Player's Handbook only: Should I go Wizard or Sorcerer?

[Con_Brio1993]

So I am (hopefully) entering a campaign and the only source allowed is stuff from the Player's Handbook.

I know Wizards are typically considered far superior to Sorcerers, but I'm not sure if their advantage is significantly lessened when both classes must stick to core.

Thoughts?

[Malroth]

Even in a PHB only environment, being 1/2 a spell level ahead is a good thing,

[Lostbutseeking]

Still very definately Wizard >>>>>> Sorcerers.

Moreso than when it is not core only.

[ericgrau]

You like to plan ahead and swap your spell list often: wizard.
You don't swap your spell list often: sorcerer.

Especially once metamagic comes in, your combat options skyrocket with sorcerer over wizard. Suddenly your lower level spells are now high level options as well, while the wizard loses an option with every spell cast. The wizard OTOH gets many, many more morning options. Exploit that or you're at a big disadvantage. 1/2 spell level helps, but it only goes so far.

Also check how easy it will be to add spells to your spell book and how much spendable treasure you'll have to do so. That will make a big difference on your decision.

[Con_Brio1993]

Ah. Alright. Thanks for the advice.

[Chambers]

Wizards. A fair number of the options and spells that give the Sorcerer a boost in power aren't in the Player's Handbook while a Wizard can get by fine with just the PHB. To be honest though, either class would probably be fine in terms of not having their advantages lessened. Playing a primary spellcaster in a PHB only game means that out of the box you've got better abilities than any non-casting character.

When I play spellcasters in such a game I prefer to have my mage focus on enhancing the party, buffing up the fighters and rogues so that they perform better instead of trying to insta-gib the monsters myself. For one it's harder to pull off those tricks only using the PHB and playing like that while the Fighter is restricted to PHB feats kinda makes me feel like a gloating jerk. Also, spending resources and abilities to enhance the party as a whole is rarely wasted; they're good mechanical benefits and good OOC benefits, as it helps everyone feel like they've contributed and had fun.

[Con_Brio1993]

Do I want to take as many metamagic feats as possible? Wizards get bonus feats, and I am going human. What feats should I be looking at? I think I want to focus mostly on buffing and battlefield control. Maybe summoning and buffing instead.

[Venusaur]

Especially once metamagic comes in, your combat options skyrocket with sorcerer over wizard. Suddenly your lower level spells are now high level options as well, while the wizard loses an option with every spell cast. The wizard OTOH gets many, many more morning options. Exploit that or you're at a big disadvantage. 1/2 spell level helps, but it only goes so far.


Actually, wizards are way better at metamagic than sorcerers in core because of the full round casting time. Not being able to get a spell of until your next turn really hurts.

[tyckspoon]

Actually, wizards are way better at metamagic than sorcerers in core because of the full round casting time. Not being able to get a spell of until your next turn really hurts.

No, full round only means you give up your move action for that same turn. It's not the same thing as '1 round', which is the one that means you're casting all the way until your next turn- a metamagic'd spell for a Spontaneous caster uses the same action as a Full Attack. It's a bit of a downside, but it's not a huge thing (except when you get to levels where you can start using Quicken Spell, at which point it's a lot more relevant.)

@metamagic question:
Empower and Quicken are generally thought of as the good ones. The others are often unnecessary, cost wayyy too many spell levels for their effect, or have fairly niche applications; you might take them as a Sorcerer but wouldn't normally want to bother prepping a spell with them as a Wizard. Extend is situationally good; it'll depend a lot on the levels you play in and how quickly you get through your adventures.

[navar100]

What will be your modus operandi? If you know that you will want to change your spells around from day to day or at least adventure to adventure, then wizard is for you. If you know that you will want to cast specific spells all the time, of different varieties possible, without wanting to change them at least until some low level ones becomes obsolete, then sorcerer is for you.

[Malroth]

Well straight metamagic in core only given no reducers is somewhat weak compared to its TO options avalible to it in splat books but it has its uses and sometimes still outperforms your other options. Extend spell for buffs is very good especially early levels before your 1/hr per level buffs last all day long, and empower spell on summons/ray of enfeeblement/enervation can also often outstip spells of the modified levels. Once you've reached high level play quicken spell becomes a godsend allowing you to do things like throwing quickened true strike on yourself before empowered enervation the target or Quickened resist energy on the party once you find out the red dragon was really a blue under the effects of disguise self.

[Randomguy]

If this is your first time playing a full caster, I'd recommend sorcerer, since it's easier to keep track of your spells and so on. Sorc is also a good choice if there isn't a party face, since you can sort of fill in as one. Many good wizard builds involve focusing on "toolbox spells" that are good in every situation anyway, so taking those spells as spells known would mean that you aren't too far behind.

Otherwise, Wizard is probably the way to go.

Don't go overboard on metamagic feats: Most of them aren't that great without metamagic reducers. Quicken is pretty much mandatory for wizards at higher levels, extend (for battlefield control and buffs) empower and maximize (if you like damage dealing spells, but empower is better at lower levels) are all okay, and still and silent can sometimes be useful, although you could pick up just silent so that you can cast dimension door without components to teleport somewhere where you can move your arms, but the rest aren't really that great.

Other good wizard feats include Spell Mastery, Spell focus and spell penetration.

[Piggy Knowles]

Every time I've played a sorcerer, I spend my odd numbered levels feeling like a wizard with a level adjustment. Which is a shame, because I LIKE sorcerers. Non-core at least gives me some goodies that make me feel like I've got SOME reason to stay a sorcerer, but I don't think I'd play one in Core again, unless it was really central to my character concept.

[Con_Brio1993]

What will be your modus operandi? If you know that you will want to change your spells around from day to day or at least adventure to adventure, then wizard is for you. If you know that you will want to cast specific spells all the time, of different varieties possible, without wanting to change them at least until some low level ones becomes obsolete, then sorcerer is for you.

I think I want to be as versatile as possible. I sadly do not know what the party composition will be like.

I do think I'm going to end up picking mostly from the Divination/Transmutation/Conjuration schools. Sorcerer might give me enough spell slots to deal with a wide range of situations, even though it doesn't quite have the flexibility of a Wizard.



Hmm: After thinking a bit, would Cleric 20 be fine for a core-only low op game? I like the idea of having higher HP, better BAB, and it has most of the buffs I am looking for. Plus fun Domain spells.

edit3: Actually Wizard gets Polymorph. I think I will go with Wizard.

[Spuddles]

Wizards ate touted heavily, but in actual play, getting the exact right mix of fly spells, haste, slow, and dispel is tricky. Not that it can't be done, but it's difficult.

If you will adventure for long periods, get xp, and not have time to scribe scrolls, or spells will be limited, sorcerer may be superior.

If your campaign will be on rails or your DM will have problems with teleport, plane shift, divinations, shrink item, or planar binding, you may be better off with sorcerer. Wizards have a very easy time binding some demons on their off days, then switching to adventure spells, or moving the party around.

If you EVER get splat books, wizard starts to become more appealing. I think wizard is better at levels before 8 are better, as they get faster spell advancement and way more spells known. Starting play with a single first level spell to cast is a bummer.

Wizards are minor skill monkeys, as with a starting 18 int and human as a race, that's 7 skill points a level. Sorcerers don't really have any skill synergy. Bluff can be neat, of course, but that's about the extent of it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sorc V wizard in a core only game boils down to one question:

Strategic versatility or tactical versatility?

Wizard covers the former while sorcerer covers the latter. Their performance is otherwise quite comparable.

[HunterOfJello]

Wizard vs. Sorcerer is a personal question, not a superiority question. The two classes seem similar, but they have only their spell list in common.

Sorcerers are spontaneous casters in the truest sense of the word. You walk into situations not knowing what's coming up ahead, and will be ready with all your spells whenever you need them.

Wizards are completely different. They have to carefully plan themselves out and be conscious of their spell list at all times because once they cast their 2nd prepared fireball of the day, they can't cast any more fireballs till tomorrow.

Try out both a bit and then decide which one fits your playstyle better.

~

That said, wizards do have 3 minor advantages over sorcerers (which arguably shouldn't be there). First, they get more skill points by far since their main casting stat in Intelligence instead of Charisma. Second, they get bonus feats for some very strange reason while Sorcerers don't. (This is likely related to the original designers believing that sorcerers would be much more powerful than wizards. They aren't.) Thirdly, wizards progress ever so slightly faster than sorcerers. This isn't a major difference, but it is there.

However, Sorcerers do have one pure advantage over wizards. They get more spells per day. They max out at 6 spells per day on their list, whereas wizard max out at 4. Wizards can specialize to get their number up to 5, but sorcerers still have that slight bonus over them.

Overall, these differences are quite small and generally negligible compared to the actual massive difference there is between a prepared spellcaster and a spontaneous spellcaster.

~

One final note: Sorcerers are great and should never be dismissed. They have the same list as Wizards and work great with that list. The same can't truly be said of other spontaneous spellcasters, especially the Spirit Shaman and Favored Soul. The Wizard/Sorcerer spell list lends itself well to both spontaneous and prepared casters at the the lists for other classes just don't.

[Corlindale]

As others have said, wizard is probably mechanically superior in Core only (greater spell list, bonus feats, Int-based, fast metamagic, a spell level ahead).

But it mostly comes down to whether you prefer spontaneous or prepared casters, as both classes are still really powerful. I favor sorcerors myself, because I hate having to agonize over spell selection each morning, and I almost always regret some of my choices at the end of the day. Whereas a sorceror is blissfully simply, you just need to reset the numbers in the morning and you're good to go.

Regarding metamagic feats, they are not particularly good in core. Mostly you can achieve similar results by simply casting a higher level spell -and then you won't be a feat down on the deal. On the other hand, you don't have that many feats to choose from in Core, so your mileage may vary.

Extend Spell and Quicken Spell are the main exception - Extend can eventually feel obsolete by late game, though, while Quicken doesn't really become useful until level 11-12. Also note that Sorcerors CANNOT use Quicken without tricks from outside the PHB, which is a fairly serious point against them if the campaign goes on to high levels.




Hmm: After thinking a bit, would Cleric 20 be fine for a core-only low op game? I like the idea of having higher HP, better BAB, and it has most of the buffs I am looking for. Plus fun Domain spells.

Cleric 20 is certainly a powerful choice too. Just keep in mind that though they have some numerical advantages over the wizard, their spell list may seem much more boring and one-dimensional in core. Domain spells only partly remedy that, because they can only be used once per day.

[watchwood]

Cleric 20 is certainly a powerful choice too. Just keep in mind that though they have some numerical advantages over the wizard, their spell list may seem much more boring and one-dimensional in core. Domain spells only partly remedy that, because they can only be used once per day.

I'm pretty sure that there's nothing stopping a cleric from filling his regular spell slots with domain spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm pretty sure that there's nothing stopping a cleric from filling his regular spell slots with domain spells.

Unless the spell in question is on the general cleric list too, you're mistaken.

Domain only spells can only be prep'ed in domain slots.

[danzibr]

If you're lazier, go Sorc. They're easier to play.

[ahenobarbi]

Wizards are better because:
- More spells known (seriously Sor gets only 3 spells known from levels 3)6-9, try picking them, you'll see how much you loose).
- Quicken spell.


Do I want to take as many metamagic feats as possible?Wizards get bonus feats, and I am going human. What feats should I be looking at? I think I want to focus mostly on buffing and battlefield control. Maybe summoning and buffing instead.

Some metamagics can be nice but PHB only some are good (extend, quicken, maybe enlarge, still /silent if your DM likes to take movement freedom or speaking from you).

Depending on your DM consider taking some crafting feats as wizard bonus feats (wondrous item, arms and armor,).

[ahenobarbi]

If you're lazier, go Sorc. They're easier to play.



And easier to screw up. If you pick wrong spell leveling you're stuck with it for a long time.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Wizard vs Sorcerer, in Core, can be seen like this:

Wizard: He's like the rather expensive multi-tool with a bazillion attachments. Sure, he can fit just about any job. You may have to spend a bit on extra attachments so you have your doodads, although fumbling with them on the fly is sometimes a bit problematic, and the case doesn't hold *all* of them, even if you can go back and switch them out, given time.

Sorcerer: He's like a big ol' Monkey wrench, maybe with a socket attachment on the other side. His options are more... limited. Sure, he may not have the NanoBlade2000 attachment that the Wizard has, but hey... you're talking about a hefty chunk of metal here, it'll still do the job. Sure, he may not have the 37/128ths sized wrench, but he does have a monkey wrench, which is more or less adjustable and can make do. Sure, he may not have a hammer attachment with shock-absorbing handle and tungsten-steel head... but it's still a monkey wrench, and can make do as a blunt object. But it doesn't bother with attachments. It's a simple, reliable, useful tool.

But they're still both a lot more useful than the Hammer which represents most Core melee, since both can duplicate the effects, and do a lot more besides.

[ahenobarbi]

Sorcerer: He's like a big ol' Monkey wrench, maybe with a socket attachment on the other side. His options are more... limited. Sure, he may not have the NanoBlade2000 attachment that the Wizard has, but hey... you're talking about a hefty chunk of metal here, it'll still do the job. Sure, he may not have the 37/128ths sized wrench, but he does have a monkey wrench, which is more or less adjustable and can make do. Sure, he may not have a hammer attachment with shock-absorbing handle and tungsten-steel head... but it's still a monkey wrench, and can make do as a blunt object. But it doesn't bother with attachments. It's a simple, reliable, useful tool.

That is if you choose right spells. If you choose wrong you get gold chopsticks which are useless in many situations.

[Gnaeus]

Sorc V wizard in a core only game boils down to one question:

Strategic versatility or tactical versatility?

Wizard covers the former while sorcerer covers the latter. Their performance is otherwise quite comparable.

Disagree with this assessment. An even leveled sorcerer (and I use even levels because that is better for the sorcerer) has 1 spell of his highest level known, and 2 from the next highest. If the combat is dangerous enough that he needs his high powered stuff, that is 3 real options, maybe a little more with metamagic. (Lets say, Polymorph, Haste, Stinking Cloud. I guess he could Empower a Magic Missile or a Flaming sphere, but his level 3 and 4s are better)

That same 8th (for example) level specialist wizard assuming a decent casting stat has 4 spells of his highest level, + 5 of his next highest level, all of which can be different. So again assuming that a high level spell is called for, he has 9 options. (Say Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door, Solid Fog, Haste, Phantom Steed, Slow, Tiny Hut, Fireball)

Strategic versatility: Advantage Wizard. Tactical Versatility: Advantage Wizard.

Then there is the question of how easily they can duplicate each others strengths in core. Wizards can do this very easily. They buy (or make) pearls of power to compensate for the sorcerer's spells per day and to allow themselves to reuse spells. A core sorcerer cannot really add spells to his list. The best he can do is get a bunch of scrolls or staves, but wizards are actually better at the scroll game also.

[Piggy Knowles]

However, Sorcerers do have one pure advantage over wizards. They get more spells per day. They max out at 6 spells per day on their list, whereas wizard max out at 4. Wizards can specialize to get their number up to 5, but sorcerers still have that slight bonus over them.

Having played quite a bit of both, here is my analysis on spells per day for a wizard versus a sorcerer:

LEVELS 1 & 2: The sorcerer is just straight up more fun. They start off with more spells than the wizard and can use them more frequently. This is especially pronounced at level 1, although by level 2 the specialist wizard has started to catch up.

LEVEL 3: The wizard can cast Alter Self or Glitterdust or Levitate or whatever. The sorcerer is sad.

LEVEL 4: The specialized wizard gets three of his second level spells per day. The sorcerer gets three castings... but only one actual spell known, so it's a strict loss. There's no "tactical versatility" to spontaneous casting when you only have one spell known.

LEVELS 5-17: Rinse & repeat.

LEVEL 18: At this point, if you're a sorcerer who took Shapechange as his spell known, there as almost no functional difference between a sorcerer and a wizard, because you can Shapechange and cast whatever the hell you want.

(This is obviously an intentionally skewed view, but the point is that a wizard will ALWAYS be better at casting his higher level spells each day. By the mid levels, the sorcerer will have more of his lower level spells and greater freedom with them....... but considering how drastic power can jump between spell levels, I tend to think that having more high level spells is usually a superior option. YMMV.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Disagree with this assessment. An even leveled sorcerer (and I use even levels because that is better for the sorcerer) has 1 spell of his highest level known, and 2 from the next highest. If the combat is dangerous enough that he needs his high powered stuff, that is 3 real options, maybe a little more with metamagic. (Lets say, Polymorph, Haste, Stinking Cloud. I guess he could Empower a Magic Missile or a Flaming sphere, but his level 3 and 4s are better)

That same 8th (for example) level specialist wizard assuming a decent casting stat has 4 spells of his highest level, + 5 of his next highest level, all of which can be different. So again assuming that a high level spell is called for, he has 9 options. (Say Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door, Solid Fog, Haste, Phantom Steed, Slow, Tiny Hut, Fireball)

Strategic versatility: Advantage Wizard. Tactical Versatility: Advantage Wizard.

Then there is the question of how easily they can duplicate each others strengths in core. Wizards can do this very easily. They buy (or make) pearls of power to compensate for the sorcerer's spells per day and to allow themselves to reuse spells. A core sorcerer cannot really add spells to his list. The best he can do is get a bunch of scrolls or staves, but wizards are actually better at the scroll game also.

The wizard in your example has nine options in the first combat of the day. With each successive combat his options shrink. He's also locked in on his choices. If he encounters something he doesn't have an answer for and didn't leave any slots open for an on-the-fly, fifteen minute prep, he's as SooL as the sorcerer that doesn't know a spell for the situation at hand.

The sorcerer on the other hand has unlimited flexibility within his spells known. If he used fireball in the first combat of the day, and the second encounter has a crowd of mooks, he can swing another fireball. The wizard that used up his fireball can't. The sorcerer can also heighten lower level spells when they would be appropriate for the situation at hand, if not for their low DC.

You've confused the meaning of tactical V strategic versatility.

Strategic versatility is being able to have the right tool for the job, when a situation comes up.

Tactical versatility is having the flexability to make the tools you have work in the situation you're in.

[Gnaeus]

The wizard in your example has nine options in the first combat of the day. With each successive combat his options shrink.

No they don't. Wizards can buy or make pearls of power. This also makes the wizard a superior party buffer, because your FIGHTER can buy him a Pearl of Power (3rd level spell) for Keen Edge or GMW cheaper than the fighter can purchase those enchantments.


He's also locked in on his choices. If he encounters something he doesn't have an answer for and didn't leave any slots open for an on-the-fly, fifteen minute prep, he's as SooL as the sorcerer that doesn't know a spell for the situation at hand.

No he isn't. Wizards can scribe scrolls as a bonus feat. But aside from that, yes, if he doesn't have the right spell, he is SooL, but of course, that is much much less likely than the sorcerer, because the wizard got to pick his spells from the day and he has about 3 times as many spells of the top 2 levels to choose from.



The sorcerer on the other hand has unlimited flexibility within his spells known. If he used fireball in the first combat of the day, and the second encounter has a crowd of mooks, he can swing another fireball. The wizard that used up his fireball can't.

Yes, actually he can. Pearl of Power again.


The sorcerer can also heighten lower level spells when they would be appropriate for the situation at hand, if not for their low DC.

So the sorcerer can spend one of his limited feats for Heighten Spell (a feat which no one else has even suggested as a good option) to let him cast his Grease or Glitterdust at a slightly higher DC with a full round casting. With metamagic reducers, that may be worthwhile, but this is core. The core wizard could use 2 of the 4 extra feats (not including scribe scroll) that he has over the sorcerer for Greater Spell Focus and get a similar benefit all day long for all spells of his favored school without the full round casting time, but that isn't even one of his best options for how to use his feats.


You've confused the meaning of tactical V strategic versatility.

Strategic versatility is being able to have the right tool for the job, when a situation comes up.

Tactical versatility is having the flexability to make the tools you have work in the situation you're in.

On the contrary, you have.

Strategic versatility is about long range planning. It is being able to say, "I don't want to memorize Fireball when I enter the molten volcano filled with fire giants", or "I want totally different spells in a city than I want in the countryside", or "I want this highly situational spell in my spellbook so that I can make cheap scrolls of it or craft some item that no sorcerer can ever craft because they don't want to tie up their spell slots with an otherwise useless spell."

Tactical versatility is about options in combat. A wizard has 3 times the number of spells available in the highest 2 spell levels. He always has more good options. He also has much easier core methods for acquiring additional options in the form of crafting.

[ericgrau]

Actually, wizards are way better at metamagic than sorcerers in core because of the full round casting time. Not being able to get a spell of until your next turn really hurts.

As pointed out this makes little difference. But the big thing is that applying metamagic spontaneously instead of in the morning greatly increases your options during combat. Later it's like having 6-7 max level spell options instead of 3. Metamagic tends to work much much better on sorcerers, except core quicken of course.

Agreed that spell selection is critical on the sorcerer since he can't change his mind later. But if you've had any practice with a wizard to figure that out you can just pick your general purpose list. Or get lots of tips from others. If you get it right then ya it's a breeze from there, or torture if not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No they don't. Wizards can buy or make pearls of power.



No he isn't. Wizards can scribe scrolls as a bonus feat. But aside from that, yes, if he doesn't have the right spell, he is SooL, but of course, that is much much less likely than the sorcerer, because the wizard got to pick his spells from the day and he has about 3 times as many spells of the top 2 levels to choose from.




Yes, actually he can. Pearl of Power again.



So the sorcerer can spend one of his limited feats for Heighten Spell (a feat which no one else has even suggested as a good option) to let him cast his Grease or Glitterdust at a slightly higher DC with a full round casting. With metamagic reducers, that may be worthwhile, but this is core. The core wizard could use 2 of the 4 extra feats (not including scribe scroll) that he has over the sorcerer for Greater Spell Focus and get a similar benefit all day long for all spells of his favored school without the full round casting time, but that isn't even one of his best options for how to use his feats.



On the contrary, you have.

Strategic versatility is about long range planning. It is being able to say, "I don't want to memorize Fireball when I enter the molten volcano filled with fire giants", or "I want totally different spells in a city than I want in the countryside", or "I want this highly situational spell in my spellbook so that I can make cheap scrolls of it or craft some item that no sorcerer can ever craft because they don't want to tie up their spell slots with an otherwise useless spell."

Tactical versatility is about options in combat. A wizard has 3 times the number of spells available in the highest 2 spell levels. He always has more good options. He also has much easier core methods for acquiring additional options in the form of crafting.

Saying pearls of power gives wizards tactical flexibility is very nearly the same thing as saying scrolls give sorcerers strategic versatility. Items mitigate the weaknesses of both classes. That doesn't mean the weaknesses aren't there.

The sorcerer gets 34 spells known, not counting cantrips. If you can't find an effect for the situation you're in within that amount of spells known, then the wizard's 54 isn't going to make much difference. (54 is the number of spells a 20th level wizard with int 32 can have prep'ed Increase to 63 for a specialist)

Heighten is usually disregarded because it's unnecessary for a wizard. He can just pick a spell at his highest level with the appropriate effect.

A sorcerer gets much more mileage out of the feat since DC's are the biggest; not only, just biggest; issue with using lower level spells against level appropriate enemies. Do you really want to argue that glitterdust wouldn't be useful against a CR 12 enemy if it had a dc of 16+ability instead of 12+ability?

Also, in direct adress to your fireball in the volcano example: If a sorcerer has heighten spell and one spell each of the cold and fire subtypes, he's pretty much got his bases covered for direct damage.

Precious feats: you're kidding right? In core only there aren't enough feats to pick nothing but good ones. Heighten is as worth while an investment as pretty much any other option the sorcerer has.

Most notably, the most effective spells for a wizard to know, are just as effective for the sorcerer. Specifically, the spells that break the action economy, expand the spellcaster's options, or create shapechanging effects, e.g. Summon monster X, planar binding, polymorph, create/control undead, etc.

The difference between the power of spells of adjacent levels is grossly overstated. Fog cloud V stinking cloud V solid fog V cloudkill. Any of these will have a noteable effect combat via BFC. Yes the higher level spells in that list will have a more direct effect on enemies, but the lower level effects are by no means negligable. If a sorcerer with heighten picked up stinking cloud, he's good.

Barring item use, the difference between wizard and sorcerer is, as I said, strategic versatility V tactical versatility.

[Gnaeus]

As pointed out this makes little difference. But the big thing is that applying metamagic spontaneously instead of in the morning greatly increases your options during combat. Later it's like having 6-7 max level spell options instead of 3. Metamagic tends to work much much better on sorcerers, except core quicken of course.


It does and it doesn't.

A human sorcerer gets 8 feats to spend on everything he wants. A human wizard gets 12. Once you get your improved init, improved familiar, skill focus concentration, or whatever you need for your favorite PRC, the sorcerer gives up a lot more for each metamagic feat than the wizard does.

And again, the wizard can buy his way out of the problem. Metamagic rods are designed for the wizard, he can take craft rod as a bonus feat or use the money he saved on all his scrolls and wondrous items to just buy some.

[Eldariel]

Precious feats: you're kidding right? In core only there aren't enough feats to pick nothing but good ones. Heighten is as worth while an investment as pretty much any other option the sorcerer has.

Actually, that's only true for non-casters. Here's a list of feats a Wizard/Sorcerer wants in Core:

Leadership: Strongest feat in the game, everybody wants it.

Improved Familiar: Some of the options are amazing. Definitely want this one around 7-9.

Flyby Attack: This is just really good for skirmishing.

Quicken Spell: In the teens, getting that second spell a turn even if it's a weaker one is just huge. If you can hit a target's weak save, it doesn't matter if you're using a level 2 spell since the DC is still plenty high for them to probably fail especially if it's an AOE (obviously not for Sorcerers; they'll prolly want Heighten Spell tho)

Extend Spell: Really useful with Hour/Level buffs (early make them all day, later make them two days), 10 min/Level buffs (make them basically all day), etc. You use Rods too but eventually you'll want the feat.

Spell Penetration & Greater: This is Core, these are the best ways to deal with Spell Resistance. While you can affect Magic Immune opponents, many of your best AOEs offer Spell Resistance so your overall versatility suffers hugely without ease of dealing with SR.

Spell Focus: You want to get to Archmage. You need two Spell Foci.

Skill Focus: Spellcraft: Same deal here, Archmage is really good.

Craft Wondrous Items, Craft Rod, Craft Magic Arms & Armor: So many deals for ½ price. Note, if you have a Cohort, these can be outsourced.

That's um:
3 General feats
2 Metamagic feats
2 Spell Penetrations
3 Archmage Prerequisites
Craft feats

Not counting Loremaster prerequisites since they obviously pay for themselves with the Secret to get an extra feat. So yeah, that's a total of 11 really useful feats + Craft feats and that's before we even get to stuff like Improved Initiative or Empower Spell.

Be assured, spellcasters have no lack of worthwhile feats in Core. Even warriors have ~7-8 relatively good ones (Improved Trip-line, Power Attack, EWP: Chain, Spirited Charge-line & Combat Reflexes).

[Gnaeus]

Saying pearls of power gives wizards tactical flexibility is very nearly the same thing as saying scrolls give sorcerers strategic versatility. Items mitigate the weaknesses of both classes. That doesn't mean the weaknesses aren't there.

But the sorcerer cannot duplicate prepared casting with scrolls, while the wizard can duplicate spontaneous casting and surpass it with pearls of power and metamagic rods. And the wizard is much better than the sorcerer at making all of those things, which means that he has more of them and easier access to them.


A sorcerer gets much more mileage out of the feat since DC's are the biggest; not only, just biggest; issue with using lower level spells against level appropriate enemies. Do you really want to argue that glitterdust wouldn't be useful against a CR 12 enemy if it had a dc of 16+ability instead of 12+ability?

Actually yes. You are using a 6th level slot and a feat to blind an enemy. I would much rather use a 5th level spell slot (Hold Monster perhaps), + Spell focus to remove the same enemy from the fight entirely. The higher level spells are better than the lower ones, even heightened.


Also, in direct adress to your fireball in the volcano example: If a sorcerer has heighten spell and one spell each of the cold and fire subtypes, he's pretty much got his bases covered for direct damage.

Really, not. The higher level spells have higher damage caps as well as different areas and, by the time you are of that levels, you get lots of enemies with energy immunities. A Devil with resist energy cold shuts your sorc down. The wizard just moves to electricity. But blasting is kind of inferior anyway.


Precious feats: you're kidding right? In core only there aren't enough feats to pick nothing but good ones. Heighten is as worth while an investment as pretty much any other option the sorcerer has.

Eldariel said it better.

I would add improved initiative (going first wins fights), Maybe skill focus concentration (better than combat casting), and if you want to focus on save or lose spells greater spell focus gives a lot of the same benefits as your heighten spell but without giving up your move action or high level slots.


Most notably, the most effective spells for a wizard to know, are just as effective for the sorcerer. Specifically, the spells that break the action economy, expand the spellcaster's options, or create shapechanging effects, e.g. Summon monster X, planar binding, polymorph, create/control undead, etc.

Hahahaha hehe. Create/control undead and planar binding are way better for Mr. Wizard than his sorcerer friend. They are spells you cast the day BEFORE you go into the dungeon. If you are taking those awesome spells, you can just pretend that your sorcerer knows half a dozen LESS spells, because he won't be casting them while in the middle of the dungeon. Spells that break the action economy ARE great. But easiest core way to get them is quicken.



The difference between the power of spells of adjacent levels is grossly overstated. Fog cloud V stinking cloud V solid fog V cloudkill. Any of these will have a noteable effect combat via BFC. Yes the higher level spells in that list will have a more direct effect on enemies, but the lower level effects are by no means negligable. If a sorcerer with heighten picked up stinking cloud, he's good.


Heighten stinking cloud is not remotely the equivalent of cloudkill or solid fog. It just isn't. Solid fog is a no-save-just-suck. Heightened stinking cloud is a DC 14+ stat save or be inconvenienced unless you are immune to poison or dont breathe.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But the sorcerer cannot duplicate prepared casting with scrolls, while the wizard can duplicate spontaneous casting and surpass it with pearls of power and metamagic rods. And the wizard is much better than the sorcerer at making all of those things, which means that he has more of them and easier access to them.

Pearls of power unequivocally do not make a wizard equal to a sorcerer in spontaneity. Not unless you spend a crap-ton of gold on them. The wizard that does spend that kind of money on PoP's, even if he's crafting them, doesn't have much money left for anything else, like say a Blessed book, or scrolls to add new spells to his book. Pearls mitigate the wizard's lack of spontaneity, they don't eliminate it. Scrolls do about an equal job of making a sorcerer prepared.




Actually yes. You are using a 6th level slot and a feat to blind an enemy. I would much rather use a 5th level spell slot (Hold Monster perhaps), + Spell focus to remove the same enemy from the fight entirely. The higher level spells are better than the lower ones, even heightened. Better is relative. If the heightened low-level spell is good enough, you don't need a perfect solution. For most creatures blind -is- effectively out of the fight.




Really, not. The higher level spells have higher damage caps as well as different areas and, by the time you are of that levels, you get lots of enemies with energy immunities. A Devil with resist energy cold shuts your sorc down. The wizard just moves to electricity. But blasting is kind of inferior anyway. In the event that you run into a creature that is resistant to both, you take a different tactic. BFC perhaps, or ally buffing. There's a reason those other 3 guys are following you around you know.




Eldariel said it better. I'm comfortable with considering heighten the sorcerer's analogue to the wizard's quicken, in a core only game. As for PrC requirements, the core PrC's aren't that impressive. Even archmage, nice as it is, isn't so spectacular as to be a given. The sorc/wiz spell list is good enough in core that it doesn't need a PrC to support it. It really doesn't need the help outside of core either for that matter. PrC's were intended to be a choice, not a given. In core, they actually are entirely optional.





Hahahaha hehe. Create/control undead and planar binding are way better for Mr. Wizard than his sorcerer friend. They are spells you cast the day BEFORE you go into the dungeon. If you are taking those awesome spells, you can just pretend that your sorcerer knows half a dozen LESS spells, because he won't be casting them while in the middle of the dungeon. Spells that break the action economy ARE great. But easiest core way to get them is quicken.

Create undead requires a corpes, where are you more likely to find a corpse than right after a battle? Control undead requires an undead in front of you and can turn a fight into a farce. Neither is remotely worthless in the dungeon. For planar binding, the dramatic increase in available options more than makes up for the one less spell known. Obviously you swap the lesser for something else when regular becomes availabe, and then repeat the process for greater. Summon monster is the short term version and/or a good way to put bodies between the party and the enemy.



Heighten stinking cloud is not remotely the equivalent of cloudkill or solid fog. It just isn't. Solid fog is a no-save-just-suck. Heightened stinking cloud is a DC 14+ stat save or be inconvenienced unless you are immune to poison or dont breathe.

Heightened stinking cloud is DC 10 + heighest level spell-slot + ability mod, if it's the most appropriate spell to use, and while it won't kill, it will incapacitate anything it catches making it only slightly less effective than cloudkill. Solid fog creates a no-man's land on the battlefield. The melees that clean up after your magical butt can't get in there to kill the enemy just like the enemy can't get out to kill you. It takes enemies out of the fight without killing them, just like a heightened stinking cloud. The enemies not caught in any of the above spells will try to go around the AoE, and are consequently equally effected regardless of which cloud you use. If you picked solid fog to block off a passage your wizard isn't using the most effective spell for the situation either. That'd be wall of force, but solid fog will suffice, just like summon monster, stinking cloud (even non-heightened it'll give a creature pause before continuing) or even that pile of undead mooks you brought with you or created in the dungeon before this retreat.

A well played wizard will always have just the right spell for the situation, but a well played sorcerer will have something that's good enough.

[Gnaeus]

Pearls of power unequivocally do not make a wizard equal to a sorcerer in spontaneity. Not unless you spend a crap-ton of gold on them. The wizard that does spend that kind of money on PoP's, even if he's crafting them, doesn't have much money left for anything else, like say a Blessed book, or scrolls to add new spells to his book. Pearls mitigate the wizard's lack of spontaneity, they don't eliminate it. Scrolls do about an equal job of making a sorcerer prepared.

The wizard has a c-ton more gold than the sorcerer. He can craft. He also has more scrolls than the sorcerer. He can craft them.

Scrolls help you to have a situational spell that you don't want to learn or memorize. Their cost means they aren't good for just having multiple different spells of your highest 2 spell levels available when you want them. Pearls of power help every single day, and are never used up. Same with metamagic rods.



Better is relative. If the heightened low-level spell is good enough, you don't need a perfect solution. For most creatures blind -is- effectively out of the fight.

Not at CR 12 (the CR you listed). More than half have blind fight, more than half have AOEs. Some ignore blindness completely. Hold Monster, OTOH drops most (all but 3) of them if you can beat their SR and saving throw, both of which are equally good defenses against your glitterdust. And you are using a higher level slot to get that inferior effect.


Create undead requires a corpes, where are you more likely to find a corpse than right after a battle?

You kill the dragon, then the next day you animate it after you have cleared the dungeon and before you go on to the next location. Or you go to a graveyard. It doesn't have to be a recent corpse. It takes an hour to cast, you aren't going to get to use it in the enemy lair while there are still foes left alive. It is a much better spell for a wizard than a sorc. Same for planar binding. It means that you have even less options in the battle than before.


A well played wizard will always have just the right spell for the situation, but a well played sorcerer will have something that's good enough.

This is true. You finally got it. As long as his spellbook isn't stolen, the wizard is always better than the sorcerer. Yes, even then. More powerful and more versatile. The wizard is just right, the sorcerer is good enough. But the sorcerer is better than any class in core except for the big 3.

[Eldariel]

Don't underestimate lower level spells tho. Creatures with bad Will-saves will be dogs against Glitterdust even if they're higher CR'd. Take, for instance, Eleven-Headed Cryohydra (CR12). Its Will-save is +5.

Our level 12 Wizard/Sorcerer has a +6 item, +3 level-ups and 17-18 casting stat + Spell Focus: Conjuration (he's going for Archmage). This gives us ~26 casting score, +1 DC & 12 base DC for a total of DC 21 Will-save. The Cryohydra has to roll 16+ to succeed; so the spell has a 75% chance of working. Purple Worm is the same, tho its chances are even worse.

Kraken has an abnormally good Will-save for its type mostly because of its massive stats and feats (it should be treated as a Dragon far as assessing its saves go), but even it has to roll a 7 to succeed vs. Glitterdust has a 30% chance of working against it. Same goes for Colossal Monstrous Scorpion, which has Tarrasque-level HD. Even Leonal, an Outsider with all good saves, has a 40% chance of failing (though it has a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability of course, which makes this kinda trivial) & Kolyarut fails 65% of the time.


Note, the save DC could be higher. We the race could be Gray Elf instead of Human; if we had a Middle-Aged Gray Elf Wizard with +6 Int Headband, the DC against Glitterdust would be 23, which means even Kraken would have a 45% chance of failing. Hell, even an Adult Green Dragon (CR 13) would fail 35% of the time provided it doesn't have spell-based protections in place (its Will-saves are +15).

[Kelb_Panthera]

The wizard has a c-ton more gold than the sorcerer. He can craft. He also has more scrolls than the sorcerer. He can craft them. He -can- craft them, if he takes the feats. The sorcerer can take craft feats too, though it's a slightly higher investment. Eladriel showed us how there are, contrary to my previous statement, enough good feats in core that neither the wizard nor the sorcerer is guaranteed to be a crafter.


Scrolls help you to have a situational spell that you don't want to learn or memorize. Their cost means they aren't good for just having multiple different spells of your highest 2 spell levels available when you want them. Pearls of power help every single day, and are never used up. Same with metamagic rods. Metamagic rods are equally beneficial to all casters, and the only reason having so many spells known as a wizard is great is because you can learn the situational stuff that you only occasionally need. The most potent and effective spells are gimme's regardless of whether you're a sorcerer or a wizard.





You kill the dragon, then the next day you animate it after you have cleared the dungeon and before you go on to the next location. Or you go to a graveyard. It doesn't have to be a recent corpse. It takes an hour to cast, you aren't going to get to use it in the enemy lair while there are still foes left alive. It is a much better spell for a wizard than a sorc. Same for planar binding. It means that you have even less options in the battle than before. When using undead minions you have two options: one big bodyguard minion, or multiple smaller minions to break the action economy. In the latter case, minions will need to be replaced in the field from time to time. Being able to do so in an hour is better than having to wait a day.




This is true. You finally got it. The wizard is always better than the sorcerer. Yes, even then. More powerful and more versatile. The wizard is just right, the sorcerer is good enough. But the sorcerer is better than any class in core except for the big 3.

You're confusing more versatile with more powerful again, and you're confusing both with better.

A well played wizard is harder to use than a well played sorcerer. A wizard either has to know what's coming at the beginning of the day, leave half his slots open to adapt to non-combat situations, or carry a fortune in PoP's to be able to do what a sorcerer does by winging it. As long as a sorcerer covers his bases with his spell selection on creation and level up, his book-keeping is done; and he -does- get enough spells known to cover all his bases.

May I assume that you concede the points I made in my previous post that you didn't address directly?

[Gnaeus]

Don't underestimate lower level spells tho. Creatures with bad Will-saves will be dogs against Glitterdust even if they're higher CR'd. Take, for instance, Eleven-Headed Cryohydra (CR12). Its Will-save is +5.

Our level 12 Wizard/Sorcerer has a +6 item, +3 level-ups and 17-18 casting stat + Spell Focus: Conjuration (he's going for Archmage). This gives us ~26 casting score, +1 DC & 12 base DC for a total of DC 21 Will-save. The Cryohydra has to roll 16+ to succeed; so the spell has a 75% chance of working. Purple Worm is the same, tho its chances are even worse.

Kraken has an abnormally good Will-save for its type mostly because of its massive stats and feats (it should be treated as a Dragon far as assessing its saves go), but even it has to roll a 7 to succeed vs. Glitterdust has a 30% chance of working against it. Same goes for Colossal Monstrous Scorpion, which has Tarrasque-level HD. Even Leonal, an Outsider with all good saves, has a 40% chance of failing (though it has a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability of course, which makes this kinda trivial) & Kolyarut fails 65% of the time..

Right, but Kraken and Hydra have blind fight, so even if you get them they are only disadvantaged, hardly out of combat. The Kraken is likely to just submerge and re-emerge 10 rounds later. The scorpion and purple worm both have tremorsense, so again, blind doesn't remove them as threats. Also, lots of those guys have grab, so if you make them withdraw with your buddy in claw or jaw, you haven't done any favors. Kolyarut is the only one that is actually out of combat from this spell. The roper is also kinda screwed, but 30 SR + save.

[BowStreetRunner]

Hmm: After thinking a bit, would Cleric 20 be fine for a core-only low op game? I like the idea of having higher HP, better BAB, and it has most of the buffs I am looking for. Plus fun Domain spells.

edit3: Actually Wizard gets Polymorph. I think I will go with Wizard.

I hate to throw another idea out this late in the thread, but Druids get d8 hp, 3/4 BAB, good Fort & Will saves, and Wild Shape. They are also extremely flexible if you don't fully know the role you will need to fill for the party.

[Eldariel]

Right, but Kraken and Hydra have blind fight, so even if you get them they are only disadvantaged, hardly out of combat. The Kraken is likely to just submerge and re-emerge 10 rounds later. The scorpion and purple worm both have tremorsense, so again, blind doesn't remove them as threats. Also, lots of those guys have grab, so if you make them withdraw with your buddy in claw or jaw, you haven't done any favors. Kolyarut is the only one that is actually out of combat from this spell. The roper is also kinda screwed, but 30 SR + save.

Not out of combat, but they still have 50% miss chance. And Kraken, well, if you're fighting one you better be prepared to fight underwater 'cause that's exactly where it's gonna be. It has Control Weather and all that so if it wants to decimate islands or some such it doesn't need to surface.

Scorpion's Tremorsense is fairly useless if we assume fighting on the surface since we're on level 12, where everybody flies. Purple Worm's more so since it can Burrow forcing you to follow, but still.


It's not fight over but they're heavily inconvenienced by blindness, and this means you just used a level 2 spell against a CR-equivalent encounter; huge impact basically without any resource investment to speak of.

[Gnaeus]

He -can- craft them, if he takes the feats. The sorcerer can take craft feats too, though it's a slightly higher investment. Eladriel showed us how there are, contrary to my previous statement, enough good feats in core that neither the wizard nor the sorcerer is guaranteed to be a crafter.

Even if he takes the feats, he is worse at it than a wizard. He has less spells known and less feats known, so he can craft less items.


Metamagic rods are equally beneficial to all casters, and the only reason having so many spells known as a wizard is great is because you can learn the situational stuff that you only occasionally need. The most potent and effective spells are gimme's regardless of whether you're a sorcerer or a wizard.

Your argument is that sorcs are better because of on the fly metamagic. Wizards use rods to do the same thing. Sorcs cannot redefine their spell list each day, or learn a spell just for crafting. They cannot duplicate the most important points of T1itude in core. And again, being to make rods cheaper means you can get more of them or get them for less opportunity cost.

No. It is also great for varying your spells by day. It is also great for crafting.



When using undead minions you have two options: one big bodyguard minion, or multiple smaller minions to break the action economy. In the latter case, minions will need to be replaced in the field from time to time. Being able to do so in an hour is better than having to wait a day.

So if the wizard does decide that this is relevant (and it usually isn't), he can spend a single spell memorized on it instead of an entire spell known. Having more spells to use in actual combat, while retaining the ability to use downtime spells in downtime, is better.


You're confusing more versatile with more powerful again, and you're confusing both with better.

Not really, and the wizard is all 3.


May I assume that you concede the points I made in my previous post that you didn't address directly?

O.K. fine. The point about blasting you admitted you couldn't do it as well and punted it to other party members. That is a loss for you. You also wrote off one of the best PRCs in core as being too expensive for a sorcerer to enter. Not being required /= not being optimal.

Heighten being sorcerer analogue to quicken is rediculous. Quicken stomps the action economy and is one of the best core feats. You like Glitterdust? With Quicken you can give the enemy that 5% chance to be blinded, and THEN when they save cast your high level fight ender. Or cast an attack spell then D Door away, or hide behind a Wall, or drop the solid fog. And you are already arguing (and losing) that heighten is mitigating the sorcerer's lack of high level spells, so it cannot also be used as a power trade-off to one of the best feats in the game.

And I already pointed out that solid fog with its no save just out of combat is better than heightened stinking cloud will ever be. Since you did not disprove it, I ignored it.

This isn't cross-examination debate. If points are not addressed in each post, please assume that I regard them as either not important to argue or already addressed fully in previous posts.

[Doug Lampert]

Still very definately Wizard >>>>>> Sorcerers.

Moreso than when it is not core only.

Bingo. Going out of core helps the sorcerer more than the wizard.

But core only sorcerer is still tier 2, it's powerful ENOUGH. The question the OP should be asking himself is not "which is stronger", but rather "which will I have more fun with".

Levels 3-17 (as has been pointed out by others) the sorcerer is pretty close to being strictly inferior in core. He gets slightly more use from situational metamagic, but he can't use quicken (aka by level 13 or so the best metamagic by far) and in any case crafting is usually better than metamagic, and sorcerers don't have the feats or spell selection to craft well.

But strictly inferior to a wizard is still VERY playable. And spell and feat selection will both matter more than the class in determining who is actually more powerful at the table.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Huge piece of misscommunication: I'm not arguing that sorcerer is better, just that it isn't worse.

The fact of the matter on archmage is that it's giving the wizard abilities the sorcerer already has, or is giving the sorcerer very little return for a massive investment. The only two high arcana worth mentioning for a sorcerer are mastery of shaping, which a competent arcanist doesn't need because he figured out how to avoid friendly fire ages ago; and elemental mastery, which is only good for damage spells, which we agree aren't at all optimal anyway.

My comment about changing tactics when the sorcerer's enemy is highly resistant/immune to both fire and ice isn't a cop-out, it's just smart tactics. It's also a fairly rare situation. The devils you brought up are pretty much it in core only. Are you actually arguing that a wizard that's wasted two direct damage spells on a target is going to risk a third fizzling instead of changing tactics? That's a pretty dumb wizard, regardless of whether its actually effective or not. Nevermind he now has two options fewer for the next fight.

On crafting: the sorcerer has fewer crafting options if both he and the wizard are focused on crafting. If they've both just taken craft wondrous item, the difference in versatility is negligable. A sorcerer can consult with other casters during item creation using the hireling figures. The few silver pieces a day to have an NPC caster; be it a sorcerer, wizard, cleric, or druid; will rarely add up to as much as it costs to add a new spell to a spellbook. The wizard has this option too, but that's a draw, not a win.

On quicken being an analogue to heighten: you've been arguing that low-level spells are worthless and in core quicken costs 4 spell levels. Burning off an option for the day, when it's a useless option at no action cost sounds about equal to turning a useless option into a useful one for the cost of a move action.

Finally; it's a bit rude to just ignore points I've made if you disagree with them. If you want to break my post down point by point, I'd appreciate it if you'd address all of the points I've made.

Unlikely as it is that we'll convince each other, having our full arguments out in the open may prove helpfull to others who haven't fully formed an opinion yet.

[Doug Lampert]

Huge piece of misscommunication: I'm not arguing that sorcerer is better, just that it isn't worse.

But it is, much worse.

Seriously, if the ability to spam one spell was all that good then the wizard would do it, as well or better than the sorcerer. Level 3-17 inclusive the sorcerer is either (1) spaming one spell with clearly less versatility than a wizard, (2) wasting his high level slots for a plus one or two to save DC, or (3) behind a full spell level.

To gain this AWESUM advantage of an casting mechanism that's inferior in combat he takes being inferior out of combat too!

He gives up 5 free useful feats, masses of skill points, and the ability to craft limited use items of situational spells freeing his slots for combat spells and the ability to take non-combat spells for non-combat days.

The sorcerer is strong ENOUGH, but it isn't as strong as a wizard.

DougL

[Eldariel]

The fact of the matter on archmage is that it's giving the wizard abilities the sorcerer already has, or is giving the sorcerer very little return for a massive investment. The only two high arcana worth mentioning for a sorcerer are mastery of shaping, which a competent arcanist doesn't need because he figured out how to avoid friendly fire ages ago; and elemental mastery, which is only good for damage spells, which we agree aren't at all optimal anyway.

Huuuuuh? Mastery of Shaping goes way beyond friendly fire; Shaped Anti-Magic Field is a rather effective defense against any melee types for instance. Shaped Walls are way more versatile than normal. Shaped Solid Fogs, Stinking Clouds, etc. are amazing. And hell, there are cases where you definitely want to Shape that Disjunction/Greater Dispel Magic/etc.

The other High Arcana you want is Arcane Reach. There's a lot of good Touch spells. They just aren't very good to touch with. Arcane Reach suddenly turns them into Ranged Touches (keyed off Dex, not Str and castable a safe range away). Irresistible Dance, Slay Living, Fly, Teleport, Plane Shift (offensively and defensively), Haste, there's a billion spells you might want to cast on friend or foe from range. Hell, I usually pick up two of them for the 60' range; it's just that good.

Also, Spell Power is far from irrelevant. An extra Caster Level means faster full benefits from level-scaling spells (there's a few; Giant Scorpion, Greater Magic Weapon, Control Weather, Gate, etc.), makes your spells harder to Dispel, increases durations, etc. I'd always take it.

And Spell-Likes are of course extra slots; less useful for Sorc but still, an extra 9th level slot is pretty nice especially with the boons it has of being Spell-Like rather than Spell.


But definitely, Mastery of Shaping and Arcane Reach are the two reasons Archmage is so good. It just increases your options massively. Spell Power and Spell-Like (or Mastery of Counterspelling or Mastery of Elements) are icing on the cake.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But it is, much worse.

Seriously, if the ability to spam one spell was all that good then the wizard would do it, as well or better than the sorcerer. Level 3-17 inclusive the sorcerer is either (1) spaming one spell with clearly less versatility than a wizard, (2) wasting his high level slots for a plus one or two to save DC, or (3) behind a full spell level.

To gain this AWESUM advantage of an casting mechanism that's inferior in combat he takes being inferior out of combat too!

He gives up 5 free useful feats, masses of skill points, and the ability to craft limited use items of situational spells freeing his slots for combat spells and the ability to take non-combat spells for non-combat days.

The sorcerer is strong ENOUGH, but it isn't as strong as a wizard.

DougL

The wizard is more versatile. That's not the same as more powerful.

A sorcerer doesn't usually spam his spells anymore than a wizard does, but if it's necessary or appropriate he has the option. The wizard doesn't, unless he knew it was coming a day in advance, in which case he has no other option.

The wizard wins the 15 minute workday no problem. But only the goofiest of games actually employs the fifteen minute work day.

The possibility that the wizard got his spell-selection wrong for the day is blatantly ignored by any and everyone that says wizard>sorcerer in core only.

If the wizard prep'ed for a non-combat day and an unexpected fight breaks out, what's he supposed to do? plink at the enemy with a crossbow? That won't do jack **** at 5th level, much less 15th.

Outside of core, yes wiz > sorc. It's pretty much unquestionable.

But in core only, the two are equal. Playstyle makes up the entirety of which is more appropriate.

[Gnaeus]

My comment about changing tactics when the sorcerer's enemy is highly resistant/immune to both fire and ice isn't a cop-out, it's just smart tactics. It's also a fairly rare situation. The devils you brought up are pretty much it in core only. Are you actually arguing that a wizard that's wasted two direct damage spells on a target is going to risk a third fizzling instead of changing tactics? That's a pretty dumb wizard, regardless of whether its actually effective or not. Nevermind he now has two options fewer for the next fight.

Actually, the wizard has knowledge planes (probably also nature, religion, arcana and dungeoneering) and a high int. He knows what spells his enemies are immune to. Sorc not so much. If you are not metagaming the knowledges, this is a real significant advantage for the wiz.


On crafting: the sorcerer has fewer crafting options if both he and the wizard are focused on crafting. If they've both just taken craft wondrous item, the difference in versatility is negligable. A sorcerer can consult with other casters during item creation using the hireling figures. The few silver pieces a day to have an NPC caster; be it a sorcerer, wizard, cleric, or druid; will rarely add up to as much as it costs to add a new spell to a spellbook. The wizard has this option too, but that's a draw, not a win.

Wow. No. To create an item you have to cast the required spells into it every day. The hireling figures are for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings, hiring trained casters is vastly more expensive. So to create a Keen weapon you have to have a caster available to cast Keen Edge into it for at least 6 days. Level 5x30=6 is 900 gp. Hardly silvers per day. it could go up way way past that depending on the spell. And you would have to be in at least a small city to have the caster to cast the spell for you. To make a Cloak of Displacement major would cost 7(caster level) x40=280 gp per day for 50 days or 14,000 extra gold over what it would cost the wizard. To have a caster supply Spell Turning for a ring for 99 days would cost 90,090 gold, almost as much as the full market value of the ring. Hiring an NPC with a feat has unspecified cost, so it would be DM fiat if you could do it at all or how much it would take.




Finally; it's a bit rude to just ignore points I've made if you disagree with them. If you want to break my post down point by point, I'd appreciate it if you'd address all of the points I've made.

I'm sorry you feel that way. If I don't feel like it adds to the debate, I am not addressing it. If I feel like it has been said, by me or someone else, I don't need to say it again. Otherwise it boils down to an exercise in repeating the same arguments until I get tired of making them and the last poster "wins".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Huuuuuh? Mastery of Shaping goes way beyond friendly fire; Shaped Anti-Magic Field is a rather effective defense against any melee types for instance. Shaped Walls are way more versatile than normal. Shaped Solid Fogs, Stinking Clouds, etc. are amazing. And hell, there are cases where you definitely want to Shape that Disjunction/Greater Dispel Magic/etc.

The other High Arcana you want is Arcane Reach. There's a lot of good Touch spells. They just aren't very good to touch with. Arcane Reach suddenly turns them into Ranged Touches (keyed off Dex, not Str and castable a safe range away). Irresistible Dance, Slay Living, Fly, Teleport, Plane Shift (offensively and defensively), Haste, there's a billion spells you might want to cast on friend or foe from range. Hell, I usually pick up two of them for the 60' range; it's just that good.

Also, Spell Power is far from irrelevant. An extra Caster Level means faster full benefits from level-scaling spells (there's a few; Giant Scorpion, Greater Magic Weapon, Control Weather, Gate, etc.), makes your spells harder to Dispel, increases durations, etc. I'd always take it.

And Spell-Likes are of course extra slots; less useful for Sorc but still, an extra 9th level slot is pretty nice especially with the boons it has of being Spell-Like rather than Spell.


But definitely, Mastery of Shaping and Arcane Reach are the two reasons Archmage is so good. It just increases your options massively. Spell Power and Spell-Like (or Mastery of Counterspelling or Mastery of Elements) are icing on the cake.

Mastery of shaping doesn't work that way. All it does is let you put holes in the AoE. For AMF it's nice against melee humanoids, but it won't mean squat to any of the bruisers in the MM. I don't see how putting holes in wall spells is anything but a more precise version of simply casting 2 walls. Besides, wall of stone is shapeable already. Shaping disjunction and dispel magic categorically -is- avoiding friendly fire, which any competent arcanists should be capable of long before he enters archmage. The only one of these that's actually noteable is shaping a solid fog, since it can let melee types get close and/or forces the enemy to move in the direction you want or really slowly. Situationally useful is exactly what the wizard is supposed to have lots of. A sorcerer can make what he's got work just fine without it.

Arcane reach is a waste of time. A 2nd level sorc/wiz necromancy spell (spectral hand) and a rod of quicken gets nearly the same net effect. Touch attacks are going to hit whether they're ranged or not.

Arcane power is a joke. +1 to caster level? seriously?

If you've got fire and cold you don't need mastery of elements. In the rare event that the target is immune/highly resistant to both, it's better to assume it's just resistant to direct magical attacks and change tactics.

Counterspelling is overmatched by just dealing damage. Readied action anyone?

Spell-likes are taking a level in a PrC to give a wizard something the sorcerer has in abundance, and taking away the ability to modify it with metamagic.

Archmage is pretty nice on a wizard, but it's only marginally useful on a sorcerer.

[Eldariel]

Mastery of shaping doesn't work that way. All it does is let you put holes in the AoE. For AMF it's nice against melee humanoids, but it won't mean squat to any of the bruisers in the MM. I don't see how putting holes in wall spells is anything but a more precise version of simply casting 2 walls. Besides, wall of stone is shapeable already. Shaping disjunction and dispel magic categorically -is- avoiding friendly fire, which any competent arcanists should be capable of long before he enters archmage. The only one of these that's actually noteable is shaping a solid fog, since it can let melee types get close and/or forces the enemy to move in the direction you want or really slowly. Situationally useful is exactly what the wizard is supposed to have lots of. A sorcerer can make what he's got work just fine without it.

Eh, use a Metamagic Rod of Widen; it helps quite a bit. And casting two walls takes twice the actions so why the hell would you ever do that? Wall of Stone is shapeable but not in the ways Mastery of Shaping allows. And yeah, avoiding friendly fire is nice and something you wanna be able to do but guess what; in some positions it's not possible without Mastery of Shaping.


Arcane reach is a waste of time. A 2nd level sorc/wiz necromancy spell (spectral hand) and a rod of quicken gets nearly the same net effect. Touch attacks are going to hit whether they're ranged or not.

It's restricted to 4th level spells or lower. And why would you voluntarily use your Swift Action for something that pointless? Plus, Sorcerer can't quicken stuff even with a Rod in any case.


Arcane power is a joke. +1 to caster level? seriously?

So it doesn't matter to you if you can Gate a Solar or a mere Pit Fiend? You don't care about your spells being Dispelled? You don't care about your spell duration? You don't want +5 from Greater Magic Weapon? How can you say "joke" to a 30k item for one slot that stacks with said 30k item?

It seems to me you're vastly underrating the usefulness of CL in a restricted environment where the only caster level boosters are Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Beads of Karma and Spell Power (and Red Wizard but I assume we're not including that since it's kinda...stupid broken).


Counterspelling is overmatched by just dealing damage. Readied action anyone?

If you can deal damage. You know how easily a Contingency or a protection spell could foil that. Nevertheless, no, counterspelling is not very efficient if you have to waste an action to do it. But if you're


Spell-likes are taking a level in a PrC to give a wizard something the sorcerer has in abundance, and taking away the ability to modify it with metamagic.

Granted. You can however unlearn said spell and gain an effective extra spell known outta it.


Archmage is pretty nice on a wizard, but it's only marginally useful on a sorcerer.

I find it's still very much so worth it. I think you're vastly underrating some abilities. Spell Power might be easy to come by with Magic Item Compendium in the mix but with just Core? It's pretty darn valuable for instance.

[ericgrau]

It does and it doesn't.

A human sorcerer gets 8 feats to spend on everything he wants. A human wizard gets 12. Once you get your improved init, improved familiar, skill focus concentration, or whatever you need for your favorite PRC, the sorcerer gives up a lot more for each metamagic feat than the wizard does.

And again, the wizard can buy his way out of the problem. Metamagic rods are designed for the wizard, he can take craft rod as a bonus feat or use the money he saved on all his scrolls and wondrous items to just buy some.

I suppose I don't prc enough to know. In core though the only essential prc is archmage which really only sets you back one feat that matters and at a high enough level that you can spare it. For other core feats metamagic and spell focus tend to be better than the rest. Improved initiative is only good when you're twinked out to the limit and ending the fight in a round, otherwise you'll get more out of spell focus or etc. Even when you are twinked it's only a +4; you need +16 more using tricks like nerveskitter to truly go first.

Metamagic rods aren't usually worth the cost. Extend is nice because your buffs are low level so lesser extend is affordable. For other spells you need the bigger rods which aren't affordable until very high level, and even at level 20 I'd only get 1-3 greater rods (less of the more expensive ones) because of other things I want to buy too. Lesser quicken OTOH is nice but even the lesser is very expensive. And so crafters should make something else. I'm notorious for covering a page with scrolls but they still don't add up to enough gp to buy any permanent item.

I've made a lot of sorcerers that get very high mileage out of empower and heighten. And not as much for damage as non-damage; empowered ray of enfeeblement is sexy for example. Wizards can't use heighten effectively because it eats the space of a better spell, whereas on a sorcerer it's a free extra option while keeping all his existing options. Both classes like empower, but the sorcerer gets much more out of it for the same reason.

[hex0]

No one mentioned: Sorcerers are proficient with all simple weapons, wizards aren't. Sorcerers get Bluff as a class skill as well, which gives you synergy with a bunch of skills and gets you out of sticky situations. Wizards rarely do well soloing in a social situation.

Sorcerers can become Sorcadins, even in core.

[Gnaeus]

Metamagic rods aren't usually worth the cost. Extend is nice because your buffs are low level so lesser extend is affordable.....

I've made a lot of sorcerers that get very high mileage out of empower and heighten. And not as much for damage as non-damage; empowered ray of enfeeblement is sexy for example.

9000 gp. 4500 if crafted. Thats cheaper than a level 2 wand and probably more versatile.


No one mentioned: Sorcerers are proficient with all simple weapons, wizards aren't.

Not usually important.


Sorcerers get Bluff as a class skill as well, which gives you synergy with a bunch of skills and gets you out of sticky situations. Wizards rarely do well soloing in a social situation.

A human sorc has 3-4 skill points/level. A human Wizard has 7+. Both have to max concentration, and both want knowledge arcana and spellcraft. Sorc may or may not have points for max bluff. Wizard, if he wants to be social, could conceivably put 5 ranks in Know (nobility), 5 ranks (cross class) in Sense motive and Bluff, max cross class ranks in diplomacy and be better in most social situations than the sorcerer. (and still have points left over for some knowledges). The fact that he typically doesn't is usually because he has better things to do with his points, like maxing all the relevant knowledge skills or CCing tumble. In a social game, wiz can play just as well as a sorc can.

The wizard is also more likely to have the required spells to cheat and win social encounters with Charm Monster or Suggestion or the like.


Sorcerers can become Sorcadins, even in core.

Don't get me wrong. Sorcadins are cool and I loveem. But they are weaker than straight sorcs or wizards throughout the level curve.

[Draz74]

I think it's funny how Gnaeus ridicules Heightened Stinking Cloud for "merely inconveniencing" an opponent that fails a save in the same post that he praises Hold Monster for "taking them out of the fight." I'd rather have an opponent Nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds (or more, if they can't exit the cloud immediately!) than have them Paralyzed for Caster Level rounds (but they get to Save again every turn). No question about it.

That's ignoring the fact that Stinking Cloud is multi-target while Hold Monster only affects one thing. And yes, some things are immune to poisons or breathing, but at least as many things are immune to Compulsion effects or Mind-Affecting or Paralysis, so that's a wash.

* * *

I think the Sorcerer/Wizard difference is about the same in Core vs. non-Core. Yeah, the Sorcerer loses Metamagic Specialist, (Greater) Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, Runestaves, and Wings of Flurry/Cover. But the Wizard loses Uncanny Forethought, Spontaneous Divination, Focused Specialist, Abrupt Jaunt ... Core-only might be a small "win" for the Wizard, but it's not going to change the overall balance, which goes as follows:

Expertly-played Wizard
is better than
Expertly-played Sorcerer
is better than
Moderately-optimized Wizard
is better than
Moderately-optimized Sorcerer
is better than
Poorly-played Wizard
is better than
Poorly-played Sorcerer.

TL;DR - how well you optimize and play makes a much bigger difference than which of the two classes you pick.

And at each level of play, the Wizard certainly takes a lot more work than the Sorcerer! Heck, I'd even say Expertly-played Sorcerer is easier to do than Moderately-optimized Wizard -- although that's my personal bookkeeping bias there (I hate having to deal with all the choices involved in keeping a spellbook and selecting a different spell preparation each day).

But more reasonably ... the Wizard who actually has all the right spells prepared each day, so as to take advantage of being better than the Sorcerer's "good enough," is mostly a myth. Unless you're just really lucky at guessing, or your DM gives you overly generous previews, or you're really good at abusing Divination (which is even more work to bother with, and tends to make DMs hate you in a hurry -- it's just not a fun way to play), then the Sorcerer's spell selection is actually going to be better on a typical adventuring day than the Wizard's. (The Wizard can still be the stronger class, but not because of his spell selection; rather, because of being 1/2-level ahead in spells, having better skills and more feats; and Quicken.)

So yes ... Wizard is unquestionably the better of the two classes, either in Core or non-Core. In theory and/or if you're willing to do a LOT of extra work for it. But if you are actually playing a real game and doing so for the purposes of "having fun" rather than crushing the game, the two classes come out very close to even. It becomes a matter of personal preference much more than anything else.

[Piggy Knowles]

No one mentioned: Sorcerers are proficient with all simple weapons, wizards aren't. Sorcerers get Bluff as a class skill as well, which gives you synergy with a bunch of skills and gets you out of sticky situations. Wizards rarely do well soloing in a social situation.

Sorcerers can become Sorcadins, even in core.

Gah, I know this is a bit of a derailment, but can I just say how much I dislike sorcadins? You're taking sorcerers, who are already a level behind wizards when it comes to casting. Then you're making them gishes, costing more lost levels, and you're throwing in a second level of paladin to boot, costing even MORE levels. And the only reason is because people tend to go all weak in the knees for Divine Grace on a Charisma-based caster. At least in non-core there are enough Charisma-based abilities you can tack on that you can have SOME fun with it, but even so, I really don't like them.

[Gnaeus]

I think it's funny how Gnaeus ridicules Heightened Stinking Cloud for "merely inconveniencing" an opponent that fails a save in the same post that he praises Hold Monster for "taking them out of the fight." I'd rather have an opponent Nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds (or more, if they can't exit the cloud immediately!) than have them Paralyzed for Caster Level rounds (but they get to Save again every turn). No question about it.
.

Actually, I was comparing it with Heightened Glitterdust. Will save to will save. Fort save to fort save I would compare it with an actual save or lose (like circle of death, or Baleful Polymorph). But since you can't coup de grace something that is nauseated, but you can simply murder something that is held, and in the example given it was using a lower level spell slot, and since fort saves are usually higher than will saves, I think it is still probably better than the cloud.

I won't argue that sorcerers take less bookkeeping. I won't even argue what is more fun, because that is purely subjective. If you like Sorcs, play sorc, they don't suck. There are just other options that are objectively better from a play perspective.

Lest anyone think I am just biased for wizards, I should also point out that PF actually fixes almost every single problem mentioned here. A PF sorcerer gets bonus feats, so the wizard has much less of a feat advantage. A PF sorcerer benefits greatly from the revisions to crafting, so they can make rods, wondrous items or weapons/armor about as well as a wizard. A PF sorcerer gets extra spells known from bloodline, and more extra spells known from human favored class. The PF wizard is still 1/2 spell level ahead, still gets all the obscure spells, and still benefits from a better casting stat, so they are still usually better, but with the various fixes the PF sorcerer has parity (there are actually times when they are better than the wizard).

[ericgrau]

9000 gp. 4500 if crafted. Thats cheaper than a level 2 wand and probably more versatile.
Useless. That's 1/4th of your wealth when you're casting 5th level spells all by itself. Not worth the cost to add the option and by the time you get more money it's obselete. There are other magic items that are worth it with or without the crafting feats meaning you're better off crafting them instead of rods.

EDIT: As for disables, multi-target does tend to be much better than single. Enchantment has the advantage of social situations, turning the single target against another target, or comboing with something else like coup de grace on the helpless guy. So enchantment deserves to be banned as commonly as it is but if you work hard as an enchanter and focus on it you could make it work. Even then you need backups for immune foes though, or send in the charmed/dominated guy to fight the immune guy :smallbiggrin:.

[Draz74]

Actually, I was comparing it with Heightened Glitterdust. Will save to will save.
Oh, I realized that was your direct comparison. But you did still praise Hold Monster and criticize Heightened Stinking Cloud in the same post, even if it was in different parts of the conversations.


Fort save to fort save I would compare it with an actual save or lose (like circle of death, or Baleful Polymorph). But since you can't coup de grace something that is nauseated, but you can simply murder something that is held, and in the example given it was using a lower level spell slot, and since fort saves are usually higher than will saves, I think it is still probably better than the cloud.

I still say anything that's nauseated for that long is easy to kill off. Coup de grace is faster, but ultimately no more effective (unless you're talking about a party size of 1-2 PCs).

You have a point about the Fort save vs. Will save, though. I guess with that consideration taken into account, I can call the two spells roughly equal overall. (The scales can, of course, still be tipped one direction or the other depending on the individual campaign: elemental-heavy vs. vermin-heavy; or lots of single-boss fights vs. lots of mob fights; etc.)

EDIT: Or hey, if nothing else, at least we can agree that both spells suck in Undead-heavy campaigns. :smallwink:

[Eldariel]

Useless. That's 1/4th of your wealth when you're casting 5th level spells all by itself. Not worth the cost to add the option and by the time you get more money it's obselete. There are other magic items that are worth it with or without the crafting feats meaning you're better off crafting them instead of rods.

EDIT: As for disables, multi-target does tend to be much better than single. Enchantment has the advantage of social situations, turning the single target against another target, or comboing with something else like coup de grace on the helpless guy. So enchantment deserves to be banned as commonly as it is but if you work hard as an enchanter and focus on it you could make it work. Even then you need backups for immune foes though, or send in the charmed/dominated guy to fight the immune guy :smallbiggrin:.

Lategame, Greater Extend and Quicken Rods are absolutely godlike though since they allow bypassing the normal cap the game has on spell levels allowing you to Extend and Quicken 9th level spells (Extend is really sweet with Shapechange and Foresight, Quicken...well, with everything). They cost a lot for a reason but they're worth every penny.

They simply alter the power dynamics of the game on such a fundamental level that they're like Candles of Invocation (except again, appropriately costed). 24k for a Greater Rod of Extend is a bargain and you will shelve out the 170k for Greater Rod of Quicken by 20.

[ericgrau]

At very high levels ya I'd get the greater rods. And the lesser rods at about the same time for some minor utility (except lesser extend, which I get early for the reason stated). Not before that point though. At least level 15, if not later.

[Eldariel]

No one mentioned: Sorcerers are proficient with all simple weapons, wizards aren't. Sorcerers get Bluff as a class skill as well, which gives you synergy with a bunch of skills and gets you out of sticky situations. Wizards rarely do well soloing in a social situation.

Sorcerers can become Sorcadins, even in core.

I've soloed my share of social situations with Charm Person in Pathfinder Society with my Wizard (level 3 currently). In fact, I've bypassed multiple Diplomacy-, Intimidate- and Bluff-checks that would've been otherwise impossible for the party (DC 25 on level 2, wtf?! Our best Diplomacy was +4), including two for my faction goals (it's rare to have more than two of any given faction in the table).

Knowledges can also be exceedingly helpful. The big thing tho? While Bluff is kinda nice, Concentration is kinda essential and you tend to really want Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft too and then you're out of skillpoints as a Human Sorc with 10 Int. And Bluff is only one piece of the puzzle; you need to roll your Diplomacy cross-class.


Skill-wise Wizards definitely win simply because while Int and Cha are kinda evenly matched as base stats for skills but Int also gives those skill points. Also, Wizards have access to Loremaster which contains Use Magic Device in class and 4+Int skills.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Eh, use a Metamagic Rod of Widen; it helps quite a bit. And casting two walls takes twice the actions so why the hell would you ever do that? Wall of Stone is shapeable but not in the ways Mastery of Shaping allows. And yeah, avoiding friendly fire is nice and something you wanna be able to do but guess what; in some positions it's not possible without Mastery of Shaping. Unless all of your spells are AoE's there is no situation in which you cannot avoid friendly fire. Dispel magic can be targeted to a specific creature and disjunction is D&D's nuclear option, it's mutual assured destruction. Actually using disjunction is nothing less than suicidal even if it will guarantee the current battle.

As for casting multiple walls, you do it for the same reason you shape one; to funnel the enemy into your melees. Since a sorcerer has more spells/day anyway and in a BFC situation isn't likely using his actions in a more direct fashion anyway, it's not unreasonable. It's a terrible idea for a wizard, but that's just a difference, not a matter of one being superior to the other.



It's restricted to 4th level spells or lower. And why would you voluntarily use your Swift Action for something that pointless? Plus, Sorcerer can't quicken stuff even with a Rod in any case. Forgot about sorcerers inability to use a quicken rod. Nevertheless, spectral hand covers nearly all of the good touch spells, and a sorcerer can cast it as often as necessary.




So it doesn't matter to you if you can Gate a Solar or a mere Pit Fiend? You don't care about your spells being Dispelled? You don't care about your spell duration? You don't want +5 from Greater Magic Weapon? How can you say "joke" to a 30k item for one slot that stacks with said 30k item?If gate is in play you can already gate a solar, CL18 to the the solar's 22HD. So that's a non-difference. No, I don't care if my spell is 5% more or less difficult to dispell. The dice will eat that difference virtually every time. I'll still get the +5 from GMW, it'll just take a little longer. +1 to caster level is negligable.


It seems to me you're vastly underrating the usefulness of CL in a restricted environment where the only caster level boosters are Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Beads of Karma and Spell Power (and Red Wizard but I assume we're not including that since it's kinda...stupid broken).And you're over estimating +1 caster level regardless of environment. Also, why ignore the red wizard? Disjunction is just as, if not more, problematic and you don't have a problem with it.




If you can deal damage. You know how easily a Contingency or a protection spell could foil that. Nevertheless, no, counterspelling is not very efficient if you have to waste an action to do it. But if you're Contigency can foil conterspelling just as easily as it can foil damage, and protection spells don't offer blanket protection from everything. If you insist on counterspelling, a sorcerer can spam greater dispell. It's still not an option worth the kind of investment archmage requires.




Granted. You can however unlearn said spell and gain an effective extra spell known outta it. What?




I find it's still very much so worth it. I think you're vastly underrating some abilities. Spell Power might be easy to come by with Magic Item Compendium in the mix but with just Core? It's pretty darn valuable for instance.

And I think you're over-estimating them. The bonuses granted are nice enough for a wizard, but they just aren't worth the investment for a sorcerer.

[Eldariel]

Unless all of your spells are AoE's there is no situation in which you cannot avoid friendly fire. Dispel magic can be targeted to a specific creature and disjunction is D&D's nuclear option, it's mutual assured destruction. Actually using disjunction is nothing less than suicidal even if it will guarantee the current battle.

Well, at a point where caster levels get high enough it's the only efficient form of dispelling so it becomes kind of a must. It's also the only way to really dispel buffs and actually affect a spellcaster of a higher level than you.

And sometimes you just need to hit multiple opponents surrounding an ally with a single Greater Dispel. For instance if enemy's trying Scry'n'Die on you and you get to act after their Teleport before their turn.


As for casting multiple walls, you do it for the same reason you shape one; to funnel the enemy into your melees. Since a sorcerer has more spells/day anyway and in a BFC situation isn't likely using his actions in a more direct fashion anyway, it's not unreasonable. It's a terrible idea for a wizard, but that's just a difference, not a matter of one being superior to the other.

That's a lot of actions spent though. By action economy, it's always more efficient to maximize what you can do with a single action.


Forgot about sorcerers inability to use a quicken rod. Nevertheless, spectral hand covers nearly all of the good touch spells, and a sorcerer can cast it as often as necessary.

Eh, Irresistible Dance, Plane Shift, Teleports, there's a few handy higher level spells that can be very convenient without the Touch limitation.


If gate is in play you can already gate a solar, CL18 to the the solar's 22HD. So that's a non-difference. No, I don't care if my spell is 5% more or less difficult to dispell. The dice will eat that difference virtually every time. I'll still get the +5 from GMW, it'll just take a little longer. +1 to caster level is negligable.

"Slightly longer" is a full level longer in the 20's. We're talking tens of thousands of experience. 5% every single time someone tries to dispel your spells. 5% every single time you try to dispel somebody's spells. You're talking about a whole level's worth of variables.

Also, the opportunity cost? A 5th level slot. Are you saying you'd rather have an extra 5th level slot than a higher caster level? But seriously, high level game is all about caster vs. caster. So every edge you can get in terms of Shapechange forms, Gates, dispel DCs, etc. is an extra level's worth of advantage for you. If one invests in multiple singular CL buffs and the other doesn't bother, the one with multiple singular CL buffs is going to win vast majority of the time.


And you're over estimating +1 caster level regardless of environment. Also, why ignore the red wizard? Disjunction is just as, if not more, problematic and you don't have a problem with it.

'cause Red Wizard is...significantly more overpowered than anything else in Core and kinda breaks the whole system if used. It's two-three leagues above every other class presented in the Core books, on the level of Incantatrix or Halruaan Elder. It also comes way earlier than Disjunction; you can enter it on level 6 and get Circle Magic level 10.


Contigency can foil conterspelling just as easily as it can foil damage, and protection spells don't offer blanket protection from everything. If you insist on counterspelling, a sorcerer can spam greater dispell. It's still not an option worth the kind of investment archmage requires.

That's a rare Contingency indeed tho, while ones to counter damage are pretty dime dozen. But yeah, counterspelling outside Divine Defiance, Battlemagic Perception, Duelward or something similar is usually not worth it. If you ever do end up countering tho, Mastery of Counterspelling breaks the zero-sum action economy of Countering.


What?

If you take a spell-like of a 7th level spell, you can unlearn said 7th level spell and trade it for another one. Effectively extra spell known. Sorcerers can trade spells up to two levels lower than the max they can cast for another spell of the same level every even level.

If you get something as a spell-like, you can trade that spell known for another one and retain the spell-like thus giving you an effective extra spell known (tho max. 7th level in Core).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, at a point where caster levels get high enough it's the only efficient form of dispelling so it becomes kind of a must. It's also the only way to really dispel buffs and actually affect a spellcaster of a higher level than you. If you're foolish enough to actually use disjunction, you just made it fair game for the DM. When he, in turn, disjoins the party, your arcanist is the only one left standing. Even wizards and sorcerers can't stand alone. Using dijunction says, "I want this campaign to end in TPK."


And sometimes you just need to hit multiple opponents surrounding an ally with a single Greater Dispel. For instance if enemy's trying Scry'n'Die on you and you get to act after their Teleport before their turn. It'd be better to pull your ally's bacon out of the fire. If it's you that's surrounded, GTFO. Surrounded is a very bad place to be, even if you strip the buffs off the surrounding enemies, and Greater dispel can't suppress equipment unless it's targetted.




That's a lot of actions spent though. By action economy, it's always more efficient to maximize what you can do with a single action. It's two actions. That's hardly a lot. If the enemy was going to go down in round 1, you probably didn't need to bother with modifying the battlefield in the first place.




Eh, Irresistible Dance, Plane Shift, Teleports, there's a few handy higher level spells that can be very convenient without the Touch limitation. Dim Door is 4th level. If you teleport the enemy straight up, it's also effectively a save-or-die. Even if you just send them to the other side of a dungeon wall, you've effectively taken them out of this fight, even if you may end up having to fight them again later. Plane-shift is the same net effect as teleport, except that the enemy is either less likely to find his way back, or will simply take longer. The only effective difference between irresistable dance and hideous laughter is the DC, and hideous laughter doesn't require a touch to begin with. Just heighten it instead of bothering with irresistable dance.




"Slightly longer" is a full level longer in the 20's. We're talking tens of thousands of experience. 5% every single time someone tries to dispel your spells. 5% every single time you try to dispel somebody's spells. You're talking about a whole level's worth of variables. 5% is nothing when there's a d20 involved. It's only 15000xp difference between getting from a +4 to a +5 on GMW, both before and after that the +1cl makes no difference to that spell at all. The same goes for any other spell with effect X or +X every Y levels. It's a trivial difference, and as you pointed out yourself there are 3 other ways to get it in core.


Also, the opportunity cost? A 5th level slot. Are you saying you'd rather have an extra 5th level slot than a higher caster level? But seriously, high level game is all about caster vs. caster. So every edge you can get in terms of Shapechange forms, Gates, dispel DCs, etc. is an extra level's worth of advantage for you. If one invests in multiple singular CL buffs and the other doesn't bother, the one with multiple singular CL buffs is going to win vast majority of the time. It's not just a single 5th level slot. It's qualifying for a prestige class with mediocre returns for your base class. While it's true that the guy with multiple caster level buffs is going to outperform the guy with none, if they've both buffed their caster level, but one has his CL one point higher, chance will make all the difference, not that paltry +1.




'cause Red Wizard is...significantly more overpowered than anything else in Core and kinda breaks the whole system if used. It's two-three leagues above every other class presented in the Core books, on the level of Incantatrix or Halruaan Elder. It also comes way earlier than Disjunction; you can enter it on level 6 and get Circle Magic level 10. The problem is that Red wizard requires other casters to be worth anything at all, requires that you give up 3 schools of magic; which does hurt in core only; and comes with some pretty hefty RP requirements built in. If you ignore the requirements of assistance, and RP baggage, then yes, it is horri-broken. Those are some pretty big issues to make assumptions about.




That's a rare Contingency indeed tho, while ones to counter damage are pretty dime dozen. But yeah, counterspelling outside Divine Defiance, Battlemagic Perception, Duelward or something similar is usually not worth it. If you ever do end up countering tho, Mastery of Counterspelling breaks the zero-sum action economy of Countering. Contigency vs damage is a great idea stategically, but it's a tactical ****-up. The usuall attached spell is an escape option. Trying to use your one contingency to mitigate damage will prove a waste of contingency most of the time, since it'll either trigger on something unimportant, or it won't trigger at all. Trying to use contigency against counterspelling might save your bacon since it may keep an important spell from fizzling. Of course, counterspelling is rare enough that the escape option is probably the best bet. You can always come back later with a plan, if you're surprised, or a contigency, if the intial plan failed.

Also, mastery of counterspelling -can- prove a detriment. If you were planning on counterspelling to take the enemy caster alive, turning his offense against him can make that even more difficult than it would've been to begin with. It doesn't really matter though. Noone goes into archmage for mastery of counterspelling.




If you take a spell-like of a 7th level spell, you can unlearn said 7th level spell and trade it for another one. Effectively extra spell known. Sorcerers can trade spells up to two levels lower than the max they can cast for another spell of the same level every even level. That's much clearer. It still runs into the issue of opportunity cost. Several feats and a spell slot for one extra spell known and two virtual spell-slots that are tied to a specific spell? Not worth it.


If you get something as a spell-like, you can trade that spell known for another one and retain the spell-like thus giving you an effective extra spell known (tho max. 7th level in Core). This denies you the opportunity to change out a spell known that has become firmly obsolete (Summon monster X when you just picked up SM X+2) on that level up.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that no sorcerer should ever take archmage levels. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be regarded as a forgone conclusion. If you were going to pick up the requisite feats anyway, by all means take the class, but if you weren't then it's a pretty steep opportunity cost for relatively littel return.

[Eldariel]

If you're foolish enough to actually use disjunction, you just made it fair game for the DM. When he, in turn, disjoins the party, your arcanist is the only one left standing. Even wizards and sorcerers can't stand alone. Using dijunction says, "I want this campaign to end in TPK."

That makes the assumption Disjunction weren't on the table to begin with. That also makes the assumption a party couldn't deal with the spell. It's a strong spell with potentially wrecking side-effects in terms of destroying items but those can be defended against and it's not nearly as game world changing as e.g. Wish-loops or the like so I don't see a reason to ban it.


It's two actions. That's hardly a lot. If the enemy was going to go down in round 1, you probably didn't need to bother with modifying the battlefield in the first place.

Sure. But you could've cast another spell the second round instead. It's like...action economy is the single most important factor in the game. If you can do with one action what you'd have to use two for otherwise, you pick the choice that allows doing it with one action almost without fail. The second Wall you cast is a Solid Fog/Black Tentacles/Baleful Polymorph/Whatever you didn't cast.


Dim Door is 4th level. If you teleport the enemy straight up, it's also effectively a save-or-die. Even if you just send them to the other side of a dungeon wall, you've effectively taken them out of this fight, even if you may end up having to fight them again later. Plane-shift is the same net effect as teleport, except that the enemy is either less likely to find his way back, or will simply take longer. The only effective difference between irresistable dance and hideous laughter is the DC, and hideous laughter doesn't require a touch to begin with. Just heighten it instead of bothering with irresistable dance.

Irresistible Dance has no save. That's the whole point. It's a Touch-and-Lose. Plane Shift can be used with e.g. Positive Energy Plane to just plain kill people. And simple Fly does not save them there. It's also a Will-save targeting save or die that's not Mind-Affecting which is insanely useful.


5% is nothing when there's a d20 involved. It's only 15000xp difference between getting from a +4 to a +5 on GMW, both before and after that the +1cl makes no difference to that spell at all. The same goes for any other spell with effect X or +X every Y levels. It's a trivial difference, and as you pointed out yourself there are 3 other ways to get it in core.

Over a campaign where you'll roll probably a 1000 rolls, 5% is a lot. More precisely, 50 times you die where you wouldn't have. d20 has nothing to do with it; it's 5% as a function of the d20. Also, it still makes duration and dispel DC difference.

Also, leveling is not trivial. A single level takes a long time to get. And the assumption is you obviously get all the CL boosters 'cause it'd be silly not to.


It's not just a single 5th level slot. It's qualifying for a prestige class with mediocre returns for your base class. While it's true that the guy with multiple caster level buffs is going to outperform the guy with none, if they've both buffed their caster level, but one has his CL one point higher, chance will make all the difference, not that paltry +1.

Over a long campaign it will.


The problem is that Red wizard requires other casters to be worth anything at all, requires that you give up 3 schools of magic; which does hurt in core only; and comes with some pretty hefty RP requirements built in. If you ignore the requirements of assistance, and RP baggage, then yes, it is horri-broken. Those are some pretty big issues to make assumptions about.

Eh, you use Simulacrums or Leadership or whatever. There are ways to deal with the requirements in build.


Contigency vs damage is a great idea stategically, but it's a tactical ****-up. The usuall attached spell is an escape option. Trying to use your one contingency to mitigate damage will prove a waste of contingency most of the time, since it'll either trigger on something unimportant, or it won't trigger at all. Trying to use contigency against counterspelling might save your bacon since it may keep an important spell from fizzling. Of course, counterspelling is rare enough that the escape option is probably the best bet. You can always come back later with a plan, if you're surprised, or a contigency, if the intial plan failed.

Also, mastery of counterspelling -can- prove a detriment. If you were planning on counterspelling to take the enemy caster alive, turning his offense against him can make that even more difficult than it would've been to begin with. It doesn't really matter though. Noone goes into archmage for mastery of counterspelling.

Of course not, but it can be a nice bonus. Well, out of Core going to AM for Mastery of Counterspelling can make some sense (Divine Defiance Abjurer with BMP and Duelward can counter 3 times out of turn without action investment), but not in Core.

And yeah, it can restrict you if trying to take the enemy caster alive but really, when dealing with high level casters any kind of holding back tends to be too risky.


Contingency is generally best used to setup escape on a free action (such as a word or a small sign). However, if you use contingency to setup an escape, it's eminently useless against a counterspell attempt. It can still block damage tho.


That's much clearer. It still runs into the issue of opportunity cost. Several feats and a spell slot for one extra spell known and two virtual spell-slots that are tied to a specific spell? Not worth it.

This denies you the opportunity to change out a spell known that has become firmly obsolete (Summon monster X when you just picked up SM X+2) on that level up.

Well, we're on the levels where you really can't afford to pick spells that grow obsolete anyways, since there are so few trades left.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that no sorcerer should ever take archmage levels. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be regarded as a forgone conclusion. If you were going to pick up the requisite feats anyway, by all means take the class, but if you weren't then it's a pretty steep opportunity cost for relatively littel return.

*shrug* I find in Core you generally do want to go in. It offers things you really can't access to otherwise. It's not impossible to play a Sorcerer without though and the opportunity cost is very real but between Sorc having spell slots to burn and expanding few options outside their usual limits I find AM Sorc is usually better than AMless Sorc. And hey, you get all Knowledges in class :smalltongue:

[Gnaeus]

Irresistible Dance has no save. That's the whole point. It's a Touch-and-Lose.

True. Not only does hideous laughter have a save, but it is a save with a bonus for the enemy.

Also, Irresistible Dance provokes AOOs from anyone around target, allowing your allies to casually kill him while still fighting other foes.

Also Dance is V, Laughter is VSM. So Dance is handy against grapplers. Hardly the only grapple defense of a high level sor/wiz, but a nice one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That makes the assumption Disjunction weren't on the table to begin with. That also makes the assumption a party couldn't deal with the spell. It's a strong spell with potentially wrecking side-effects in terms of destroying items but those can be defended against and it's not nearly as game world changing as e.g. Wish-loops or the like so I don't see a reason to ban it. There is precious little way to counter disjunction in core only. In fact, a pimped will save and cover are the only defenses I can think of, well.... I suppose being out of range works too, but that's an awfully dodgy thing to rely on. Many, if not most, tables disregard disjunction whether the DM bans it or not. It's just too much. When you start throwing nukes like that around nobody wins.




Sure. But you could've cast another spell the second round instead. It's like...action economy is the single most important factor in the game. If you can do with one action what you'd have to use two for otherwise, you pick the choice that allows doing it with one action almost without fail. The second Wall you cast is a Solid Fog/Black Tentacles/Baleful Polymorph/Whatever you didn't cast. I'm well aware of the value of the action economy. It's not unreasonable to assume that if a wall is the appropriate spell, that either you want the enemy to go in a certain direction or you don't want them to go at all. In the former case there's an objective beyond defeat the enemy, and taking two actions to accomplish that objective likely won't change the eventual outcome much, if at all. In the latter, you shouldn't need more than one wall or a wall with holes in it anyway. If neither of those is the case, then a wall spell probably wasn't the optimal choice to begin with. A cloud spell, black tentacles, or even a summon monster to run distraction would've probably been a better choice.




Irresistible Dance has no save. That's the whole point. It's a Touch-and-Lose. Plane Shift can be used with e.g. Positive Energy Plane to just plain kill people. And simple Fly does not save them there. It's also a Will-save targeting save or die that's not Mind-Affecting which is insanely useful. Touch attack roll, save; both are chances for failure, probably quite similar chances if the save is against your highest level spell (hello again heighten). Plane-shift, teleport; who cares. Out of the fight is out of the fight. If I want to be certain they're dead, I want to see a corpse. Being saved by fly; or for that matter feather fall; assumes either a caster or at least a humanoid opponent, otherwise the enemy is already flying and you'd choose straight down instead. Being shunted up through the ground can do just as much damage as falling, more even.




Over a campaign where you'll roll probably a 1000 rolls, 5% is a lot. More precisely, 50 times you die where you wouldn't have. d20 has nothing to do with it; it's 5% as a function of the d20. Also, it still makes duration and dispel DC difference. I very much doubt you'll roll 1000 dispel checks in a game of 266 encounters, running from level 1-20. I equally doubt you'll have that many dispel checks made against your own spells. The "typical" campaign's length isn't long enough for there to be a guarantee that chances will tend toward average with caster level checks. 5% almost certainly will be eaten by the dice. By the time archmage is on the table no spell the character casts will run out during combat, making the duration boost a non-factor. Even spell resistance won't offer a large enough body of rolls to guarantee a trend toward average. 5% is nothing. The only other factor is damage dice. Do you really care about 1d6 when you're already doing 15.


Also, leveling is not trivial. A single level takes a long time to get. And the assumption is you obviously get all the CL boosters 'cause it'd be silly not to. Leveling can take a while, but it only happens 19 times unless you're going into epic play. It's a factor, but it's not a huge one. Level and leveling only becomes noticeable if there's a discrepency between two similar characters, otherwise it's not a big deal at all. Also, caster level boosts are unnecessary if you choose to focus on buffs and BFC. In the relatively rare instance that something gets dispelled a sorcerer can put it right back, something the wizard has trouble with. After the buff is restored, the sorcerer can use dispel, greater dispel, or a damage spell to counter the enemy caster until his buffed up buddies can eliminate him.




Over a long campaign it will. Enemies don't exist for long over a long campaign. If your DM keeps sending identical spellcaster enemies after the party or specifically after the party's arcanist there's a hell of a lot bigger problem than your choice of class in play.




Eh, you use Simulacrums or Leadership or whatever. There are ways to deal with the requirements in build.Leadership breaks the game by itself, no red wizard needed. Simulacrum requires that you not ban illusion, that you spend at least 2600xp (relatively minor but still noticeable at the time), and that you constantly protect the two commoners that you've brought along with you. This is still a pretty substantial constraint to the class. It's undeniably powerful, but it's still a case of, "If you ignore the restrictions then it's stupidly powerful."




Of course not, but it can be a nice bonus. Well, out of Core going to AM for Mastery of Counterspelling can make some sense (Divine Defiance Abjurer with BMP and Duelward can counter 3 times out of turn without action investment), but not in Core.

And yeah, it can restrict you if trying to take the enemy caster alive but really, when dealing with high level casters any kind of holding back tends to be too risky. Taking prisoners -is- an unusual mission parameter, but that doesn't mean that mastery of counterspelling doesn't make it more difficult. If that's not the mission parameter, readied actions to blast his face will probably work just fine. Barring custom items a maximized magic missle or scorching ray will probably be sufficient.



Contingency is generally best used to setup escape on a free action (such as a word or a small sign). However, if you use contingency to setup an escape, it's eminently useless against a counterspell attempt. It can still block damage though....... so we agree, contingency is a strategic option, not a tactical one?




Well, we're on the levels where you really can't afford to pick spells that grow obsolete anyways, since there are so few trades left. I'm not talking about picking spells that will grow obsolete, but trading out ones that already have. The proposed choice is exchanging a useful spell for a different useful spell while the spell of diminishing usefulness remains. In that sense, it's not even really an extra spell known, just trading one freely useable spell-slot for two earmarked ones.




*shrug* I find in Core you generally do want to go in. It offers things you really can't access to otherwise. It's not impossible to play a Sorcerer without though and the opportunity cost is very real but between Sorc having spell slots to burn and expanding few options outside their usual limits I find AM Sorc is usually better than AMless Sorc. And hey, you get all Knowledges in class :smalltongue:

If knowledge is what you want, there's loremaster, else you should've played a wizard to begin with. Archmage -is- nice, I never meant to deny that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't need to be a given. Most of its tricks can be performed by a sorcerer anyway if you're clever, making the opportunity cost:returns ratio notably lower than it is for a wizard.

[Eldariel]

There is precious little way to counter disjunction in core only. In fact, a pimped will save and cover are the only defenses I can think of, well.... I suppose being out of range works too, but that's an awfully dodgy thing to rely on. Many, if not most, tables disregard disjunction whether the DM bans it or not. It's just too much. When you start throwing nukes like that around nobody wins.

AMFs work, Contingency does too. And of course, Counterspelling (it gets a heckuva lot more viable with Shapechange when you can e.g. use Choker's extra Standard for it), interrupting and all the usual ones.

Really, if I'm allowing Shapechange, Gate, Time Stop and the other big guns, it'd be pretentious to not use Disjunction too.


Touch attack roll, save; both are chances for failure, probably quite similar chances if the save is against your highest level spell (hello again heighten).

Ranged Touch Attack is fairly trivial, especially since True Strike exists. Saves can and will be made. Save is a substantially superior defense to Touch AC.


Plane-shift, teleport; who cares. Out of the fight is out of the fight. If I want to be certain they're dead, I want to see a corpse. Being saved by fly; or for that matter feather fall; assumes either a caster or at least a humanoid opponent, otherwise the enemy is already flying and you'd choose straight down instead. Being shunted up through the ground can do just as much damage as falling, more even.

Eh. There's a world of difference between "takes 20d6 damage" (max falling damage; average 70) and "dies". I'll repeat, Plane Shift is a non-mind affecting Will SoD. So it can target creatures immune to mind-affecting, who tend to have poor Will-saves due to said immunity. It's an insanely useful spell, as is Teleport.


I very much doubt you'll roll 1000 dispel checks in a game of 266 encounters, running from level 1-20. I equally doubt you'll have that many dispel checks made against your own spells. The "typical" campaign's length isn't long enough for there to be a guarantee that chances will tend toward average with caster level checks. 5% almost certainly will be eaten by the dice. By the time archmage is on the table no spell the character casts will run out during combat, making the duration boost a non-factor. Even spell resistance won't offer a large enough body of rolls to guarantee a trend toward average. 5% is nothing. The only other factor is damage dice. Do you really care about 1d6 when you're already doing 15.

So, you could decrease all your stats by 2 and you wouldn't mind? 'cause certainly the 5% you lose on all rolls is irrelevant? You consider a Wizard with 8/12/12/16/8/8 equivalent to a Wizard with 10/14/14/18/10/10 'cause the difference will be drowned in die rolls? I reckon not; the latter Wizard will perform significantly better simply due to the number of die rolls evening out the randomness and the +1 always coming out ahead in the long run.

+1 isn't a huge bonus but it's still very much so relevant due to the way the game is written; indeed, it's the smallest relevant unit but big wholes come from small pieces. The reason Weapon Focus is so much-maligned is opportunity cost, for instance; nobody minds getting bonuses to attack rolls (and it's worth stacking up all the +1s you can get; it's stupid not to get a Masterwork Weapon just 'cause it's "only +1"). The question isn't if you want +1; of course you want +1 since you're strictly superior to what you'd be without it. The question is how much it costs for you, and I said Spell Power is a nice bonus once you already entered AM for Mastery of Shaping and Arcane Reach.


I'm not talking about picking spells that will grow obsolete, but trading out ones that already have. The proposed choice is exchanging a useful spell for a different useful spell while the spell of diminishing usefulness remains. In that sense, it's not even really an extra spell known, just trading one freely useable spell-slot for two earmarked ones.

You're a Sorc, you can afford it.


If knowledge is what you want, there's loremaster, else you should've played a wizard to begin with. Archmage -is- nice, I never meant to deny that. All I'm saying is that it doesn't need to be a given. Most of its tricks can be performed by a sorcerer anyway if you're clever, making the opportunity cost:returns ratio notably lower than it is for a wizard.

Loremaster isn't enterable for a Sorc; you don't have Knowledges in class so you can't fulfill the prerequisites.


This discussion is getting winded so I cut the irrelevant parts and the parts where we can broadly agree out.

[Gnaeus]

Touch attack roll, save; both are chances for failure, probably quite similar chances if the save is against your highest level spell (hello again heighten).

Not remotely, especially in core. Lets look at common high cr core monsters that are actually a threat to a wiz.
Dragons. A CR 18 Red Dragon has a will save of +18 before magic items, and a touch AC of 8. Similar CRed dragons are similar. Your DC is 29ish (using a level 9 slot +10 for your 30 charisma) Dragon gets a +4 for being different type, so he needs a 7 to save.
Outsiders. High saves, medium touch AC. A balor or pit fiend have 16 or 17 touch AC (your wiz probably has +8 bab +2 dex +1 morale or somesuch, so he needs a 5 or 6 to hit). +19 or 21 Will save. Your DC is 29ish (using a level 9 slot +10 for your 30 charisma) Demon gets a +4 for being different type, so he needs a 6 or 4 to save.
Enemy casters. High will saves, touch AC usually 12-14+deflection or similar.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually, yes. I am comfortable with lowering any one of my abilities by two. I'd much rather have a fighter with str 16 and enough points to buy decent stats all around than a fighter with str 18 and pitiful scores everywhere else. That's another discussion entirely though. It's also nothing at all like the difference between CL 15 and CL16.

Caster level checks are by far the least common check in the game, barring straight ability checks and skill checks for rarely used skills. In 266 battles you won't even roll a caster level check 266 times. Nevermind that the +1 in question doesn't even come into play until 14th level at the earliest. 5% on a relatively rare check for 80-ish battles is very much trivial.

The 70-ish falling damage also triggers a massive damage save. And even if it doesn't outright kill the enemy 70 is a fairly substantial chunk of most creatures HP's. It -is- a contribution. Of course, putting the target straight down to be shunted through 400+ feet of solid rock will do more than enough damage to kill anything not epic.

RE: loremaster, there's always multiclassing, but you're right. There's not much point in bringing up loremaster in what is currently a straight comparison between wizard/archmage and sorc/archmage.

gnaeus, while it wasn't his intention, just showed why touch ac and saves are, in-fact, compareable defenses. Some creatures are going to be able to resist one and not the other, while some creatures will be of relatively similar vulnerability to both, truestrike not withstanding.

Truestrike however, is one first level slot every time you want to use a touch spell. Spectral hand allows you to make as many touches as you want in the current battle and can be truestriked too. Arcane reach just isn't that impressive.

[Eldariel]

PRCs are relevant in that Wizard has better PRC access. Touch AC is far inferior to Saves vast majority of the time owing to lacking natural scaling; Touch AC basically only comes from Dex and Deflection. Also, Deflection is more expensive than Resistance.

And when somebody casts targeted Dispel on you, it's gonna be ~10 different rolls with your all-day buffs, alone. Somebody tries to dispel you twice, that's a lot of rolls in a single fight. So...yeah, okay, whatever.


I really don't see the point in continuing this discussion tho. Everything that's worth saying has been said. I hope I at least imparted some information upon somebody since otherwise I've been wasting my time.

One thing tho: Why would anybody ever ban Illusion? It's the 3rd best school after Conjuration and Transmutation.

[Kelb_Panthera]

PRCs are relevant in that Wizard has better PRC access. There are two PrC's in core that have a notably higher oportunity cost for a sorc than they do for a wizard and 1 that's wizard only.

The wizard only option is generally considered too broken to use. I don't necessarily agree, but apparently you do.

Loremaster will require a one level dip for the sorcerer or he'll have to wait until 17th level, but the return on loremaster is even lower for a sorc than archmage. The only really nice secret is the bonus feat, and you had to spend a feat to get in, so net ±0. The other secrets are nice to have, but don't contribute greatly.

Archmage we've been discussing so I won't summarize here.

The rest of the core only PrC's are no more difficult for a sorcerer to enter than they are for a wizard.


Touch AC is far inferior to Saves vast majority of the time owing to lacking natural scaling; Touch AC basically only comes from Dex and Deflection. Also, Deflection is more expensive than Resistance. The touch attack bonus of a core only, straight arcanist doesn't scale well either. It's basically just BaB + str/dex. That's a 15 or so for a 20th level caster: 10 Bab + 5 dex (14 base +6 item = 20; +5) on rays or 12-ish on melee touch: BaB 10 +2 str (base 10 +4 bull's str)

More than a few creatures have a substantial dex modifier and the intelligent amongst those will want a ring of protection before they want an amulet of natural armor.


And when somebody casts targeted Dispel on you, it's gonna be ~10 different rolls with your all-day buffs, alone. Somebody tries to dispel you twice, that's a lot of rolls in a single fight. So...yeah, okay, whatever. How do you figure 10 different all day buffs on a core only caster? Even if that's the case, why would an enemy try to dispel it twice? If the first one didn't get everything, too bad. He should be trying to kill you directly now. Not every one of the 80-ish encounters where the sorcerer will be 1cl lower than the archmage will have an enemy try to dispell him anyway.



I really don't see the point in continuing this discussion though. Everything that's worth saying has been said. I hope I at least imparted some information upon somebody since otherwise I've been wasting my time. I agree with both the assessment and the sentiment. Anybody that reads this will get a pretty good picture of our opposing views, and make an informed decission for themselves.


One thing tho: Why would anybody ever ban Illusion? It's the 3rd best school after Conjuration and Transmutation.

Preference. Some people don't like the binary nature of most illusion spells. With few exceptions most illusions either have the desired effect or have no effect at all.

BTW, I was of the impression that illusion was right there with enchantment in the safe-to-dump schools, or at least about equal with abjuration and necromancy rather than superior to both.

[Piggy Knowles]

BTW, I was of the impression that illusion was right there with enchantment in the safe-to-dump schools, or at least about equal with abjuration and necromancy rather than superior to both.

Illusion gives some of the best defensive buffs around (Blur, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Mislead, etc.). It also has the super versatile Image line, Shadow Conj/Evocation, and even some decent Will-targetting offensive options (Color Spray and the pattern line). I personally like playing a Diviner who drops Enchantment in core, but I'd probably lose Necro before Illusion. (I don't like dropping Abjuration or Evocation in a core only game, because Mind Blank and Contingency are hard to reproduce there.)

[Eldariel]

Loremaster will require a one level dip for the sorcerer or he'll have to wait until 17th level, but the return on loremaster is even lower for a sorc than archmage. The only really nice secret is the bonus feat, and you had to spend a feat to get in, so net ±0. The other secrets are nice to have, but don't contribute greatly.

LM is mostly taken for the skills. UMD in particular, and 4+Int skill points. But no matter; my point was that the option isn't open to Sorc.


How do you figure 10 different all day buffs on a core only caster? Even if that's the case, why would an enemy try to dispel it twice? If the first one didn't get everything, too bad. He should be trying to kill you directly now. Not every one of the 80-ish encounters where the sorcerer will be 1cl lower than the archmage will have an enemy try to dispell him anyway.

Dispelling is way more common than the occasional Sorcerer. Dragons, basically all Outsiders, Liches, just about every threat of note on high level is capable of dispelling. A Dispel and a Quickened Dispel isn't out of ordinary at all. Buffs? Well, you pretty much want every hour/level and most 10 min/levels on you at all times.

All the Mage Armors, False Lives, Heroisms, Magic Circles, Resist Energies, Polymorph Any Objects, Mind Blanks, Moments of Prescience, See Invisibilities (& derivatives), Contingencies, Shapechanges, Foresights, there's just plain lots of spells you can and want to keep up at all times for convenience (there's more, this is just "off the top of my head"-type of deal). Mostly, there's little reason not to. 10 was a random number but that's around appropriate for a high level caster without combat spells.

Which of course makes it exceedingly valuable to aim Dispels at such targets; its' very hard to affect an opponent who's warded from everything (there's also probably Freedom of Movement, Heroes' Feast, etc. from a friendly divine caster) so the first step in starting such a fight is taking the buffs out. So...my point is, it's very silly to try and fight on high levels without Dispels. Everybody has buffs. Everybody relevant can dispel. Dispels are even an easy spell to Quicken, so it's just plain smart to open with a few dispels, maybe summon and have your Planar Bound creatures/Simulacrums use their dispels, maybe have your familiar UMD consumables, etc.

Test of Spite showcased this perfectly; summoning Avorals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/avoral.htm) (SMVII) as dispel bots was pretty much par de course (it took place on level 13) to dispel buffs, items & al.

In every case where the dispel becomes an issue, CL is likely to matter. I've seen over a hundred dispel checks in a single fight. It's just incredibly hard to land lethal spells or attacks without dispelling protections first.


BTW, I was of the impression that illusion was right there with enchantment in the safe-to-dump schools, or at least about equal with abjuration and necromancy rather than superior to both.

Generally the order is Enchantment > Evocation > Necromancy > Abjuration* > Illusion (all have some good stuff of course). Illusion gives you some good Will Save-or-X effects; something you'll be hurting for if you ban Enchantment. It has Greater Shadow Evocation to eventually duplicate Contingency if you ban Evocation.

It also carries Simulacrum (Simulacrums carry all the spellcasting ability of the original making them quite possibly the strongest kind of a minion you can generate; Simulacrum Planetars in particular are amazing), and a whole metric ton of defensive powerhouses: Mirror Image, Displacement, Greater Invisibility. Invisibilities are of course superb offensively and as utility too.

Then the Image-line spells themselves have great, great utility especially against mindless creatures that lack the capability to test the reality of the illusions and save is only offered if they're interacted with. Of course that's only the tip of the iceberg; imagination is the limit.

Also, Project Image enables acting without line of effect.


*Abjuration is only ever bannable with other people covering for Dispel Magic 'cause see above. It's just that important.

EDIT: Added link to Avoral just in case.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Illusion gives some of the best defensive buffs around (Blur, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Mislead, etc.). It also has the super versatile Image line, Shadow Conj/Evocation, and even some decent Will-targetting offensive options (Color Spray and the pattern line). I personally like playing a Diviner who drops Enchantment in core, but I'd probably lose Necro before Illusion. (I don't like dropping Abjuration or Evocation in a core only game, because Mind Blank and Contingency are hard to reproduce there.)

I've always favored a good offense and staying the heck away from the enemy for my defensive measures. I can see illusion being pretty nice in that regard though.

I still don't know that I'd put it ahead of abjuration, maybe necromancy though.

[Eldariel]

I've always favored a good offense and staying the heck away from the enemy for my defensive measures. I can see illusion being pretty nice in that regard though.

That's why you're a spellcaster; you can have both :3 But yeah, basically as long as you have either Necro or Evo open, your direct offense will be awesome and as long as you have either Enchantment or Illusion open you can target Will-saves sufficiently (also Conjuration does a good work there). Illusion offers a lot of utility and defense in addition though so it's generally a good school to have.

[Draz74]

I've always favored a good offense and staying the heck away from the enemy for my defensive measures. I can see illusion being pretty nice in that regard though.

I still don't know that I'd put it ahead of abjuration, maybe necromancy though.

Mostly ahead of Abjuration because Dispel and a number of the other best Abjuration effects are also on the Cleric list.

[Piggy Knowles]

Mostly ahead of Abjuration because Dispel and a number of the other best Abjuration effects are also on the Cleric list.

I will again point out, though, that Mind Blank is a pretty essential spell at high levels, and hard to reproduce in core. The only other way to obtain it is through a cleric with the Protection domain, and that's only once a day.

[Tyndmyr]

So I am (hopefully) entering a campaign and the only source allowed is stuff from the Player's Handbook.

I know Wizards are typically considered far superior to Sorcerers, but I'm not sure if their advantage is significantly lessened when both classes must stick to core.

Thoughts?

Not really. Sorc has basically nothing it can do to fix it's spells known limitation in core, so Wizard is still the winning choice. In addition, Dragon Disciple is kind of a poor PrC, and wizards can get into Archmage and Loremaster easier, both of which are fine PrCs. So, wizard all the way in core only.

[Gnaeus]

gnaeus, while it wasn't his intention, just showed why touch ac and saves are, in-fact, compareable defenses. Some creatures are going to be able to resist one and not the other, while some creatures will be of relatively similar vulnerability to both, truestrike not withstanding.

Truestrike however, is one first level slot every time you want to use a touch spell. Spectral hand allows you to make as many touches as you want in the current battle and can be truestriked too. Arcane reach just isn't that impressive.

So touch attacks that succeed on a 5+ and saves that the enemy makes on a 5 are comparable? No. One is 80% success. One is 80% failure. Every creature I showed was way more likely to go down to the touch. And the sorcerer wont have both options. The wizard very likely will.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So touch attacks that succeed on a 5+ and saves that the enemy makes on a 5 are comparable? No. One is 80% success. One is 80% failure. Every creature I showed was way more likely to go down to the touch. And the sorcerer wont have both options. The wizard very likely will.

You also used 3 creatures and a character archetype that would all eat you alive for the presumption of trying to make a fool of them with either hideous laughter or irresistable dance.

The dragon is equivalent to a 9th level sorcerer, he'll have magical defenses of his own to go with his spell resistance and arcane reach's 30ft reach puts you well within range of his breath weapon. All under the assumption that he's not flying, and completely beyond the range of both.

The balor has blasphemy, his 40ft reach on an insta-gib spell beats your 30ft on a maybe, since he has spell resistance too. If you have to pick one, stay a little further back with the will save, but realistically you're much better off going BFC here.

Pit fiend has magic circle, neither spell is getting through.

CR 18 caster that doesn't have mindblank, really?

My comment was in the more general sense. If you target the dragon's reflex save, it's the same chance as targeting his touch ac, assuming he hasn't cast any defensive spells.

Targetting either fiend with anything that allows spell resistance (most rays) is dodgy, and arcane reach still requires you get uncomfortably close.

High level casters don't get hit by attack rolls, period. At least if you target a save there's a shot.

Finally, you're only half right about the sorcerer not having both options. He won't have both irresistable dance and hideous laughter, too much overlap. He -will- have a few rays and a few save target spells. He'll probably have more than a few of both.