Sledgehammer Vs Carefully Tuned Watch

[SolkaTruesilver]

First of all, this is a threat aboud something that happens in Star of Darkness, so any people who don'T want to learn anything before reading it, GET OUT

I think we can come up with an obvious solution about one of the theme in Start of Darkness (Wizard Vs Sorcerers), it's that the Giant thinks the whole deal about some player's perception of the wizard's superiority is wrong, and it leads them to
1- Overconficence
2- Insufferable arrogance (but any wizard powergamer *batman*koff* is arrogant)
3- Underestimating the non-wizards around them.

While Xykon, not having prepared in the least for the battle at hand, just strike, strike, strike, strike, strike, strike, strike, strike. He says it clearly: You just need to concentrate your force, until there is no strategy effective against a force that focused against you (in which I totally agree).

So.. do you agree/disagree? What's your tought, do you think that a sorcerer can beat a wizard in a fair fight? Or what about the whole gameplay thing? Do you think Wizard should be slammed on the head for their arrogance? Should we hang batman? here is the thread about it

[kpenguin]

Sledgehammer only works if you have a big enough hammer. All things being equal, finesse and strategy usually wins.

[Ancalagon]

Also take into account that most classes are at least somewhat balanced (on the same level).
The difference between Sorcerers and Wizards is not that big and in the end... the dice will decide.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Aye. But don't forget some of the point here is about some player's opinion that a Wizard is much better, which is reflected (and caricaturized) in Start of Darkness by Rich.

"They are some idiot-savant, who can master magic without knowing anything about it. We elaborated that they try to compensate for an abnormally small pen..

- HEY!"


"A Wizard is a carefully crafted watch, where the sorcerer is a sledgehammer. We have a better control over the magic

- Are you saying that you are better than me, because I'm a sorcerer and you are a wizard?

- No, off course I would never say that - simply because it goes without saying. I would be gauche to me to even mention it."

[Ancalagon]

Well, some DM I met claimed he once killed a level 18 wizard with a level 3 kobold shaman who had a "Staff of Magic Missile".

Planing can make up for a lot, you can increase or decrease your chances but in the end, it is the dice that decides if two characters (both casters, even!) start to battle.

[Old Book]

Player, DM and Campaign count for a lot.

In a campaign where new spell scrolls are easy to find and there's time for item crafting, Wizards can build up a serious advantage compared to Sorcerers. Those Wizard bonus feats and extra spells can translate into more magic items (over and above what the adventurer finds, unless the DM sets a limit), and more of a chance to pull off complex, hard to defend against attacks.

In a campaign where there isn't time for item crafting, or a situation where the Wizard has no time to plan, the Sorcerer has a huge advantage in a direct fight. Extra high level spells plus spontaneous meta-magic will cook most Wizards in one-to-one conflict.

In a campaign, the Wizard is probably more useful to the party outside of combat, as he can usually come up with an appropriate spell for more situations, and can potentially enchant more custom items (with the DMs cooperation). In combat, the Sorcerer shines again.

And, once in a while, you'll run into situations that can only be solved by a specific spell. When that happens, the Wizard often works better than the Sorcerer. The classes are pretty well balanced.

[Kreistor]

Wizards have one glaring weakness that a lot of people don't seem to notice. I think Dm play style may hide it in a lot of campaigns.

I find wizards, at the end of the day, have too many uncast spells. Their power is supposed to be in tailoring the spells they choose each day to the situation. Unfortunately, in the morning when they memorize those spells, more than 50% of the time, they shouldn't know what situation they are going to face that day. Consequently, they face on a daily basis the same problem as the sorcerer at chraacter creation: that is, what spells does the wizard predict will be the most useful. The time scale is different, but the decision is not. The wizard winds up taking the most commonly useful spells, which are the spells the sorcerer would wind up taking.

If most of those spells wind up not being very useful, the Wizard winds up at the end of the day with uncast spells. The sorcerer, on the other hand, can cast that one useful spell over and over again, burning out on that one selection. Thus, the Sorcerer rarely fails to cast every spell in his arsenal, but the wizard can end the day with much uncast.

I've played a wizard, and watched specfiically for this very thing. I have been in that situation, ending the day with only 1/10th of my spells cast, while the Cleric has burned out on healing.

To me, it's a no-brainer. For a PC, the Sorcerer is the only way to go. The math for the wizard just doesn't work out. To make use of that flexibility, they need foreknowledge, and most of the time, you're walking into a situation blind. It is very rare that the Sorcerer that selects commonly useful spells will not be just as powerful against the unknown as the wizard, and so that vaunted flexibility avails them not at all.

[kpenguin]

For an NPC, however, Wizard beats Sorcerer. Why? Because Intelligence>Charisma.

[Kreistor]

I don't see it. If the DM is giving the NPC Wizard useful spells, he can give the Sorcerer just as useful spells, and with more high level castings for the encounter, the Sorcerer winds up being just as tailored to the fight and more powerful.

Intelligence has only one in game effect over Charisma: skill points. I really don't think skill points are going to be a more deciding factor in a casting fight than spells/day.

[Drakron]

Also take into account that most classes are at least somewhat balanced (on the same level).
The difference between Sorcerers and Wizards is not that big and in the end... the dice will decide.

No, they are not.

Cleric are simply the best class, Fighter starts strong but starts to lose power around lv 10 with wizard being the opposite ... it starts weak and ends up as second to the cleric, the rogue class is more geared to non combat situations with the alternatives being simply alternatives.

The issue with sorcerer is that its a "alternative" to the wizard, it weakness is as the wizard can always change his spells to fit the situation the sorcerer is stuck with a limited spell selection but he can use every single one (as long there is a slot to use).

A wizard can adapt, a sorcerer have to adapt.

As for NPCs ... to me its always a bad idea to tailor NPC spell selections just to fight the party, it can happen if the NPC is aware of said weakness and have time to prepare but NPCs do not exist for the sole purpose of fighting the party.

[Daimbert]

Wizards have one glaring weakness that a lot of people don't seem to notice. I think Dm play style may hide it in a lot of campaigns.

I find wizards, at the end of the day, have too many uncast spells. Their power is supposed to be in tailoring the spells they choose each day to the situation. Unfortunately, in the morning when they memorize those spells, more than 50% of the time, they shouldn't know what situation they are going to face that day. Consequently, they face on a daily basis the same problem as the sorcerer at chraacter creation: that is, what spells does the wizard predict will be the most useful. The time scale is different, but the decision is not. The wizard winds up taking the most commonly useful spells, which are the spells the sorcerer would wind up taking.

If most of those spells wind up not being very useful, the Wizard winds up at the end of the day with uncast spells. The sorcerer, on the other hand, can cast that one useful spell over and over again, burning out on that one selection. Thus, the Sorcerer rarely fails to cast every spell in his arsenal, but the wizard can end the day with much uncast.

I've played a wizard, and watched specfiically for this very thing. I have been in that situation, ending the day with only 1/10th of my spells cast, while the Cleric has burned out on healing.

To me, it's a no-brainer. For a PC, the Sorcerer is the only way to go. The math for the wizard just doesn't work out. To make use of that flexibility, they need foreknowledge, and most of the time, you're walking into a situation blind. It is very rare that the Sorcerer that selects commonly useful spells will not be just as powerful against the unknown as the wizard, and so that vaunted flexibility avails them not at all.

I think I disagree with this, and this comes from someone who is mostly disappointed with wizards in the computer games (my largest DnD experience; please don't hate me for it [grin]) and so isn't just attached to wizards.

Wizards get to choose their spells every time they rest, and so they do indeed get to tailor them for REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS for the next few hours before they rest again. For example, if you are camping in a dungeon, chances are you won't need some of the Charisma raising spells (Friends is one of them, if I recall correctly? I generally never use them) but will certainly want to prepare combat spells. On the other hand, if you are resting before heading out to the castle to negotiate, chances are the combat spells are less important than those. And the same would apply for buff spells and so on and so forth ... there are GOING to be cases where you can predict that you are more likely to use certain spells than others in the near future.

For a sorcerer to have this flexibility, they have to take all of these spells. But if I'm not mistaken they are limited in the number of spells that they know, and so taking a non-combat spell means one less combat spell that they can know (ie so if they take "Friends" maybe they can't take "Chromatic Orb"). The sorcerer is limited in the number of spells they KNOW; the wizard is limited in the number of spells they PREPARE (they can know as many spells as they can fit in their spellbook). That means that a sorcerer either becomes
a specialist in one area so that they can take the spells in that area that are less generally useful but might be wonderful in certain circumstances, or they generalize and lose specific purpose spells in an area. Take the throne room scene, for example: are there other spells that would hurt the phantom paladins that it might have been nice for Xyrkon to know? What spells did he take that stopped him from taking them as well?

Yes, wizards may not prepare those spells either, if they don't see a need for them in that situation. But they might if they see that their next few hours will be spent doing combat or influencing people, and that those spells could be useful in specific instances in that sort of situation. A sorcerer is never going to be able to do that, and so has to rely only on what they know in advance.

Let me put it this way: take a sorcerer from a combat-heavy campaign to a diplomacy-heavy campaign and they're likely ineffective or a generalist or require a respec. A wizard just needs to buy spells and prepare different ones.

Take anything I say here with a grain of salt, however, about the specifics since I'm not up on all od the DnD rules [grin].

[OOTS_Rules.]

If Xykon was a wiz, he would have been screwed. He wouldn't have even had MM ready against those ghost martyrs.

[lord_khaine]

if Xykon was a wiz he would have been smart enough to prepare for facing off against a horde of paladin ghosts :smallsmile:

[The Pink Ninja]

if Xykon was a wiz he would have been smart enough to prepare for facing off against a horde of paladin ghosts :smallsmile:

Sadly the int stat of a character doesn;t pass over too their player.

[Psychonaut]

...this comes from someone who is mostly disappointed with wizards in the computer games (my largest DnD experience; please don't hate me for it [grin]) and so isn't just attached to wizards.

I can definitely see why one might prefer a sorceror in a computer game. Computer games based on the D&D ruleset tend to be much heavier on the combat and lighter on the alternative solutions to situations than P&P (the only exception out of the ones I've played is Planescape:Torment, which was before there even were sorcerors - and even there, solutions were limited to either dialogue or combat). Additionally/partially as a result, a number of the useful arcane spells that might not make a sorceror's pick in P&P are taken out, and even as a wizard you're likely to spend most of your spell slots for each level on a few limited spells - so you might as well go sorceror and have the option to choose between them at will. The main advantage a wizard has there is the ability to pick spells that are useful early in the campaign and stop using them later (e.g. Sleep, Chaos, Emotion, and the charm line of spells in BGI/II/Tutu), and in one of the few 3rd edition+ games (NWN1) the sorceror gets to re-pick spells each level anyway.


Take the throne room scene, for example: are there other spells that would hurt the phantom paladins that it might have been nice for Xyrkon to know? What spells did he take that stopped him from taking them as well?

I prefer playing wizards over sorcerors because I prefer having the general versatility (higher INT = more skills, bonus feats, and can prepare and cast most/all spells, depending on specialization) offered by the class, but this is exactly the sort of situation where I'd expect the sorceror to outshine the wizard with its more limited versatility (oxymoron?). As you said, wizards may not prepare those spells either; indeed, a wizard in the throne room situation would have had no reason to prepare those spells. How many of us predicted the appearance of the ghost martyrs? Xykon, as others have pointed out, still has the versatility of being able to use any of his spell selections, but a wizard is at a serious disadvantage when faced with a sudden, unexpected situation like that without a chance to prepare (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html).


Yes, wizards may not prepare those spells either, if they don't see a need for them in that situation. But they might if they see that their next few hours will be spent doing combat or influencing people, and that those spells could be useful in specific instances in that sort of situation. A sorcerer is never going to be able to do that, and so has to rely only on what they know in advance.

As far as diplomacy goes, I'd think that most of the time a sorceror is at an advantage regardless of spell preparations due to the much higher CHA modifier. Though this depends heavily on lots of little factors such as how high-/low- magic the campaign is (does the sorceror in the party get CHA+8 items or CHA+2 items), how the wizard's spent hir extra skill points, the DM's choice whether X and Y stack, etc. The wizard will likely have more benefit from extra points in Knowledge (Whatever) skills in other dialogue situations, though.

[Belkar's Left Foot]

I've always felt that a group of 30 elite warriors can kill hundreds of normal run of the mill soldiers, if one guy can take out at least 10 before dying then you get 300 casualties to their 30. So I'm more of a Carefully Tuned Watch guy.

[kpenguin]

I don't see it. If the DM is giving the NPC Wizard useful spells, he can give the Sorcerer just as useful spells, and with more high level castings for the encounter, the Sorcerer winds up being just as tailored to the fight and more powerful.

Intelligence has only one in game effect over Charisma: skill points. I really don't think skill points are going to be a more deciding factor in a casting fight than spells/day.

Mechanically, yes, there's no big difference for casters (skill points? who the hell needs skill points!). However, a good DM will play characters of high Int/Wis differently than one of low Int/Wis. An NPC Wizard is far more likely to have prepared useful spells than an NPC sorcerer is to have know them. An NPC Wizard is also far more likely to use better tactics than a sorcerer.

Xykon is a good example of this. A while ago, there was a thread debating over whether Xykon had reached Marty Stu level yet. From recent events, he hasn't. His stupidity is part of his weakness. While a wizard lich will share the overconfidence, a wizard is never stupid.

[OOTS_Rules.]

The Sledgehammer. Two words: Zurg(sp) Rush

[Enlong]

Perhaps I'm naive, but I like Sorcerers more. I feel that knowing all of the forms of Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation, and taking a bunch of all-purpose, all-around useful spells can make up for the lack of pure versatility.

[Daimbert]

I can definitely see why one might prefer a sorceror in a computer game. Computer games based on the D&D ruleset tend to be much heavier on the combat and lighter on the alternative solutions to situations than P&P (the only exception out of the ones I've played is Planescape:Torment, which was before there even were sorcerors - and even there, solutions were limited to either dialogue or combat). Additionally/partially as a result, a number of the useful arcane spells that might not make a sorceror's pick in P&P are taken out, and even as a wizard you're likely to spend most of your spell slots for each level on a few limited spells - so you might as well go sorceror and have the option to choose between them at will. The main advantage a wizard has there is the ability to pick spells that are useful early in the campaign and stop using them later (e.g. Sleep, Chaos, Emotion, and the charm line of spells in BGI/II/Tutu), and in one of the few 3rd edition+ games (NWN1) the sorceror gets to re-pick spells each level anyway.

That's partly the reason why they disappointed me when I saw the sorcerer's abilities; generally, it didn't make much sense to prepare non-combat spells since you needed combat so much more. But the biggest thing -- and this hits clerics and sorcerers as well and also carries over to other games -- is that especially at lower-levels you don't want to cast all of your spells in early encounters because it leaves you with nothing left if you hit something a little harder. But then what do you do in those battles? Add to the fact that some of the most powerful spells can hit your own party members, and add to that the fact that reviving from the dead isn't exactly an easy thing to do, and add to THAT the fact that sometimes you simply can't find any really useful spells to learn, and wizard looks less appealing.




I prefer playing wizards over sorcerors because I prefer having the general versatility (higher INT = more skills, bonus feats, and can prepare and cast most/all spells, depending on specialization) offered by the class, but this is exactly the sort of situation where I'd expect the sorceror to outshine the wizard with its more limited versatility (oxymoron?). As you said, wizards may not prepare those spells either; indeed, a wizard in the throne room situation would have had no reason to prepare those spells. How many of us predicted the appearance of the ghost martyrs? Xykon, as others have pointed out, still has the versatility of being able to use any of his spell selections, but a wizard is at a serious disadvantage when faced with a sudden, unexpected situation like that without a chance to prepare (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html).


Don't get me wrong; the sorcerer's ability to cast ANY spell that they know to the maximum amount of spells they can cast is indeed a powerful component of their class. There's nothing wrong with being a sorcerer. But the wizard can build spell templates, and the sorcerer can't, so there IS some flexibility involved.

As for a wizard in the throne room, the main point I'd make is that a wizard going into a battle situation might stock up on any damaging spells they knew ... which could include more powerful ones that hurt astral entities just because they know it and had some spell slots for it. A sorcerer can't do that (generally). Whether they do or not depends on the wizard and the situation.


As far as diplomacy goes, I'd think that most of the time a sorceror is at an advantage regardless of spell preparations due to the much higher CHA modifier. Though this depends heavily on lots of little factors such as how high-/low- magic the campaign is (does the sorceror in the party get CHA+8 items or CHA+2 items), how the wizard's spent hir extra skill points, the DM's choice whether X and Y stack, etc. The wizard will likely have more benefit from extra points in Knowledge (Whatever) skills in other dialogue situations, though.

True enough; I forgot that sorcerer's main ability was Charisma. That being said, think of any case where the spells are non-combat (or even non-damaging) and you can see that the inability to build a template going into a situation can be a major disadvantage.

[Jasdoif]

A wizard does best if they have some forewarning of what's coming, to prepare the perfect spell for the situation. A sorcerer doesn't have the luxury of knowing all the "perfect in the right situation" spells due to their limit on spells known, so a sorcerer needs to rely on more well-rounded spells.

When it comes to those general purpose spells, however, a wizard has a bit more difficulty then a sorcerer. A wizard has to decide many of each to prepare, whereas the sorcerer can simply decide when they cast the spell. A sorcerer has more spells per day then a wizard (though they get spell levels a class level behind a wizard), so a sorcerer often has the advantage when it comes to general spells.

A sorcerer can use scrolls, wands, etc. as easily as a wizard can, so this doesn't contribute a notable difference between the two.

A wizard has an advantage with metamagic though, as actions in combat are highly valuable for any character, and a sorcerer needs to take up more of them to use metamagic feats. A wizard also gets those bonus feats for metamagic.


And this sometimes escapes notice, but wizards aren't required to prepare all their spells at the same time: They can leave some spell slots "open", and prepare spells in them later in the day, at the mere cost of taking 15 minutes to one hour to do so. A wizard still needs knowledge of what's ahead to make the best use of them, but they don't necessarily need to know at the beginning of the day.

[GoC]

Wizards have one glaring weakness that a lot of people don't seem to notice. I think Dm play style may hide it in a lot of campaigns.

I find wizards, at the end of the day, have too many uncast spells. Their power is supposed to be in tailoring the spells they choose each day to the situation. Unfortunately, in the morning when they memorize those spells, more than 50% of the time, they shouldn't know what situation they are going to face that day. Consequently, they face on a daily basis the same problem as the sorcerer at chraacter creation: that is, what spells does the wizard predict will be the most useful. The time scale is different, but the decision is not. The wizard winds up taking the most commonly useful spells, which are the spells the sorcerer would wind up taking.

If most of those spells wind up not being very useful, the Wizard winds up at the end of the day with uncast spells. The sorcerer, on the other hand, can cast that one useful spell over and over again, burning out on that one selection. Thus, the Sorcerer rarely fails to cast every spell in his arsenal, but the wizard can end the day with much uncast.

I've played a wizard, and watched specfiically for this very thing. I have been in that situation, ending the day with only 1/10th of my spells cast, while the Cleric has burned out on healing.

To me, it's a no-brainer. For a PC, the Sorcerer is the only way to go. The math for the wizard just doesn't work out. To make use of that flexibility, they need foreknowledge, and most of the time, you're walking into a situation blind. It is very rare that the Sorcerer that selects commonly useful spells will not be just as powerful against the unknown as the wizard, and so that vaunted flexibility avails them not at all.

Try creating scrolls and wands.
Wizards only REALLY hit godlike at epic levels though.:smallwink:

[Tharr]

The big question is what reserve feats do you have because they never take away spells used in the game.

[Kreistor]

Try creating scrolls and wands.

The formula for both of these is X*SL*CL, where X is 25 for scrolls and 750 for wands. I'm going to ignore wands, since you can't make one of SL>4 anyway, which at higher level is completely useless due to low DC. To make one scroll, you pay half in cash and 1/25th in exp. Let's worry about the exp costs. The formula for SL is SL=2*CL-1. So, the cost of a scroll is proportional to CL squared.

The experience you require for a level is (SUM(1 to CL))*1000. In other words, the next level requires X*1000 experience. Since the cost of a scroll is proportional to X*X and a level only X, then the exp cost of scroll compared to the experience needed for the next level increases. You're paying a higher percentage of your next level for a spell of the appropriate level. A SL1, CL1 a scroll costs 1/1000th of your exp for L2. For CL9, SL17, you pay 9/1000 of your exp. That cost ramps up very quickly, BTW. It doubles at L3, triples at L5, and so on. That halves the number of scrolls you can make before falling a level behind the rest of the team in only two levels.

Over a long term campaign, that exp adds up. Wands may be cheaper per cast, but the odds of using a wand 50 times in 4 levels is minimal, consequently, much of the exp invested in those is lost.

I can agree with your analysis, if the campaign is short, since the exp cost is more or less hidden by the fact you don't actually get to see others level before you.

But, in the end, my analysis of wands and scrolls comes to this: the DC is low, very low, and so their effectiveness is minimal. A SL1 scroll DC is 11, but the PC's DC can be 16 fairly easily. That is a huge difference in effectiveness. Doing something is not the same as being effective.