[PF/3.5] WBL makes Wizards worse than Sorcerers

[Spore]

So apparently my buddy dropped this one before the last session. He kind of has a point, and also doesn't. A Wizard is capable of more, but only once. A sorcerer can do less, but over and over; but for free. A good wizard has a wide array of magical spells written into his spellbook. This costs money.

So I ask you playgrounders, how much do you spend on your spellbook, how much on actual gear on your wizard? Did you ever feel the disadvantage a good sorcerer makes you feel?

Obviously a Wizard is still more flexible and can easily 1-Turn-End encounters. This however, while TECHNICALLY better, takes away from the fighting. Why would your DM brew up a well written outsider if you'd just banish it? Why would he give you a huge army if you can control them with confusion? Why would he make a fierce barbarian tribes chief if you just dominate him?

Are Wizards for you very hard to play (because you always can buy encounter ending spell xy)?

[Deophaun]

Sure, spells cost money (but there are ways to get more free ones at level up). But Wizards also get bonus feats for item creation, so they can make even more. Plus, fabricate. Wall of salt. Even unseen crafter. WBL is not really an issue for a wizard. It may or may not be an issue for a Sorcerer, depending on if he wants to spend one of his very limited spell slots on such a thing (although he could get a knowstone if the DM includes Dragon material).

[GreenETC]

Obviously a Wizard is still more flexible and can easily 1-Turn-End encounters. This however, while TECHNICALLY better, takes away from the fighting. Why would your DM brew up a well written outsider if you'd just banish it? Why would he give you a huge army if you can control them with confusion? Why would he make a fierce barbarian tribes chief if you just dominate him?

Are Wizards for you very hard to play (because you always can buy encounter ending spell xy)?
Why would being able to buy a spell to solve encounters make it harder to play? I would imagine being able to solve almost any encounter with a little creativity makes the game much easier, and if a DM decides that you can just win all the encounters and he can't come up with a challenge, so he just decides to never make any challenges, then he's not a very good DM.

Spending money is completely a non-issue for Wizards, especially since Boccob's Blessed Book is a thing, but mostly because there IS nothing else a Wizard needs to buy. WBL is spent to make your character stronger, and a Wizard is basically every spell ever made. The Sorcerer spell list has a few gems, but with Int being an overall better stat and Wizards being able to waste spell slots for 1/month spells like Animate Dead or something, I doubt any Sorcerer can come up on top simply because of money.

[eggynack]

Obviously a Wizard is still more flexible and can easily 1-Turn-End encounters. This however, while TECHNICALLY better, takes away from the fighting. Why would your DM brew up a well written outsider if you'd just banish it? Why would he give you a huge army if you can control them with confusion? Why would he make a fierce barbarian tribes chief if you just dominate him?

I think this is the key issue with the argument you present. Wizard flexibility isn't generally of the type where you say, "Huzzah! View in awe as I present my special magic bullet that I prepared precisely for this circumstance." Sure, that can definitely happen, and things like banishment are pretty close, but it's not the issue in general. Ultimately, the biggest difference between wizards and sorcerers is that sorcerers can't cast identify. Sure, it's right there on their list, but is a sorcerer really going to use one of his few spells known slots on it? Probably not.

In the same fashion, it's less that wizards have a spell list that's perfectly built for whatever encounters he is going to face than that he has a few spell lists that are good for some general situations. Maybe the wizard won't prepare all that many combat spells in a city setting, and maybe he won't prepare all that many combat spells in a non-city setting. Maybe the wizard will specialize for a scenario, like prepping stoneshape for a cave mission, or prepping heart of water for an underwater mission, and the sorcerer rarely has that luxury.

Sorcerers lack a lot of that kind of luxury, actually. Consider how easy it is for a wizard to use planar binding. You just prepare magic circle, the planar binding in question, and whatever buffs you need to successfully make the bound creature your friend. After that, you get a powerful ally who is going to be useful for days at least, and you only had to learn a few spells as the sole cost. Now, consider how hard it is for a sorcerer to do the same. You need magic circle against evil, and maybe magic circle against good too, if you want to get good creatures. You need planar binding, and if you start at or before level nine, you'll end up getting all of the spells in the line, lest you lack this ability at the proper scale at any point in your progression. You probably don't need a spell to get the bound creature on your side, but that doesn't matter. Already you've spent around five separate spells known on this one plan. It's just a huge deficit, and it comes up a lot with that kind of spell.

[Thanatosia]

Most of Sorc shotcommings vs Wizards can be made up with Runestaves. But this also closes any WBL gap the OP may be refering to. I dunno, if Sorcs got Bonus Feats like wizards, i'd say they would be about equal, but it's the bonus feats that give wizards a small advantage.

[eggynack]

Most of Sorc shotcommings vs Wizards can be made up with Runestaves. But this also closes any WBL gap the OP may be refering to. I dunno, if Sorcs got Bonus Feats like wizards, i'd say they would be about equal, but it's the bonus feats that give wizards a small advantage.
I disagree completely on both counts. First of all, wizards rarely experience more than a single bonus feat, as they tend to PrC out after five, and the same can be equally said for sorcerers, as well as theoretical bonus feat sorcerers. Second, runestaves don't close the WBL gap. They cause sorcerers to surge ahead in terms of GP spent to a decent degree. Third, it looks like you're limited to a reasonably broad list of runestaves, which doesn't cover the whole list of spells you'd want by a long shot, and several of the options force you to pick up lesser spells in the process. Don't get me wrong, runestaves are quite useful, but the limitation on spells known is a serious one.