Is Forum Logic overly in love with prepared casters? (Baldur's Gate 1&2 Sample Data)

[Endarire]

Intro
Greetings, all!

I've played D&D 3.x since the 3.0 books were hot off the presses at GenCon 2000, but I've studied the rules far more. Much or most of this was from forums - handbooks, discussions, etc. Now that I've played D&D more since then (including lots of D&D video games of varying editions), and noticed how people playing Pathfinder 1e seemed to prefer to play spontaneous casters over prepared casters despite the 1 level tax/penalty/delay on all spell levels of 2-9, I became curiouser and curiouser: In practice, what matters more (spontaneous or prepared) and why?

The Arcane Experiment
I conducted an experiment by playing Baldur's Gate II with a Fighter (Kensai) dual classed to Wizard (who effectively acted as a Wizard for the BG2 portion of my run, complete with prepared casting) and another run done as a pure Sorcerer. No spell swapping was allowed in this case, meaning whatever I chose, I had to use. (One notable exception was using a save editor to change a spell known since the Enhanced Editions of the games 'fixed' the sunfire spell and made it subject to spell resistance, but that was all.)

In each case, I played to the EXP cap which put me as a level 31 Sorcerer and a Fighter (Kensai)13/Wizard28. (I played a Sor first.) I discovered just how burdensome spell preparation felt when I beat Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition for the first time as this Kensai/Wizard. Sure, I could know every spell in the game a Wizard could learn, and I at least came close to doing so, but smart spell selection and use were key to victory in each case. Scrolls, potions, and wands were common enough that I could use them to supplement whatever spells I knew or had prepared. Nevermind that as a Sorcerer Sorcerer I felt like a poser when I was awarded my Planar Sphere stronghold at the end of a quest chain, and didn't feel that way when I finished this quest chain as a Fighter/Wizard.

The Baldur's Gate games are normally long with tens or hundreds of hours of content in each game if you do everything. (In each case, I did all the optional quests except for some NPC-specific quests in chapters 2 and 3 before progressing to chapter 4.) In theory, my Kensai/Wizard was better because it didn't need to cast spells as much due to having 13 Fighter levels, and there were plenty of times I didn't cast spells because it was faster to auto-attack stuff, but guessing what spells would be most useful that day as well as long term (since I didn't like changing my spell preparations often) was nowhere near as satisfying in the long-term as playing "Superman" as one person put it and just spontaneously casting what I wanted.

A significant concern for me was that time spent swapping spells at first made me feel smart because I was adapting, then more burdensome since I missed the spontaneity of a Sorcerer. I only realized how useful consumables were when I started using them as my Fighter/Wizard because I had horded these things, realized I was pretty close to the end of the game, and started using my stash. I never got close to depleting it.)

Once the Enhanced Editions were available, I also ran characters through Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition since it included the Sorcerer class. (Wizards were included since the original BG1's 1998 release.) At lowish levels (1-9), Wizards were more favorable. They had fewer spell slots than Sors, but their day-by-day repertoire flexibility mattered more. It was quite possible to accidentally be a one-trick pony or feel useless as a Sor if you didn't do the research on the best spells, and you had to seriously consider your character's end level since learning spells with saves could work well in BG1 but not in BG2 since foes there very reliably passed their saves. With a level cap for Wizards and Sors of 9, Wizards also got access to level 5 spells in BG1 whereas Sors only got level 4 spells. (Oddly, Wizards were able to cast level 6, 7, 8, and 9 spells starting at the same level as Sors, reducing their relative advantage, though that's a minor point since I've only rarely played tabletop characters in any D&D edition past level 6. This was also primarily a Baldur's Gate II thing.)

Sorcerers had another advantage in the Baldur's Gate series: They could learn any spell of any level they could cast. Wizards got 0 free spells per level past character creation (with the exception of 'epic' or high-level abilities starting at 3 million EXP or level 18, just like Sors), forcing Wizards to find all scrolls of spells they could cast.

Now, I understand this experiment was done with a small sample size of just me in a fixed environment of Baldur's Gate II. This game series focuses on exploration and dungeon crawling, not intrigue, camping, base building, nor certain other things that are available in the D&D system. However, the BG series was intentionally made to feel as close as possible to a real tabletop campaign, and just like in these video games, tabletop has certain top-tier spells and abilities that seem like obvious picks to pick, or that are generally useful overall when you don't know what to expect.

D&D 3.x Experience
Baldur's Gate since the 90s influenced me heavily to be a Wizard in D&D 3.0 when I played in my first non-convention campaign. I didn't like needing to call every shot (that is, prepare every spell) then or now, but I kept playing Wizards instead of Sors with rare exceptions because Wizards got higher level spells sooner, and because Wizards Abrupt Jaunt, bonus feats, and generally better class features than Sors. Considering that various campaigns I played started at level 1 and ended at level 3 or 4 (and, again, rarely went beyond level 6), having higher spell levels and probably more spell slots overall was mechanically a great boon, but I eventually felt like I was forcing myself to play Wizards without enjoying them as much as I should have because I didn't like feeling penalized. If the people on the forums thought prepared casters were more worth playing than spontaneous casters due to higher tiering and generally more praise, I should just listen, right? I only learned later that forum logic often focused on the theoretical view of acting perfectly instead of focusing on my preferences.

Now, I understand why forum logic exists: We need a common basis for evaluating and suggesting things. It's also a forum, and we want to talk about something: That's why we're here! Dwelling on the possibility of power is often more appealing to theorycrafting and dreaming than the likely reality of what people face. Being able to change what spells you have available to you every time you prepare spells (normally daily) can be a huge boon, but, at least in my experience, people don't play that way. They pick a certain number of favorite spell preps on a near-daily basis (like grease and enlarge person every day on a Wizard) and might swap out a spell or two per spell level to do something different (like preparing color spray one day and magic missile the next). In short, prepared casting focuses on what you can be while spontaneous casting tells you more of what you are.

In 3.x, I've played or thoroughly made Druids, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, Psions, and other character classes. Only after playing a Druid from level 1-11 did I realize the power of spontaneously-cast spells. Being able to transform a spell slot into something that would likely be useful in most circumstances was wonderful, and I used it occasionally since I liked buffs. Yes, Druids are spiffy for reasons in addition to their spells. Likewise with Clerics. Still, Wizards and Sors are primarily what spells they know and have available to cast at any moment, and a bad spell pick for today for a Wizard or for much longer for a Sor is painful. Yes, in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder 1e and probably many other games, there are generally useful, generally optimal spells that people are normally assumed to get soon after they become available: Research matters in-game as it does elsewhere.

3.x consumables are still useful if done properly, and, in short, my Red Hand of Doom experience varied greatly between a high-powered group that generally plowed through content with little difficulty and a purposefully low-powered group that barely made it through the module, having spent an uncomfortably high amount of in-game currency in my opinion on consumables. (Perhaps 10,000G+ for the group.)

Conclusion
There's more than one way to play any edition of D&D, and I felt that spontaneous casting is the better, more fun, and more convenient way to handle casting. WotC eventually implemented spontaneous casting of sorts as standard for every casting class in D&D 5e, at least in the 5e PHB. (Prepared casters chose a certain number of spells/spell levels to prepare and cast them spontaneously. Fully spontaneous casters remained fully spontaneous with limited numbers of spells known.) Actively using forums and heeding their advice drastically influenced how I played D&D, and I sometimes listened to others more than myself even when it hurt for the sake of making or playing something better.

Disclaimers
Explaining Baldur's Gate mechanics or D&D 5e in great detail also aren't main the points of this thread beyond what I've already shared.

[Aharon]

I don't think BG reflects the PnP experience, not does it, IMO, intend to. The bhaalspawn has tons of combat, far more than what would be enjoyable to resolve sitting at a table and rolling dice.
Actually, the way enemies work in BG (and in NWN), favour builds that have high endurance/staying power, so I think that maybe a reason why sorcerer is preferable in those games - the extra spell slots do add up.

[tuesdayscoming]

Hi, Endarire! Nothing I'll say here is new, but I hope I can offer a (somewhat) concise restatement of the 3.5 wizard ethos.

Since you've posted this on the 3.5 forums, I'll comment specifically on 3.5 (which Baldur's Gate 1/2 notably ISN'T).

From the information you've cited, the main advantages of spontaneous casters (in BG) seem to be 1) free spells known at level up; 2) reduced bookwork from not needing to choose spells, and 2(a) being able to turn any spell slot into the thing you need RIGHT NOW.

In 3.5, point 1) simply doesn't factor in. Wizards ALSO learn spells known at each level up, and have a number of options to increase the number learned for free. As in BG, wizards also have the unique option to learn MORE spells than sorcerers ever could, simply by expending GP.

Points 2) and 2(a) do, admittedly, have a STRONG impact on the wiz/sorc divide in 3.5. However, if one is willing to do the bookwork, the ability to be a completely different style of caster each day is compelling. Granted, 2(a) is a HUGELY attractive part of being a sorcerer. If it weren't for that, frankly I'd say there was simply no reason to play a sorcerer at all.

You also seem to have largely ignored, despite acknowledging, the fact that 3.5 sorcerers have delayed access to new spell levels, which (apparently) BG sorcerers do not. This is a positively MASSIVE detriment; after all, you yourself pointed out that most games don't last very far beyond the first few levels of play.

Aditionally, players at a tabletop are often able to "think outside the box" and predict their next adventuring days' activities (or, for that matter, use divination magic) better than characters in most DND videogames. In those situations, wizards are able to shift their spells accordingly. To use your analogy: if you learn that the enemies you'll face tomorrow are carrying kryptonite, you don't want to be Superman. As a Wizard, you can choose to be Batman instead. As a Sorcerer? Well... you're still Superman.

Ultimately, though, I think it's simply a matter of playstyle. Yes, if you're going to prepare the SAME handful of spells every day (because it's convenient, simpler, or because you simply like the challenge of creatively using your limited tools), then BY ALL MEANS, the Sorcerer is likely your better option. But for those who enjoy bookwork, make ample use of divination, or simply want to experiment with as many options as possible, the wizard is the more flexible option by far.

[Kayblis]

The analysis was pretty in-depth, but it lacks the thing that usually characterizes the discussion - Pacing.

Pacing is how a game moves players around, how it informs decisions, and how it defines what works and what doesn't. Videogames, specially the Baldur's Gate series and others inspired in D&D, have a very fast combat pace, because all rolls are dealt in the background by the computer. This makes fights last very little in real time. This, by consequence, makes each combat encounter feel short. The solution? Tabletop-inspired videogames have tons of encounters, many many more than any common table sees between rests. This is also why you feel your characters are kinda frail and fragile in these games, even though stat-wise they're the same as your tanky character that outlasted the last BBEG 1v1 in your RL game.

The result here is that staying power is much more of a concern in these games, and the big, planned, encounter-ending spells/combos you can pull off in the tabletop game are just "one of 10 combats for today" in the videogames. As a comparing point, imagine a level 10 Wizard(or Sorc, almost the same effect). In a real table, this Wizard should be flinging spells every round, and he's expected to do so unless the battle is already won. In Baldur's Gate, that same Wizard sits in the back firing his crossbow 80% of the time, only casting something to buff or when the player goes "oh shoot I need a spell for that guy". This is what you have to give up in order to have D&D work with such a different medium.

Then there's the fact that you're constrained by the limitations of the game's code. If you want to scare the bandits away and they don't have the dialog or interaction for it, you're out of luck. If you want to collapse the ceiling but there's no code for it, you're out of luck. If you want to summon something from outside the base books, or do something that requires gathering information unrelated to a plot point, or go somewhere new the story doesn't take into account, you're always out of luck. Sounds like an obivous thing, but this severely limits the power of the prepared casters, who usually have ways to call on unplanned creatures and special interactions out of the script. If all combat encounters are DPS rushes, the classes more suited to DPS rush will perform better overall, and that's what you saw with your Sorcerer vs Wizard experiment. Sorcerers get more Fireballs per day, so they have an easier time. If here's no change to the game as long as the enemy is dead in the end, then killing them faster is a better way to progress.

For TTRPG comparisons, the thing is almost no table is at the level of Forum discussions. If 'ubercharger' is low/mid-op here, pretty much all tables with players from outside forums are no-op. In these environments, having a decent spell can be considered 'overpowered', while having a better spell but with no direct damage results may be considered 'useless'. In these tables, spontaneous casting is really better, because the players aren't willing to go to a different source just to get spells, and they don't want to waste the time to re-pick their spells if they turn out to be bad. Spontaneous casting is functional, you get a handful of spells and can fling them X times per day, pick the ones you like and go wild. It has nothing to do with actual power or potential power.

[Particle_Man]

And there is a spectrum. Clerics and Druids have a spontaneous options for all of their non-domain spells. At the far end, beyond Sorcerer, there is the Warlock, that can use any one of their known invocations every waking round of their lives, with far less paperwork than even the sorcerer. And then there is the Psion/Wilder, who have their powers based on Power Points (much closer to video games than spell slots). I think the Psion gets the best of both worlds since they also are not delayed a power level and yet have more spontaneity between known powers than Sorcerers have between known spells.

And Wizards also have the "wait 15 minutes, I got this" option of leaving a spell slot blank for later. It doesn't have to be a "wait one day, I got this" thing.

[Maat Mons]

One reason people Pathfinder players may prefer spontaneous casters is that Pathfinder was more generous with spells know... sort of. The baseline Pathfinder Sorcerer get 34 non-cantrip spells known, same as the 3.5 Sorcerer. But the Pathfinder Sorcerer could use favored class benefits to get an extra 17 non-cantrip spells known. That's exactly 50% more, which is pretty substantial.

Another reason Pathfinder players may prefer spontaneous casters is that Arcanist is spontaneous, but also has the good parts of prepared with none of the anoying parts. You get, at 20th-level, 34 non-cantrip spells "prepared" each day. but it works like 5e prepared casting. You can spontaneously cast any of those as long as you have spell slots left. And every Arcanist takes the Quick Study exploit, which means they can change their spells known throughout the day. So you don't have to predict anything.

There can be a big difference between how powerful something is and how fun it is. Personally, I find spontaneous casters more fun. If you do too, play spontaneous casters. The biggest problem with spontaneous casters is that poor build decisions can screw you over. But I feel that can be mitigated by having someone experienced help you pick build your character. If you have to pick between simple to play and simple to build, well, it's pretty easy to pawn of the building of your character on someone else. It's much harder to pawn off the playing of your character on someone else. You'd need a wig and good makeup skills.

I feel that 5e took a step in the right direction by getting rid of all that nonsense with deciding ahead of time how many times you'll be casting any given spell. On the other hand, they infuriated me by giving Sorcerer a cripplingly-low number of spells known. Only 15 non-cantrips known at 20th level! That's less than half of what you get in 3.5 and less than a third of what you get in Pathfinder. But to add insult to injury, Wizards get 25 non-cantrips prepared at 20th level. Not only do they get to change them every day, but they get more of them!

Now I'm going to express a potentially unpopular opinion. Tier 1 never should have been allowed to exist. Tier 1 means being able to remake yourself every day. No one should be able to do that. It kills verisimilitude if you routinely can't do today the things you could do yesterday. And it kills interclass balance, party roles, and class theme if every important aspect of your class is like Schrodinger's cat, an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of unknown possibilities. Most casters should have been like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, a pre-baked (and good) spell list so you don't have to take much time building them and they're impossible to mess up. Then one generic caster that works like Sorcerer, able to pick their own spells, mixing and matching as they please, but with fewer total spells known than Beguiler or Dread Necromancer.

[Mechalich]

Video games tend to remove many of the spells that most advantage prepared casters from play entirely. One of the biggest advantages of prepared casters is that they can prep an entirely non-combat oriented spell list for use in some secure lair and then switch back to a combat one for adventuring with no loss of efficacy. Spontaneous casters can't do that, which tends to leave very powerful spells with low dungeoneering utility off their lists. Video games may also nerf the functionality of certain spellcasting approaches entirely. Pathfinder: Kingmaker (which is a lot like BG but uses a 3.X ruleset) doesn't allow direct control of summoned creatures. This turns many summoned forms into active hindrances because they'll do things like cast lightning bolt into melee and injure your own party members or run around like crazy and trigger additional combats do to bad pathfinding mechanics.

[Florian]

Video games are no real comparison point. Combats are way faster and so you have a ton more combat, that changes quite a lot around.

I think the main point is, that the OP nearly never went above 7th level.

Spells-known caster must basically stick with a best practice loadout of basically the best and most flexible spells around, covering the rest with scrolls and such.

Prepared casters can chose their loadout, depending on what they think is most useful for the day. Off to the Dungeon? Combat stuff. Exploring the countryside? Mix of travel and combat stuff. Here the second advantage comes into it. You don't have to fill all spell slots for the day. Major trap ahead, but no Rogue at hand? Grab your book and either get some summoning going or a Knock spell, all a matter of choice.

It gets a little bit ludicrous in Pathfinder. Grab the Spell Perfection and Rapid Preparation feat trees. The ability to spontaneous convert anything to your fav. combat spell and filling an empty slot in 1 minute make for a rather flexible combination.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A few things.

1. "Forum logic" at this point is based on decades of experience playing the game at the table. It's pretty clear that any PO idea someone brings up has been effectively play-tested many times over at this point. I've personally played plenty of wizards at the table and seen what they can do relative to other classes.

2. Spontaneous casting is nice; it just doesn't trade off well with effectively losing a spell level and the scant spells known. There's a reason PF made up for the latter issue. That said, 3.5 wizards can spontaneously cast with a bit of effort. The most obvious is Spontaneous Divination, and there are feats like Uncanny Forethought or Alacritous Cogitation. Or if it's non-combat versatility you're after you could just leave a spell slot open and prepare it on the spot once you know what you need. Reserve feats deal with the staying power issue.

3. A prep caster could never change his spell list and still be more versatile than a 3.5 sorcerer by virtue of the number of options. The classic mid-op guides (Treantmonk/TLN) in fact focus quite a bit on how to make a good general prepared list, often with multiple functions in one casting (e.g. Alter Self, Glitterdust). This is a relatively low-fuss way to play a wizard which only starts to break down at higher-op levels where everyone is doing more paperwork.

4. Probably the most important: Preferences often have very little to do with power. Playing a wizard does require more day-to-day homework than playing a sorcerer. A class does not necessarily need to be versatile to be fun. That's the one part where the forum is of little help - they can show you how the game works but they can't tell you how you feel. Maybe this is where the pushback is coming from - people will take a descriptive statement like "wizards are more effective at dealing with xyz" and turn it into an imperative like "you should play a wizard." If that's included as part of forum logic then that part is wrong.

[Gavinfoxx]

I would try the experiment in the video game that, to my knowledge, gets D&D 3.X best; Temple of Elemental Evil. You can get it on GOG. Be sure to get the Circle of Eight mod!

[Kelb_Panthera]

The answer to the titular question is an emphatic "YES," though largely not for the reasons you've outlined.

The differences between a CRPG and a TTRPG are too big to discount. I'm sorry but the Baldur's Gate comparison is all but entirely specious because of that.

Now as far as the reality goes, the first problem is how incredibly grossly the one level difference in spell levels gets exaggerated.

Holy crap, people. Does none of you ever even -consider- multiclassing into anything but a full casting prestige class? Of course not. Everyone whose been here a while knows what a gish is and knows they're far from completely discounted as complete garbage next to the prepared caster they're usually based on. One or two levels is regularly considered an acceptable loss for a whole host of things. Greatly enhanced tactical flexibility isn't even worth considering one?

Speaking of flexibility, there's the number two exaggerated difference; spells known. Now with the divine casters, the point is largely fair since their prepared instances don't have spells known. They can draw on the whole list. With arcanists though, it's not that big a gap by default; a wizard gets 41+ starting int spells while a sorcerer gets 34, discounting cantrips for both. That's only 7 spells difference. The wizard can add more on the cheap but a sorcerer can spend money to add to his options too and the simple fact is that the vast majority of spells are crap. That's not even considering the existence of standard wands, staves, and scrolls for covering once-in-a-while effects.

Finally, there's the spontaneous casters' advantage that's simply dismissed as unimportant; greater spell slot count. The argument usually goes that by mid-level either type of caster gets plenty of slots to go all day so the spontaneous casters getting more is irrelevant. Nevermind that means they don't have to be quite as frugal with their spells. Nevermind they last longer on the odd marathon day or meatgrinder campaign.

Then there's some marginal stuff;

Shorter recharge: an hour for prepared and 15 minutes for spontaneous, generally.

Easier use of reserve feats: prepared needs to pick an appropriate spell and then -not- cast it or lose the feat benefit vs spontaneous just needs to know one at his highest level and have a slot remaining, while having more slots.





If you're going to use a play style where you're usually casting the same spells day to day or you have a hard time with resource management, just play a spontaneous caster. The advantages of the prepared casters are real enough but they come at a substantial ease-of-use cost that's hard to justify if you're not taking full advantage of the differences.

[Lazymancer]

... how people playing Pathfinder 1e seemed to prefer to play spontaneous casters over prepared casters despite the 1 level tax/penalty/delay on all spell levels of 2-9, I became curiouser and curiouser: In practice, what matters more (spontaneous or prepared) and why?
Ergonomics matters.

Spontaneous casters (esp. with fixed spell list) are faster/easier to make and play. This is why people are choosing them over prepared casters (esp. arcane). Same logic applies to people choosing Barbarians/Fighters (that are supposed to require less effort to make/play).


... Baldur's Gate ...
I will agree with everyone here. This approach is flawed.

CRPGs are not TTRPGs. You can't use spells in a way they were not programmed to be used. This massively reduces usefulness of many situational spells (that are, effectively, Wizard-only) and, therefore, reduces advantage of Wizard.

Additionally, CRPGs have control over encounters (unlike proper, non-railroady TTRPGs) that game designers leverage to try and make classes more "balanced" (of similar efficiency). This artificially reduces differences between classes.




1. "Forum logic" at this point is based on decades of experience playing the game at the table. It's pretty clear that any PO idea someone brings up has been effectively play-tested many times over at this point.
I feel that "forum logic" suffers from Chinese whispers problem. Ideas get distorted or forgotten, rumours replace opinions of those who had actual experience, while conjectures and myths proliferate. As time passes, it gets harder and harder for general public to separate fact from fiction. Information degrades.

[Khosan]

Just to kind of sum up the major differences in CRPG versus tabletop play.

In BG/NWN/Kingmaker, generally you're missing out on a lot of the major spells that make casters extremely effective, just because implementing them in a way that works is either too much work, too finnicky for players or causes huge systemic issues. Stuff like flight, scrying (for the purposes of the 'scry and die' approach), teleportation, polymorph effects, breaking the economy with fabrication/wall of iron/etc. There's a huge, huge list of spells that just aren't in or are extremely limited if they do make the cut.

Other than that, every encounter can be solved with copious applications of damage die and most can only be solved through that. If it's just a damage race, the difference between a caster and a mundane isn't that pronounced (especially if you're allowed to rest as often as you want), and the mundane even wins out because Xd6 damage per CL per round loses out in the scaling department to multiple attacks per round of something like 1d6+21.

[Tvtyrant]

Wizards are dramatically better at making items and minionmancy, two of the most powerful options in the tabletop. Baldur's Gate doesn't let you bind Pit Fiends, make armies of undead, and makes it difficult to make scrolls relative to the tabletop so the advantages kind of disappear.

I think in most games the differences aren't huge because binding is a hassle, necromancy takes up table time, and item crafting is discouraged. So in practice a Sorcerer just loses a level of spells, in theory they lose a metric ton of stuff.

[Florian]

Wizards are dramatically better at making items and minionmancy, two of the most powerful options in the tabletop. Baldur's Gate doesn't let you bind Pit Fiends, make armies of undead, and makes it difficult to make scrolls relative to the tabletop so the advantages kind of disappear.

I think in most games the differences aren't huge because binding is a hassle, necromancy takes up table time, and item crafting is discouraged. So in practice a Sorcerer just loses a level of spells, in theory they lose a metric ton of stuff.

A while back, a GM I know asked my to babysit a group of newbies for a kingmaker campaign. So I actually got to be a player and have the option to go all-out if needed.

So I brought a Tiefling Wizard/Blackfire Adept/Diabolist with a focus on Shadow Magic and Summoning/Calling to the table.

Oh boy.... Even a slight amount of system mastery is enough to break nearly any game. Pit Fiends are for beginners, the "fun" starts when you can call in stuff like Hastur as a foul round action without fail.

[Thunder999]

In CRPGs there's fewer spells in total (so you don't need as many spells known to grab all the ones you want), most of the situational and noncombat stuff ones are missing (and being able to decide that you're ditching most of your combat spells for all sorts of powerful noncombat options and downtime spells is a big strength of prepared casting) andthat since the only real encounters you ever face are "kill the enemy before they kill you" then buffs and blasting are all that you'd want anyway, you never need to dimensional anchor the demon so he doesn't just teleport away as soon as the fight starts going poorly, you don't get to fly over a wall etc.

[Zanos]

I think the discrepancy is overblown, but only because people often don't leverage the extreme versatility of wizards in PnP play.

Consider that a sorcerer will (usually) specialize in spells that are relevant at keeping himself and his party alive in dungeons, and therefore often has a very limited spell selection when it comes to things that don't involve dungeon delving or combat, since there is a substantial opportunity cost for a sorcerer to learn non-combat spells. On the other hand, after returning from a tough dungeon dive, the party might take a few weeks off to enjoy the spoils, rest, commission magic items, etc. A wizard can spend this time using animate dead to supplement the party with 4xCL HD in disposable melee combatants, planar binding to bargain or coerce powerful outsiders to fighting or performing other tasks on the parties behalf, wall of stone, shape metal, wall of iron, stone shape, mage's private sanctum, etc. to build a concealed and defensible personal home, tower or fortress. He can use divination spells like contact other plane or probe thoughts to get information about the parties opponents in their next adventure to better tailor his spell selection and provide the party with tactical and strategic advice. He can use permanency to expend some XP to create some (admittedly limited) permanent effects on himself, others, or a location he wants to defend. He can use suspension to create a floating barge to fly to party to locations they haven't yet been, and teleport to quickly transport the party to known locations. With some minor preparation time, likely aided by divination, he can bypass challenges that would often require another class through the use of spells like knock, detect secret doors, arcane sight, invisibility, etc. Furthermore, the wizard is never crippled by his spell selections permanently. If the parties primary enemies change from humanoids vulnerable to dominate person to demons, he can very easily start preparing banishment instead.

While a sorcerer can do all of these things individually, a wizard can do them all on different days with a much lower opportunity cost, usually a handful of GP to add a spell to his spellbook. While wizard PCs are not often played this way many wizard NPCs actually do behave in this manner, and I have seen smart wizard PCs also played in this fashion. The issue is that it's hard for the player and requires a lot of effort and game knowledge. In any case, this doesn't translate well to CRPGs because it drastically breaks open the range of actions the developers need to account for; most CRPGs are not sandboxes where you can spend a month casting wall of iron to build a badass metal castle.

When I have attempted to play wizards this way I've encountered a lot of resistance from DMs, despite NPCs in their own setting behaving this way. Thou shalt not touch the DMs toys, I suppose.

[icefractal]

I've found "prepare the perfect spells for this day's foes" to seldom happen in practice, due to the fact that multiple days of scouting/divining per single day of adventuring is rarely possible - either due to the IC timeline or the other players getting bored. When I play prepared casters I've got a standard load-out, and 90% of the time that's what I'm going with.

That said, the ability to have a separate set of spells for downtime can be huge, depending on campaign. Not so much in a linear one, but in a looser one where PCs are also trying to build up power and influence outside of the dungeon, having a full set of spells for that purpose is great.

Of course at high-level / high-op, spontaneous casters can do that too - Limited Wish -> Psychic Reformation, for example. But as a prepared caster you can do that from the beginning, and without any special tricks.

[Maat Mons]

Oh yes, magic item crafting. I forgot to mention that when I was talking about Sorcerers in Pathfinder getting a nicer deal than Sorcerers in 3.5.

Pathfinder decided to give everyone the ability to ignore the prerequisites for crafting magic items... with a few exceptions. You can't ignore the required item creation feat. And you can't ignore prerequisites for potions, spell trigger items, or spell completion items.

So Pathfinder Sorcerers still won't be taking Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand, or Craft Staff. But they can take Craft Wondrous Item and use it just as effectively as a Wizard.

[Jack_Simth]

Oh yes, magic item crafting. I forgot to mention that when I was talking about Sorcerers in Pathfinder getting a nicer deal than Sorcerers in 3.5.

Pathfinder decided to give everyone the ability to ignore the prerequisites for crafting magic items... with a few exceptions. You can't ignore the required item creation feat. And you can't ignore prerequisites for potions, spell trigger items, or spell completion items.

So Pathfinder Sorcerers still won't be taking Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand, or Craft Staff. But they can take Craft Wondrous Item and use it just as effectively as a Wizard.

Not quite as effectively - Wizards have an easier time with the Spellcraft checks. Sure, there's ways to boost it, but that still costs the Sorcerer more.

[Ignimortis]

Conclusion
There's more than one way to play any edition of D&D, and I felt that spontaneous casting is the better, more fun, and more convenient way to handle casting. WotC eventually implemented spontaneous casting of sorts as standard for every casting class in D&D 5e, at least in the 5e PHB. (Prepared casters chose a certain number of spells/spell levels to prepare and cast them spontaneously. Fully spontaneous casters remained fully spontaneous with limited numbers of spells known.) Actively using forums and heeding their advice drastically influenced how I played D&D, and I sometimes listened to others more than myself even when it hurt for the sake of making or playing something better.


More fun and convenient? Pretty much, as those are subjective and I myself agree. Better? Quite questionable. CRPGs put a very heavy focus on combat, but almost none on non-combat interactions which you can influence with your abilities. Even Elder Scrolls, which is a non-D&D game (for those who are unaware), handles non-combat magic application better (though less and less so in recent games) — there used to be (in Morrowind) levitation, charming people, unlocking doors with magic, detecting keys or enemies, etc. Even Skyrim has a "find the path" magical ability.

CRPGs, however, are limited by their levels and scripted interactions a lot. Have you ever used a Fly spell in Baldur's Gate? No, because it's just not there. There's no Teleport, either, only short-range teleportation spells. Why? Because they have little to no purpose in an isometric CRPG which is heavily constrained by level design. Neverwinter Nights also has no Fly spell, etc, etc.

Furthermore, the aforementioned focus on combat means that classes with less versatility can shine very well by just picking a few different damage spells. Fireball is always almost a good option, unlike in tabletop games. You also cannot just save-or-suck an enemy with something like Charm Monster, because there's objective time and a closed location, which means that the charmed enemy will rejoin combat at some point, because you will have combat in the next five minutes instead of next day or even next hour, when you've left them a long way behind.

So prepared casters, whose greatest strength is their versatility, suffer a lot, because most of their tricks aren't even on the table, it's all about damage and surviving damage in CRPGs, not solving the issue of the day which might not even involve combat. Spontaneous casters get stronger precisely because of this — they're better at specialization, and if you need damage, a sorcerer will always have some.

[Zanos]

I've found "prepare the perfect spells for this day's foes" to seldom happen in practice, due to the fact that multiple days of scouting/divining per single day of adventuring is rarely possible - either due to the IC timeline or the other players getting bored. When I play prepared casters I've got a standard load-out, and 90% of the time that's what I'm going with.
In general people play this way but it varies greatly by DM what is more effective. Usually the foes the parties find themselves up against on a day to day basis will be relatively consistent. If you're fighting devils on one day of an adventure, it's pretty unlikely you're going to be fighting plants the next. If you just have a DM that rolls on a random encounter table, then sure. Of course, wizards do have the advantage that they can also prepare spells that are good against generic foes rather than specific ones if they don't know what they're up against.

[Endarire]

Wow! What a load of responses! This is my response for now.

To clarify certain things, I'm well aware Baldur's Gate games are adapted from AD&D 2e, whereas this forum and most my tabletop experience has been with D&D 3.x.

In Baldur's Gate, Wizards are one character level ahead of Sorcerers in terms of spell levels from character levels 3 to 10, after which Wizards and Sors gain spell levels at the same time (levels 12, 14, 16, and 18).

I agree that pacing is a significant part of the game, tabletop or video. I used Baldur's Gate as my main example since I have the most experience with it, and it's a rare D&D video game that spans from level 1 to 20+. I've finished and modded Temple of Elemental Evil. (I'm the author of the Ronald Rinnwrathi NPC in the Circle of 8 mod, among other things.) With the small amount I've played of Sors in ToEE, the situation is similar: They get better later (around double digit levels) once they have ample spells known. Wizards still get bonus craft/metamagic feats.

One point no one has explicitly mentioned is how consumables can cover a caster's weaknesses or just give extra stamina, thereby slightly reducing the Sor/Wiz power difference.

I only recall one campaign where we were significantly encouraged to swap between combat and non-combat spell preps, and that was as my Druid11. It happened only once after a campaign climaxing-battle (but not the end of the campaign, only about the expected mid point) where we were rebuilding the town we had been rushing to save and help over the past 2 or so years out of game. A distant second place was fortifying the town for Red Hand of Doom before it was besieged.

Writing and reading these posts has reminded me that, to me at least, Sors get better at higher levels due to less bookkeeping and having enough spells known/options to cover most situations. Having played a D&D 3.5 Wizard from level 1 to level 21 (with some levels in between skipped due to plot), spell preps were largely the same on a day-to-day basis with minor circumstantial adjustments.

I wrote the original post at least in part to reconcile what I'd head/read, especially on forums, and the different reality I experienced while playing. I also felt the strong urge to share.

Thankee!

[newguydude1]

i play bg2 as sorcerer because you get more spells per day, dont need to hunt for spells therefore getting ultimate spells early in the game instead of in the last act, and theres like only 3 spells per level thats useful. also you hit max level really early.

i play tt as wizard because 1 level is several months of gameplay, and there are a lot of high level spell combos like surge of fortune and planar binding. wizard can get both at level 10 with wyrm wizard. sorcerer needs 12. two whole levels which is almost half a year of gameplay before i get what i want to do.

comparing the two is wrong.
bg2 waiting a level is not a big deal, theres only a handful of useful spells. i used planetar to kill everything and spell trap and project image to never rest again. theres nothing else you need to do.
tt waiting a level is a hellish hell. you also rarely hit max level and game ends soon. so the goal is getting everything as early as possible.

[ciopo]

I'd like to point out that consumables in the tabletop are nowhere near as commonly found "just lying around" as they are in the computer games, and in nowhere near the same quantity when they are found at all.

Sure, a gm might put a bunch of potions of water breathing in the first room of an aquatic dungeon.... and we will promptly be happy that the druid/cleric/wizard/whathaveyou prepared a water breathing (because that's an acquatic dungeon we are going in, d'uh!) and those potions that were there in the module book "just in case the party didn't have water breathing capabilities" suddenly becomes that much more valuable "hey! these things are worth THAT much!? sold!" Because 750gp per potion is a LOT of money for a <7 character.

Personal experience, I find myself changing around spells on my druid pretty much every "change of scenery", "tomorrow we have a social encounter where we suspect there might be an ambush, linked perception!" "we have to travel overland for a weekish and it's winter? mass snowshoes!" "got to venture to a fire attuned demiplane? I sure am happy that I can just prepare mass resist energy and not burn 375gp buying a scroll", the only consumables i don't sell/actually buy are those that have in combat or between combats application, i.e. lesser restoration or emergency frontloaded healing, maybe a remove curse/disease/poison but that is already stretching it a bit

[Florian]

I only recall one campaign where we were significantly encouraged to swap between combat and non-combat spell preps, and that was as my Druid11. It happened only once after a campaign climaxing-battle (but not the end of the campaign, only about the expected mid point) where we were rebuilding the town we had been rushing to save and help over the past 2 or so years out of game. A distant second place was fortifying the town for Red Hand of Doom before it was besieged.

I think this is the major point and source of misunderstanding here.

A lot of the more well-executed campaigns tend to radically shift their focus around along the story. That naturally changes the composition of the encounters, their frequency and types.

Basically, when your campaign is mostly a chain of combat encounters taking place in front of changing backgrounds, then flexibility gains you nothing.

Let´s consider a different approach:
Act I: You wake up in the cells of an asylum, which is under siege by dream creatures.
Act II: Visit the nearest town and find out what is going on.
Act III: Explore the nearby swamp
Act IV: Travel to the next metropolis by river barge.
... and so on.

In essence: I = Dungeon Crawl, II = Murder Mystery, III = Hex Crawl, IV = Social.

So while yes, combat is to be expected, this being D&D/Pathfinder, the main focus switches around for each Act.

[Martin Greywolf]

Baldur's Gate series is a poor substitute for any real campaign, and for two huge, massive reasons:

1. Only place you use spells in BG is battle

Even ingoring repeat playthrough where you know what enemy is where, there is absolutely zero reason behind preparing, say, divination spells. You have no mysteries, no investigations, no finding out clues, no social encounters that are done via DnD mechanics, all of that happens in dialogue. There is no way for you to use something like Glibness or scrying, both of which are immensely useful.

Worse than that, because BG is a realtively old computer game, you can't really do much with environment - no assembling furniture into makeshift barricades, no hiding in places and so on. Invisibility is absolutely useless in BG outside of very, very few specific scenarios.

That means the list of potentially useful spells dvindles enormously, and your starting list of spells is small to begin with. There are no splatbooks, no immediate actions, hell, no free actions either. About the only non-combat spell that sees regular use is Identify, and that can be bought from shops, handled by bards, or in BG2 replicated with a bought item.

2. Baldur's Gate is very, very easy

You know how demiliches are supposed to be incredibly hard to put down? Kangaxx can be defeated by a starting level srocerer with a single scroll and Melf's minute meteors. While he's the most extreme example, other enemies are little better. Pathfinding is not great, and their spell selection is only rarely anything threatening.

Once you learn one single trick - specifically that Lower resistance can make resistances go into the negatives - not only thing like dragons will be able to stop you.

Conclusions

With heavily limited amount of useful spells to learn nad low difficulty, it shouldn't be a sruprise: sorcerers are as powerful as wizards, because once you kill your opposition, there is little point in killing them harder. All those advantages wizard offers you don't really manifest because they are far too much overkill, and that leaves you with two classes able to do about the same, one of which is easier to bookkeep.

[Kayblis]

Consumables in videogames are hoardable stuff, you easily get to midgame with 100+ potions of the first few tiers and tons of scrolls you're not using. That's because these items have little value when sold, and you have a massive inventory space. Videogames limit gear by zone, or "how far into the game you are". You can't reliably do this in a TTRPG if you want an actual living world. No one in a TTRPG carries 500 consumables on their person 'just in case', because finding stuff is usually rare and you have better uses for the money. Sure, the Sorcerer can buy a Water Breathing scroll 'just in case', but if he does that for all spells he might need, he's spending most of his money on it instead of getting actually useful stuff, like MM rods.

The analysis is flawed because it assumes a very low bar for the game. If your game is basically "go here, combat, meet an NPC, combat, deliver a message, prepare for combat, follow the tracks for more combat", you're playing a level 5 game. Even if your character sheet shows "Sorcerer 18" in the level field, even if you roll with +30 to hit, you're playing a level 5 game with big numbers. This is the CRPG domain. Most people never go beyond that, and that's not a bad thing, but if your campaign gets to a point you actually have freedom and a need to plan, you'll soon find out that "Fireball" is not a preparation tool. If you spent all your spells in combat and buffs, you'll see your Sorcerer incapable of helping unless he drops a buttload of cash into overpriced Knowstones and needed scrolls. Note how you can contribute, but it costs you tons and has nothing to do with your class, you could be a Rogue with UMD at that point. This is not irrelevant, this is a big point of comparison for the classes - how far above the baseline you are.

That higher level of play is the game the forums actually assume, so the big difference is here. You don't actually need help if you're playing a basic game, because at its 'hardest' it's just number crunch. The interesting part, the kind of game people discuss here, is the game that gives you freedom and lets you use the tools you have to the fullest. That's why "Forum culture" seems detached from tables you've played, your table isn't actually the same kind of game the Forums talk about.