Wizards vs Sorcerer

[Cranthis]

Ok, so our group must being having a derptastic moment on this, but we can not for the life of us figure out why a Wizard is better than a Sorcerer. Except for going into prestige classes and such. Let's assume both are pure 20.

[madock345]

Pure versitility.
A 20th level wizard stands a fair chance of being able to cast every spell on the class spell list (and more than a few from other spell lists, if the DM is okay with Researching or Creating your own spells)

[dextercorvia]

Wizards get spells earlier, know more spells, and can cast at least as many spells of their highest spell level as a Sorcerer. Int>Cha generally. They are more skilled for instance.

They get bonus feats (5 of them), and are not nerfed with Quicken Spell, or long casting times for metamagic.

Sorcerer is a fine class, but it falls short at just about every metric next to a Wizard.

[Togo]

The wizard is more versatile, the sorceror is more durable. In most games, versatility is very important. The wizard generally has a larger selection of spells at the start of the day than the sorceror, particularly when you start factoring in bonus slots from high int and from specialisation.

Durability (ie the capacity to cast a large number of spells per day) is only important if your group regularly has enough encounters each day that the wizard would start to run out of spells. Even then you'd have to have enough encounters so that the number of encounters the wizard spends with fewer spells to choose between than the sorceror, is greater than the number he enjoyed early on in the day with more to choose between.

So-called high optimisation games tend to favour wizards, because they pursue one-shot kills and other tactics that favour having the right spell over being able to cast more often. Games where adventures are static sites, and the party is free to rest and recover spells whenever they want, also favour the wizard.

If you have a game where optimisation is not permitted, and the pace is set by the DM, there's not that much difference between them.

[Cranthis]

I understand the versatility, that I always knew. I believe its because we all have a dread of taking the time to prepare spells. I'm going to be playing a gish who's caster class is Wizard.
can cast at least as many spells of their highest spell level as a Sorcerer.
Actually they can't. Assuming both are human and have max cast stat, Sorcerers get more spells per day. Still more than a Specialist, only if you focused specialist do you get the same.

[Cranthis]

Ok, I believe I fully understand now.

Sidenote: I don't know if you can ban optimization. Its kind of hard to not optimize.

[eggs]

Well for one, just look at their spell progression tables. The Wizard has teleport and two bonus feats when the Sorcerer has dimension door and no bonus feats.

For another, look at the spells known. The Wizard can afford to stick Knock in his spellbook and just bypass doors (or find the path/rope trick/fabricate whatever other niche immediate problem-solvers it needs), or achieve concepts like Summoner without committing half its arsenal to just learning summoning spells at all and piecing the Planar Binding+Dimension Anchor+Magic Circle Against X combination together.

And then look at the hoops the Sorcerer has to jump through to do simple - but important - things like Quickening a spell.

Then look at their stats: A level 20 Sorcerer maybe gets +10 to 1-2 skills. A level 20 Wizard gets full ranks in maybe 4-6 extra skills, as well as the same +10 to whatever skills it chooses to apply its int to.

And in terms of ACFs, look at the Wizard's big appealing options: things like better feats, spontaneous casting from an entire school, accelerated summoning, immediately saying "no" to 3-10 attacks per day; compare those to the Sorcerer's best trick: using metamagic as well as a well-prepared wizard does by default, but only a handful of times per day.

And for the last nail in the coffin, Focused Specialist wizards get more spells per day than the Sorcerer - especially on odd-numbered levels.

I don't want to sell the Sorcerer short - Sorcerers can be extraordinarily game-breakingly powerful, can outdo almost any other class for spell output, and can have enough spells that are "good enough" for dealing with obstacles that it can problem-solve better than most classes past the lowest levels - but the Wizard just has some ridiculous advantages going in its favor.

[toapat]

I think a nail most people dont know about is the one that happened in the 3-3.5 conversion: Wizards in 3rd had to bar schools, and the specialization benefits simply werent there.

[TuggyNE]

Actually they can't. Assuming both are human and have max cast stat, Sorcerers get more spells per day. Still more than a Specialist, only if you focused specialist do you get the same.

Compare levels 7 and 8, human, casting stat 18. At 7, a wizard can cast any 3 3rd-level spells and any 2 4th-level spells; a sorcerer can cast either of 2 3rd-level spells up to 4 times — advantage: wizard by a substantial margin. At 8, a wizard can cast any 4 3rd-level spells and any 3 4th-level spells; a sorcerer can cast either of their 2 3rd-level spells up to 6 times and their single 4th-level spell up to 4 times — advantage: sorcerer by a smaller margin.

[Prime32]

As a note, if a sorcerer screws up his spell selection he's stuck with it. If a wizard does the same, he can change it the next day.

[Randomguy]

There are a lot of useful spells that you would only want to cast once per day, like rope trick, overland flight, elemental body, greater magic weapon, mage armour, so on. A wizard can just prepare them once, but if a sorcerer gets that spell as a spell known, then he only casts it once a day and after that it's just kind of wasting space in the spells known area.

Faster spell progression, bonus feats, more skill points, quicken spell and the ability to use Pearls of power are also pretty much gravy.

The sorcerer's edge, more spell slots, matters less at higher levels. If you've got 36 non zero spell slots, that's enough to go through 6 encounters casting 5 spells each one, with enough spells left over for all day buffs. And you generally don't get 6 encounters a day.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Throw Focused Specialist onto a wizard and he has as many spells per day as a sorcerer of equal level, probably more. Gaining a new spell level entitles him to at least 3 spells per day, possibly 4 from a high casting stat.

[kardar233]

Also, given time, a Wizard can solve any problem. The cost of scribing new spells in his spellbook is negligible compared to WBL (and he doesn't need WBL nearly as badly as other classes) so he can know every spell in the PHB and all the useful ones from other books. Even if he hasn't prepared the necessary spell, as long as he's left a spell slot open he can take an hour and get the right spell, or if he has Uncanny Forethought he can just say "yeah, I prepared that".

Sorcerer's primary appeals are increased spell slots, the short-term versatility of spontaneous casting, in being able to recast spells if necessary, and in the few Sorcerer-only spells like Arcane Spellsurge, Arcane Fusion, Wings of Cover and Wings of Flurry. The first is an illusion, as (focused) specialist Wizards get as many or more slots than a Sorcerer, and if you don't want to ban schools the Elven Generalist gets nearly as many. The second is usually not a factor, as a well-played Wizard in the Batman style (God less so) should be able to solve nearly any encounter in a single spell. The third is a valid advantage, but it's usually not enough to overcome the other two.

~EDIT~ Also, I personally detest prepared casting as I keep on thinking of worst-case scenarios in which I'll be totally useless and suchlike, so I prefer spontaneous casters for my peace of mind. Or I'll play a Persistomancer and fill all my slots with Persistent spells.

[Lord_Gareth]

Additionally, re: the spells-per-day issue, a Wizard's bonus feats (including Scribe Scroll at level one) mean they can afford to drop a feat or two on crafting. Potions are generally not worth it, but Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand both mean that a Wizard can have many, MANY more spells-per-day than you might otherwise think, especially since you get the XP back pretty easily.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, given time, a Wizard can solve any problem.

This. Give a Wizard one day, and your problem is solved.

If he left a slot open, he just needs 15 minutes.

If he has the right feats/ACFs (Uncanny Forethought, Spontaneous Divination), less than six seconds (a Full-Round action).

If he prepared the right spell from the get-go, a Standard action.

If he's (ab)using Divinations, he solved it a week ago.


If a Sorcerer doesn't have the right spell known, he's stuck forever. Unless your playing Pathfinder, and he took Paragon Surge as a spell known. In which case you are no longer playing D&D, you are playing "Book Diving: The RPG".

[dextercorvia]

I understand the versatility, that I always knew. I believe its because we all have a dread of taking the time to prepare spells. I'm going to be playing a gish who's caster class is Wizard.
Actually they can't. Assuming both are human and have max cast stat, Sorcerers get more spells per day. Still more than a Specialist, only if you focused specialist do you get the same.

Half the time (odd levels after 1), even a Generalist Wizard will beat a Sorcerer in highest level spells per day, since the Sorcerer has no spells of that level. At even levels (after 2), the Sorcerer and regular Specialist are tied. If Focused Specialist is in play, then the FS Wizard actually has more highest level spells per day, even on even levels.

This is considering equal casting stats.

[ericgrau]

Generally I find sorcerers tend to be better but wizard wins theoretical optimization with the sheer number of things they can do given enough time. In play you often don't have a day; even the DM might not be planning so far ahead. Even if you make the effort it'd be a pain for him to match it. Between being able to repeat the same spell without losing options and metamagic means sorcerers have more options in the short run. Clever spell selection (like web) makes even 2nd level spells useful for a long time after you get it so being behind only hurts a little.

So really it depends how hardcore of a gamer you and those around you are. On the flipside if you don't know what you're doing at all you can really screw up a sorcerer spell selection with no way to fix it, unlike a wizard. It is very much a medium optimization class.

That's probably where your group is which is why they can't figure out the theoretical stuff from 2 dozen splatbooks. Once you learn to exploit 50 spells, plan ahead and swap them in accordingly you may change your mind. But therein lies headaches.

[danzibr]

From a flavor point of view, it depends if you like nerds or... people with innate abilities. Need a good word for it.

The Wizard is a nerd. They spend like their whole life reading books and stuff and are generally pretty smart.

The Sorcerer has some draconic blood (friggin' sweet) and the magic flows naturally. I imagine they just like hang out and stuff.

[Dante & Vergil]

From a flavor point of view, it depends if you like nerds or... people with innate abilities. Need a good word for it.

The Wizard is a nerd. They spend like their whole life reading books and stuff and are generally pretty smart.

The Sorcerer has some draconic blood (friggin' sweet) and the magic flows naturally. I imagine they just like hang out and stuff.

The wizard should be like Batman, and the sorcerer should be like Superman?

[Coidzor]

The wizard should be like Batman, and the sorcerer should be like Superman?

Ehh, I wouldn't go that far, seeing as how Superman has the power to acquire new powers at the drop of a hat.

[Jeff the Green]

Another, minor, advantage of being a wizard is that Intelligence is generally better than Charisma. It governs skill points and several skills that are important for casters. Charisma governs social skills, and for that there's charm/dominate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here's a dirty little secret about the wiz/sorc comparison that almost always gets left out of these discussions.

While it's true that a wizard is objectively more capable than a sorcerer of the same level, it doesn't matter at all.

What matters is which one fits you and your group's playstyle better. All the advantages wizards have don't really mean much if what a sorcerer gets is enough for what your DM throws at you, and the primary advantage, strategic versatility, can be rendered moot or even become a major detriment if you don't know how to wield it properly. Being paralyzed by excessive choice, failing to discover the appropriate info for informed choices on what to prepare*, and leaving too many slots open can all end with your wizard in a shallow unmarked grave. With a sorcerer, you select a set of broadly applicable spells and then shoe-horn them into whatever situation comes up. Though it'll rarely be a perfect fit, it'll also rarely fail to be enough, though such improvisation may require outside the box thinking that can be just as difficult as learning to ask the right questions and pick the right spells.


*given RAW and the nature of predicting the future, divinations aren't nearly as useful as people seem to think.

First, the only creatures that have an explicit ability to predict the future by more than a matter of moments are greater gods. Which is fortunate, because the spells that are supposedly used to predict the future actually call on them anyway. Going by core, there's augury and divination on the divine lists, both of which are unfortunately ambiguous in their answers and only give you a single question each. Then there's everyone's favorite; contact other plane. Here're the problems with it:

A) You have to contact a greater god, which means making a dc16 int/cha check to avoid becoming a non-caster for 5 weeks. A trivial check at higher levels, but at level 9 (the level the spell becomes available) that's going to be close to even odds and certainly an unwise risk to take for any but the most serious of questions, certainly too much risk just for making spell selection for tomorrow.

B) You're basically restricted to yes/no questions since the gods resent such contact and keep their answers short. (you might get a short phrase if the DM's feeling generous)

C) Sometimes the gods lie. There's a 12% chance that you're going to get either "I don't know," or an answer that may or may not be correct based on the knowledge of the god contacted. (This chance increases up to as much as 100% depending on how much you've irritated your DM.)

D) Unless you're comfortable with the idea that your fate is written in stone, a god can't be reasonably expected to know what you'll do tomorrow unless you've already made nearly all the decisions that will affect your actions tomorrow. Since you're contacting the god for advice about what to do tomorrow, there's no way he can know with certainty what'll happen. This means that just because the predictions were accurate when they were given to you doesn't mean they'll stay accurate once you start acting, unless the DM nails your butt to the rails and calls it fate.

Secondly, many of the problems I descibed above with CoP, stem from the very nature of predicting the future. Since fate=railroading, it's not really feasable for fate to be a thing at most tables. This means that what the greater gods see, is actually just the most likely future given the information the god has available (a truly prodigious amount of info, to be sure). When an individual asks the god about his future, even under the most amicable of circumstances much less an annoyance of an arcane spell, the god can really only make a prediction based on the patterns that the individual has shown and the patterns seen in the things he's likely to interact with. If the individual is asking so as to determine how to act in the future, the god either has to look at the picture as it exists without any input from the querying individual, or has to make his best guess based on how he thinks the individual will react to his advice. (or he could just be honest and say, "I really can't know until you decide what to do," though the odds of that are pretty slim.)

Divinations are an extraordinarily powerful tool when carefully wielded, especially if the enemy doesn't take steps to defend against them, but they can only read the present and past with near perfect accuracy. They can't read the future any better than the guy adjudicating them.

[Slipperychicken]

In play you often don't have a day; even the DM might not be planning so far ahead.

This is extremely important to RPGs in general: If the DM doesn't make plans, you can't either. And it's why I take Uncanny Forethought on all my Wizards. This is also why future-telling Divinations can suck (and why many DMs are such s***heads about it); you can't see the future if the DM doesn't know it.

If you (the DM) aren't even going to plan one in-game day in advance, why should I?

[Reluctance]

Assuming you're an adventurer who only casts adventuring spells in random adventuring sites, wizard is only a hair better than the sorcerer. Bonus feats, better ACFs and earlier spell access are nice, but the two characters are still in the same league.

What puts the wizard miles ahead is when you look at all the spells that aren't adventuring spells. Wizards can make items, cast plot devices (and 3.5 carries a lot of legacy plot devices that are shoehorned into the standard casting mechanic), or otherwise set things up/alter the world. Once you stop thinking about combat turns and start thinking about longer term objectives, you'll see why being able to alter your layout is a very good thing.

[toapat]

divinations aren't nearly as useful as people seem to think.

this is very true. Divinations dont even remotely match how overpowered a Knowledge (History) 13 check is. Anyone who can match that DC on a natural 1 knows all of time

[legomaster00156]

this is very true. Divinations dont even remotely match how overpowered a Knowledge (History) 13 check is. Anyone who can match that DC on a natural 1 knows all of time
Only in Pathfinder, and it's DC 15.

[Korivan]

If I had to narrow down the wizard is better then sorcerer issue? Not sure if all these are mentioned already. And in no particular order of importance.

1. Bonus metamagic feats.
2. More spells known.
3. Scribe scroll feat at lvl 1 (some people allow this to be dropped for a different feat)
4. Can use Quicken Spell effectivly without needing another feat.
5. Gets their next highest spell level 1 level faster then Sorcerer.
6. Versatiltiy (with right feat selection, barely if ever needs to have right spell prepared, just needs them in spellbook)
7. A focused specialist wizard has same amount of spell slots (fewer schools to cast from, but that can also be mitigated somewhat) as Sorcerer.
8. As INT based, tends to have more skill points.

To be fair, Sorcerers have some advantages over Wizard.
1. No spellbook.
2. No preperation headaches
3. As CHA based, can be great at NPC interactive skills.
4. More spell slots (usually)

In short, most wizards tend to overpower sorcerers. Usually by overwhelming them quickly and relying on their ability to focus their spells for that day on killing that sorcerer. After all, what good is more spell slots if your to dead to use them, and no real need to worry about spell selection, can change it tomarrow if attack failed.

Granted, a sorcerer that picks spells that are almost always useful (greater dispel, wings of cover, etc) can very well slay an unprapared wizard.

[Aharon]

A) You have to contact a greater god, which means making a dc16 int/cha check to avoid becoming a non-caster for 5 weeks. A trivial check at higher levels, but at level 9 (the level the spell becomes available) that's going to be close to even odds and certainly an unwise risk to take for any but the most serious of questions, certainly too much risk just for making spell selection for tomorrow.


I take from that that you don't think taking 10 on this check is possible, as some of the spell's proponents do?`


D) Unless you're comfortable with the idea that your fate is written in stone, a god can't be reasonably expected to know what you'll do tomorrow unless you've already made nearly all the decisions that will affect your actions tomorrow. Since you're contacting the god for advice about what to do tomorrow, there's no way he can know with certainty what'll happen. This means that just because the predictions were accurate when they were given to you doesn't mean they'll stay accurate once you start acting, unless the DM nails your butt to the rails and calls it fate.


The problem here is that the god knows more than the DM does. A solution would be to "postpone" the advice. For example, if the caster asks what the greatest danger will be that he faces the next day, the DM doesn't answer, but the god does. When the caster meets the opponent the DM deems the most dangerous, he tells the player what the god said, and the player may change around a few spell slots retroactively. It's not a perfect solution, but it makes the spell workable without using the rails.

[Sith_Happens]

One more advantage that no one's mentioned yet: Pretty much every arcane full-casting prestige class in 3.5 seems to be designed with the Wizard in mind.

[blazinghand]

One more advantage that no one's mentioned yet: Pretty much every arcane full-casting prestige class in 3.5 seems to be designed with the Wizard in mind.

This is actually pretty huge, and kind of complements the "wizards get bonus feats" thing. Not that 9th-level spellcasting isn't a good enough class feature, but Sorcerers basically are stuck without anything but familiar progression to look forwards to. The only full casting prestige class that seems made for sorcerers is Archmage, since they have plenty of spell slots to give up. The "spell-like ability" spell High Arcana is probably meant with Wizards in mind though.

Also, due to the slightly slower spellcasting progression, if you make a gish Sorcerer you can only give up 2 caster levels if you want 9th-level casting by level 20.

[Golden Ladybug]

I always think of the Wizard as a Scalpel and the Sorcerer as a Hammer.

The Wizard, when employed properly, can solve a problem expertly and with precision. But when put into a situation its not designed for (for example, you've prepped mostly enchantments, and you're facing Undead, for instance), it struggles to do its job properly.

The Sorcerer, while maybe not the best tool for the job, can probably do it...as long as you don't mind making a bit of a mess, and perhaps getting your license to practice medicine taken away :smallbiggrin:

Which one is "better" is dependant on the circumstances, and the level of work you're willing to put into your character.

[danzibr]

I always think of the Wizard as a Scalpel and the Sorcerer as a Hammer.

The Wizard, when employed properly, can solve a problem expertly and with precision. But when put into a situation its not designed for (for example, you've prepped mostly enchantments, and you're facing Undead, for instance), it struggles to do its job properly.

The Sorcerer, while maybe not the best tool for the job, can probably do it...as long as you don't mind making a bit of a mess, and perhaps getting your license to practice medicine taken away :smallbiggrin:
I like this analogy.

In an unoptimized group either with mop the floor with your opponents anyway.

Oh right, and keep in mind Sorcerers can be gimped pretty badly with poor spell choice while Wizards don't really have this issue. Because Sorcs have fewer spells known and spontaneous casting they're easier to play IMO.

[blazinghand]

I like this analogy.

In an unoptimized group either with mop the floor with your opponents anyway.

Oh right, and keep in mind Sorcerers can be gimped pretty badly with poor spell choice while Wizards don't really have this issue. Because Sorcs have fewer spells known and spontaneous casting they're easier to play IMO.

Sorcs I think of as "hard to set up, easy to play". Assuming you know a bit about how the game works and pick a few flexible spells in your list, you're set-- just pick the appropriate spell and cast when you're playing. With a wizard, if you accidentally scribe a bad spell or two into your spellbook, you can eventually learn to prepare that spell less-- though on any individual day, you're under more pressure since you need to prepare spells.

[Mystral]

Wizards can be just a big of a hammer as the sorcerer if they want to.

[Grim Reader]

One minor advantage for the Sorcerer: It is easier to play. If a newbie wants to play an arcanist, give them a Sorcerer and help them with spell selection. Actual play will be easier.

[Mystral]

If you really have a beginner, you should ask them what kind of mage they want to play. If they want to play something similiar to the warmage, beguiler or dread necromancer, just refer them to these classes. If they want to play something else, homebrew a similiar class.

That's my preferred kind of caster, anyway.

[Crake]

One thing that I haven't noticed mentioned: Sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters *and* all divine casters) can only renew their spells once ever 24 hours, a wizard simply needs 8 hours of quiet (easy with a ropetrick) and another 15-60 minutes of preparation time meaning that they actually get twice their spells per day, almost 3 times.

Edit: Nvm, re-reading the sorc passage, it seems they can do this as well.
Edit2: Nope I was right the first time, FAQ says wizards can, sorcs/bards cant.

[gkathellar]

It bears noting that there are a bevy of ways to simply ignore the Wizard's disadvantages entirely, although many are at an optimization level that makes people uncomfortable. But it does speak to the fact that wizards are, objectively, more powerful.

As people have said, if sorcerer works better in your game, it works better in your game. But wizards do have a greater variety of craziness to throw at XYZ problem, so in a larger sense, they're more powerful.

[Otodetu]

Me and my group just upped sorcerer casting up by one level, bang, fixed.
Now the sorcerer get teleport at the same time as the wizard.

[Flickerdart]

Me and my group just upped sorcerer casting up by one level, bang, fixed.
Now the sorcerer get teleport at the same time as the wizard.

The speed of getting teleport (why teleport?) is only one of the Sorcerer's many disadvantages. Having a sharply limited arsenal and arbitrary penalties for using metamagic, as well as a crappy casting stat and lack of any class features whatsoever (at least wizards get bonus feats) also figure into the equation.

[dwlc2000]

ah, the question to life, Wizard or Sorcerer
If both are pure 20, Wizzy wins
at level 20 with wizards intell and specilization they can match, even sometimes exceed, spells per day for sorcs. Also wizards get bonus feats, and they get to apply metamagic without having to take a full round action. That means they can use quicken spell. IT BREAKS THE ACTION ECONOMY! also wizards by 20, know like ALL the spells in core. They're power is legendary. When wizards of the coast made 3.5 edition, they overestimated the power of spontaneous casting. In the end, Wizzy all the way

[eggs]

IT BREAKS THE ACTION ECONOMY!
With the Arcane Fusion spells and Arcane Spellsurge's interaction with Spontaneous casting's metamagic, this is the one thing the Sorcerer does better than pretty much anybody (psionics excluded).

[toapat]

while it wouldnt do anything long term, some sorc and Wizard Changes:

Sorc: Loose that stupid Metamagic Application.
Gain Wizard Bonus Feats
Gain Spell levels every Odd level
Autogrant Force of Personality at lvl 1
Loose Familiar

Wizard: Loose Bonus Feats
Gain new spell levels at SL*2 (lvl 1 gained at lvl 1)


Basically, ive never understood why Wizards get bonus feats, as well as spells, faster then Sorcerers. to quote a long lost OotS comic topic, "A wizard has to study long and hard for that degree, a Sorcerer gets it through Natural tallent."

[Kelb_Panthera]

I take from that that you don't think taking 10 on this check is possible, as some of the spell's proponents do?`

No I don't. Taking 10 requires no threats or distractions, the possibility that the hostile mind your contacting might damage your mind for more than a month is plenty threatening and having to concentrate to maintain the spell and come up with questions or refer to a list you've already thought up sounds more than a little distracting.


The problem here is that the god knows more than the DM does. A solution would be to "postpone" the advice. For example, if the caster asks what the greatest danger will be that he faces the next day, the DM doesn't answer, but the god does. When the caster meets the opponent the DM deems the most dangerous, he tells the player what the god said, and the player may change around a few spell slots retroactively. It's not a perfect solution, but it makes the spell workable without using the rails.

That's one possible solution, but it seems rather ..... inelegant and doesn't mitigate the danger inherent in casting the spell at all. It also doesn't really get the game off the rails, it just hides them. If the DM declares that this is the encounter the god told you about and the next encounter turns out to be more threatening either because of poor decisions on the part of the DM or the player, the god was wrong even if the percentile dice said he was supposed to be right, this means that by declaring this encounter the most challenging of the day, the DM is tying his own hands for encounters for the rest of the day and there's simply no way he can counter poor decisions on your part.

This solution also does nothing to address the question of whether the god is just probably right, or if he's definitely right because fate is a thing.

Besides, in nearly every story you've ever heard about a diviner divining his own future it ends very badly and nearly every tradition that claims the ability of divination, IRL, agrees that trying to divine your own future is impossible or against the rules and inviting bad juju of some kind.

[GreenSerpent]

I believe the correct phrase is:

"The Wizard is God. The Sorceror is God's hot cousin."

(though I've just realised. Most Wizards don't put many ranks into Sense Motive - 4 at most for Mindbender, but Sorcerors often put ranks into Bluff. It's entirely possible for a Sorceror to convince a Wizard to give him his spellbook.)

[Flickerdart]

I believe the correct phrase is:

"The Wizard is God. The Sorceror is God's hot cousin."

(though I've just realised. Most Wizards don't put many ranks into Sense Motive - 4 at most for Mindbender, but Sorcerors often put ranks into Bluff. It's entirely possible for a Sorceror to convince a Wizard to give him his spellbook.)
That's not what Bluff is for. Bluff is used to make someone believe something, not to make them do something. You could convince the wizard (for about 1 round) that they should hand over the book, but nothing requires him to actually do it, and it's quite possible that they can't even pull their book out in a single round.

[GreenSerpent]

That's not what Bluff is for. Bluff is used to make someone believe something, not to make them do something. You could convince the wizard (for about 1 round) that they should hand over the book, but nothing requires him to actually do it, and it's quite possible that they can't even pull their book out in a single round.

Which is why in that round you make the wizard believe you're also a wizard who he's lending his spellbook to.

A Sorceror convincing a Wizard he's a Wizard. Hmmm. A Bard could pull it off better.

[Flickerdart]

Which is why in that round you make the wizard believe you're also a wizard who he's lending his spellbook to.

A Sorceror convincing a Wizard he's a Wizard. Hmmm. A Bard could pull it off better.
Yes, because someone standing behind you saying "I'm an archmage, I'm an archmage, I'm an archmage" makes it more, not less, likely that you'll see through their ruse...
Why would the wizard want to lend his spellbook to the "wizard" anyway?

[olentu]

Which is why in that round you make the wizard believe you're also a wizard who he's lending his spellbook to.

A Sorceror convincing a Wizard he's a Wizard. Hmmm. A Bard could pull it off better.

Who lends a primary spellbook?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Who lends a primary spellbook?

With all the ways to get around a physical book, who carries an actuall book at all anymore?

Though I suppose choosing one of those alternates does make the use of a BBB kind of difficult.

[Blue Lantern]

while it wouldnt do anything long term, some sorc and Wizard Changes:

Sorc: Loose that stupid Metamagic Application.
Gain Wizard Bonus Feats
Gain Spell levels every Odd level
Autogrant Force of Personality at lvl 1
Loose Familiar

Wizard: Loose Bonus Feats
Gain new spell levels at SL*2 (lvl 1 gained at lvl 1)


Basically, ive never understood why Wizards get bonus feats, as well as spells, faster then Sorcerers. to quote a long lost OotS comic topic, "A wizard has to study long and hard for that degree, a Sorcerer gets it through Natural tallent."

My best explanation is that whomever playtested the sorcerer (if they playtested it at all) didn't had a clue about what he was doing, and after that entered in the sacred cow territory. (Because, you know, woe the designer who dares admit a mistake /sarcasm)

Your solution might help a little (except for all those who would cry foul if you touch their poor little misunderstood wizad), but the only way to put them in the same boat would be to add an hard limit on how many spell a Wizard knows, I always thought that something like 3+INT - 2*Spell Level = # of spell known per level.

[TuggyNE]

but the only way to put them in the same boat would be to add an hard limit on how many spell a Wizard knows, I always thought that something like 3+INT - 2*Spell Level = # of spell known per level.

How does that even follow, though? I mean, how would you fluff that? "Sorry, your spellbook won't hold any more of that level"? "Nope, you totally can't figure out any possible way to use pen, paper, and special inks to further expand your repertoire, which is actually sharply limited by your memory, despite being notionally contained outside it"? In any fix, it's important to avoid breaking fluff in bizarre ways just to satisfy balance concerns.

I'd also note that this specific formula prevents any wizard from learning 9ths until they have a bare minimum of 42 Int, even though they can cast them at 19 Int. Similarly, 8ths are available only at 38 Int and up; 7ths limited to the exclusive 34 Int club; and so forth. If the goal was stealth-nerfing high-level spells, I suppose you've succeeded, but unfortunately it's not as effective against certain high-op techniques, leading to uneven nerfing in precisely the wrong places. That is, you're basically putting up a "you must be this cheesy to learn ninth-level spells" sign.

(No, I am not a wizard fanboy; I simply haven't yet run across any fix that entirely satisfies me in balance, fluff, and ease of application — including avoiding unintended consequences.)

[Blue Lantern]

How does that even follow, though? I mean, how would you fluff that? "Sorry, your spellbook won't hold any more of that level"? "Nope, you totally can't figure out any possible way to use pen, paper, and special inks to further expand your repertoire, which is actually sharply limited by your memory, despite being notionally contained outside it"? In any fix, it's important to avoid breaking fluff in bizarre ways just to satisfy balance concerns.

I'd also note that this specific formula prevents any wizard from learning 9ths until they have a bare minimum of 42 Int, even though they can cast them at 19 Int. Similarly, 8ths are available only at 38 Int and up; 7ths limited to the exclusive 34 Int club; and so forth. If the goal was stealth-nerfing high-level spells, I suppose you've succeeded, but unfortunately it's not as effective against certain high-op techniques, leading to uneven nerfing in precisely the wrong places. That is, you're basically putting up a "you must be this cheesy to learn ninth-level spells" sign.

For the second part, I was unclear, I meant the Int score not the bonus, That Way with a 19 Int you can learn 4 9th level spells.

For the first part, the fluff for adding a spell it must be understood, so it is not completely unreasonable to put a limit based on intelligence, it is not a perfect solution but especially considering the already present loopholes in those rules it could pass; besides there was a rule like that in 2° Ed.
This was also just an example that came out of my mind one day, I didn't had the chance to ever use it to test it's effect; my point being that I think the wizard (and other prepared spellcaster for that matter) should have a limit in the number of spells known.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For the second part, I was unclear, I meant the Int score not the bonus, That Way with a 19 Int you can learn 4 9th level spells.

For the first part, the fluff for adding a spell it must be understood, so it is not completely unreasonable to put a limit based on intelligence, it is not a perfect solution but especially considering the already present loopholes in those rules it could pass; besides there was a rule like that in 2° Ed.
This was also just an example that came out of my mind one day, I didn't had the chance to ever use it to test it's effect; my point being that I think the wizard (and other prepared spellcaster for that matter) should have a limit in the number of spells known.

The rather notable problem with that formula is that a typical 20th level wizard has an int score in the low to mid 30's. Let's just go with a human; 18 to start, 5 for level up, 5 inherent from a tome, and 6 for a headband makes 34. 34+3 makes 37 - 18 (for 9ths) makes 19 ninth level spells known. The sorcerer gets the same static 3.

It's a limit, but not a functional one. Even if you take away the 6 for the headband he's still got 4 times as many spells known as the sorcerer. Perhaps something more like 2 spells known in the book per spell-slot available at a given level, or the number of spell-slots +2 would work better?

This doesn't do anything to address the fluff issue of why there's a hard limit like that, but at least it's something.

Here's an idea. The book isn't your actual source of spells known. It's just your cheat sheet, and the spells really are in your head the whole time, you just need to refresh them by checking your cheat sheet. Maybe throw in a mechanic to the effect of being able to prep without the book, but it takes double the normal time or perhaps longer.

[Wonton]

Also, given time, a Wizard can solve any problem. The cost of scribing new spells in his spellbook is negligible compared to WBL (and he doesn't need WBL nearly as badly as other classes) so he can know every spell in the PHB and all the useful ones from other books.

I'd just like to say that I see this sentiment all the time, but as someone who actually played a Wizard 1-11 I completely disagree. The cost of scribing spells is significant - I usually found myself having to pick 4-5 new spells to scribe every level or so. Also keep in mind that not every campaign will have a "magical library of free spellbooks", or the downtime for copying all these spells.


Here's a dirty little secret about the wiz/sorc comparison that almost always gets left out of these discussions.

While it's true that a wizard is objectively more capable than a sorcerer of the same level, it doesn't matter at all.

What matters is which one fits you and your group's playstyle better. All the advantages wizards have don't really mean much if what a sorcerer gets is enough for what your DM throws at you, and the primary advantage, strategic versatility, can be rendered moot or even become a major detriment if you don't know how to wield it properly.

THANK YOU. I see the idea of the Batman wizard all the time, and maybe it's just the campaigns I play in, but the DM usually either doesn't know what's coming up, or isn't willing to reveal it. I can think of only a handful of times when my Wizard actually had the opportunity to actually be forewarned of something and prepare a specific spell. And yes, I tried leaving slots open too, but usually when something comes up you need a specific spell NOW, not "oh give me 30 minutes to prepare these spells".

Once again, maybe my DM was just weird, but it's definitely true that you should consider the type of campaign you will play in before you blindly accept "Wizard > Sorcerer".

[Blue Lantern]

The rather notable problem with that formula is that a typical 20th level wizard has an int score in the low to mid 30's. Let's just go with a human; 18 to start, 5 for level up, 5 inherent from a tome, and 6 for a headband makes 34. 34+3 makes 37 - 18 (for 9ths) makes 19 ninth level spells known. The sorcerer gets the same static 3.

It's a limit, but not a functional one. Even if you take away the 6 for the headband he's still got 4 times as many spells known as the sorcerer. Perhaps something more like 2 spells known in the book per spell-slot available at a given level, or the number of spell-slots +2 would work better?

There is not a perfect solution that does not involves completely rewriting the system I am afraid, but I like your idea.

About the math, most of my games are not optimized so I usually don't automatically assume a 18 starting stat and a +5 inherent bonus, and also I would not count the enhancement bonus, in most cases I would have around 20\24 Int by 20° level.

[Yuki Akuma]

I love how people always come into these threads and post what is essentially "Your Mileage May Vary", as if it's some sort of novel concept no one's ever thought of before.

Yes, a Sorcerer can be more suited for a specific game than a Wizard. So can a Fighter or a Monk. What's your point?

[Blue Lantern]

I guess it's because the game can play very differently in different groups and for those reason it is not easy do draw the line between theoretical and practical optimization; so there are people that speak from a merely mechanical point and other that prefer to speak from their game experience, and it's often like two different discussion.

[Otodetu]

The speed of getting teleport (why teleport?) is only one of the Sorcerer's many disadvantages. Having a sharply limited arsenal and arbitrary penalties for using metamagic, as well as a crappy casting stat and lack of any class features whatsoever (at least wizards get bonus feats) also figure into the equation.

There is more work involved in playing a wizard, and anyone that have actually played a wizard can tell you that it not always plays out as you intend it too.

Based on this it is okay if a wizard is somewhat "better" than a sorcerer.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is not a perfect solution that does not involves completely rewriting the system I am afraid, but I like your idea.

About the math, most of my games are not optimized so I usually don't automatically assume a 18 starting stat and a +5 inherent bonus, and also I would not count the enhancement bonus, in most cases I would have around 20\24 Int by 20° level.
I don't normally make those assumptions either, but I figured it'd be a good idea to play devil's advocate in this case. I don't think I've ever made a character who had any starting stat higher than 16 under a point buy, and I generally assume the tomes and manuals to be either a tool to help those players that rolled poorly on abilities or a goal for a high-level caster to work toward crafting.

I love how people always come into these threads and post what is essentially "Your Mileage May Vary", as if it's some sort of novel concept no one's ever thought of before.

Yes, a Sorcerer can be more suited for a specific game than a Wizard. So can a Fighter or a Monk. What's your point?

The point is that not everyone that sees these discussions is going to be an old hand that's been playing 3.5 or visiting internet forums relating to 3.5 for the last several years. If the fact that the wizard's apparent advantages can and more often than not do fail to be advantages, or even backfire, isn't repeated at least once in a while, newbs can be inadvertently suckered into picking the wrong class for their group/playstyle because it's objectively better when they're trying to apply it to an inherently subjective situation.

It's like telling someone who's looking for the tallest class to watch out for low branches or the fastest fly speed to watch his turn radius. When you're looking at wizard and sorcerer asking which is more powerful/versatile it's helpful for someone to point out the fact that the advantages can sometimes be null or disadvantageous.

[nyjastul69]

One thing that I haven't noticed mentioned: Sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters *and* all divine casters) can only renew their spells once ever 24 hours, a wizard simply needs 8 hours of quiet (easy with a ropetrick) and another 15-60 minutes of preparation time meaning that they actually get twice their spells per day, almost 3 times.

Edit: Nvm, re-reading the sorc passage, it seems they can do this as well.
Edit2: Nope I was right the first time, FAQ says wizards can, sorcs/bards cant.

How are wizards able to prepare spells more than once per day?


Originally posted by the SRD:

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.

[Flickerdart]

There is more work involved in playing a wizard, and anyone that have actually played a wizard can tell you that it not always plays out as you intend it too.

Based on this it is okay if a wizard is somewhat "better" than a sorcerer.
I like how you assume I've never played a wizard.

[toapat]

well i certainly opened a can of wyrms with that barefix.

the point wasnt to fix anything, just to quick hammer out a set of changes to buff the sorc without bringing them to wizard levels, and to nerf the Wizard who really is too powerful anyway

[nyjastul69]

I think a nail most people dont know about is the one that happened in the 3-3.5 conversion: Wizards in 3rd had to bar schools, and the specialization benefits simply werent there.

Specialist Wizards in 3.0 had to bar schools. There were benefits for specilization. A Wizard in 3.0 that wasn't a specialist had no banned schools. The change in 3.0 to 3.5 with banned schools is that 3.5 allows banning of any 2 schools you choose. 3.0 specialist wizards banned schools were mostly determined by the school of specialization. This is how specialization worked in 3.0


Originally posted by the 3.0 SRD:
The eight schools of arcane magic are Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation. Spells that do not fall into any of these schools are called universal spells.
Abjuration: To become an abjurer, a wizard must select a prohibited school or schools from the following choices: (1) either Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, or Transmutation; or (2) both Divination and Necromancy.
Conjuration: To become a conjurer, a wizard must select a prohibited school or schools from one of the following choices: (1) Evocation; (2) any two of the following three schools: Abjuration, Enchantment, and Illusion; (3) Transmutation, or (4) any three schools.
Divination: To become a diviner, a wizard must select any other single school as a prohibited school.
Enchantment: To become an enchanter, a wizard must select a prohibited school or schools from the following choices: (1) either Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, Illusion, or Transmutation; or (2) both Divination and Necromancy.
Evocation: To become an evoker, a wizard must select a prohibited school or schools from one of the following choices: (1) Conjuration; (2) any two of the following three schools: Abjuration, Enchantment, and Illusion; (3) Transmutation; or (4) any three schools.
Illusion: To become an illusionist, a wizard must select a prohibited school or schools from the following choices: (1) either Abjuration, Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, or Transmutation; or (2) both Divination and Necromancy.
Necromancy: To become a necromancer, a wizard must select any other single school as a prohibited school.
Transmutation: To become a transmuter, a wizard must select a prohibited school or schools from one of the following choices: (1) Conjuration; (2) Evocation; (2) any two of the following three schools: Abjuration, Enchantment, and Illusion; or (4) any three schools.
Universal: Not a school, but a category for spells all wizards can learn. A wizard cannot select universal as a specialty school or as a school to which she does not have access.

[toapat]

[nitpick] Specialist Wizards in 3.0 had to bar schools. There were benefits for specilization. A Wizard in 3.0 that wasn't a specialist had no banned schools. The change in 3.0 to 3.5 with banned schools is that 3.5 allows banning of any 2 schools you choose. 3.0 specialist wizards banned schools were mostly determined by the school of specialization. This is how specialization worked in 3.0

then it changed even before the transition. at the very beginning all wizards had to bar a school.

[danzibr]

well i certainly opened a can of wyrms
lol, this is actually quite funny in a D&D forum.

[dextercorvia]

then it changed even before the transition. at the very beginning all wizards had to bar a school.

Nope. 3e specializations was an extension of 2e, which was similar, but the schools were picked for you. That in turn grew out of the illusionist class from AD&D. I may be fuzzy on the details, but there was always a generalist option.

[toapat]

lol, this is actually quite funny in a D&D forum.

to quick direct you, its originally from this topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255217)

[Augmental]

So 3.0 Conjurors could just give up Evocation, and nothing else? :smallamused:

[toapat]

So 3.0 Conjurors could just give up Evocation, and nothing else? :smallamused:

no, in the original printings, you had to bar a school. you could bar more, but there were no benefits to doing so

[Coidzor]

no, in the original printings, you had to bar a school. you could bar more, but there were no benefits to doing so

That sounds like a yes, actually. :smallconfused:

[toapat]

That sounds like a yes, actually. :smallconfused:

they are missing the point, specialization had no benefits, you simply barred schools.

[nyjastul69]

no, in the original printings, you had to bar a school. you could bar more, but there were no benefits to doing so

This is incorrect.


Originally posted from the 3.0 SRD:School Specialization
A school is one of eight groupings of spells, each defined by a common theme, such as illusion or necromancy. A wizard may specialize in one school of magic.
Specialization allows a wizard to cast extra spells from the chosen school, but the wizard then never learns to cast spells from one or more other schools. Spells of the school or schools that the specialist gives up are not available to her, and she can't even cast such spells from scrolls or wands.
The wizard must choose whether to specialize and how at 1st level. She may not change her specialization later.
The specialist can prepare one additional spell (of the school selected as a specialty) per spell level each day.
The specialist gains a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks to learn the spells of her chosen school.


If you require further clarification you find the 3rd edition SRD here. (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html) My copy of the 3rd ed. PH doesn't contradict this in any way. To what version of the 3.0 rule are you refering? I can't find a version of the SRD or a 3.0 rule book that supports your claim.

@ Augmental: That's correct, conjurors could ban only evocation. The 'broken' bits of conjuration had not been introduced to the game at this time, at least not mostly...

[toapat]

*punch*

IN THE ORIGINAL printings.

[dextercorvia]

IN THE ORIGINAL printings.

Scan or it didn't happen. Wizards were never required to give up a school for no benefit.

[Agincourt]

IN THE ORIGINAL printings.

I think you're misremembering. We played non-specialist wizards in 3.0 and there was no requirement to ban a school. We bought our books right after they were issued.

[Ifni]

Just a note that frequently gets overlooked in these discussions: spontaneous casters get more mileage out of metamagic than prep-casters do (I'm not saying "wizards" and "sorcerers" because there are feats that give wizards effective spontaneous casting). Yes, you have to spend a full-round action, but being able to apply metamagic as you choose on the fly is pretty useful.

For example, some years back - the PHB and Complete Arcane were out, but not much in the way of other books - my sorcerer at L10 had Teleport as her only L5 spell. But her effective L5 spell list looked like:

-Teleport
-Sculpted Evard's Black Tentacles
-Split Ray Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement
-Empowered Fireball
(+ maybe some others I'm forgetting)

So: mobility, battlefield control, debuff, mook-clearing. And she could mix and match these as she pleased. Multiple encounters with humanoids? Sculpted EBT all the way. Need to transport the entire party across the world to answer an urgent call for help? Teleport over with the first group (cap on targets means you can't get everyone), teleport back, pick up the others, teleport again. Doesn't matter if you mess up the teleportation targeting roll, just try again. Lots of mooks attacking and EBT is going to get in the way? Empowered Fireball. Couple of big bruisers? Split Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement and see how they like having no strength. (I would probably never prep Split Empowered RoE as a wizard, because there are too many days where it'll never come up and L5 slots are too precious. But for a sorcerer, there's zero opportunity cost, so when you want it you just cast it.)

And that's just the top-tier slots. Sculpted Glitterdust, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement - and there's no prior commitment of resources (well, beyond taking Glitterdust and Ray of Enfeeblement as known spells, but they are wonderful spells), you're not depriving yourself of any options by having to prepare these things, if you want them then you have them to hand.

To put it another way - a wizard who's cast all but one of their spells at a given level (because of encounters, or long-term party buffing) has exactly one option left at that level. A sorcerer has as many options as they started out with, and with metamagic, that can be >> than the actual number of spells they know at that level. This makes it much more feasible to do things like spend all but 1-2 of your (max level-2) slots on party buffing, because you can use the remaining slots to cast anything you normally could - it's only reducing your durability, not your menu of options. Higher-level sorcerers are going to want to use those low-level slots for something, so low-level spells known tend to be a mix of metamagic-fuel and buffs/utility that become more awesome when the whole party has them / you can recast them whenever you want.

For example; the aforementioned L10 sorcerer kept See Invisibility up all day ("cast it when you need it" is for wizards, and half the time you don't know when you need it, if invisible people are watching), and usually gave the entire party Phantom Steeds. Combat was done mostly off L4 and L5 slots, with a few L2 and L3 slots reserved for glitterdust/haste/fly/empowered-ray-of-enfeeblement etc. Everyone in the group having an all-day ridiculously-fast airwalk/fly speed at the higher levels is amazing; you can outfly dragons. Even at lower levels, the mounted combat rules heavily encourage magical sniping if you're in open terrain. You're doing full-round-action spells? No problem, just have your steed move in while you cast, fire the spell, have the steed complete its move (probably out of the range of most counterattacks). The concentration check is trivial. The biggest issues with full-round metamagic, in my experience, were (1) can't fire metamagicked spells in surprise rounds, (2) can't ready metamagicked spells, and (3) NO QUICKEN (these are in ascending order of annoyingness). Those disadvantages are bad enough that once Rapid Metamagic became available I grabbed it in a heartbeat, but they're really not deal-breakers (and as others have said, if Arcane Spellsurge is available then it makes the disadvantage into an advantage).

Now, feats that give wizards spontaneous casting will absolutely break this tradeoff, and then the balance shifts. Sorcerers got some goodies in later books to make up for it (mostly in sorc-only spells), but I can imagine it significantly changing the comparison. This is mostly a comment on games that don't include Uncanny Forethought (and to a lesser extent Spontaneous Divination), as that's the environment I'm most familiar with.

I do agree that wizards have a definite edge in games where you get to do things other than adventuring. Most of my experience was in the Living Greyhawk campaign, and in that environment (so basically all adventuring all the time, no periods of extended downtime where the group worked together, although there were allowances for crafting etc, and "adventuring" could include things like fortifying a city against attack), sorcerers and wizards were pretty balanced.

Int is a better stat than Cha, due mostly to its effect on skills. However, with a little spell support sorcerers can get very high checks in Cha-based skills, and Diplomacy/Gather Information/Bluff have some significant advantages over Charm Person etc (to whit: they don't have a set duration that wears off, they're not stopped by Prot Evil, they don't allow Will saves, and people don't get angry with you for using them). This doesn't compensate for the wizard Int advantage (Knowledge skills are also awesome) but is worth noting.

[Sith_Happens]

THANK YOU. I see the idea of the Batman wizard all the time, and maybe it's just the campaigns I play in, but the DM usually either doesn't know what's coming up, or isn't willing to reveal it. I can think of only a handful of times when my Wizard actually had the opportunity to actually be forewarned of something and prepare a specific spell. And yes, I tried leaving slots open too, but usually when something comes up you need a specific spell NOW, not "oh give me 30 minutes to prepare these spells".

Luckily, the Uncanny Forethought feat from Exemplars of Evil is specifically meant as a way of getting around this. At the cost of increasing the casting time, it lets you use an empty slot to say "Why yes, of course I prepared [spell X] today. You think I didn't anticipate this exact situation?"

[eggs]

Divinations have taken a bashing in this thread, so I'd like to point out that even though spells that ask the DM to reveal plans for a week of gametime in advance usually flop due to logistic problems, divinations with a more "scouting" mindset tend to work very well.

Things like Body Outside Body, Prying Eyes or Arcane Eye and Summoned/Planar Bound scouts (especially ones that can travel and spy from within dungeon walls and ceilings) can usually give a pretty good rundown on what the caster's going to face in a dungeon, which in turn gives the 15 minute spellslot refill tactic a lot more viability. If the party has a halfway decent scout, that can work too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Divinations have taken a bashing in this thread, so I'd like to point out that even though spells that ask the DM to reveal plans for a week of gametime in advance usually flop due to logistic problems, divinations with a more "scouting" mindset tend to work very well.

Things like Body Outside Body, Prying Eyes or Arcane Eye and Summoned/Planar Bound scouts (especially ones that can travel and spy from within dungeon walls and ceilings) can usually give a pretty good rundown on what the caster's going to face in a dungeon, which in turn gives the 15 minute spellslot refill tactic a lot more viability. If the party has a halfway decent scout, that can work too.

Indeed, the ability to read the present in distant locations is one of those powerful things divination definitely can do, no question. I was only contending that reading the future, rather than reading the present to try to predict the future, was some where between ridiculously unreliable and impossible.

Unfortunately, that 15 minutes is 15 minutes per spell or 1 hour, whichever is less, IIRC.

[olentu]

Indeed, the ability to read the present in distant locations is one of those powerful things divination definitely can do, no question. I was only contending that reading the future, rather than reading the present to try to predict the future, was some where between ridiculously unreliable and impossible.

Unfortunately, that 15 minutes is 15 minutes per spell or 1 hour, whichever is less, IIRC.

No, not really. It's 15 minutes for up to a quarter of capacity and then proportionally longer if more than that, as I recall.

[Augmental]

Indeed, the ability to read the present in distant locations is one of those powerful things divination definitely can do, no question. I was only contending that reading the future, rather than reading the present to try to predict the future, was some where between ridiculously unreliable and impossible.

And reading the present is often all you need to know what to prepare.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And reading the present is often all you need to know what to prepare.

That's entirely dependent on the situation and, worse, contingent upon what knowledge you already have. It may be all that's needed more often than not, but only by the barest of margins, especially given that divinations targeting the present have both direct and indirect counters.

It's still essentially a craps shoot.

[danzibr]

to quick direct you, its originally from this topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255217)
I was indeed curious. Very nice.

[LordBlades]

Without trying to restart the divination debates (which have been done to death, especially can/can't take 10 on int checks for CoP), I've got to say it's best to consult with your DM before starting to frequently use divinations. Not everyone is comfortable with players carefully deconstructing their plot, monsters and encounters, and this can lead ether to knee jerk reactions (I've seen DMs ban stuff like Clairvoyant Sense because 'OHNOES my <insert obvious hiding place> ambushes') or burnout (having to come up with a dozen cryptic clues for Divination per session is a bit tiring if you aren't cut out for it).

Regarding wizard vs. sorcerer, from my experience their relative usefulness is mainly related to two things: the campaign having a 'theme' and the presence/absence of downtime.

Theme: if your campaign has a general theme, like 'fighting dragons' or 'political intrigue' and most encounters deal with it, it's not very hard for a sorcerer to pick good spells and stay relevant. If your campaign is all over the place on the other hand, like one session you're in a big city uncovering an elaborate political plot, next session you get to fight the dragon that was behind the plot all along, then you need to traverse a large distance unseen through underground tunnels, then you need to help a fortress prepare their defenses, and finally you need to repel a demon horde assaulting said fortress (this was actually a story arc in one of my group campaigns) then it's much easier for a sorcerer to find himself in situations he simply can't bring much to the table.

Downtime: if your campaign lacks downtime for the wizard to acquire and scribe scrolls in spellbook, and he's stuck with the 2 spells/level he gains automatically, then he doesn't get that far ahead the sorcerer (since he would most likely have trouble acquiring the ton of situational spells that make wizard so versatile).

[Ubercaledor]

why is it that when people say X class vs Y class, the first thing people do is say:

"At level 20, this class is better, thus it is better."

Last time I checked, people USUALLY start adventures before level 20. Personally, I care more about how I get to level 20 than what I do when I get there. Usually that's "game over" territory, unless we're going into epic stuff, which I usually don't have the patience for. (It's like god-mode in more ways than one).

While yes, optimization dictates "x", this doesn't matter so much at level 5, say, where it may be much harder to acquire spells as a wizard.

[blazinghand]

why is it that when people say X class vs Y class, the first thing people do is say:

"At level 20, this class is better, thus it is better."

Last time I checked, people USUALLY start adventures before level 20. Personally, I care more about how I get to level 20 than what I do when I get there. Usually that's "game over" territory, unless we're going into epic stuff, which I usually don't have the patience for. (It's like god-mode in more ways than one).

While yes, optimization dictates "x", this doesn't matter so much at level 5, say, where it may be much harder to acquire spells as a wizard.

Level 5 might not be the best example to use, since Sorcerers are still stuck on 2nd-level spells while Wizards have a minimum of 2 3rd-level spells to play with at that moment.

[Kelb_Panthera]

why is it that when people say X class vs Y class, the first thing people do is say:

"At level 20, this class is better, thus it is better."

Last time I checked, people USUALLY start adventures before level 20. Personally, I care more about how I get to level 20 than what I do when I get there. Usually that's "game over" territory, unless we're going into epic stuff, which I usually don't have the patience for. (It's like god-mode in more ways than one).

While yes, optimization dictates "x", this doesn't matter so much at level 5, say, where it may be much harder to acquire spells as a wizard.

While I have seen that argument elsewhere, it doesn't really apply to sorc V wiz. The differences between the two really don't change much over the course of a career, except that while the wizard starts only a little ahead, by 20 he's leagues ahead in the objective sense.

It's a much closer match in a core only game (I've already argued this to death, just google my username and sorc V wiz), but even then the difference, no matter how small, is there.

Though ultimately playstyle is far more important than which is objectively "better."

[nyjastul69]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that a wizard built after 1st level uses his WBL to put spells into his spell book (outside of the 2/lvl), sorcerers don't need to. It's a small advantage for the sorcerer in that regard. This carries over to material components/foci as well. The more spells you can potentially cast means the potential for more costly components/foci, which are also a small drag on WBL.

[Ubercaledor]

Level 5 might not be the best example to use, since Sorcerers are still stuck on 2nd-level spells while Wizards have a minimum of 2 3rd-level spells to play with at that moment.

Well yes, but "has access to" and "is able to cast" are two different things. With particular DMing, the range of level 3 spells I may be able to reasonably acquire as a wizard may be much more restricted than as a sorcerer. And OK, let's call it level 6 instead.

In particular, if you were playing under the suggested guidelines of CL per population, in a small-town environment, the wizard may rapidly run out of higher CL spell sources, causing even more drag on wealth and time than if you just effectively take 10 on the whole process.

[tyckspoon]

Well yes, but "has access to" and "is able to cast" are two different things. With particular DMing, the range of level 3 spells I may be able to reasonably acquire as a wizard may be much more restricted than as a sorcerer. And OK, let's call it level 6 instead.

In particular, if you were playing under the suggested guidelines of CL per population, in a small-town environment, the wizard may rapidly run out of higher CL spell sources, causing even more drag on wealth and time than if you just effectively take 10 on the whole process.

..they get an absolute guaranteed 2/level that can be any spells they feel like, just like the Sorcerer can pick whatever he wants without having to ask the DM if he gets to be able to learn that particular spell. That's 38 from leveling up, which is more Spells Known just for gaining levels than the Sorcerer gets on his entire chart (discounting 0 level, because they're not that meaningful and the Wizard gets All Of Them, which rather artificially inflates his count.) I really don't see how 'The Wizard learns more spells than the Sorcerer plus has options for getting even more' can be spun as being a *disadvantage* for the Wizard.

[Kelb_Panthera]

..they get an absolute guaranteed 2/level that can be any spells they feel like, just like the Sorcerer can pick whatever he wants without having to ask the DM if he gets to be able to learn that particular spell. That's 38 from leveling up, which is more Spells Known just for gaining levels than the Sorcerer gets on his entire chart (discounting 0 level, because they're not that meaningful and the Wizard gets All Of Them, which rather artificially inflates his count.) I really don't see how 'The Wizard learns more spells than the Sorcerer plus has options for getting even more' can be spun as being a *disadvantage* for the Wizard.

Then you've obviously never seen someone utterly paralyzed by choice overload.

Options are a good thing but, like any other good thing, too many options can become a problem. Especially since a wizard never has enough spell-slots for all of his spells unless he's actually restricted to only the 2/level. Then there's the question of how many of a given spell to prep today. You've got to have some serious book-keeping chops to do a wizard's theoretical power justice. Even then you can be blind-sided by the DM or even just random chance.

[satorian]

The argument from psychology (choice overload) or the argument from game variance (xyz depends on your DM or your table) is not relevant for determining which class is objectively stronger. The wizard is that, for all the reasons others have posted above.

"Better" is not stronger, and is subjective to the player, the table, the DM, etc. But by a subjective measure, a Warmage could be "better", but he sure isn't stronger. Same with the sorcerer.

I personally never wanted to nor want to play a wizard, because I'm too lazy to deal with the planning every session. Still, I'm aware I play the weaker choice to increase my fun.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The argument from psychology (choice overload) or the argument from game variance (xyz depends on your DM or your table) is not relevant for determining which class is objectively stronger. The wizard is that, for all the reasons others have posted above.

"Better" is not stronger, and is subjective to the player, the table, the DM, etc. But by a subjective measure, a Warmage could be "better", but he sure isn't stronger. Same with the sorcerer.

I personally never wanted to nor want to play a wizard, because I'm too lazy to deal with the planning every session. Still, I'm aware I play the weaker choice to increase my fun.

Who's arguing about which is objectively stronger? I've already said that the wizard won that fight from go.

I've only been arguing that wizard isn't better than sorcerer for all players and that the biggest advantage the wizard has is also the biggest reason that he's not the best class for everyone.

The other advantages are comparatively minor when weighed next to the (effectively) unlimited spells known factor. Though they do add up to a pretty hefty advantage even without that one, the difficulty in properly selecting the correct spells on a given day -can- neutralize, or even outweigh, the sum of those other advantages for some players. This is especially true if they have to guess blindly either because they can't or don't get the information they need to make good choices.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If a Sorcerer doesn't have the right spell known, he's stuck forever. Unless your playing Pathfinder, and he took Paragon Surge as a spell known. In which case you are no longer playing D&D, you are playing "Book Diving: The RPG".Eh, 3.5 has MotAO and Spontaneous Divination (especially troublesome without errata), and I haven't heard that complaint before. It's a crazy trick that instantly makes the Sorcerer T1, but I doubt it even takes as much OOC time as a wizard spamming divinations/scribing spells/preparing spell.

[ryu]

Uber: It's not broken or leaning I can fix it!

Further the comparison given to you was automatically obtained spells rather than scribing.

Edit: Page order mixup. Point still stands.

[Otodetu]

I like how you assume I've never played a wizard.

I like how you assume I assume you have never played a wizard.
Right back at you that one.

I meant no offence, you simply read to much into what I posted.
I presume you agree with my statement though.