the one who hired this assassin of house X"
I think you see where this is going.

1) The claim I want to debunk is that wizards >> sorcerers in any situation. I used an example where uncertainty makes sorcerer superior. He gave an example. He cannot contradict my claim without the for all quantifier. Go back to the logic textbook. You don't prove claims by examples.

2) How much can you beat a dead horse? Yes, it is an advantage of the wizard.

3) I see where it is going, and it is spamming divination spells.

[Lynam III]

Divination exists to reduce uncertainty; uncertainty is something a Wizard can actively reduce, maximizing the utility of his class choice, therefore, he can mitigate whatever advantages the Sorceror supposedly has over him, even when situations are supposed to be uncertain.

My claim is:

1) There are uncertainties you cannot reduce
2) There is this fate issue, please read OP

[Lynam III]

I don't think anyone has every argued that divination makes Wizards better than Sorcerers in every conceivable situation. It's simply an advantage that sometimes works.

As you can see, even people on this thread are making the claim. That is what bugs me, since in practice I have seen the situation be to the contrary in almost all PbPs I played. Granted, the wizards in my party don't spam divination.

[imneuromancer]

Let me give you an example of how wizards can be better (and this is a guy who loves me my metamagic sorcerers!!)

As a wizard, you can take spells like Shrink Item, Stone Shape/Transmute spells, Permanency, Planar Binding, $Symbols, etc. These are out-of-combat and out-of-adventure spells that, when used correctly, will bring adventures to their knees.

Also, wizards generally have an easier time taking an item creation feat or two (I know, potentially sub-optimal!!!!!) or even taking contingency spells/items for little-used-but-often-useful spells.

Often, a wizard wins an encounter before even starting it.

Basically: a sorcerer relies on taking a few spells and abusing the junk out of them. Wizards rely on taking a good range of spells, and abusing the junk out of them.

[Rubik]

One thing I never see in these threads is the fact that wizards can become as spontaneous as they want from items and spells. Mordenkainen's Lucubration, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer (yay wands!), pearls of power, and rods of absorption are all Core and they all can give back slots a wizard has prepared for the day, so he can be just as spontaneous as the sorcerer (and with, effectively, more slots and more spells in his repertoire). You cast a spell then get it back so you can spam them reasonably well. It's like the horribleness of wizards-with-spell-points without houserules.

And also, wizards can craft scrolls from their spells known, which doesn't work very well with a sorcerer at all (since they have such a limited spells-known list). This lets them cast niche utility spells without having to worry about being stuck with them on a limited list.

[Aneurin]

I'm not sure I entirely grasp what's being asked here - I see people answering the points you laid out in the opening post, but you keep saying that's not what you want.

Anyway, here's my attempt at answering.

The divination tricks - you say they don't work because of narrative, fate, what-have-you. Well, they don't work without those things. Fate is an issue to take up with your DM - no-one here can help with that, because it's a plot thing not a fluff or mechanical thing laid out in a sourcebook. All you get from the divination tricks anyway is what is likely to happen if you do X. If you don't do X, something else may happen.

Without the most lenient DM, divination tricks are merely a useful tool available to wizards that just aren't as helpful to a sorcerer. They give the wizard *some* advanced warning that allows them to tailor their spells a little. Like if they learn the Dread Caverns of Doom are all low-ceilinged and contain no random holes in the floor, the wizard knows they don't need to prepare Fly. The sorcerer can't change their spells so it doesn't matter as much to them.


You say there are uncertainties that can't be reduced. Not... necessarily true. Maybe you can't reduce them, but you can negate them. Can't guarantee a successful dispel magic on the red dragon? Fine. You know he's stood under a structural weak-spot in the cave (guess what, Knowledge Architecture and Engineering's a class skill), so one Lightning Bolt later, the dragon is a well-enchanted corpse buried under fifty tons of rubble, while the sorcerer is still unsuccessfully trying to dispel or fireball the dragon.

The wizard and the sorcerer both knew about the structural weakness for whatever reason, but only the wizard could change his spells to match.


Personally, I prefer sorcerers and its derivatives (War Mage, Dread Necro and Beguiler), but the wizard is better mechanically speaking. It just has flexibility that the others don't.

Wizards aren't even always better, but the problem is sorcerers aren't good enough at what they're meant to do to be equal. The way the classes read is that wizards are supposed to have very few spells per day, but can do everything, while a sorcerer knows only a handful of spells but never runs out of spell slots. Unfortunately, it's so easy to get extra spells per day that the difference is trivial after a couple of levels.



If you'd like an analogy of wizards and sorcerers, consider this;

The wizard is a scalpel - it cuts precisely, negates encounters, kills monsters, does whatever with the minimum of fuss and bother, and the maximum of grace, elegance and efficiency. Very, very occasionally it breaks.

The sorcerer is a sledgehammer - it throws fireballs at everything until everything's dead. It's not ineffective, it's just unsubtle and wasteful at times.

[Suddo]

Instead of arguing the big picture I'll show you why I hate playing a Sorc when I could be playing a Wizard:

2 Skills per Level: This makes the Sorc cringable by itself. I either have to make the character have some Int score or have all my points go into Concentration and Spellcraft with maybe some room for Pre-Reqs.
Always a level behind: This is bad due to the fact that Sorcs always have to stay in their class for 1 more level than a Wizard and the Sorc has even less class features.
No bonus feats: This is just icy on the cake but Wizards get something for going Wizard 5 Sorcs don't. Heck even Scribe Scrolls is too cool.


On the big picture side one of the main reasons Wizards are considered superior is due to the fact that they can do something called scry and die. Meaning you use a Divination spell to find your opponent, then teleport into their room, use any one of a dozen insta-kill spells and teleport out. The Sorc can do the same thing but depending on the situation has to spend some of his precious spells known on things he'd rather not.

That being said Sorc are great. They are still fun to play and I often prefer making them (due to the simplicity).

It should also be noted that if you remove some of the power house versatile spells (like teleport and polymorph) the ability for a Sorc to stay versatile enough is greatly reduced where the Wizard is still able to perform.

[Randomguy]

In short, there are some spells that you only need to cast once every few weeks. For example: Astral projection. Either it rarely comes up or you use it all the time; either way you don't need to cast it more than once every few weeks. Wizards can just prepare, while sorcerers need to buy a scroll every time it comes up.

Same with long ranged teleportation or plane shifting spells: Either you REALLY need them, or they're useless to you. A wizard can prepare a bunch of teleportation spells if they need to visit several places in a day, or just two to go there and back. A sorcerer either needs to buy consumables or have a spell known that they barely ever cast.

Also, a wizard can completely change his strategy and playstyle within a day, while a sorcerer's stuck with what he got. Think a spell is good but then realise it actually sucks? A sorcerer's stuck with it for a few levels.
Sometimes, adventuring parties go places where one particular type of enemy is common. Airship ride? You can expect flying enemies. Long boat trip? There'll be a few aquatic encounters. Quest to go to hell and slay a demonlord? You can bet there'll be demons. A wizard can change his spell selection to be useful in almost any situation. Sorcerers can't.

[Lynam III]

Last 4 replies have convinced me that wizard is far superior to the sorcerer, but I will still maintain that sorcerer can be better in some - if rare - situations. But those items mentioned would indeed break my whole argument. Talk about imbalance.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Expanding on Piggy Knowles' point(s) a bit...

tl;dr version: At all levels, as far as the highest level spells are concerned, the worst the wizard will ever get is as good as the Sorcerer, and he's superior most of the time. And, of course, the big guns - the ones you use when the chips are down - reside in the highest level spells.

-----

Let's be merciful and compare wizard to sorcerer at an even level (6th). The Sorcerer took Dispel Magic as his sole level 3 spell known, so we can fit the OP's example. The Wizard has Dispel Magic and three other useful spells in his spellbook, because he hasn't had time/money to add more just yet. Let's say he's an abjurer. Supposing reasonable casting stats for each, they both have 4 third level spells for the day. The wizard prepares at least one dispel magic plus any combination of the remaining three spells from his spellbook.

The Sorcerer essentially "prepares" four copies of dispel magic for the day, every day. The wizard can prepare four copies of Dispel Magic, but he generally chooses not to. The wizard does this because it is better ex ante to have different spells assigned to those slots in general.

Now the OP argues a specific case where the Sorcerer happened to have the right spell known at the time (dispel magic), and it just so happened that he needed multiple castings of that spell, and it just so happened that there was no reasonable way of knowing this. One, this is a very particular corner case. Two, the Sorcerer is only better in hindsight. If the "sorcerer" strategy (aka spam dispel magic) is actually best ex-ante, the wizard can emulate the sorcerer and prepare dispel magic four times. At worst, the sorcerer is just as good. It's only when we realize that an essentially suboptimal strategy ends up being the best by chance that we can point to the sorcerer and say he's more effective. This is like arguing that 2d4 is better than 1d20 because sometimes the d20 comes up 1.

[Lynam III]

Expanding on Piggy Knowles' point(s) a bit...

tl;dr version: At all levels, as far as the highest level spells are concerned, the worst the wizard will ever get is as good as the Sorcerer, and he's superior most of the time. And, of course, the big guns - the ones you use when the chips are down - reside in the highest level spells.

-----

Let's be merciful and compare wizard to sorcerer at an even level (6th). The Sorcerer took Dispel Magic as his sole level 3 spell known, so we can fit the OP's example. The Wizard has Dispel Magic and three other useful spells in his spellbook, because he hasn't had time/money to add more just yet. Let's say he's an abjurer. Supposing reasonable casting stats for each, they both have 4 third level spells for the day. The wizard prepares at least one dispel magic plus any combination of the remaining three spells from his spellbook.

The Sorcerer essentially "prepares" four copies of dispel magic for the day, every day. The wizard can prepare four copies of Dispel Magic, but he generally chooses not to. The wizard does this because it is better ex ante to have different spells assigned to those slots in general.

Now the OP argues a specific case where the Sorcerer happened to have the right spell known at the time (dispel magic), and it just so happened that he needed multiple castings of that spell, and it just so happened that there was no reasonable way of knowing this. One, this is a very particular corner case. Two, the Sorcerer is only better in hindsight. If the "sorcerer" strategy (aka spam dispel magic) is actually best ex-ante, the wizard can emulate the sorcerer and prepare dispel magic four times. At worst, the sorcerer is just as good. It's only when we realize that an essentially suboptimal strategy ends up being the best by chance that we can point to the sorcerer and say he's more effective. This is like arguing that 2d4 is better than 1d20 because sometimes the d20 comes up 1.

That is spectacularly wrong. All the point of the sorcerer is that he can select which spells to cast independent of a past decision binding him. No need to look at level 6, so he can have multiple fireballs.

Anyway, I have reached my conclusion.

[ngilop]

@Gnaeus

1) That is an anectode.

2) Yes, your concerns are valid in that case. But it also shows that the problem is a material one (you need money), not a capability one.

3) If I was playing a campaign as boring as cleansing the island of X, that might have been the case. Luckily, I generally choose campaigns in a city setting with political intrigues thrown in, and there is no way you can be prepared against each and everything a metropolis can throw at you.

1) so you say.

2) its both really

3) A sorcer maybe can't be prepared for each and everything a city would throw at him, but given a day or two a wizard cna by preparing a different set fo spells, the sorceror unfortunatle is stuck with the limited spells known. and its make no sense to me that a city has less to 'throw' at somebody than an entire island....

[Rubik]

That is spectacularly wrong. All the point of the sorcerer is that he can select which spells to cast independent of a past decision binding him. No need to look at level 6, so he can have multiple fireballs.A caster's highest level spells are usually a cut above everything below them. A sorcerer only has one of his highest level spells at one time, whereas a wizard either has two (or more) of a level above him at that level, or has four of the same level (or more).

Sure the sorc could use lower-level spells, but so could the wizard.

[Suddo]

I feel bad for not reading the whole thread before posting.
Let me state somethings really fast.
There are plenty of times Sorcs are better than Wizards. You could carry around a spell book and Bluff everyone by saying your a wizard. Then when the big bad captures you you simply blast him in the face with a spell and laugh.

I personally think that if you wanted to make Sorcs more desirable its simple. Either:
A) Allow the Pathfinder Sorc.
or
B) 4 Skills per level, Same casting as the Wizard(and bump the spells known around) and give them Eschew Materials at level 1. This makes Sorcs a lot strong than before and takes away all the simple things you can argue about them.

Solo's Guide to being a Sorc (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74801) is awesome and shows a couple of ways to play a Sorc to upstage the Wizard.

[elonin]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but being able to prep a spell to include metamagic shouldn't be underestimated. Takes a full round action unless you use a feat to do this with a sorcerer.

Though that is not nearly as good as being able to leave slots empty for later preparation.

[Tr011]

A wizard has more options what he does.

If you get more options, given a lot of optimization, you can be better if using all options "perfectly".
But that is only true if you spend lots of hours thinking about what to do and how to do it, so you can finally do something powerful.

Given an actual play with not much "off-time" and adventures that start like "let's see what we do today, ah there's a cave, let's go in there, a there are goblins, let's fight them..." you are better off with a sorcerer. A sorcerer has more endurance due to his greater amount of spells per day and with the right spell selection he can master any situation with the proper use of his spells. Meanwhile, a wizard who does not know what he will meet today only can do one thing: preparing some good everytime-usuable spells. That should be the same spells, that the sorcerer has ready all the time.

I think the argument with the bonus feats is meh. A wizard usually gets up to level 5 for a single bonus feat or gets into prestige classes after level 3 (Master Specialist or the non-Mystery version of Nocturmancer). That means he only has the Scribe Scroll Feat, which wouldn't really be an advantage if you couldn't trade it for Fighter Feats.

[Stubbazubba]

My claim is:

1) There are uncertainties you cannot reduce
2) There is this fate issue, please read OP

1) Yeah, but those are now only die rolls. Through Divination you can guarantee that you have the best spells possible, while the Sorceror is a one-trick pony who can't re-select the spells he knows to prepare for upcoming encounters. All the Sorc can do is hope that the spells he chose at level-up will matter in future encounters, while the Wizard can make sure of it.

2) This is neither here nor there. If the DM changes the future that you saw, that's entirely up to him, and it invalidates Divination spells almost entirely. So, yes, if you render the Divination spells useless by saying the DM should just change the future if the Wizard is more prepared than a Sorceror would be, then you could say that this somehow matters, but you're also committing the Oberoni Fallacy. Other than that your description of fate from the OP is very scant in detail, it sounds like you're just asking if there are rules on DM fiat. Care to explain?


That is spectacularly wrong. All the point of the sorcerer is that he can select which spells to cast independent of a past decision binding him.

Yes, that is the point, but the class was not designed in a way that made it happen. That's our point.

[Urpriest]

Another important factor is that in D&D you don't actually need all of your spells past the first few levels. A mid to high level character will generally only need the highest few levels of spells in a given day, even if the DM is running them ragged with extra encounters, because spells are really that powerful when used intelligently. Because of that, Wizards and Sorcerors both have their entire lower level spell loadout as a place to store "just in case" spells, duplicate functionality, and otherwise enhance their versatility.

What this means is that once you get to level 8 or so a Sorceror's spontaneity is effectively meaningless. Sure, the Sorceror can vary the number of spells of each type they cast each day. But the Wizard can have enough spells prepared that he has access to that many anyway. You may not have exactly the specific high level spell you want, but neither will the Sorceror (see: limited spells known), while both of you can default to a lower level spell with a similar effect. The Wizard is better off in these terms because every low level spell can be different, while a Sorceror simply doesn't know enough spells to do this. So basically any advantage a Sorceror has by virtue of spontaneity becomes completely meaningless.

[Rubik]

That means he only has the Scribe Scroll Feat, which wouldn't really be an advantage if you couldn't trade it for Fighter Feats.Actually Scribe Scroll is extremely powerful. Make enough scrolls and you can have every utility spell at your fingertips, and you have more flexibility and spontaneity than most sorcerers dream of.

And all at half-cost!

[Madara]

1) The claim I want to debunk is that wizards >> sorcerers in any situation. I used an example where uncertainty makes sorcerer superior. He gave an example. He cannot contradict my claim without the for all quantifier. Go back to the logic textbook. You don't prove claims by examples.

2) How much can you beat a dead horse? Yes, it is an advantage of the wizard.

3) I see where it is going, and it is spamming divination spells.

(Did you see what I see?)
Ahem..

Level 1. The fighter wins initiative, he runs up and hits the wizard with his sword. The wizard dies.

(Yes,yes. We apparently can't use examples, but what does that leave us with? Its the best way to explain the workings of the rules.)
This debunks the Wizard>>Fighter in all situations. In the end, yes there probably is one situation in which the sorcerer is better. But no one has argued that the Wizard is Always better.


You want to know why divination makes the wizard better?(Which you should mention in the thread title btw)

A wizard divines the day before they enter a dungeon for whatever reason(Choosing the most common scenario, a dungeon in Dungeons and Dragons). He tells the other casters in the party what to prepare for, in addition to himself. He chooses spells that will specifically apply to that dungeon.

Other reasons the wizard is better: He can take those one use long-time benefit spells. He takes Animate Dead and has a small army, never bothers to cast it except when he needs it. He takes Glyph spells and Rune spells so he can pimp out the party's castle.


Part of the problem is your campaign view. To you, you have social interactions, which involve charisma, making a sorcerer seem better. But the wizard goes and scribes charm person or glibness into his spellbook and matches the sorcerer. In real play, the sorcerer can be more fun because its easier to have smooth play with a spontaneous caster, but RAW, he can't catch up to the wizard.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That is spectacularly wrong. All the point of the sorcerer is that he can select which spells to cast independent of a past decision binding him. No need to look at level 6, so he can have multiple fireballs.

Anyway, I have reached my conclusion.It appears you reached your conclusion before you wrote the original post. Otherwise you may have noticed that I said
the big guns - the ones you use when the chips are down - reside in the highest level spells.Here's the case where the sorcerer's spontaneous casting has an advantage.

(1) The caster ends up wanting to cast a particular spell multiple times.
(2) Higher level spells, which the caster (by previous logic) necessarily has access to, don't do the job as well or better.
(3) The caster knows the particular spell in question.
(4) It's impossible or prohibitively difficult to figure out what this spell actually is, magically or otherwise, beforehand.

In that case, the Sorcerer will be able to cast that particular spell more than once, where the Wizard will likely just have one prepared.

This is just a tad esoteric, no?

Once you allow all the material, some spells* become so versatile and powerful that you don't necessarily need more than the sorcerer's few spells known to cover many bases, and Greater Draconic Rite of Passage helps overcome the innate "1 level behind" disadvantage. But in core, you have to rely on the above scenario and similar.

*Wings of Cover, Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge... As far as versatile spells go, the Polymorph line is already available in core, of course.

[AmberVael]

Meanwhile, a wizard who does not know what he will meet today only can do one thing: preparing some good everytime-usuable spells. That should be the same spells, that the sorcerer has ready all the time.

Not quite, which brings me to a point I wanted to make when I started to read this thread-

The need for divination at all, and even to know what you're facing, is drastically overstated. The benefit the sorcerer possesses, to be able to use spell slots to cast any spell he knows whenever he wants to call on them, is typically overestimated.

A wizard, due to bonus spells and possibly specialization, will likely have more spells prepared each day than a sorcerer will know each day. This matters, because it means a wizard can claim more versatility than the sorcerer through having more available options for any given situation even in the immediate term; yes, the wizard might use a prepared spell and then wish he had it later, but then, a sorcerer might also find that he doesn't have a spell known that he needs. Both methods have their problems, but both their advantages as well.

And then, on top of that, a wizard has a spell level advantage. And feats. And if they have foreknowledge, they can prepare specifically for things. And if they need an unusual spell, they can prepare it when the occasion arises, and within 15 minutes if they've left a slot open.

When it comes down to it, there may be times when a sorcerer fares better than the wizard in the short term, and they do have their advantages- it's just that the wizard has plenty of advantages too, and more of them, and the sorcerer is likely to run into as many problems as the wizard does when it comes to being versatile in the immediate term, and even more in the long term.

[Voyager_I]

This isn't even getting into the ridiculous power of crafting, which favors Wizards heavily; they get Scribe Scroll, more skill points (higher Int score), access to far more spells known, and a collection of Bonus Feats that let them fit crafting into a build much more easily than a Sorceror.

Crafting Wizards don't have to worry about always having the right spell prepared; they can carry around a few scrolls of their favorite utility spells, and maybe make themselves some Wands for all those really good spells that aren't quite worth preparing on a general basis. Sure, he might not know that he needs three Dispel Magics for the next fight, but if he carries around a self-made wand then it won't be a problem. In fact, a well-prepared crafter could easily exceed the immediate versatility of a Sorceror, since they can make themselves scrolls and wands of incredibly useful spells that are still too specific for a Sorceror to permanently invest in.

[Tr011]

A wizard, due to bonus spells and possibly specialization, will likely have more spells prepared each day than a sorcerer will know each day.

I think that is a very very good point.

@Rubik: You get time to scribe scrolls? I use every time I get to learn new spells and write them into my spellbook (24h + 8h, can be reduced to 8h total).

I think two really important points for the wizards are:
1. He is based on Intelligence. while you can argument what stat has the better skills on it (knowledge is important while Cha is needed for UMD, Diplo, Bluff and stuff) Intelligence is better overall because it defines your skills points. And that matters: A wizard will have like 18 + 2(race) + 5(inherent) + 3(levels) for a total of 28. That's 11 skill points per level.
A sorcerer has maybe 14 int and thus 4 skills per level. (Both can use aging bonus or not).

2. He has the option to specialize. Which brings extra spell slots that can grow used well up to regular spell slots. With the Domain variant you only get the advantages (let's say 1-3 useful spells get a CL boost, and you have an additional spell slot on every spell level).
I.e. on level 10 a sorcerer has 5 (+1 from high abi) 4th spells and 3 (+1 from high abi) 5th spells. A wizard on the same level has 3 (+1 from high abi +1 from domain) and 2 (+1 from high abi +1 from domain), so overall it's 6/4 vs. 5/4. That is kind of bad for "the one with much more spells".

[Lynam III]

(Did you see what I see?)
Ahem..


Seriously, I don't want to teach logic here but:

To disprove a statement, you need a single counterexample.
To prove a statement, you need to show it holds for all possible cases.

The statement is question is that wizard dominates sorcerer not only on average, but in all possible cases.

So showing me that the wizard dominates sorcerer in a particular case doesn't prove the statement.

However, by showing an example where sorcerer fares better than the wizard, I can disprove the abovementioned claim.

No one here is trying to say sorcerers are better than wizards on the average. That is plainly false. My claim is that the divination argument is flawed, and that sorcerers may fare better in *some* situations than the wizards.

[KutuluKultist]

1) The claim I want to debunk is that wizards >> sorcerers in any situation. I used an example where uncertainty makes sorcerer superior. He gave an example. He cannot contradict my claim without the for all quantifier. Go back to the logic textbook. You don't prove claims by examples.

UHm... yes, you do. Existential claims are proven by a single example. If I claim that there are male dogs, one example of a male dog will prove my claim. Likewise, general or universal claims using the for-all quantifier are contradicted by one single counter example. The claim that there are no male dogs is contradicted by one example of a male dog.

And I'd like to point out that no-one said that wizards are better than sorcerers in any situation, much less that any given wizard is better than any given sorcerer in any situation, but that wizards, due to higher flexibility and a capacity for planing are better equip to dealing with a greater variety of situations.
Those are very different claims.

Since the OP wanted to know how that works, examples were given. It was my impression that you wished to claim that these examples fail to describe actual game situations.



3) I see where it is going, and it is spamming divination spells.
Yes.

In another post, you said that this was your point:


1) There are uncertainties you cannot reduce


True. But that is not a counter argument, because the sorcerer is as strongly affected by those than is the wizard. But those uncertainties that can be reduced are more easily and effectively reduced by a wizard,


2) There is this fate issue, please read OP

It is entirely possible to avoid questions about how the future will be and stick with questions about how the present is and how the past was. But even asking how the future will likely be is rather unproblematic. Even a prediction of a 99.9% one-off chance is not proven wrong if it doesn't happen.

[TheOOB]

It has been common knowledge for years that a wizard is a better class than a sorcerer, in fact a wizard is the best core class period.

The basic reason is as follows, a wizard can potentially learn every sor/wiz spells, while a sorcerer only ever knows a few spells. No matter how big the problem, how strange or unusual it is, a wizard is only ever 9 hours away from solving it.

I will admit, a sorcerer can be better than a wizard, for the specific purpose the sorcerer was build for. If a sorcerer is designed for stealth, they'll be better at sneaking, for example, but when outside their element a sorcerer can't do much.

Divinition is useful, but you don't need it to prepare the right spells. If you know you're going to court tomarrow, prepare enchantments, a dungeon, prepare passwall and detection spells, and large battle, large AoE spells. You can basically change your class completely every day. And you still have enough spells to have some flexibility. If a sorcerer wants to cast teleport, a spell usually only cast occasionally, they have to give up one of their spells known. A wizard just gives up some pages. A wizard can prepare a few silver bullet spells, but a sorc will only every learn spells they can use every day.

Wizards have other benefits too. They get more feats, Int is a better attribute than Cha usually, they have a better skill list, they meet prestige class requirements quicker and easier, and they can make better use of metamagic, especially the all powerful quicken spell. They also are way better at magic item crafting, and magic items are where the real power in D&D are.

In short, if you want to play a spellcaster focused in one area, and it's not blasting, necromancy, and illusion/enchantsments(classes have been made for those), play a sorcerer. If you want to be good all around, be a wizard.

[Grim Reader]

Often, the very need for divination is overstated.

You're going into the Tomb of Lim-Dul the black? Chasing Mould the Necromancer? There will be undead.

Going to plunder the abyssal monument of Nhamorr on the seafloor? You're going to be underwater.

Storming the volcano lair of Magmus the Burning? Theres going to be heat and fire.

Often, a tiny bit of in-character research is going to tell you a lot about what you need for the excursion. The Sorcerer cannot react to that.

[candycorn]

1) The claim I want to debunk is that wizards >> sorcerers in any situation. I used an example where uncertainty makes sorcerer superior. He gave an example. He cannot contradict my claim without the for all quantifier. Go back to the logic textbook. You don't prove claims by examples.

Sure, if, after the wizard divines, the party face accidentally wipes his rear with the sacred texts of the god of invisible fire elementals, right after the wizard prepared to go out and face the white dragon, the sorceror who chose Cone of Cold is at an advantage.

But that's an example. Your whole argument is based on an example encounter "when there is no way to know what CR-appropriate threat will be killing you today, because you are blindsided by something". Or "the sorceror and the wizard both cast Dispel Magic. They fail. Next round, the sorceror can cast it again, and the wizard can't". Example. Your assertions have been filled with examples, but you criticize the use of it in others?

Even then, a wizard's versatility will get him through that. Say the level 5 wizard has haste, dispel magic, resist energy, glitterdust, web, Ray of enfeeblement, mage armor, feather fall, and grease prepared.

Say the sorceror 5 has Alter Self, Web, Mage Armor, Grease, Magic Missile, Protection from Evil.

This is earlier than divination really comes online, but let's look at some CR appropriate encounters.

Allip x2:
Sorceror most effective spell: Magic Missile (3d4+3 damage, average 10.5 damage per spell, 3 castings to kill).
Wizard most effective spell: Haste

Deep pit trap.
Sorceror most effective spell: None.
Wizard most effective spell: Feather Fall.

Large Fire Elemental
Sorceror most effective spell: Alter Self (Protection from Evil, if it's summoned)
Wizard most effective spell: resist energy

Ogre x2
Sorceror most effective spell: web
Wizard most effective spell: grease

Huge Monstrous Spider
Sorceror most effective spell: Web?
Wizard most effective spell: glitterdust

I'm throwing a bunch of different examples, and while the same spell won't work for every occasion, the wizard typically has SOMETHING that works well for most every fight.

This devalues your assertion that the sorceror has greater flexibility in combat. Perhaps he has greater flexibility for the 2nd spell, but not the first.

[Killer Angel]

There are plenty of times Sorcs are better than Wizards. You could carry around a spell book and Bluff everyone by saying your a wizard.

Indeed, bluff is a sorcerer class skill (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0646.html). :smallbiggrin:

[candycorn]

At level 18, Sorcerors also gain more benefit out of several Shapechange forms, most notably, the Nymph.

[2xMachina]

Lvl 6 Sorceror lvls up and learns Fireball as his 1st 3rd lvl spell.

Divine/fight a Fire resist enemy

Crap.

--------------------
Wizard learns fireball + a few other spells on lvl 6

Divine: Is there a fire resist enemy in Dungeon X?
Yes.

Ok, prepare another spell.

Yay!

[candycorn]

If you're divining with questions like that at level 6, you're doing more than I can at that level... at least, without extreme cheese.

[Gnaeus]

3) If I was playing a campaign as boring as cleansing the island of X, that might have been the case. Luckily, I generally choose campaigns in a city setting with political intrigues thrown in, and there is no way you can be prepared against each and everything a metropolis can throw at you.

That was rude. FYI, exploring the Island of the dead Lich Min-Kur was a ton of fun. Our campaign has explored islands, the underdark, the bottom of the sea, an active volcano, some demiplanes and more, and still had our share of city encounters. I would personally say that it sounds a lot more boring to adventure in the same place all the time.

But that is irrelevant. Even in a city game, you are likely to have a good idea where your next mission will be. You can ask all those same questions and replace "the island of X" with "the mansion of Baron Plotpoint" or "the guild of the shadow assassins" and still come up with useful answers that help you alter your spell loadout for that day. You don't need to know if anyone in the city can detect invisible, but knowing if the guards at the warehouse where the goods are being smuggled can detect invisible is important info when you decide if you want to be able to cast invisibility.



The statement is question is that wizard dominates sorcerer not only on average, but in all possible cases..

OK. You can win arguments if you define them so narrowly as to be irrelevant. Warblade and Cleric are both better classes than fighter. This is clear. Can I make a scenario in which a fighter with a specific set of feats will outperform a warblade or a persist cleric? Absolutely! Does that mean that because I can create that scenario, it wouldn't be better (here meaning, more optimized or effective) to play a cleric or warblade in a campaign? No, Cleric and Warblade are more versatile, stronger, and better.

Sure. I can make corner cases where the sorcerer is better than the wizard. It is actually really easy. All it takes is a situation where the one highest level spell he can cast is the exact best spell to have on that day and it is equally useful when cast 4 times. But is there ever a campaign where sorcerer is better (here meaning, more optimized or effective) than equally optimized wizard? Barring unusual houserules or conditions that keep wizards from owning a spellbook or learning spells, no, there isn't.

[Yuki Akuma]

That was rude. FYI, exploring the Island of the dead Lich Min-Kur was a ton of fun. Our campaign has explored islands, the underdark, the bottom of the sea, an active volcano, some demiplanes and more, and still had our share of city encounters.

You mean... you play D&D the way it was initially designed to be played? Gasp! :smallwink:

[Myth]

Hi there. We have this thread from time to time. I'm rather partial to this incarnation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223704) of it myself.

By the way, can anyone enlighten me to the regular thread days of GitP?

Monkday - Monk threads
ToB Tuesday - what is ToB?/My DM hates ToB/Why do you hate ToB?
Wizard Wednesday - I'm not sure if I read this or I'm making it up now. But we must have a Wizard day for sure. Why are Wizards so good? and "Build me a Batman" are common enough IMO.
Thursday - no idea. Though it could be Tanksday, with posters regularly asking for "Tank" builds, as if somehow DnD is WoW and a big guy with a slab of steel on his back has any tools to actually perform the role.
Fightersday - definitely, people proving that the Fighter class is good. Or people asking for Tier 1 builds to beat a Fighter in an arena fight because someone else challenged them. Or asking why it's not good and why the PF variant is not good either.
Skirmishday - people asking for skirmish damage/SA damage builds.
Spellday - people asking for spell/power choices.

Stormwinday - all day, everyday.

[RMS Oceanic]

I think the simplest description is that Wizards are more strategically flexible, while Sorcerers are more tactically flexible. Wizards generally have the means to pursue a broader set of objectives than sorcerers through research and preperation, but if an unforseen thing happens that upsets their plans, they are less able to deal with it without taking an eight hour break. The goals and plans a sorcerer can pursue alone are relatively more limited, but in the event of a hitch they would generally find it easier to improvise, by being able to adjust which tools they're using more quickly, throwing more power behind one spell or another through metamagic or even just bluffing.

[Acanous]

Today, our Pathfinder Sorceror died because he did not have Rope Trick.
We were adventuring through the wilderness, fighting bounty hunters and occasional demons. They like to attack at night/dawn. They were pulling it a few days in a row, and we were preparing to the best of our ability.
At one point, I ask "why don't we just use Rope Trick and a Programmed Image, then buff up when the baddies show, come out blasting?"

But the sorceror could not pull a Rope Trick, as he did not have the spell.
Instead we had to make a fake-camp and rough it, hiding in trees. The ambush came, as it always did, in the night. Arrows flew, a few orcs charged, and our sorceror died on the first round of combat, before any of our melee even had a chance to act.

If this had been a wizard, Rope Trick would have saved his skin and marginalized the encounter, forced our enemies to either adapt or give up, and we'd have gotten the surprise round on THEM for once.

[Talya]

I think the simplest description is that Wizards are more strategically flexible, while Sorcerers are more tactically flexible. Wizards generally have the means to pursue a broader set of objectives than sorcerers through research and preperation, but if an unforseen thing happens that upsets their plans, they are less able to deal with it without taking an eight hour break. The goals and plans a sorcerer can pursue alone are relatively more limited, but in the event of a hitch they would generally find it easier to improvise, by being able to adjust which tools they're using more quickly, throwing more power behind one spell or another through metamagic or even just bluffing.


That should be true. It would be true, if not for the mechanical advantages wizards have over sorcerers (the primary ones being, half the time, sorcerers are an entire spell level behind, and even when they are not, they only know a single spell at their top spell level.)

Personally, i believe all the 'divination' arguments for how wizards are always prepared are complete minotaur-dung. Seriously, nobody who claims it can be done could manage it in a real game where the DM was doing their job. It's not RAW, it's at best anecdotal claptrap that might be possible on rare occasions, but is highly situational. None of that matters, because wizards have three major mechanical advantages over sorcerers (spell level, bonus feats, skill points) that will typically completely overshadow any tactical advantage that spontaneous casting mechanics might otherwise grant.

[Particle_Man]

No one here is trying to say sorcerers are better than wizards on the average. That is plainly false. My claim is that the divination argument is flawed, and that sorcerers may fare better in *some* situations than the wizards.

And the Warlock may fare better in *some* situations than the Sorcerer. "It is the 127th battle of the day. The Sarge says we carry on." :smallcool:

Are you saying that the divination argument doesn't work because the DM houserules in your campaign that divinations don't actually reveal useful information that would help people prepare for an adventure?

[Gnaeus]

Personally, i believe all the 'divination' arguments for how wizards are always prepared are complete minotaur-dung. Seriously, nobody who claims it can be done could manage it in a real game where the DM was doing their job. It's not RAW, it's at best anecdotal claptrap that might be possible on rare occasions, but is highly situational. None of that matters, because wizards have three major mechanical advantages over sorcerers (spell level, bonus feats, skill points) that will typically completely overshadow any tactical advantage that spontaneous casting mechanics might otherwise grant.

As with most things, its a spectrum.

As you say, "Wizard is always prepared" is unlikely in play. It takes some optimization, and smart enemies can bypass it with counter divinations.

BUT:

"Wizard has no idea what he is facing on a given day" is also unlikely in play. Unless you are being ambushed, most of the time you will know if you will be going to a party, on a naval voyage, plane hopping or exploring an ancient tomb. Divinations can give you more specifics as to what you are likely to encounter on that day. No, it is very rare to have 100% foreknowledge wizard. But even that rough idea can be enough to let you modify your spell list.

And you left out some mechanical advantages. The biggest one for me is crafting. Yes, you mentioned the bonus feats, but lots of good items require crummy spell prereqs that the sorcerer cannot take without locking down a spell slot for one or more levels. A wizard can buy a spell he never ever plans to cast, just to make items with it.

[Talya]

And you left out some mechanical advantages. The biggest one for me is crafting. Yes, you mentioned the bonus feats, but lots of good items require crummy spell prereqs that the sorcerer cannot take without locking down a spell slot for one or more levels. A wizard can buy a spell he never ever plans to cast, just to make items with it.

I'd include it in feats, even so. Because the sorcerer is simply unlikely to take the crafting feats, making the availability of spells irrelevant. They get so few, and they likely need them for metamagic (spontaneous metamagic is one of the few things sorcerers can do that makes wizards drool), and as prereqs for whatever PrC they're taking to get them out of Sorcerer with casting intact ASAP.

[Answerer]

Wizard spells-per-day is very similar to Sorcerer spells-known.

Thus, the Wizard has to prepare his spells for the next 24 hours.

The Sorcerer has to prepare his spells for the rest of his life.

[Rejusu]

Thing is, how important is the ability to pick your spells when you cast them really? From his vast spell list a wizard can prepare enough spells to be useful in the vast majority of situations. A wizard can get away with preparing pretty much the same spells per day and always pull their weight. I mean how often is a fireball not useful?

Unless your DM likes to shake things up all the time so you have absolutely no idea what's coming then more often than not you can just take a guess at what kind of spells might be useful and be right. Sure Sorcerers are more useful when you run into very specific situations that require a specific solution. But even then the Sorcerer's not guaranteed to be useful because they might not know a spell for that situation.

Remember that the Sorcerers biggest strength (spontaneous casting) is also it's biggest weakness. As Answerer above says a Sorcerer has to prepare their spells for life. If a sorcerer and a wizard both run into the same problem then if the Sorc doesn't know a useful spell to solve it then he's stumped. A wizard on the other hand can just sleep on it and solve it in the morning.

I mean there's a number of other things that make wizards better, faster spell progression, a greater number of options (especially outside core, but also within it) and better metamagic.

[AmberVael]

I mean how often is a fireball not useful?

1) When your melee fighters would be caught in the blast.
2) When something is resistant to or immune to fire.
3) When you're fighting something with evasion, or high reflex save.
4) When you're fighting a single enemy with higher hit points, rather than a group.
5) When you're fighting something with spell resistance or magic immunity.
6) When the blast would deal collateral damage to flammable objects.

Would you like me to keep going? :smalltongue:

[Talya]

1) When your melee fighters would be caught in the blast.
2) When something is resistant to or immune to fire.
3) When you're fighting something with evasion, or high reflex save.
4) When you're fighting a single enemy with higher hit points, rather than a group.
5) When you're fighting something with spell resistance or magic immunity.
6) When the blast would deal collateral damage to flammable objects.

Would you like me to keep going? :smalltongue:


Bah. Any problem can be solved with the careful application of high explosives. Stop discrediting fundamental truths!

:smallsmile:

[Lynam III]

That was rude. FYI, exploring the Island of the dead Lich Min-Kur was a ton of fun. Our campaign has explored islands, the underdark, the bottom of the sea, an active volcano, some demiplanes and more, and still had our share of city encounters. I would personally say that it sounds a lot more boring to adventure in the same place all the time.

But that is irrelevant. Even in a city game, you are likely to have a good idea where your next mission will be. You can ask all those same questions and replace "the island of X" with "the mansion of Baron Plotpoint" or "the guild of the shadow assassins" and still come up with useful answers that help you alter your spell loadout for that day. You don't need to know if anyone in the city can detect invisible, but knowing if the guards at the warehouse where the goods are being smuggled can detect invisible is important info when you decide if you want to be able to cast invisibility.



OK. You can win arguments if you define them so narrowly as to be irrelevant. Warblade and Cleric are both better classes than fighter. This is clear. Can I make a scenario in which a fighter with a specific set of feats will outperform a warblade or a persist cleric? Absolutely! Does that mean that because I can create that scenario, it wouldn't be better (here meaning, more optimized or effective) to play a cleric or warblade in a campaign? No, Cleric and Warblade are more versatile, stronger, and better.

Sure. I can make corner cases where the sorcerer is better than the wizard. It is actually really easy. All it takes is a situation where the one highest level spell he can cast is the exact best spell to have on that day and it is equally useful when cast 4 times. But is there ever a campaign where sorcerer is better (here meaning, more optimized or effective) than equally optimized wizard? Barring unusual houserules or conditions that keep wizards from owning a spellbook or learning spells, no, there isn't.

Then we are in agreement. The "divination argument" as I described it is what I wanted to debunk, and even you agree with that.

There is no question of average superiority. Wizards bear sorcerers in that regard.

[Lynam III]

Going back to the "Contact Other Plane" 'exploit': With that spell, you have an undeniable chance of receiving untruthful answers. So it isn't as strong as what many Batman fans think it can do.

[lorddrake]

1) When your melee fighters would be caught in the blast.
2) When something is resistant to or immune to fire.
3) When you're fighting something with evasion, or high reflex save.
4) When you're fighting a single enemy with higher hit points, rather than a group.
5) When you're fighting something with spell resistance or magic immunity.
6) When the blast would deal collateral damage to flammable objects.

Would you like me to keep going? :smalltongue:

"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero" V

:smallamused:

[Gnaeus]

Going back to the "Contact Other Plane" 'exploit': With that spell, you have an undeniable chance of receiving untruthful answers. So it isn't as strong as what many Batman fans think it can do.

Which is exactly why smart arcanists use commune instead. Cast by a familiar or by an outsider pulled in with lesser planar binding.