Compared to 3.5e/Pathfinder, why play a sorcerer over a wizard in 5e?

[MonkeySage]

This is something I don't understand- not only do they know way fewer spells, but it seems like they can't cast as often as wizards can- while the number of spells they could cast per day was one of their strengths in previous editions.

They can cast more often than wizards, in addition to not needing to prepare spells in advance.

Pathfinder 2e seems to have the same problem with sorcerers....

So yeah... Why play a sorcerer when they don't get more spell slots?

[clash]

It is generally agreed that the sorcerer class is lacking in 5e compared to the wizard. It has a smaller spell list to choose from and it gets way less spells known. There are a few reasons to still play one though
- sorcerers get meta magic
- charisma is a stronger primary stat then intelligence
- they have constitution save proficiency which is needed for concentration
- they have some unique themes
- divine soul gets access to cleric spells

Those are probably the only reasons I can think of. Is it enough? Probably not. Should also note that new subclasses get an expanded spell list making them a lot stronger in that department.

[MonkeySage]

Seems like they also only get new spells up to 17th level...

With this many restrictions, i can't see ever choosing sorcerer over wizard here...

This is the first time I've ever seen Bard have a larger number of spells known, and they can choose spells from other lists...

[Psyren]

In theory they get more slots/day if you take sorcery points into account. But, that is perhaps the worst thing to spend your points on, so in practice they end up being much weaker.

It gets compounded by the fact that not only can wizards change their loadout every day, but they don't even need to waste build resources on rituals the way a sorcerer would.

Then you have Bards getting nearly double their spells known, and Warlocks who often match them at the top end and scale up with the number of short rests in a day.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seems like they also only get new spells up to 17th level.
Most games don't get past level 11. (WoTC has taken some surveys, apparently this is still a thing).

With this many restrictions, i can't see ever choosing sorcerer over wizard here...
I agree with your "why does the bard get more spells by the end" assessment. If I were in charge, the sorcerer would have the same spell progression and would get an additional meta magic at level 7.

But I am not in charge.

I have played sorcerers in this edition, but no wizards. (Well, I have played wizards for other players when they can't show up ... so I've played them a bit).

[Telwar]

Aside from other options being stated above, you might not want to play the "switch out spells" minigame that the wizard has. In my current game, it's kind of a pain having to swap my cleric's spells prepared to cover potential situations; granted, it's good that I can, but our divine soul sorcerer in that game certainly doesn't feel like he has a problem with only having a limited spell selection at any one time.

[MonkeySage]

Most games don't get past level 11. (WoTC has taken some surveys, apparently this is still a thing).

Just cause they don't often get past level 11 doesn't mean they can't... Honestly if a DM told me they didn't plan for their campaign to go farther than that, I wouldn't play in that campaign- have a bit of ambition, eh? ^_^

[KorvinStarmast]

Just cause they don't often get past level 11 doesn't mean they can't... Honestly if a DM told me they didn't plan for their campaign to go farther than that, I wouldn't play in that campaign- have a bit of ambition, eh? ^_^ I am hoping that you find a group that can take the game into Tier 4 play (levels 17+).
You are (potentially) limiting your scope and choices, though, if the DMs play published adventures because a lot of them close out around level 11 or 12ish. (early Tier 3).
(Tomb of Annihilation, Storm Kings Thunder come to mind. I think that Princes of the Apocalypse and Temple of Elemental Evil end somewhere in Tier 3).
On the bright side, Against the Giants starts at level 11. :smallbiggrin: (Our group is around level 14/15 but the campaign has been dormant for a few years. Recently the DM said he'd maybe finish it; four of our group, it appears, will be able to rejoin if he does).

[Psyren]

I agree with your "why does the bard get more spells by the end" assessment.

They have more at the beginning too (leveled spells anyway - twice as many as sorc). Sorc gets more cantrips but bards have better things to do anyway.


Just cause they don't often get past level 11 doesn't mean they can't... Honestly if a DM told me they didn't plan for their campaign to go farther than that, I wouldn't play in that campaign- have a bit of ambition, eh? ^_^

Very few published adventures go that high, it has nothing to do with "ambition."

[loki_ragnarock]

This is something I don't understand- not only do they know way fewer spells, but it seems like they can't cast as often as wizards can- while the number of spells they could cast per day was one of their strengths in previous editions.

They can cast more often than wizards, in addition to not needing to prepare spells in advance.

Pathfinder 2e seems to have the same problem with sorcerers....

So yeah... Why play a sorcerer when they don't get more spell slots?

I assume they were included as a nod to Monte Cooke as a way to say: we put almost all the trap options here.

See! System Mastery!

[Mastikator]

Sorcerers have better roleplay flavor IMO and feel more magical. But yeah the sorcerer is extremely inflexible unless you pick the two subclasses Tasha's. I hope the next Person's Something of Everything book contains extra spells for all sorcerer subclasses that miss it.

[Psyren]

Sorcerers have better roleplay flavor IMO and feel more magical. But yeah the sorcerer is extremely inflexible unless you pick the two subclasses Tasha's. I hope the next Person's Something of Everything book contains extra spells for all sorcerer subclasses that miss it.

Yeah they could all use those 10 bonus spells known. Bards should not have more magic than sorcerers, it's crazy.

[Sigreid]

I think for some the appeal is the limited spell selection. They can't do as many different things as other full casters, but they have a far easier time knowing exactly what they can do with their abilities.

[Gtdead]

Sorcerer is a better combat caster. He has native con save proficiency, can become immune to counterspell, quicken can increase his output dramatically, his single target buffs are more efficient thanks to twin. Also compared to pf and 3.5e, he doesn't lag a whole level behind in progression.

The main downside is lack of access to the full arcane spell list (a lot of extremely powerful spells are missing and there's nothing we can do about it) and the reduced amount of spells known (somewhat fixed with tasha's subclasses).

[GentlemanVoodoo]

This is something I don't understand- not only do they know way fewer spells, but it seems like they can't cast as often as wizards can- while the number of spells they could cast per day was one of their strengths in previous editions.

They can cast more often than wizards, in addition to not needing to prepare spells in advance.

Pathfinder 2e seems to have the same problem with sorcerers....

So yeah... Why play a sorcerer when they don't get more spell slots?

It depends on what you want from play style. Thing to remember is both classes play differently where the difference is power vs. variety.

In simplistic and generalist terms the sorcerer is the arcane powerhouse and much more hardier than a wizard depending on lineage choice (like draconic for instance). The meta magic options also allow it to have more ways to use a spell than what a wizard can.

The wizard on the other hand has more versatility in mind and more options of the types of magic it can do. Yes there is the evocation school subclass and the overchannel class feature but these still don't allow the damage potential that a sorcerer can do. I'm not going to mention the bladesinger as that is where the wizard no longer stays a pure caster and becomes a gish.

So it depends on play style choice. Do you want to be the Swiss army knife (wizard) or do you want to be the cannon (sorcerer)?

[MonkeySage]

The big issue i'm seeing is that they can't cast nearly as often as they could in previous editions... I mean, that was part of their appeal in 3.5 especially, they could cast more often than a wizard.

At 20th level, sorcerers could cast 6 spells per day, per level. Wizards could cast 4 spells per day per level.... Though it seems both classes have significantly fewer spells per day in 5e.

[Unoriginal]

This is something I don't understand- not only do they know way fewer spells, but it seems like they can't cast as often as wizards can- while the number of spells they could cast per day was one of their strengths in previous editions.

They can cast more often than wizards, in addition to not needing to prepare spells in advance.

Pathfinder 2e seems to have the same problem with sorcerers....

So yeah... Why play a sorcerer when they don't get more spell slots?


The big issue i'm seeing is that they can't cast nearly as often as they could in previous editions... I mean, that was part of their appeal in 3.5 especially, they could cast more often than a wizard.

Sorcerers are the only ones in 5e who get metamagic, in 5e.

Also, some people prefer the Sorcerer's subclasses to the Wizard's, for various character concepts.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

The big issue i'm seeing is that they can't cast nearly as often as they could in previous editions... I mean, that was part of their appeal in 3.5 especially, they could cast more often than a wizard.

At 20th level, sorcerers could cast 6 spells per day, per level. Wizards could cast 4 spells per day per level.... Though it seems both classes have significantly fewer spells per day in 5e.

That is the thing to remember about 5e, a lot got toned down from 3.5.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorcerers have interesting thematics. Wizards are insanely bland and blah (all their base class features are "I cast more spells" and their class theme is "I have all the power because I'm, like, super smart and stuff.") And their subclasses are...irregularly better at that. The PHB ones are bland as bland; Bladesinger has some theme, but not as much as the sorcerer base class has, let alone the subclasses.

Mechanics aren't everything. In fact, I'd say that mechanics are the smallest thing.

[Witty Username]

I have never understood the sorcerer is better thematically than the wizard argument. Maybe it is a personal taste thing, sorcerer has always read to me as "like wizard, but dumber."

[Psyren]

Sorcerers are the only ones in 5e who get metamagic, in 5e.

*assuming no feats


I have never understood the sorcerer is better thematically than the wizard argument. Maybe it is a personal taste thing, sorcerer has always read to me as "like wizard, but dumber."

I've never even seen this argument. Sorcerer has always been worse, the gap is just larger in 5e than it was in 3e (and possibly even 4e?)

[cZak]

The limit of spells known is major heartburn. I'd wish the conversion ratio of sorcery points & spell slots was less harsh. Not sure how the numbers crunch on that would turn out...

But I think the metamagic offers a lot more that is difficult to mechanically interpret

That twinned Haste, or Prot f Good /evil on the fighter & rogue when fighting a coven of Hags

The quickened Booming blade on a bruiser 10'from the finger wiggler, or needing the movement to get in range for a spell; around a corner for LoS

The careful Hypnotic pattern on your allies mingling with bad guys

The empowered Fireball when you rolled four 1's

The insurance & shenanigans available for subtle is pretty well documented

[SharkForce]

Then you have Bards getting nearly double their spells known, and Warlocks who often match them at the top end and scale up with the number of short rests in a day.

apart from the two new subclasses, warlocks easily beat sorcerers at the "spells known" game. they get 15 spells known, plus they get 4 mystic arcanas, and invocations can add on to that potentially (not all invocations do, but a warlock can practically speaking add silent image to their spells known using invocations to give one example).

[Abracadangit]

Aside from the already mentioned metamagic and subclass abilities, their key stat being Cha means it's easier to give them skills like Performance and Persuasion, while wizards being Int casters makes them more natural loremasters, via Arcana, History, and other Int skills. So sorcerers end up being more of the rakish vagabond mage, i.e. Howl from Howl's Moving Castle, while wizards are typically bookish or scholarly.

But yeah -- the big defining difference in ye olde days was that wizards had to prepare and sorcerers were spontaneous (and got more spells per day), and now that the prepared casters aren't quite as "prepared" as they used to be, the difference between sorcerers and wizards these days feels sort of lackluster. Compounding the problem is that metamagic USED to be a wizard thing (via free metamagic feats), so there's also a sizable camp that says metamagic feels more "wizardy" and probably should have gone back to wizards in the first place. (I belong to that camp.) And as a whole nail to hang a class on? It's kinda thematically insubstantial.

5e sorcerers have some coolness points in their subclass abilities, but they certainly feel like they got rushed out the door because WotC thought "We really need this next edition to not bankrupt us, just take every class that was in 3e and throw it in there so nobody screams at us, who cares about class identity, we'll figure it out later." I think for the next go-around, sorcerers should probably take a couple of pages from the warlock book. Have something akin to invocations ("innates"?) that let them get some low-level utility spells at will, like Disguise Self and Silent Image for tricksters or Feather Fall and Jump for rooftop vigilante types, and give them some fun social abilities to make them feel more like the charming devils that they are. For a Cha-based class, it's almost like all of their social weight is tied up in Charm spells. Let them have bonuses to Performance when using Minor Illusion or Prestidigitation, let them have bonuses to Intimidation when they cast an evocation spell, let them have bonuses to Deception when using Disguise Self or whatever.

You want them to be the Cha cousins of wizards, fine, but then lean into it! Yeesh.

[MonkeySage]

Kind of a shame- I might have wanted to try out sorcerer at some point but all of this pretty much guarantees that if i wanna play a charismatic caster I'd just go bard or warlock, lol. Otherwise definitely going with wizard for this. I don't think what the sorcerer gets in return for the loss of spells per day and spells known makes them worth playing, personally.

[strangebloke]

It's not about the mechanics. They're not strong but they're okay, sorcerers are probably the weakest full caster but they're middle of the pack overall.

The reason you play a sorcerer, (pay close attention to what I am about to tell you its very important) is that they are sexier than wizards.

It's true no blue

[MonkeySage]

Honestly, I'd rather not just play a class for flavor, but rather what the class can actually do- even setting stats aside... Bards are good for roleplay, the best perhaps, but with sorcerers... I'd normally go to them for the same reasons I would in 3e or pathfinder. It's just that relative to other classes (namely wizard), it feels like sorcerers have been massively nerfed.

[Abracadangit]

Bards are good for roleplay, the best perhaps, but with sorcerers...

But see, there it is! An elegant distillation of the problem.

Like, playing a sorcerer would be fun if any of their abilities brought the sorcerer fantasy to life, or made you feel like a charismatic mage. But... they just don't. If you were gonna do that, you'd just pick a bard, because why wouldn't you. Otherwise, it just feels like you're playing a less capable wizard.

I'm even saying this as a guy who loves to refluff and reflavor things, but the sorcerer just needs more thematic meat on the bones.

[strangebloke]

Honestly, I'd rather not just play a class for flavor, but rather what the class can actually do- even setting stats aside... Bards are good for roleplay, the best perhaps, but with sorcerers... I'd normally go to them for the same reasons I would in 3e or pathfinder. It's just that relative to other classes (namely wizard), it feels like sorcerers have been massively nerfed.

So there's been huge threads on the topic, but here's the long and short of it.


Sorcerers have amazing multiclassing options like hexblade warlock and paladin. Hexblade 1 and Paladin 2 are dips that are impractical for a wizard but fantastic for a sorcerer that instantly shore up most of the sorcerer's weaknesses and make them very effective. Paladin 6/Sorcerer X is arguably even better. Sorcerers are a middle of the road class that have great strengths (2nd best spell list after the wizard, metamagic) and well as crippling weaknesses (d6 hit dice, no proficiencies, few spells known, no short rest resources) Warlock and paladin dips grant the sorcerer much better defenses, loads of weapon proficiencies, effectively four spells known, and in the case of the warlock, short rest resources. If you look at the sorcerer class you can see why this is a big deal.
Constitution saves are very very very important for casters, because whenever you take damage you need to make a con save to avoid losing whatever spell you're concentrating on at the moment. Most casters will consider taking a feat to get con save proficiency; sorcerers are the only casters who get it for free.
Metamagic, though inarguably the most confusing and annoying mechanic in the game, is insanely powerful if used effectively. A classic example involved using it to apply Haste, an incredibly strong buff spell to two people at once, something that is impossible for any other caster. Another classic example would be using subtle spell to cast a spell that can't be counterspelled, noticed by onlookers (cast phantasmal killer on a dignitary in public), or stopped via usual anti-caster strats (you can cast while having your hands bound and your mouth gagged.) Even though something like Empowered may seem bad, its actually pretty reasonable for what it does.
Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind are highly overtuned subclasses that do a lot to give the sorcerer a more competitive number of spells known.
Though Sorcerers do have some weaknesses relative to wizards, wizards are one of if not the best class in the game, so its a somewhat bad point of comparison.
Being able to focus charisma over intelligence is actually a big deal.

[Psyren]

apart from the two new subclasses, warlocks easily beat sorcerers at the "spells known" game. they get 15 spells known, plus they get 4 mystic arcanas, and invocations can add on to that potentially (not all invocations do, but a warlock can practically speaking add silent image to their spells known using invocations to give one example).

Yeah I wrote that poorly and switched midstream from spells known to spells/day :smallbiggrin:


Kind of a shame- I might have wanted to try out sorcerer at some point but all of this pretty much guarantees that if i wanna play a charismatic caster I'd just go bard or warlock, lol. Otherwise definitely going with wizard for this. I don't think what the sorcerer gets in return for the loss of spells per day and spells known makes them worth playing, personally.

I mean, "weakest full caster" is still better than nearly everyone who isn't. Sorcerer did kinda get left behind when Bard and Warlock got a major glow-up though, you're not wrong.

[paladinn]

The 5e spell/slot system has been one of the best things in my option; but that does indeed eliminate the big distinction between wizards and sorcs. In 3e, I would always prefer to play sorcs just to get away from "fire-and-forget."

The fact is, all casters have been nerfed a bit in 5e. When a caster is limited by the spell slot level instead of caster level for a spell's effect, that is a big nerf. I don't think it's a bad thing, given the huge perceived power gap between casters and martials.

I like that a sorc subclass can be built around a theme. The divine soul is awesome: even without gaining extra slots or spells known, having access to the cleric list is great. I allow a "primal soul" as well, with access to the druid list. Maybe a "bardic soul"? The aberrant mind is good as well, and a great way to ease into psionics. Metamagic is very useful too.

In 3e, a sorcerer had fewer spells-known than the wizard, but more "slots." I would allow bonus spell slots based on the sorc's Cha bonus. A sorc could also use simple weapons; I would allow that as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

The big issue i'm seeing is that they can't cast nearly as often as they could in previous editions.
Pay very close attention to what follows.
Forget your previous editions.
Treat this as a new game.
I didn't begin to enjoy 5e until I did that. I had some previous edition mastery going and a bunch of 5e stuff made me go "What?"
Again, I say to you, it makes no difference what previous editions did.
Just play this one for what it is. I discovered that it is enjoyable when you do that and don't fight it.
Happy Gaming. :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

Play a Tashas Sorcerer, and use the Spell Point DMG variant. Should do the trick

[Psyren]

In 3e, a sorcerer had fewer spells-known than the wizard, but more "slots." I would allow bonus spell slots based on the sorc's Cha bonus. A sorc could also use simple weapons; I would allow that as well.

I wouldn't do this - part of the point of eliminating the bonus spells progression was to negate the need for players to have to check two different tables every level to know how many slots they actually have per day. That, and with bounded accuracy you're pretty much guaranteed for every full caster to have 20 in their primary stat by level 8 if not sooner, so there isn't even a point behind a bonus spells mechanic - just bake how many slots you think they should have into their base allotment, and that's how many casters get whether they have 16 Cha, 18, or 20.

What I would probably do instead for the sorcerer to make them the king of "spells/day", is to make the sorcery point->slot conversion cheaper. Make it a straightforward 1:1 match - spend a point, get a 1st-level slot. Spend 5, get a 5th-level slot. And of course, just like before, it's a 1:1 match in the other direction too - spend a 5th-level slot, get 5 points etc. It's the best kind of buff because it actually makes the game easier to play, and also makes sorcerers extremely flexible since they can go from slots to points to slots and back again without it being a net loss. This also means they'll have some extra points for metamagic.

I'd start there and see if they needed any additional buffs, but again - I think sorcery points are the ideal lever here.

[paladinn]

Play a Tashas Sorcerer, and use the Spell Point DMG variant. Should do the trick

Is there such a thing as a "baseline" or "generic" sorcerer in 5e? I know the game is based on picking a subclass; but I'm wondering if there is the sorcerer equivalent of the fighter's champion archetype.

I'm assuming that war magic is the "generic" wizard now?

[KorvinStarmast]

Is there such a thing as a "baseline" or "generic" sorcerer in 5e? I know the game is based on picking a subclass; but I'm wondering if there is the sorcerer equivalent of the fighter's champion archetype.
Draconic Origin.
That's the equivalent to the Fighter Champion, Monk Open Hand, Rogue Thief, Ranger Hunter and so on as the basic sorcerer. (See also life cleric, evoker wizard, Circle of the Land Druid...)
(If you download the 5.1 SRD from WoTC, you'll see all of the baseline class / sub class combinations).

If only they'd have tweaked the Wild Magic Sorcerer a bit before release and made the wild magic thing a bit more table friendly, that might have been a better base line ... oh well, what might have been.

[paladinn]

Draconic Origin.
That's the equivalent to the Fighter Champion, Monk Open Hand, Rogue Thief, Ranger Hunter and so on as the basic sorcerer. (See also life cleric, evoker wizard, Circle of the Land Druid...)
(If you download the 5.1 SRD from WoTC, you'll see all of the baseline class / sub class combinations).

If only they'd have tweaked the Wild Magic Sorcerer a bit before release and made the wild magic thing a bit more table friendly, that might have been a better base line ... oh well, what might have been.

That may be the subclass included in the SRD, but there's nothing about "Draconic Origin" that seems generic to me. But then, there is really no "generic" wizard option either. I thought the Loremaster UA subclass was going to be it, but they never developed it.

[KorvinStarmast]

That may be the subclass included in the SRD, but there's nothing about "Draconic Origin" that seems generic to me. But then, there is really no "generic" wizard option either. I thought the Loremaster UA subclass was going to be it, but they never developed it.
It was an OP pile of mess (Loremaster). We had one in play about 2017-ish. Glad it got filed away.

As to Draconic Origin being generic sorcerer: sorcerer has magic in their blood, they are inherently magical. Dragons are magical creatures. That seems a pretty explicit parallel ... :smallcool:

If you read the whole PHB treatment on the sorcerer, I think that you'll find the draconic origin to fit the sorcerer class description pretty well. (Well, I did as I read through it). Given that there were only two originally the basic sorcerer would be one or the other. Do you think that Wild Magic Sorcerer is the base class? :smallconfused: Maybe it was meant to be.

(FWIW, if you go to the Basic Rules, they have Life Cleric, Thief Rogue, Evoker Wizard, Champion Fighter. Same as in SRD).

[Psyren]

I'd say Wild Magic is the simple sorcerer option actually. Yeah the big surge table might look scary, but the player doesn't actually have to worry about it or even track anything other than their base resources (spells + sorcery points). It's up to the GM to call for a wild magic roll, and for a brand new player I think rolling on that table is going to be an exciting moment. The other features (Tides of Chaos and Bend Luck) are extremely simple to use.

As for Wizard, simplest is probably Evocation but "simple wizard" has been a bit of an oxymoron throughout D&D's history and 5e is no exception.

[elyktsorb]

I feel like the only thing I can add to this is that Sorcerer is a much better dip class imo. But I'm barely playing a Sorcerer in my current game as a 14 Thief Rogue/1 Shadow Sorcerer.

[clash]

It was an OP pile of mess (Loremaster). We had one in play about 2017-ish. Glad it got filed away.

As to Draconic Origin being generic sorcerer: sorcerer has magic in their blood, they are inherently magical. Dragons are magical creatures. That seems a pretty explicit parallel ... :smallcool:

If you read the whole PHB treatment on the sorcerer, I think that you'll find the draconic origin to fit the sorcerer class description pretty well. (Well, I did as I read through it). Given that there were only two originally the basic sorcerer would be one or the other. Do you think that Wild Magic Sorcerer is the base class? :smallconfused: Maybe it was meant to be.

(FWIW, if you go to the Basic Rules, they have Life Cleric, Thief Rogue, Evoker Wizard, Champion Fighter. Same as in SRD).

I find the abilities of the draconic sorcerer are very generic under level 14. They get extra HP. Make armor equivalent ac extra damage for a type of your choosing and a damage resistance. 14 and above is now draconic and less generic I would say.

Honestly though if I were to fix the sorcerer class and make them unique I would leave everything as is and add all the spells to their spell list. Keto them with the smallest spells known but give them the largest list to choose from. This allows them to become the ultimate specialist. What ever you want to do you can take the best spells for it.

[Psyren]

I find the abilities of the draconic sorcerer are very generic under level 14. They get extra HP. Make armor equivalent ac extra damage for a type of your choosing and a damage resistance. 14 and above is now draconic and less generic I would say.

Honestly though if I were to fix the sorcerer class and make them unique I would leave everything as is and add all the spells to their spell list. Keto them with the smallest spells known but give them the largest list to choose from. This allows them to become the ultimate specialist. What ever you want to do you can take the best spells for it.

Yikes, and I thought the analysis paralysis with Divine Soul was bad.

[J-H]

What attracts me to playing a sorcerer is the ability to double-cast some spells with Twin.
Twinned Haste, Twinned Disintegrate, Twinned Flesh to Stone, etc.

This is better at high levels than at low levels, though.

[Gignere]

Sorcerers are also the only caster that can sacrifice lower spell slots to make higher level spell slots.

So when you really need that fireball and you’ve spent your 2 level 3 spell slots, a wizard would be SoL, but a sorcerer can sacrifice his lower slots and have access to another fireball.

[Duff]

In theory they get more slots/day if you take sorcery points into account. But, that is perhaps the worst thing to spend your points on, so in practice they end up being much weaker.

Not arguing with the overall message. But I am noting that if spells are the wort thing to spend sorcery points on, that does strongly imply those points are worth more than spells

[KorvinStarmast]

As for Wizard, simplest is probably Evocation but "simple wizard" has been a bit of an oxymoron throughout D&D's history and 5e is no exception. Heh, yeah, and that was an interesting point you made about the Wild Magic Sorcerer for a new player.

Yikes, and I thought the analysis paralysis with Divine Soul was bad. Yeah, it afflicts me mightily when I play a full caster. Monks are a breath of fresh air in comparison. :smallsmile:

[RSP]

In theory they get more slots/day if you take sorcery points into account. But, that is perhaps the worst thing to spend your points on, so in practice they end up being much weaker.


Not sure this is true. For the most part, if Sorc spends their SPs on their highest slot, that essentially equals what a Wizard gets back from a SR, no? A 5th level Sorc can fuel a 3rd level slot, a Wizard can recover a 3rd level slot; etc.

So essentially a Sorc needs to forego Metamagic to keep up with a Wizard’s casting, and that’s before Ritual spells are factored in.

Tier 4 this might change and allow for an extra lower level spell, if that matters; but by and large, they need to sacrifice Metamagic just to keep pace with the Wizard’s slots.

[Psyren]

Not sure this is true. For the most part, if Sorc spends their SPs on their highest slot, that essentially equals what a Wizard gets back from a SR, no? A 5th level Sorc can fuel a 3rd level slot, a Wizard can recover a 3rd level slot; etc.

So essentially a Sorc needs to forego Metamagic to keep up with a Wizard’s casting, and that’s before Ritual spells are factored in.


Not arguing with the overall message. But I am noting that if spells are the wort thing to spend sorcery points on, that does strongly imply those points are worth more than spells

I'm not saying you should never convert points to slots, but there are two factors that make it not the best idea usually:

1) Several subclass features get more value from those points than converting them into slots would have given. Shadow for example - you can spend a 2nd-level slot on Darkvision, or you can convert that slot to points and use those instead - same cost, only now you get to see through the darkness too. Or Aberrant Mind's psionic sorcery - you can convert a psionic slot into points, and use those points to cast the same spell, getting Subtle Spell added in for free.

2) As I mentioned earlier, the point-slot exchange rate is worse when you're converting the former to the latter. When you're converting a 2nd-level slot to points you get 2, but when you're doing the reverse it costs you 3, etc.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Pay very close attention to what follows.
Forget your previous editions.

Or: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4jeREy7Pbc

On paper the Wizard exceeds the Sorcerer, in play the Ritual Magic gap is less of a problem.

Some players do not like changing their spell load outs on a daily basis, but still like playing Spell Casters; and Sorcerers do play differently from Bards.

Bards, especially bards that are filling a primary spell caster role in a party, noticeably lack a spell slot recovery feature outside of resting.

Sorcerers avoid some of the spell slot pinch through Metamagic and Spell Slot creation.

Also, some people truly love Sorcerers as a concept, at this point the concept is firmly part of the genre. I think 5e Sorcerers play better than 3e Sorcerers, and honestly, that is not a conclusion I would have predicted I would have reached 7 years ago.

Shadow Sorcerers scream Zelazny's Jack of Shadows to me.
Triton Storm Sorcerers are cool....as are Dragonmarked Sorcerers.

Once War Mages and Beguilers became class options, I very never saw people make Sorcerers again in 3e

If you think sorcerers are not inherently appealing as a concept, and would rather manage your spell load out and have, arguably, the Best Ritual Magic in the game, then I would posit the Wizard class is probably a better fit.

[strangebloke]

Or: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4jeREy7Pbc

On paper the Wizard exceeds the Sorcerer, in play the Ritual Magic gap is less of a problem.


IMO ritual magic is overrated. It's utility sure, but its boring utility. It's book keeping. There's a kind of player that likes that, and they should play a character who gets ritual magic, but frankly a lot of players, I'd even say most players simply don't care about it and view it as a nuisance. Lots of players who have it as a feature seriously seem not to care about it one way or another.

The proof is in the pudding: I very rarely see people actually take ritual magic as a feat, even high level fighters who are swimming in the things.

[elyktsorb]

The proof is in the pudding: I very rarely see people actually take ritual magic as a feat, even high level fighters who are swimming in the things.

Me who took the Ritual Caster feat to have Find Familiar as a Druid at 1st lvl only for Tasha's to just let Druid's summon familiars anyway.

[Psyren]

IMO ritual magic is overrated. It's utility sure, but its boring utility. It's book keeping. There's a kind of player that likes that, and they should play a character who gets ritual magic, but frankly a lot of players, I'd even say most players simply don't care about it and view it as a nuisance. Lots of players who have it as a feature seriously seem not to care about it one way or another.

The proof is in the pudding: I very rarely see people actually take ritual magic as a feat, even high level fighters who are swimming in the things.

If that's true then it works out - only one person ever needs to care about rituals anyway.

[Segev]

Every 5e game I've been in, rituals were a big deal, with the exception of the one where the DM seemed to think stopping for 10 minutes to do anything meant we had too much free time on our hands. That game also only lasted a couple of sessions. (This was not its only problem.)

[shipiaozi]

1. Usually, spontaneous casters are more versatile than prepared caster and should have less spell slots. Spontaneous caster have more choice on each spells slot so they could "prepare" some conditional spells while prepared caster are forced to prepare "overall good spells" or they would lost spell slots. 3.5/PF1 wizard, in general, is better than sorcerer because they have too many spell slots(High level are different, sorcerer is better than wizard in computer games). PF2 wizard is, in general, quite close to arcane sorcerer since wizard only have 1 more spell slot on highest level.

2. All 5e casters are spontaneous and every class know enough spells, so spontaneous vs prepared isn't a problem here. In general sorcerer is a better class but still quite close to wizard due to following advantages:

-could twin and quicken cantrip to deal more damage than other casters, could multiclass Hex blade 1
-could twin certain spell
-Have divine soul subclass

[Segev]

1. Usually, spontaneous casters are more versatile than prepared caster and should have less spell slots. Spontaneous caster have more choice on each spells slot so they could "prepare" some conditional spells while prepared caster are forced to prepare "overall good spells" or they would lost spell slots. 3.5/PF1 wizard, in general, is better than sorcerer because they have too many spell slots(High level are different, sorcerer is better than wizard in computer games). PF2 wizard is, in general, quite close to arcane sorcerer since wizard only have 1 more spell slot on highest level.

2. All 5e casters are spontaneous and every class know enough spells, so spontaneous vs prepared isn't a problem here. In general sorcerer is a better class but still quite close to wizard due to following advantages:

-could twin and quicken cantrip to deal more damage than other casters, could multiclass Hex blade 1
-could twin certain spell
-Have divine soul subclass

Your own arguments self-contradict, here. The sheer lack of spell choices in numbers makes sorcerers less able to "'prepare' some conditional spells" than wizards. The idea that sorcerers "know enough spells" is kind-of laughable, too. And you've done nothing to support "In general sorcerer is a better class" when you list what brings it "quite close to the wizard" as that list of advantages that pull it near rather than being what make it "better."

You need to work on how you present your ideas, shipiaozi; you're possibly using the wrong comparison and qualifier words, and it's muddling your expression of your position. Couple this confusion of what you're saying with how controversial your position tends to be, and it makes people pay little attention to what you want to say and more to the fact that your presentation sometimes seems to be saying the opposite of what it means, and thus it just comes together to make people disregard you as "wrong" without even trying to examine your argument. Because your argument is not presented in a clear enough way that we could even restate it accurately.

[Amnestic]

Every 5e game I've been in, rituals were a big deal, with the exception of the one where the DM seemed to think stopping for 10 minutes to do anything meant we had too much free time on our hands. That game also only lasted a couple of sessions. (This was not its only problem.)

Phantom Steed alone can be a massive gamechanger for overland travel when you've got any sort of time pressure. More than tripling your party's speed (assuming there's 5-or-fewer party members) is pretty good, and they never get exhausted because you replace them every hour. Requires an initial hour of setup, sure, but after that you're good to go.

Detect Magic likewise comes up pretty often for investigation purposes. Tiny Hut for camping safely. They're definitely not minor things. I wouldn't call them "overpowered" or "broken" or anything but they're definitely *significant*.

[Segev]

Phantom Steed alone can be a massive gamechanger for overland travel when you've got any sort of time pressure. More than tripling your party's speed (assuming there's 5-or-fewer party members) is pretty good, and they never get exhausted because you replace them every hour. Requires an initial hour of setup, sure, but after that you're good to go.

Detect Magic likewise comes up pretty often for investigation purposes. Tiny Hut for camping safely. They're definitely not minor things. I wouldn't call them "overpowered" or "broken" or anything but they're definitely *significant*.

Phantom steeds can also pull wagons, so you can get by with 1-2 of them for the whole party if needs be.

I do wish 5e had made the 3.5 and earlier edition CL-based upgrades into upcast options for phantom steed, though. As-is, it's...not really worth a third level spell. It's not much better than a regular horse, and the awkwardness of recasting every hour (when casting takes 10 minutes) makes it gameplay-wise transparent, but in a weird place RP-wise.

[RSP]

I’ve always found Ritual Casting to be very helpful in play. Alarm, Detect Magic and Identify, FF, Tiny Hut, Water Breathing, and Telepathic Bond, are all very useful.

Getting these without having to use a slot, changes how a party can play. Other Rituals, I’ve found, are still helpful but more niche. Great for a Wizard to have them though.

[noob]

Seems like they also only get new spells up to 17th level...

With this many restrictions, i can't see ever choosing sorcerer over wizard here...

This is the first time I've ever seen Bard have a larger number of spells known, and they can choose spells from other lists...
And their starting list contains a lot of good spells.

[strangebloke]

Every 5e game I've been in, rituals were a big deal, with the exception of the one where the DM seemed to think stopping for 10 minutes to do anything meant we had too much free time on our hands. That game also only lasted a couple of sessions. (This was not its only problem.)

To be clear I'm not saying its weak I'm just saying a lot of players don't care. It's like Inspiring Leader which is an amazing feat but IME lots of people aren't that interested in it because its just a support ability and people would rather deal more damage and cast more spells.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Your own arguments self-contradict, here. The sheer lack of spell choices in numbers makes sorcerers less able to "'prepare' some conditional spells" than wizards.

There is truth to what I think shipiaozi is trying to convey. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids have access to an enormous well of spells, but often can access that well only through a tiny straw, which is the number of spells they can prepare.

The Careful Metamagic allows spells like Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern to be used more often, which can absolutely 'free up' space in terms of how many spells known selections need to be devoted to a role.


The idea that sorcerers "know enough spells" is kind-of laughable, too.

Is it though? Many bartenders will say the truest form of full bar is one with only three beers on tap, and 10 bottles of hard liquor behind the counter. A true bartender doesn't need any more.

How many spells do you truly need?

That is where the flexibility of selection comes into play.

If all Sorcerers could select any spell, from any spell list, with any of their spell selections, 15 spells known might be the correct amount....
......But that is musing...under the current rules a bonus equal to the TCoE subclasses in spells known seems fair.

Flexible Spell casting pairs well with certain Metamagic and certain spells...Extended Upcast Aid, for example. Glyph of Warding for another.

[Segev]

The notion that metamagic represents an ability to cutomize your spells and do more with a few you're very good at than anybody else just...isn't achieved with the mechanics as we have them. You can add range or do it twice or without components...that's nice, sure. But you can do the same tricks with all of your spells, and nothing about it makes your use of particular spells "unique."

How many spells you really need is a fair question. The arcane trickster and the shadow monk do fine with very few, because they have class features that inform particular styles of play that their few spells complement very well. Sorcerers have features designed for casters: their spells are the focus, not the support. But they have few spells known and their support for them from their class is not particularly expansive. Some subclasses have cool abilities, but they are not style-defining for the most part. (Divine soul and Aberrant Mind do the best job of being consistent about defining a playstyle.)

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO ritual magic is overrated. Not boring. I used Skywrite to start a riot in a major trading city. I use Alarm every time we stop for an overnight. I use magic mouth to do hilarious stuff usually. Water breathing: made the Final Enemy module from Ghosts of Saltmarsh possible for the party. My Pact of the Tome Warlock has gotten good mileage out of ritual casting. Detect Magic speaks for itself.

1. Usually {snip the rest of the post}
Thank you for providing comic relief.

I’ve always found Ritual Casting to be very helpful in play. Likewise.

[strangebloke]

The notion of sorcerers is that they've got fewer spells but that they're "More flexible with the spells they have." Which would apply except

metamagic effects apply only to a few spells each so there's little overlap and you generally can't use both effects at the same time anyway. If they were more broad you could choose between using any combination of your three metamagic on a single spell and that would be interesting... but that basically can't happen.
Converting SP to spell slots is horribly inefficient so the idea of giving yourself all 3rd level slots for example is just really bad.

[paladinn]

So if the SP to Spell/Slot/Level exchange were 1 to 1, would that even things out?

How about giving an SP bonus equal to the sorc's Cha mod?

I'd still make sorc's proficient with simple weapons. They don't have to study spells, so they have time to study something else.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The notion that metamagic represents an ability to cutomize your spells and do more with a few you're very good at than anybody else just...isn't achieved with the mechanics as we have them.

It may not be achieved to your satisfaction, but Metamagic and Flexible casting do make a difference. Transmute spell and Lightning Ball being a prime example.

The Sorcerer class lacks polish, in my mind, but isn't lacking for power.

If the 50th Anniversary version of the Sorcerer class includes bonus spells centered around a theme, some more Metamagic and other spell customization options, and some further uses for Font of Magic, then I think the 'polished product' level will have been achieved.

Barbarian, Ranger, and Sorcerer are the three classes I think WotC needs to have some thoughtful introspection on what the classes need to be, and how to improve the class. Sorcerer is almost there...

[Kane0]

So if the SP to Spell/Slot/Level exchange were 1 to 1, would that even things out?

How about giving an SP bonus equal to the sorc's Cha mod?

I'd still make sorc's proficient with simple weapons. They don't have to study spells, so they have time to study something else.

Either one of those is fine.

[Witty Username]

Why can't the sorcerer pick a few spells that they can cast at will?
Say like a 1st level at 5th, a 2nd level at 9th, and a 3rd level at 13th.
It would fit "I am magic" and give some extra spells known, and give more spell slots in an interesting way.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why can't the sorcerer pick a few spells that they can cast at will?
Say like a 1st level at 5th, a 2nd level at 9th, and a 3rd level at 13th.
Because that's an 18th level feature, that's why. (See wizard).
Also: at will lightning bolt at level 13? Really? :smallyuk:

I personally object to their low number of cantrips. Their cantrip progression ought to keep on going. That would be thematic. 4,4,4 5,5,5,5 6,6,6,6 7,7,7,7 8,8

Also, one (not two!) thematic domain spells from spell levels 1 through 5 for all sorcerers, not just those two Tasha's afterthoughts.

[Kane0]

I make Sorcs (and only sorcs) use the as spell point variant, and remove sorcery points entirely. Metamagic is fueled directly by spell points, and you recover SP during a short rest equal to your prof bonus.

I also do metamagic at levels 3, 5, 9, 13 and 17 with a special feature at level 10 to cast any spell they want from any list once per LR which becomes once per SR for the capstone

[RSP]

If looking for a fix, I still think the best one is allowing Sorcerers to use the Spell Point Variant (and only Sorcerers).

It gives them something thematic that differentiates them from other casters (not being bound by slots), while only really being a slight boost for them as it’s kind of something already available to them from Font of Magic (though SPs are more efficient than FoM).

[KorvinStarmast]

I make Sorcs (and only sorcs) use the as spell point variant, and remove sorcery points entirely. Metamagic is fueled directly by spell points, and you recover SP during a short rest equal to your prof bonus.

I also do metamagic at levels 3, 5, 9, 13 and 17 with a special feature at level 10 to cast any spell they want from any list once per LR which becomes once per SR for the capstone
Interesting, and seems to fit with the theme of the sorcerer being all about innate magic.

[Segev]

Given what the Sorcerer is allegedly supposed to be - the guy who masters a few spells that he knows so well he can stretch them to the max - I almost think it should've been the go-to dipping class for magical ways of doing what other classes are good at. Its subclasses should at least include "the gish one," "the magical sneaky one," "the magically social one," etc., and they should have either specific spells some of the subclasses are built around, or classes of spells that the subclasses let them change the general rules on.

[shipiaozi]

Your own arguments self-contradict, here. The sheer lack of spell choices in numbers makes sorcerers less able to "'prepare' some conditional spells" than wizards. The idea that sorcerers "know enough spells" is kind-of laughable, too. And you've done nothing to support "In general sorcerer is a better class" when you list what brings it "quite close to the wizard" as that list of advantages that pull it near rather than being what make it "better."

You need to work on how you present your ideas, shipiaozi; you're possibly using the wrong comparison and qualifier words, and it's muddling your expression of your position. Couple this confusion of what you're saying with how controversial your position tends to be, and it makes people pay little attention to what you want to say and more to the fact that your presentation sometimes seems to be saying the opposite of what it means, and thus it just comes together to make people disregard you as "wrong" without even trying to examine your argument. Because your argument is not presented in a clear enough way that we could even restate it accurately.

1. In 3.5/PF/PF2, sorcerer is more versatile than wizard because sorcerer is a spontaneous caster and could "prepare" multiple spells on each spell slots, while wizard is forced to prepare "overall good spell" and usually have very few choice. In 5e, both sorcerer and wizard are spontaneous casters, so spontaneous vs prepared isn't the problem here. Other than divine soul, wizard is slightly more versatile since they could prepare more spells.

2. Sorcerer, like every caster in 5e, know enough spells. It's important to have 2nd choice on spell slot since the 2nd choice probably are better than 1st choice in 40% case and could provide about 20% value to spell slot, but the 3rd best choice only increase about half of the 20% value to spell slot(need to be better than two spells, and value gap also decrease), the 4th one add only 1/4 of 20%, etc. Extra spell known class ability for Tasha Sorcerer worth almost nothing, and I would be very happy to trade half of my spell known for one feat.

3. I would try to improve my English writing, but the major problem here is you insist what you believe. The idea that "spontaneous caster is not more versatile than prepared caster " or "spontaneous caster not know enough spells" is completely wrong

[Ogre Mage]

With the arrival of Tasha's and the aberrant mind and clockwork soul subclasses, they match up to the wizard fine. From level 3 on they actually trump the wizard in terms of spells known by a considerable margin. Wizards don't catch up again until late in Tier 4. I plan to play these sorcerer subclasses.

But outside of those two? I don't see the mechanical advantage to playing a sorcerer. The one exception is multiclassing. Sorcerers are good at multiclassing because they are Charisma based (bards, paladins, warlocks). Wizards are not very good for multiclassing.

[Valmark]

You play a sorcerer because the fluff is wildly different- in addition it has a unique mechanic in metamagic (kind of) and Charisma is tipically more used in many parties.
And there's quite the number of builds that work much better with sorcerers then wizards.

Take paladins for example- comparing a wizardin to a sorcadin you'll notice one of them runs much smoother.


1. In 3.5/PF/PF2, sorcerer is more versatile than wizard because sorcerer is a spontaneous caster and could "prepare" multiple spells on each spell slots, while wizard is forced to prepare "overall good spell" and usually have very few choice. In 5e, both sorcerer and wizard are spontaneous casters, so spontaneous vs prepared isn't the problem here. Other than divine soul, wizard is slightly more versatile since they could prepare more spells.

2. Sorcerer, like every caster in 5e, know enough spells. It's important to have 2nd choice on spell slot since the 2nd choice probably are better than 1st choice in 40% case and could provide about 20% value to spell slot, but the 3rd best choice only increase about half of the 20% value to spell slot(need to be better than two spells, and value gap also decrease), the 4th one add only 1/4 of 20%, etc. Extra spell known class ability for Tasha Sorcerer worth almost nothing, and I would be very happy to trade half of my spell known for one feat.

3. I would try to improve my English writing, but the major problem here is you insist what you believe. The idea that "spontaneous caster is not more versatile than prepared caster " or "spontaneous caster not know enough spells" is completely wrong

1. Versatile doesn't mean what you think it means, or at least how you're using it isn't how I've ever heard it used. Versatile is more about being able to cover as many situations as possible- that is why wizards in previous editions would usually be more versatile, being capable of preparing more different spells, and why wizards in 5e are more versatile as well (predictably, since -almost- every advantage the sorcerer had was stripped from it). Divine Soul's versatility is boosted up, but the limited number of spells known still doesn't make it close to a wizard in those terms- especially because there's ways to get the main spells on a wizard as well, if one wants them.

2. That is only true when the spells you can pick fall into a neat order of preference. Homewever you can very easily have multiple spells you want/need and not have the space to fit them all- you have limited spells known, so you need to pick them out but that doesn't mean those you don't pick are worst.

3. If you gave some proof people would be able to understand you more. In addition the system you use to evaluate things that has been explained in other threads (unless you modified it) is known to be pretty ineffective, so it's hard to 'believe' what you say.
That said, specification- it's not 'spontaneous caster doesn't know enough spells', it's 'sorcerer doesn't know enough spells' (although I feel like warlocks deserve more spells known as well, but that's another thread).

[paladinn]

I make Sorcs (and only sorcs) use the as spell point variant, and remove sorcery points entirely. Metamagic is fueled directly by spell points, and you recover SP during a short rest equal to your prof bonus.

I also do metamagic at levels 3, 5, 9, 13 and 17 with a special feature at level 10 to cast any spell they want from any list once per LR which becomes once per SR for the capstone

I rather like this, and having one pool of magic points. I would be tempted to keep SP and/or adding one's Cha mod to the pool, unless it would be OP. There should be something to fuel metamagic.

Next step in the parade would be to merge sorcerer and warlock. I don't think there needs to be two Cha-based casters. And eldritch blast would work really well with a sorc. Just my $.02

[Ryton]

Next step in the parade would be to merge sorcerer and warlock. I don't think there needs to be two Cha-based casters. And eldritch blast would work really well with a sorc. Just my $.02

That's an interesting stance, but there are 3 Cha casters. Four, if you want to include paladin. Does it follow then, that there only be 4 classes? Wis caster, Int caster, Cha caster, and Fighter? Any other classes can just be reproduced through subclasses and multiclassing?

I imagine that that would serve to help allow the classes to be more mechanically distinct, but IMO, I don't think that it would actually be an improvement to the system as a whole.

[paladinn]

That's an interesting stance, but there are 3 Cha casters. Four, if you want to include paladin. Does it follow then, that there only be 4 classes? Wis caster, Int caster, Cha caster, and Fighter? Any other classes can just be reproduced through subclasses and multiclassing?

I imagine that that would serve to help allow the classes to be more mechanically distinct, but IMO, I don't think that it would actually be an improvement to the system as a whole.

I'm actually batting around making warlock a sorcerer subclass. Wizards are "studied" casters. Sorcs don't have to study; they have some innate connection to a power source. That source could be a patron.

Work in progress..

[shipiaozi]

You play a sorcerer because the fluff is wildly different- in addition it has a unique mechanic in metamagic (kind of) and Charisma is tipically more used in many parties.
And there's quite the number of builds that work much better with sorcerers then wizards.

Take paladins for example- comparing a wizardin to a sorcadin you'll notice one of them runs much smoother.



1. Versatile doesn't mean what you think it means, or at least how you're using it isn't how I've ever heard it used. Versatile is more about being able to cover as many situations as possible- that is why wizards in previous editions would usually be more versatile, being capable of preparing more different spells, and why wizards in 5e are more versatile as well (predictably, since -almost- every advantage the sorcerer had was stripped from it). Divine Soul's versatility is boosted up, but the limited number of spells known still doesn't make it close to a wizard in those terms- especially because there's ways to get the main spells on a wizard as well, if one wants them.

2. That is only true when the spells you can pick fall into a neat order of preference. Homewever you can very easily have multiple spells you want/need and not have the space to fit them all- you have limited spells known, so you need to pick them out but that doesn't mean those you don't pick are worst.

3. If you gave some proof people would be able to understand you more. In addition the system you use to evaluate things that has been explained in other threads (unless you modified it) is known to be pretty ineffective, so it's hard to 'believe' what you say.
That said, specification- it's not 'spontaneous caster doesn't know enough spells', it's 'sorcerer doesn't know enough spells' (although I feel like warlocks deserve more spells known as well, but that's another thread).

1. If you define versatile as being able to cover as many situations as possible, then spontaneous caster in previous editions are much more versatile than prepared casters. Spontaneous casters could have some conditional spells to cover certain uncommon situations, but prepared caster are forced to prepared spells suitable for most encounters. Prepare casters could become good at deal a special situation by prepare conditional spells, but usually that's not good choice and rarely seen in game. In short, prepared Caster could be 100/20 or 20/100, Spontaneous casters are always 100/50. If you look closely, you would find out prepared caster are not 100/100 but always 100/20, while spontaneous casters are better at deal different situations.

2. You massively overestimated the value of spell known in 5e. Spell known provide value because sometimes the additional spell is better than all previous known spells, so they add value equal to the difference.

The 2nd spell need to be better than 2 spell (in <50% case), provide value equal to the difference(value - the best of 1 spell)
The 3rd spell need to be better than 3 spell (in <33% case), provide value equal to the difference(value - the best of 2 spells)

The value of new spell decreased extremely fast, they are less likely to be used and less likely to provide extra value. I really don't understand why they give so many spell known to warlock for example, the 10th spell only be used once per 20-50 combats and provide <0.5% value of a spell slot. BTW, this model also explained why Divine soul is so versatile: they have tons of spells from a healer list and worked well in conditions different from sorcerer spells, so their 2nd, 3th spell usually have much more value gap when they are good.

[Witty Username]

I would include rogue, but I did entertain this idea and was left with this form
.
Int Wizard
Wis Cleric
Cha Bard
Then fighter and Rogue. And you could justify halve casters as an alternative to multiclassing.
Bard/Fighter, Paladin.
Cleric/Fighter, Ranger.
Wizard/Fighter, Artificer.
(If this looks weird to you, that is because it is)
And we lose the barbarian, druid, monk, sorcerer and warlock.

Now I would argue any emotional distress seeing a class in the lose category is justification for its existence.
I personally see the monk and warlock and think we are losing some unique mechanics and archetypes.

For Sorcerer I don't see any problem with balance post Tasha's, but I do feel it lacks distinction. Some more to make it feel less like a Wizard would be welcome. And preferably something that would come up in game regularly.
I have also thought that the warlock and sorcerer could be merged. But that is partially because I think the mechanics of warlock better convey being an inherently magical creature.

[JNAProductions]

1. If you define versatile as being able to cover as many situations as possible, then spontaneous caster in previous editions are much more versatile than prepared casters. Spontaneous casters could have some conditional spells to cover certain uncommon situations, but prepared caster are forced to prepared spells suitable for most encounters. Prepare casters could become good at deal a special situation by prepare conditional spells, but usually that's not good choice and rarely seen in game. In short, prepared Caster could be 100/20 or 20/100, Spontaneous casters are always 100/50. If you look closely, you would find out prepared caster are not 100/100 but always 100/20, while spontaneous casters are better at deal different situations.

3rd Edition
At 6th level, a Sorcerer knows one 3rd level spell and two 2nd level spells.
A Wizard can prepare two 3rd level spells and three 2nd level spells. (Assuming no bonus spells from Intelligence, which is not gonna be the case.)

So, at the first level the Sorcerer gets 3rd level spells (which, as a reminder, is a level behind the Wizard) they have all the versatility of one spell.
Not to mention, since Sorcerers, even in 3rd, get so few spells known, they really HAVE to pick broadly useful spells. The same kind of spells a Wizard can prepare, but the Wizard also has the option of preparing more niche spells without nearly the opportunity cost.

Conceptually, what you're saying makes sense. Well, some parts of it. But the actual realities of the situation make the concept fall flat.

[Lucas Yew]

I suspect an active malice on modern RPG dev team(s) against the concept of Talent over Effort, which actively bashes the Sorcerer the most. :smallfurious:
Why not Bards? Beats me, no idea on that part...

Anyway, IMO all spells per day should have been like half level + casting stat for "prepared" casters, and at least 1 spell per level for fixed repertoire casters...
Even if the Sorcerer gets stuck with the current 10? choice spells at maximum, they should at least have to get 2 per level free permanent 1st~5th spells per bloodline, just like the old UA Favored Soul (why WotC hit the nail perfectly and nerfed a needed patch is beyond me).

[noob]

I suspect an active malice on modern RPG dev team(s) against the concept of Talent over Effort, which actively bashes the Sorcerer the most. :smallfurious:
Why not Bards? Beats me, no idea on that part...

Anyway, IMO all spells per day should have been like half level + casting stat for "prepared" casters, and at least 1 spell per level for fixed repertoire casters...
Even if the Sorcerer gets stuck with the current 10? choice spells at maximum, they should at least have to get 2 per level free permanent 1st~5th spells per bloodline, just like the old UA Favored Soul (why WotC hit the nail perfectly and nerfed a needed patch is beyond me).

Bards are good because for becoming a bard you need a lot of practice: music definitively takes a lot of efforts.
Musicians will not tell you that music is mostly talent: they had to work really hard to get where they were.

[Valmark]

1. If you define versatile as being able to cover as many situations as possible, then spontaneous caster in previous editions are much more versatile than prepared casters. Spontaneous casters could have some conditional spells to cover certain uncommon situations, but prepared caster are forced to prepared spells suitable for most encounters. Prepare casters could become good at deal a special situation by prepare conditional spells, but usually that's not good choice and rarely seen in game. In short, prepared Caster could be 100/20 or 20/100, Spontaneous casters are always 100/50. If you look closely, you would find out prepared caster are not 100/100 but always 100/20, while spontaneous casters are better at deal different situations.

2. You massively overestimated the value of spell known in 5e. Spell known provide value because sometimes the additional spell is better than all previous known spells, so they add value equal to the difference.

The 2nd spell need to be better than 2 spell (in <50% case), provide value equal to the difference(value - the best of 1 spell)
The 3rd spell need to be better than 3 spell (in <33% case), provide value equal to the difference(value - the best of 2 spells)

The value of new spell decreased extremely fast, they are less likely to be used and less likely to provide extra value. I really don't understand why they give so many spell known to warlock for example, the 10th spell only be used once per 20-50 combats and provide <0.5% value of a spell slot. BTW, this model also explained why Divine soul is so versatile: they have tons of spells from a healer list and worked well in conditions different from sorcerer spells, so their 2nd, 3th spell usually have much more value gap when they are good.

1. It is the opposite though- given their much tighter array of spells and their slower growth, spontaneous casters had more of a need to pick widely applicable spells. A prepared caster could just drop a single slot in a situational spell or even just prepare it when they knew they need it while the spontaneous one would be stuck with being able to spam that situational spell without access to any number of useful ones. And they could only switch spells at certain levels, unlike now. Being able to cast Tiny Hut six times a day (less then that, if you're using other spells) but having to sacrifice Haste/Slow/Fireball/etc. is not good.

2. No. Spell selection isn't as neat as you think- your system to value those loses a lot of factors that make multiple spells preferable. As a quick example, if you can select one spell and lack both a seriously damaging AoE and a good control option and can pick between Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern... You will be wanting them both. Assuming you pick Fireball, when you can select Hypnotic it won't be any worst- what you say is only true if all spells are each weaker or stronger then the other, making them fall into a convinient scale of power. It just doesn't work like that.

You should probably actually make some casters, try them out before convincing yourself of the validity of the unconventional method you use to evaluate them.

[noob]

As a plus there is the complexity of party interaction.
For example your level 3 sorcerer picked invisibility because it allowed the whole party to be quite sealthy when cast on the least sealthy character then that least sealthy character gets another ability that makes it actually really sealthy now and you no longer need to cast invisibility for sealthing out efficiently: that spell pick who used to be really useful is no longer as much useful and you will cast it way less often.
As a bard you would not feel strongly impacted because you did not have to spend a magical secret on it and you have a lot of spells known anyway.
As a sorcerer it feels much more costly because you have less spells known.

[shipiaozi]

3rd Edition
At 6th level, a Sorcerer knows one 3rd level spell and two 2nd level spells.
A Wizard can prepare two 3rd level spells and three 2nd level spells. (Assuming no bonus spells from Intelligence, which is not gonna be the case.)

So, at the first level the Sorcerer gets 3rd level spells (which, as a reminder, is a level behind the Wizard) they have all the versatility of one spell.
Not to mention, since Sorcerers, even in 3rd, get so few spells known, they really HAVE to pick broadly useful spells. The same kind of spells a Wizard can prepare, but the Wizard also has the option of preparing more niche spells without nearly the opportunity cost.

Conceptually, what you're saying makes sense. Well, some parts of it. But the actual realities of the situation make the concept fall flat.


1. It is the opposite though- given their much tighter array of spells and their slower growth, spontaneous casters had more of a need to pick widely applicable spells. A prepared caster could just drop a single slot in a situational spell or even just prepare it when they knew they need it while the spontaneous one would be stuck with being able to spam that situational spell without access to any number of useful ones. And they could only switch spells at certain levels, unlike now. Being able to cast Tiny Hut six times a day (less then that, if you're using other spells) but having to sacrifice Haste/Slow/Fireball/etc. is not good.

2. No. Spell selection isn't as neat as you think- your system to value those loses a lot of factors that make multiple spells preferable. As a quick example, if you can select one spell and lack both a seriously damaging AoE and a good control option and can pick between Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern... You will be wanting them both. Assuming you pick Fireball, when you can select Hypnotic it won't be any worst- what you say is only true if all spells are each weaker or stronger then the other, making them fall into a convinient scale of power. It just doesn't work like that.

You should probably actually make some casters, try them out before convincing yourself of the validity of the unconventional method you use to evaluate them.

1. Prepare conditional spell is always a huge mistake, players who do so would end up lost a lot of spell slots. Sorcerer is weaker than wizard in 3/pf1 because THEY HAVE LESS SPELL SLOTS, so the advantage of versatility is only clear in high level play. Sorcerer is 1 level behind wizard(If I remember correctly, both 3/pf1 have an extremely good wizard archetype that gives wizard +2 spell slot every level) in spell slots, weaker doesn't mean less versatile.

2. It's counterintuitive for some, but get fireball would greatly reduced the value of get Hypnotic Patter. Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(In 1/6 encounters they would worth 1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3. See, know fireball or Hypnotic Patter get you +0.67 value, but then get another one only get you +0.33, half the value!

[loki_ragnarock]

2. It's counterintuitive for some, but get fireball would greatly reduced the value of get Hypnotic Patter. Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(In 1/6 encounters they would worth 1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3. See, know fireball or Hypnotic Patter get you +0.67 value, but then get another one only get you +0.33, half the value!

... I am reminded of that economist that used math to indicate that everyone should be having more sex because the pool of people with STDs weren't that big a deal as they became a smaller fraction of the pool of total candidates.

[Valmark]

1. Prepare conditional spell is always a huge mistake, players who do so would end up lost a lot of spell slots. Sorcerer is weaker than wizard in 3/pf1 because THEY HAVE LESS SPELL SLOTS, so the advantage of versatility is only clear in high level play. Sorcerer is 1 level behind wizard(If I remember correctly, both 3/pf1 have an extremely good wizard archetype that gives wizard +2 spell slot every level) in spell slots, weaker doesn't mean less versatile.

2. It's counterintuitive for some, but get fireball would greatly reduced the value of get Hypnotic Patter. Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(In 1/6 encounters they would worth 1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3. See, know fireball or Hypnotic Patter get you +0.67 value, but then get another one only get you +0.33, half the value!

1. The archetype (I think) you speak of is in PF and has two additional slots (which makes them reach the same amount as a sorcerer) but loses access to two whole schools of magic AND has to prepare the exact same spell in both. You're effectively comparing the sorcerer to a wizard that sacrificed versatility by cutting out a lot of spells and not having the freedom to choose which spells they can prepare in some slots in exchange for having roughly the spell slot amount of a sorcerer.

Otherwise sorcerers would have objectively more spell slots at all levels- they are 1 level behind in maximum spell level, not spell slots.

And it's not a huge mistake for prepared casters, since they can just get it when they need it.

Weaker doesn't mean less versatile, that is true. But lack of options does mean less versatility.

2. You're again removing factors that you cannot remove. HP and Fireball have completely different uses (except being AoEs)- whichever you take first doesn't change in any way the value of the other one because they have almost nothing to do with each other. The exception would be when you know what enemies you'll be facing/all those other factors that could influence this. And even then you'd have to be a wizard to take advantage of that (in general prepared casters, but the thread is specifically about wizards and sorcerers).

And this applies to most spells, as long as they are competitive with each other (there are bad spells after all).


... I am reminded of that economist that used math to indicate that everyone should be having more sex because the pool of people with STDs weren't that big a deal as they became a smaller fraction of the pool of total candidates.

I'm so happy I wasn't drinking while reading this xD

[RSP]

Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(In 1/6 encounters they would worth 1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3. See, know fireball or Hypnotic Patter get you +0.67 value, but then get another one only get you +0.33, half the value!

Why is that an assumption we should make?

It seems like a bad assumption that not only is there a “best spell” (your #1) to use in any given situation, but that the difference in value from that spell to the “second best spell” is equal in value from the “second best spell” to the “third best spell”, etc.

I imagine different parties would have different “best spells rankings”, depending on their makeup and how they handle encounters.

[Segev]

Consider the following lists of 3rd level spells in 3e and 5e:

3e
Dispel Magic
Major Image
Fireball
Fly
Water Breathing
Haste
Gaseous Form

5e
Clairvoyance
Counterspell
Fireball
Fly
Gaseous Form
Haste
Major Image
Water Breathing

Which of these is "the best" spell, the "second best" spell, etc., such that the marginal utility of knowing each one lower on the ranking of "best" to "least best" is always significantly less than knowing the one(s) higher on the list?

[noob]

Consider the following lists of 3rd level spells in 3e and 5e:

3e
Dispel Magic
Major Image
Fireball
Fly
Water Breathing
Haste
Gaseous Form

5e
Clairvoyance
Counterspell
Fireball
Fly
Gaseous Form
Haste
Major Image
Water Breathing

Which of these is "the best" spell, the "second best" spell, etc., such that the marginal utility of knowing each one lower on the ranking of "best" to "least best" is always significantly less than knowing the one(s) higher on the list?
It depends massively on the way the gm builds the campaign and of the other party members.
If you indicate all those elements we might have ways to find how much useful some spells could be (it still would not be relative comparison: it would just be "this spell is useful often with that gm and party" or "it will not be useful frequently with that gm and party").

[Segev]

It depends massively on the way the gm builds the campaign and of the other party members.
If you indicate all those elements we might have ways to find how much useful some spells could be.

Sorry for being unclear in my intent: I am directing that at shipiaozi, as he has made the claim that having a second spell known of a given level is of tremendously reduced marginal utility.

My hypothesis is that he's basing this on the notion that it's like learning lightning bolt after having learned fireball; the purpose of my carefully-curated spell lists here is to demonstrate that knowing, for example, both fireball and fly gives you about the same increase upon learning the second one as you got upon learning the first, due to the very tiny overlap in use cases.

[Valmark]

Which does remind me that wizards didn't have to prepare all their spells at the same time in 3.5- the only prepared casters who could leave slots open to prep later (divine spellcasters didn't need resting instead I believe, unsure what else). So they didn't actually need to prepare those situational spells- just leaving a slot open to fill later was enough.

Advantage that they lost in 5e, but given the lack of vancian spellcasting it's overall a win imo.

[dafrca]

I imagine different parties would have different “best spells rankings”, depending on their makeup and how they handle encounters.

I would have thought the same thing, but I am very curious to read more on this thread. I have already had some interesting things brought up so far. :smallsmile:

[shipiaozi]

1. The archetype (I think) you speak of is in PF and has two additional slots (which makes them reach the same amount as a sorcerer) but loses access to two whole schools of magic AND has to prepare the exact same spell in both. You're effectively comparing the sorcerer to a wizard that sacrificed versatility by cutting out a lot of spells and not having the freedom to choose which spells they can prepare in some slots in exchange for having roughly the spell slot amount of a sorcerer.

Otherwise sorcerers would have objectively more spell slots at all levels- they are 1 level behind in maximum spell level, not spell slots.

And it's not a huge mistake for prepared casters, since they can just get it when they need it.

Weaker doesn't mean less versatile, that is true. But lack of options does mean less versatility.

2. You're again removing factors that you cannot remove. HP and Fireball have completely different uses (except being AoEs)- whichever you take first doesn't change in any way the value of the other one because they have almost nothing to do with each other. The exception would be when you know what enemies you'll be facing/all those other factors that could influence this. And even then you'd have to be a wizard to take advantage of that (in general prepared casters, but the thread is specifically about wizards and sorcerers).

And this applies to most spells, as long as they are competitive with each other (there are bad spells after all).


Why is that an assumption we should make?

It seems like a bad assumption that not only is there a “best spell” (your #1) to use in any given situation, but that the difference in value from that spell to the “second best spell” is equal in value from the “second best spell” to the “third best spell”, etc.

I imagine different parties would have different “best spells rankings”, depending on their makeup and how they handle encounters.


1. There is always a best spell in given situation, which is the spell(or don't use spell) player should use. Extra spell is useful because in some case they shall be best spell and provide value = its value - value of the best spell among previous known spell. I use 1/2/3 only to make them easier to understand: the 2nd spell known makes 3rd spell known much, much worse since 1) the 2nd spell halved chance that 3rd spell is the best spell 2) the 2nd spell reduce the value gap when 3rd spell is he best spell

2. 3/pf sorcerer have lower spell levels in low levels, in first five levels sorcerer have +1/+1/-5/+3/-6 level of spell slots. Prepare caster can never "get it when they need it", prepare conditional spell have huge cost and always a bad idea. Lost a lot of spell list is not a great cost for any caster in any version(unless they lost certain broken spell and have no spell with closer power) as I proved before: the new spell known isn't important if you already have 2-3 good choice.

For 3.5/pf wizard, one extra spell slot per level worth more than ban 6 schools of spells, that's how extra spell slot worth compare with extra spell known. In 5e there is a similar result: 1 level of spell slot worth 5-6x of 1 level of spell known, caster+non-caster multiclass need to have very different playstyle to be viable(Caster/Hexblade 1, Caster with extra attack/Paladin 2), while most such builds like wizard or sorcerer X/Fighter 2 are total garbage and only make the character much worse, by my calculation wizard X/Fighter 2 is even worse than wizard X/cleric 1, the multiclass lost more than 1 level!

[Segev]

1. There is always a best spell in given situation, which is the spell(or don't use spell) player should use. Extra spell is useful because in some case they shall be best spell and provide value = its value - value of the best spell among previous known spell.

Except that spells-known casters can't have the "one spell" that is "perfect in this situation." So that second spell isn't of low marginal utility if its use cases are entirely different than that first spell's. For example, fireball vs. fly have very little overlap in use case, so which one is your "first spell" that is the "best spell you should always pick," that the second one on that list is of far less utility to pick up if you have the first one?

[Valmark]

1. There is always a best spell in given situation, which is the spell(or don't use spell) player should use. Extra spell is useful because in some case they shall be best spell and provide value = its value - value of the best spell among previous known spell. I use 1/2/3 only to make them easier to understand: the 2nd spell known makes 3rd spell known much, much worse since 1) the 2nd spell halved chance that 3rd spell is the best spell 2) the 2nd spell reduce the value gap when 3rd spell is he best spell

2. 3/pf sorcerer have lower spell levels in low levels, in first five levels sorcerer have +1/+1/-5/+3/-6 level of spell slots. Prepare caster can never "get it when they need it", prepare conditional spell have huge cost and always a bad idea. Lost a lot of spell list is not a great cost for any caster in any version(unless they lost certain broken spell and have no spell with closer power) as I proved before: the new spell known isn't important if you already have 2-3 good choice.

For 3.5/pf wizard, one extra spell slot per level worth more than ban 6 schools of spells, that's how extra spell slot worth compare with extra spell known. In 5e there is a similar result: 1 level of spell slot worth 5-6x of 1 level of spell known, caster+non-caster multiclass need to have very different playstyle to be viable(Caster/Hexblade 1, Caster with extra attack/Paladin 2), while most such builds like wizard or sorcerer X/Fighter 2 are total garbage and only make the character much worse, by my calculation wizard X/Fighter 2 is even worse than wizard X/cleric 1, the multiclass lost more than 1 level!
1. Again, your system is not considering the existence of spells that have nothing to do with each other- a spell doesn't devalue the worth of another spell if they don't overlap. It might not even devalue a spell with which it does overlap- there's a lot of reasons to keep both Fireball and Tidal Wave, for example, as they are pretty different to the core. Alter Self doesn't become useless if you have Disguise Self and viceversa, due to the differences between the two. I would also note that you're failing to considere that you could have no spell applicable in a certain situation. Which is something more likely with spontaneous (3.5) or known (5e) casters (admittedly, casters with limited spells prepared might fall there as well).

2. Those sorcerer numbers... Make no sense to me, I don't actually know what are you saying with "+1/+1/-5/+3/-6".
And yes, prepared casters can get it when they need it- that's the whole point of prepared casters. To not understand that is to not understand how prepared spellcasters work.

For 3.P wizards I will note that what you say is not completely wrong- with a versatile enough school you might not need other schools, but what you say is (A) too general and (B) still a sever drop in versatility and power as you'd lock yourself out of some great spells. Which essentially means get Conjuration or get out (Well, going full buffer probably would work as well and you can survive without Conj that way.).
For 5e it's not too wrong that multiclassing casters/non-casters can be a problem- that said, the existence of some great builds that use, funnily enough, wizard/fighter disproves your point. It's also funny that you'd criticize wizard/cleric when your wizard 'build' advertised it as the best possible wizard.

This not to say that only Wizard/Fighter is worthwile, it's just an example.

Except that spells-known casters can't have the "one spell" that is "perfect in this situation." So that second spell isn't of low marginal utility if its use cases are entirely different than that first spell's. For example, fireball vs. fly have very little overlap in use case, so which one is your "first spell" that is the "best spell you should always pick," that the second one on that list is of far less utility to pick up if you have the first one?
Fireball of course, since you can emulate Fly with a rocket jump.

[RSP]

1. There is always a best spell in given situation, which is the spell(or don't use spell) player should use. Extra spell is useful because in some case they shall be best spell and provide value = its value - value of the best spell among previous known spell. I use 1/2/3 only to make them easier to understand: the 2nd spell known makes 3rd spell known much, much worse since 1) the 2nd spell halved chance that 3rd spell is the best spell 2) the 2nd spell reduce the value gap when 3rd spell is he best spell


So what’s better: casting Fireball to help take down a group of goblins, casting Detect Thoughts to read the mind of the group’s leader to see what they want and how the PCs can negotiate their way past without violence, or casting Invisibility to sneak past the group?

Which one of those is 1, which is 2 and which is 3?

Why are any of those options worse because the others exist?

Why is the “second best” option “half chance” the first?

[Atranen]

1. There is always a best spell in given situation, which is the spell(or don't use spell) player should use...

There's a core of truth here, which is that if wizards don't get much opportunity to switch out spells or prepare for the day, the value of extra spells known decreases. If I approach every day as a blank slate, it's hard to know whether fireball or fly is a better option.

In most games, you do have a lot more information. If I know we're going up against fire resistant enemies, the ability to swap fireball for slow (or something) is a huge help. This is what people mean by versatility in wizards; you have the ability to constantly swap out to get better spells for any situation.

If you never know what you're up against and never have time to prepare, I can see why Wizards look less good.

I agree that the "1/2/3" value system is a vast oversimplification. I see what you are trying to do, but I think you have abstracted so many details to end up with a not very useful rating system.

[shipiaozi]

1. Again, your system is not considering the existence of spells that have nothing to do with each other- a spell doesn't devalue the worth of another spell if they don't overlap. It might not even devalue a spell with which it does overlap- there's a lot of reasons to keep both Fireball and Tidal Wave, for example, as they are pretty different to the core. Alter Self doesn't become useless if you have Disguise Self and viceversa, due to the differences between the two. I would also note that you're failing to considere that you could have no spell applicable in a certain situation. Which is something more likely with spontaneous (3.5) or known (5e) casters (admittedly, casters with limited spells prepared might fall there as well).

2. Those sorcerer numbers... Make no sense to me, I don't actually know what are you saying with "+1/+1/-5/+3/-6".
And yes, prepared casters can get it when they need it- that's the whole point of prepared casters. To not understand that is to not understand how prepared spellcasters work.

For 3.P wizards I will note that what you say is not completely wrong- with a versatile enough school you might not need other schools, but what you say is (A) too general and (B) still a sever drop in versatility and power as you'd lock yourself out of some great spells. Which essentially means get Conjuration or get out (Well, going full buffer probably would work as well and you can survive without Conj that way.).
For 5e it's not too wrong that multiclassing casters/non-casters can be a problem- that said, the existence of some great builds that use, funnily enough, wizard/fighter disproves your point. It's also funny that you'd criticize wizard/cleric when your wizard 'build' advertised it as the best possible wizard.

This not to say that only Wizard/Fighter is worthwile, it's just an example.

Fireball of course, since you can emulate Fly with a rocket jump.

1. A spell would greatly massively decrease the value(about 50%) of another spell even if they don't overlap, read again. Usually a chracter only need best 2-3 ways to spend their spell slots or other resources, even if you give them all methods it's not worth much, my argument could be very general about why extra choice to use resources are not powerful.

2. Prepared casters can't get it when they need it, they only have one choice on each spell slot and have very limited spell choice. They are not versatile but the opposite of versatile, can not pick conditional spell like a sorcerer could due to fundmental disadvantage of prepared casting system.

Wizard could prepare a good spell always worth 1, or one of the five condition spells worth 2 in 20% case and 0 in 80% case in each of their spell slot. So, wizard should almost always prepare the good spell and each of their spell slot worth 1. Prepare conditional spell is a stupid choice and reduce the value of spell slot to 0.2. Sorcerer know a good spell always worth 1, and one of the five condition spells. With benefits of choice, sorcerer could get two choice on each of their spell slot, so each of their spell slot worth 1.2 or 20% more than wizard!

3. Since some people like you don't understand the value of spell slot vs spell known, they end up with extremely weak build like Wizard X/Fighter 2 or Sorcerer X/Warlock 2. I never attack Wizard/Cleric, it's the best wizard build in 5e because Cleric multiclass don't lose spell slot while get huge benefits of armor.

[shipiaozi]

So what’s better: casting Fireball to help take down a group of goblins, casting Detect Thoughts to read the mind of the group’s leader to see what they want and how the PCs can negotiate their way past without violence, or casting Invisibility to sneak past the group?

Which one of those is 1, which is 2 and which is 3?

Why are any of those options worse because the others exist?

Why is the “second best” option “half chance” the first?

There are three spells A, B, C. They are extremely different from each other, and have no clear power order.
In six typical types of encounters, their value are A>B>C, A>C>B, B>A>C, B>C>A, C>B>A, C>A>B
It' good to get B as second spell, you cast it in 1/2 encounters, create value = value of B - value of A
However, get C as 3rd spell is less useful, you only cast it in 1/3 encounters, create value = value of C - max(value of A, value of B)
The more choices you have, the next choice would be used in less encounters and create less value.

[KorvinStarmast]

So what’s better: casting Fireball to help take down a group of goblins, casting Detect Thoughts to read the mind of the group’s leader to see what they want and how the PCs can negotiate their way past without violence, or casting Invisibility to sneak past the group?

Which one of those is 1, which is 2 and which is 3?

Why are any of those options worse because the others exist?

Why is the “second best” option “half chance” the first? *Golf Clap* that's a very nice post. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

1. A spell would greatly massively decrease the value(about 50%) of another spell even if they don't overlap, read again.

You have yet, in any post I have read by you, to actually justify this claim. You've made it several times, but reading you making the claim isn't reading proof that it's true. Please provide proof that this claim is true if you want us to take this claim seriously.

[RSP]

There are three spells A, B, C. They are extremely different from each other, and have no clear power order.
In six typical types of encounters, their value are A>B>C, A>C>B, B>A>C, B>C>A, C>B>A, C>A>B
It' good to get B as second spell, you cast it in 1/2 encounters, create value = value of B - value of A
However, get C as 3rd spell is less useful, you only cast it in 1/3 encounters, create value = value of C - max(value of A, value of B)
The more choices you have, the next choice would be used in less encounters and create less value.

So again, If there’s “no clear power order”, then how can you say one is half as valuable as the other? Why would there be a definitive “best spell in this situation” if different PCs have different goals in any given situation (one may want to eliminate the goblins, one may want to use them - same situation, different “best spells” for that situation).

And, if you have no idea what encounters you’ll be facing, there’s no way to say “this spell will be better than that spell” prior to being in said situation. However, if you do know what you’ll be facing, then that benefits the Wizard more as they’re the ones who can specifically prepare for the encounters.

Moreover, if you’re casting Spell B in half the encounters compared to Spell A, then isn’t Spell A equal to Spell B (they’re each being cast in half the encounters)? Likewise, as you say, if Spell C ends up now being cast in 1/3rd of the encounters, are we assuming A and B are each taking a 1/3rd of encounters as well? That would mean each spell has equal value, assuming one spell per encounter.

There’s also no reason to assume the value of Spell B is less the value of Spell A, as you suggest. Having two spells doesn’t make the second less valuable as a default. This may be specifically true to direct damage spells (if we assume all else is equal), in that you’ll only use Lightning Bolt when it’s a better grouping of targets than Fireball, and vice versa.

The point of versatility, in this case, is the lack of spells known limits the Sorc with what options they have to even have those spells as an option to cast; while the Wizard not only has more options at any given time, but also the ability to change those options if they have an idea of what to expect.

Those spells are just three examples off the top of my head, but there’s plenty of other spells that would also have “no clear power order”, not to mention the difference in AoEs like a lightning bolt (generally thought of as the “lesser” option to fireball) being better in tunnels than fireball, due to area constraints.

Directly comparing spells also fails once spell level is taken into account: is Absorb Elements more valuable than Fly?

The idea that “adding a 2nd spell known is half as valuable as the first” is just plain wrong, and you’ve yet to show any actual evidence it’s not.

[Segev]

So again, If there’s “no clear power order”, then how can you say one is half as valuable as the other? Why would there be a definitive “best spell in this situation” if different PCs have different goals in any given situation (one may want to eliminate the goblins, one may want to use them - same situation, different “best spells” for that situation).

And, if you have no idea what encounters you’ll be facing, there’s no way to say “this spell will be better than that spell” prior to being in said situation. However, if you do know what you’ll be facing, then that benefits the Wizard more as they’re the ones who can specifically prepare for the encounters.

Moreover, if you’re casting Spell B in half the encounters compared to Spell A, then isn’t Spell A equal to Spell B (they’re each being cast in half the encounters)? Likewise, as you say, if Spell C ends up now being cast in 1/3rd of the encounters, are we assuming A and B are each taking a 1/3rd of encounters as well? That would mean each spell has equal value, assuming one spell per encounter.

There’s also no reason to assume the value of Spell B is less the value of Spell A, as you suggest. Having two spells doesn’t make the second less valuable as a default. This may be specifically true to direct damage spells (if we assume all else is equal), in that you’ll only use Lightning Bolt when it’s a better grouping of targets than Fireball, and vice versa.

The point of versatility, in this case, is the lack of spells known limits the Sorc with what options they have to even have those spells as an option to cast; while the Wizard not only has more options at any given time, but also the ability to change those options if they have an idea of what to expect.

Those spells are just three examples off the top of my head, but there’s plenty of other spells that would also have “no clear power order”, not to mention the difference in AoEs like a lightning bolt (generally thought of as the “lesser” option to fireball) being better in tunnels than fireball, due to area constraints.

Directly comparing spells also fails once spell level is taken into account: is Absorb Elements more valuable than Fly?

The idea that “adding a 2nd spell known is half as valuable as the first” is just plain wrong, and you’ve yet to show any actual evidence it’s not.

Just to really drive home this point, I'll construct a toybox game scenario with made-up spells and problems.

In this made-up game, there are only five encounters: Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, and Turquoise. You automatically lose the encounter if you don't generate the appropriate color. Various classes have various ways of generating various colors. The Color Sorcerer knows spells that have the name of the color they generate.

The Color Sorcerer and his party don't know what color encounters they will have nor how many, but the Color Sorcerer knows only one spell right now. Which one should he learn?

If the Color Sorcerer gets granted a boon that lets him learn a second spell, is the second spell 50% less useful than the first?

Let's say his first spell is Green. Every time they come across a Green encounter and the Color Sorcerer has a spell slot left, he can cast Green and automatically win. He can't do anything other than roll to try to generate 1/10 of a random color if he wants to do anything other than spend a spell slot to cast a spell. When they encounter a Red, Blue, Yellow, or Turquoise encounter, that's all he can do, since casting Green just wastes a spell slot.

If he gets the opportunity to learn a second spell, and he chooses Yellow, is knowing Yellow in addition to Green only 50% as useful as knowing Green by itself was? Now, when they encounter Yellow OR Green encounters, the Color Sorcerer can choose to spend his spell slots to win. That's doubled the number of encounters his spell slots can win!

[Unoriginal]

You have yet, in any post I have read by you, to actually justify this claim. You've made it several times, but reading you making the claim isn't reading proof that it's true. Please provide proof that this claim is true if you want us to take this claim seriously.

This thread isn't the first time shipiaozi has done this, they never provide any evidence for any of their claims.

[Xervous]

This thread isn't the first time shipiaozi has done this, they never provide any evidence for any of their claims.

Is this called ship posting?

[Unoriginal]

Is this called ship posting?

Whoa, bringing out the d12-damage-die Vicious Mockery here, Xervous.

[Segev]

Is this called ship posting?

I thought ship posting involved fanfics about Grazzt and Igglwiv getting back together.

[Atranen]

Prepare conditional spell is a stupid choice and reduce the value of spell slot to 0.2. Sorcerer know a good spell always worth 1, and one of the five condition spells. With benefits of choice, sorcerer could get two choice on each of their spell slot, so each of their spell slot worth 1.2 or 20% more than wizard!

What if the wizard knows for a fact that a "conditional spell" will be useful on a given day?

[shipiaozi]

So again, If there’s “no clear power order”, then how can you say one is half as valuable as the other? Why would there be a definitive “best spell in this situation” if different PCs have different goals in any given situation (one may want to eliminate the goblins, one may want to use them - same situation, different “best spells” for that situation).

And, if you have no idea what encounters you’ll be facing, there’s no way to say “this spell will be better than that spell” prior to being in said situation. However, if you do know what you’ll be facing, then that benefits the Wizard more as they’re the ones who can specifically prepare for the encounters.

Moreover, if you’re casting Spell B in half the encounters compared to Spell A, then isn’t Spell A equal to Spell B (they’re each being cast in half the encounters)? Likewise, as you say, if Spell C ends up now being cast in 1/3rd of the encounters, are we assuming A and B are each taking a 1/3rd of encounters as well? That would mean each spell has equal value, assuming one spell per encounter.

There’s also no reason to assume the value of Spell B is less the value of Spell A, as you suggest. Having two spells doesn’t make the second less valuable as a default. This may be specifically true to direct damage spells (if we assume all else is equal), in that you’ll only use Lightning Bolt when it’s a better grouping of targets than Fireball, and vice versa.

The point of versatility, in this case, is the lack of spells known limits the Sorc with what options they have to even have those spells as an option to cast; while the Wizard not only has more options at any given time, but also the ability to change those options if they have an idea of what to expect.

Those spells are just three examples off the top of my head, but there’s plenty of other spells that would also have “no clear power order”, not to mention the difference in AoEs like a lightning bolt (generally thought of as the “lesser” option to fireball) being better in tunnels than fireball, due to area constraints.

Directly comparing spells also fails once spell level is taken into account: is Absorb Elements more valuable than Fly?

The idea that “adding a 2nd spell known is half as valuable as the first” is just plain wrong, and you’ve yet to show any actual evidence it’s not.

1. They have no power order means they have same power level, so each spell are best choice in 1/3 encounters, not total useless.

2. No matter which spell of the three you have, add third spell only have about half the value of add second spell. AB->ABC worth 1/2 of A->AB, as AC->ABC worth 1/2 of A->AC. Imagine if you have 100 spells known, know the 101th is almost completely useless.

3. Sorcerer almost always have more options than a wizard, wizard are forced to have only 1 option per spell slot while sorcerer usually have 2-3, and the value of 1->3 is close to 3->100.

[JNAProductions]

A reminder-a 6th level Sorcerer in 3rd edition knows ONE third level spell.
At the same level, a Wizard knows four, at a minimum.

[Witty Username]

@ship
What edition are we talking about? I lost track.

In 5e, there are spells that the wizard gets that the sorcerer doesn't, making spells are inherently more valuable on the wizard. So the analogy fails.

In 3.5 sorcerer got spells a level late. So no matter how much additional spells dropped off, it would still be better than 0. So the analogy also fails.

[Gurgeh]

A reminder-a 6th level Sorcerer in 3rd edition knows ONE third level spell.
At the same level, a Wizard knows four, at a minimum.
Weeeeeeell, at minimum a Wizard knows zero. They're allowed to use their level-up gains to learn spells of a lower level than their higest-castable, after all!

[Segev]

Imagine if you have 100 spells known, know the 101th is almost completely useless.

Depends what those 100 spells are, what that 101st spell is, and what your situation is.

Your argument is trying to be inductive to the root, which is a common problem in game theory hypotheticals, which always break down under experimentation. There is a point of diminishing returns, but that is hit when you start having more and more overlap or fewer and fewer situations where you can't cover it with your existing spell selections. Sorcerers fall far, far short of that point in terms of numbers of spells known in 5e.

[Valmark]

1. A spell would greatly massively decrease the value(about 50%) of another spell even if they don't overlap, read again. Usually a chracter only need best 2-3 ways to spend their spell slots or other resources, even if you give them all methods it's not worth much, my argument could be very general about why extra choice to use resources are not powerful.

2. Prepared casters can't get it when they need it, they only have one choice on each spell slot and have very limited spell choice. They are not versatile but the opposite of versatile, can not pick conditional spell like a sorcerer could due to fundmental disadvantage of prepared casting system.

Wizard could prepare a good spell always worth 1, or one of the five condition spells worth 2 in 20% case and 0 in 80% case in each of their spell slot. So, wizard should almost always prepare the good spell and each of their spell slot worth 1. Prepare conditional spell is a stupid choice and reduce the value of spell slot to 0.2. Sorcerer know a good spell always worth 1, and one of the five condition spells. With benefits of choice, sorcerer could get two choice on each of their spell slot, so each of their spell slot worth 1.2 or 20% more than wizard!

1. That doesn't track. If they don't overlap it's very easy to have a situation where one is useless and the other is not.
It's like having Fireball for an underwater adventure.

2. Wizards could leave open slots to prepare them on the spot (well, close) so yes, they could definitely have it when they need it. To say it isn't true is to not have read how arcane magic works for wizards.

This thread isn't the first time shipiaozi has done this, they never provide any evidence for any of their claims.
And the only time they provided something (builds) those were wrong (on a 'character creation' level, not only a 'this tactic isn't effective' level).

1. They have no power order means they have same power level, so each spell are best choice in 1/3 encounters, not total useless.

2. No matter which spell of the three you have, add third spell only have about half the value of add second spell. AB->ABC worth 1/2 of A->AB, as AC->ABC worth 1/2 of A->AC. Imagine if you have 100 spells known, know the 101th is almost completely useless.

3. Sorcerer almost always have more options than a wizard, wizard are forced to have only 1 option per spell slot while sorcerer usually have 2-3, and the value of 1->3 is close to 3->100.

1. No, because it could also be unusable.

2. If the 101th spells doesn't provide meaningful help. Played a character with 60+ spells prepared and those were still not enough. Once you remove the objectively bad spells what is left is spells you'll always wish you had.

3. Assuming this is 3.5 that's still false- here's the relevant bit:


"When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells."
Ignoring feats and prestige classes.

[RSP]

1. They have no power order means they have same power level, so each spell are best choice in 1/3 encounters, not total useless.

2. No matter which spell of the three you have, add third spell only have about half the value of add second spell. AB->ABC worth 1/2 of A->AB, as AC->ABC worth 1/2 of A->AC. Imagine if you have 100 spells known, know the 101th is almost completely useless.

3. Sorcerer almost always have more options than a wizard, wizard are forced to have only 1 option per spell slot while sorcerer usually have 2-3, and the value of 1->3 is close to 3->100.

Your first and second points contradict each other: if each of three spells are the most effective in 1/3rd of encounters, then they aren’t also less valuable than each other.

That is, if all three spells are equally effective, then they are all equally valuable and your second point is false: the third spell isn’t “half the value of the second” as it’s already been defined as just as valuable.

Apologies, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from on your third point. Can you explain why a Sorcerer has more options than a Wizard with spell slots?

[noob]

Your first and second points contradict each other: if each of three spells are the most effective in 1/3rd of encounters, then they aren’t also less valuable than each other.

That is, if all three spells are equally effective, then they are all equally valuable and your second point is false: the third spell isn’t “half the value of the second” as it’s already been defined as just as valuable.

Apologies, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from on your third point. Can you explain why a Sorcerer has more options than a Wizard with spell slots?

He stopped talking about 5e.
In a 5e thread.

[Valmark]

Apologies, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from on your third point. Can you explain why a Sorcerer has more options than a Wizard with spell slots?
Ship should be talking about 3.5 wizard/sorcerer- where each wizard slot was locked to one spell, while the sorcerer had less spells but they could cast any from any slot (and had more of them).

He stopped talking about 5e.
In a 5e thread.
Admittedly, the thread is also about how they compare to their 3.P variants.

[Gurgeh]

It's a thread that's explicitly about the differences between 3.X and 5e, it's entirely fair to mostly or even exclusively talk about the 3.X stuff.

[shipiaozi]

Your first and second points contradict each other: if each of three spells are the most effective in 1/3rd of encounters, then they aren’t also less valuable than each other.

That is, if all three spells are equally effective, then they are all equally valuable and your second point is false: the third spell isn’t “half the value of the second” as it’s already been defined as just as valuable.

Apologies, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from on your third point. Can you explain why a Sorcerer has more options than a Wizard with spell slots?


I have say same argument for many times but you still refuse to listen.

1. Three spells are equally effective in different encounters, so the value to know the 3rd is only about half the value of know the second, no matter which one.
They are equally effective means ABC-AB=ABC-AC=ABC-BC, not ABC-AB=AB-A, in fact 2(ABC-AB)=2(ABC-AC)=2(ABC-BC)=(AB or AC or BC) - (A or B or C)

[Copy Paste] Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3.

2. Sorcerer have multiple choice on their spell slots, while wizard have only one. [Copy Paste] Prepared casters can't get it when they need it, they only have one choice on each spell slot and have very limited spell choice. They are not versatile but the opposite of versatile, can not pick conditional spell like a sorcerer could due to fundmental disadvantage of prepared casting system.

Wizard could prepare a good spell always worth 1, or one of the five condition spells worth 2 in 20% case and 0 in 80% case in each of their spell slot. So, wizard should almost always prepare the good spell and each of their spell slot worth 1. Prepare conditional spell is a stupid choice and reduce the value of spell slot to 0.2. Sorcerer know a good spell always worth 1, and one of the five condition spells. With benefits of choice, sorcerer could get two choice on each of their spell slot, so each of their spell slot worth 1.2 or 20% more than wizard!

[shipiaozi]

@ship
What edition are we talking about? I lost track.

In 5e, there are spells that the wizard gets that the sorcerer doesn't, making spells are inherently more valuable on the wizard. So the analogy fails.

In 3.5 sorcerer got spells a level late. So no matter how much additional spells dropped off, it would still be better than 0. So the analogy also fails.


In 5e both wizard and sorcerer are spontaneous caster, in general sorcerer is more versatile but that's mostly about metamagic and divine soul, not related to topic.

It's mostly about fundmental difference between prepared caster and spontaneous caster. Prepared caster are viewed as versatile by most, but in fact they are far less versatile than spontaneous caster, they can't prepare conditional spells and are forced in a very small list of spells. 3.5/pf1 sorcerer is 1 level behind wizard with less spell slots so the versatile of spontaneous caster isn't clear until lv10+, however the versatility of spontaneous caster are quite clear in pf1 game and pf2 since the "1 level behind" effect is removed


Which does remind me that wizards didn't have to prepare all their spells at the same time in 3.5- the only prepared casters who could leave slots open to prep later (divine spellcasters didn't need resting instead I believe, unsure what else). So they didn't actually need to prepare those situational spells- just leaving a slot open to fill later was enough.

Advantage that they lost in 5e, but given the lack of vancian spellcasting it's overall a win imo.

In practice it's an ability with almost no use.

[Xervous]

In 5e both wizard and sorcerer are spontaneous caster, in general sorcerer is more versatile but that's mostly about metamagic and divine soul, not related to topic.

It's mostly about fundmental difference between prepared caster and spontaneous caster. Prepared caster are viewed as versatile by most, but in fact they are far less versatile than spontaneous caster, they can't prepare conditional spells and are forced in a very small list of spells. 3.5/pf1 sorcerer is 1 level behind wizard with less spell slots so the versatile of spontaneous caster isn't clear until lv10+, however the versatility of spontaneous caster are quite clear in pf1 game and pf2 since the "1 level behind" effect is removed



In practice it's an ability with almost no use.

The burden of proof still rests squarely on you.

The nature of 3.5e has sorcerers and wizards equipped with a subset of spells that are either uniquely dominant or at the very least highly versatile. Also inherent to the game in the realm of L10+ is the abundance of days which will not drain the wizard’s prepared spells. It takes considerable GM planning and pacing to exhaust a wizard while simultaneously not exhausting a sorcerer.

For spoonfeeding modules and simple hack n slash dungeon looting the sorcerer is serviceable. But that’s because you know the list of challenges and hazards are going to be thematically constrained. Granted that the wizard and sorcerer can each have a few castings of high versatility spells sufficient to pad out an unexpected same hour speed bump, the difference lies in the events later that day or week.

Unless the party is dumped in fully blind and driven on a merciless time table the wizard will have time to address the particulars of a scene. The 10th level sorcerer confronted with a sunken ship is probably using Alter Self to access it, but he must resort to multiple castings of Polymorph if he wishes to bring allies along. The wizard also has alter self and Polymorph, but there’s also Water Breathing which the wizard could spend 15min dropping into an open slot. 2nd + 3x 4th vs 3rd in terms of spell slots used. To deny this the GM needs to constantly apply time pressure but that’s hard to do outside of railroad modules and certain types of meat grinder dungeons.

If the party is expected to rest at least once while on site the wizard gets the opportunity to prepare niche options that address the immediate concerns. Did the sorc pick teleport as his only 5th level spell? The wizard got it along with three other 5ths (wall of force, contact other plane, etc). If this party knows they’re not doing long distance travel that day the teleport loses a lot of value, but there’s going to be combat so the dividing potential of wall of force is valuable. Or they know more investigation is taking place and getting some questions answered could help. Or it’s a dangerous place you’re scouting so Prying Eyes is of high value.

The sorcerer is more resilient to exhaustion if the best a character can rely on are the generally useful spells. But as is frequently the case the players know something of what they’re getting themselves into, and are not under strict time pressure, so the wizard gets chances to pull out the more specific spell that does the job better/cheaper/or at all.

[shipiaozi]

The burden of proof still rests squarely on you.

The nature of 3.5e has sorcerers and wizards equipped with a subset of spells that are either uniquely dominant or at the very least highly versatile. Also inherent to the game in the realm of L10+ is the abundance of days which will not drain the wizard’s prepared spells. It takes considerable GM planning and pacing to exhaust a wizard while simultaneously not exhausting a sorcerer.

For spoonfeeding modules and simple hack n slash dungeon looting the sorcerer is serviceable. But that’s because you know the list of challenges and hazards are going to be thematically constrained. Granted that the wizard and sorcerer can each have a few castings of high versatility spells sufficient to pad out an unexpected same hour speed bump, the difference lies in the events later that day or week.

Unless the party is dumped in fully blind and driven on a merciless time table the wizard will have time to address the particulars of a scene. The 10th level sorcerer confronted with a sunken ship is probably using Alter Self to access it, but he must resort to multiple castings of Polymorph if he wishes to bring allies along. The wizard also has alter self and Polymorph, but there’s also Water Breathing which the wizard could spend 15min dropping into an open slot. 2nd + 3x 4th vs 3rd in terms of spell slots used. To deny this the GM needs to constantly apply time pressure but that’s hard to do outside of railroad modules and certain types of meat grinder dungeons.

If the party is expected to rest at least once while on site the wizard gets the opportunity to prepare niche options that address the immediate concerns. Did the sorc pick teleport as his only 5th level spell? The wizard got it along with three other 5ths (wall of force, contact other plane, etc). If this party knows they’re not doing long distance travel that day the teleport loses a lot of value, but there’s going to be combat so the dividing potential of wall of force is valuable. Or they know more investigation is taking place and getting some questions answered could help. Or it’s a dangerous place you’re scouting so Prying Eyes is of high value.

The sorcerer is more resilient to exhaustion if the best a character can rely on are the generally useful spells. But as is frequently the case the players know something of what they’re getting themselves into, and are not under strict time pressure, so the wizard gets chances to pull out the more specific spell that does the job better/cheaper/or at all.

God, please read my arguments again, I have rebuke same argument 5 times in ONE POST, seriously?

[Copy Paste]
Sorcerer have multiple choice on their spell slots, while wizard have only one. Prepared casters can't get the spell when they need it, they only have one choice on each spell slot and have very limited spell choice. They are not versatile but the opposite of versatile, can not pick conditional spell like a sorcerer could due to fundamental disadvantage of prepared casting system.

Wizard could prepare a good spell always worth 1, or one of the five condition spells worth 2 in 20% case and 0 in 80% case in each of their spell slot. So, wizard should almost always prepare the good spell and each of their spell slot worth 1. Prepare conditional spell is a stupid choice and reduce the value of spell slot to 0.2. Sorcerer know a good spell always worth 1, and one of the five conditional spells. With benefits of choice, sorcerer could get two choice on each of their spell slot, so each of their spell slot worth 1.2 or 20% more than wizard!

[Copy Paste End]

Everyone could have scrolls for conditional spells in your ship encounter, but assume they don't have the money. Sorcerer might have Polymorph spell since her casting system provide more choice, while wizard probably have no polymorph, water breathing or other spells in their list. Have a spell on your list or spell book doesn't mean wizard have the choice, wizard have the choice only if he prepare the spell, and it's extremely stupid to prepare conditional spell.

In most modules team know almost nothing for most encounters they would face, how many times did you really prepare a meaningful conditional spell with certain information? Maybe once or twice in a long AP, this effect is small while wizard suffer from lack of choice in every encounters.

[Valmark]

In 5e both wizard and sorcerer are spontaneous caster, in general sorcerer is more versatile but that's mostly about metamagic and divine soul, not related to topic.

It's mostly about fundmental difference between prepared caster and spontaneous caster. Prepared caster are viewed as versatile by most, but in fact they are far less versatile than spontaneous caster, they can't prepare conditional spells and are forced in a very small list of spells. 3.5/pf1 sorcerer is 1 level behind wizard with less spell slots so the versatile of spontaneous caster isn't clear until lv10+, however the versatility of spontaneous caster are quite clear in pf1 game and pf2 since the "1 level behind" effect is removed

In practice it's an ability with almost no use.

Sorcerers are tipically called out for having access to a too little amount of spells in 5e and don't end up having many more spell slots.

You keep saying prepared casters cannot prep conditional spells- and yet you still haven't proved why. Sorcerers need their spells known to count- wizards can jot down the situational spell and only pull it out when needed and otherwise forget about it. This is more true in 3.5 but still true in 5e.

In addition I will point out that in Pathfinder 1 spontaneous casters are very much one level behind (and several spells known behind for each level, also considering you cannot upcast without metamagic which spontaneous casters suck at without specific builds in 3.5/Pathfinder). Dunno about PF2, which came out after 5e anyway so it doesn't really matter.

If you don't find a use in practical play for preparing slots later it doesn't mean it has no use- remember that to valuate something you need to study it objectively, not based on your experiences- at least not only on your experiences (which I still doubt you have since the two builds you ever wrote down on here were wrong).




Everyone could have scrolls for conditional spells in your ship encounter, but assume they don't have the money. Sorcerer might have Polymorph spell since her casting system provide more choice, while wizard probably have no polymorph, water breathing or other spells in their list. Have a spell on your list or spell book doesn't mean wizard have the choice, wizard have the choice only if he prepare the spell, and it's extremely stupid to prepare conditional spell.

In most modules team know almost nothing for most encounters they would face, how many times did you really prepare a meaningful conditional spell with certain information? Maybe once or twice in a long AP, this effect is small while wizard suffer from lack of choice in every encounters.
Aside from the specific example where you consider Polymorph situational (which is such a weird thing to say), wizards still have the choice as-long-as they haven't filled out all their slots (ability which you disregard for no apparent reason).


Their casting system provides more choice only if they selected the spell at level up, which is where they are left with less choice. If you consider it a situational spell then the sorcerer probably won't have picked it up unless they have all their bases covered (nevermind that it's not situational).

Actually in modules it's likely you'll know what you face, since they tend to have a theme- and in normal campaigns as well. In general if you aren't preparing spells based on certain information you aren't playing a prepared caster, you're playing a spontaneous caster with more spells known.
The exception here is the first time you meet such an enemy, as you likely will start preparing after that.

[GeistInMachine]

To use a competitive Pokemon analogy, I think what Ship is trying to say is that spell wise, 'Neutral Coverage' moves can be just as valuable as 'Super Effective' moves

If the 'wizard' can prepare a Water type, Ice type, Grass type, and Poison type moves, it has Super Effective coverage against many pokemon. In this analogy, Super Effective is a move that completely solves a single type of encounter

The 'Sorcerer' on the other hand, having less spells, needs to use their spells more efficiently. So maybe in this analogy, they only have two moves to choose. The pairing of Ghost type and Normal type moves has exceptionally good Neutral Coverage, where they are not super effective against most targets, but rather is not resisted by most types, and will be effective in nearly all situations, though not peak effectiveness. It also means there is a good option in any situation, even one not prepared for

So yes, there are many spells, and the wizard can bring a key for every lock to solve most problems. But just because it is more efficient doesn't mean that most locks can't also be broken by the big hammer of the sorcerer.

Does a sorcerer need more than one damaging AOE? It may be nice, but Fireball is 'good enough' and they can swap to Synaptic static later.
Do they need more than one Control AOE? Maybe they start with Web, but swap it for hypnotic pattern, which has a better but similar usecase

Wizards may get more spells leveling up, but after a while, they have a lot of spells that are just obsolete that will clog their spellbook. The vast majority of spells as you level up do the same thing as lower level spells but more effectively. So a sorcerer always carries the best spell for a use case and rids itself of the obsolete spells, even if those older spells may be better in very specific scenarios.

I do not think there are more unique scenarios that can be solved in only a single way, then there are spells a sorcerer knows. So while it may not be 100% effective at every scenario, maybe its 80% effective at all of them, and can make up the difference in places where metamagic gives the sorcerer a key to a lock that the Wizard can not replicate, like twinning buffs, or subtle spells, or using quickened sunbeam to trigger the blast twice in a single turn, or a divine soul Extending Aid and Death Ward buffs from one day through a long rest into the next day

[JNAProductions]

I feel you’re giving Ship too much credit there, Geist.

They’re claiming significantly more absolutes than your shades of grey allow.

[Valmark]

To use a competitive Pokemon analogy, I think what Ship is trying to say is that spell wise, 'Neutral Coverage' moves can be just as valuable as 'Super Effective' moves

If the 'wizard' can prepare a Water type, Ice type, Grass type, and Poison type moves, it has Super Effective coverage against many pokemon. In this analogy, Super Effective is a move that completely solves a single type of encounter

The 'Sorcerer' on the other hand, having less spells, needs to use their spells more efficiently. So maybe in this analogy, they only have two moves to choose. The pairing of Ghost type and Normal type moves has exceptionally good Neutral Coverage, where they are not super effective against most targets, but rather is not resisted by most types, and will be effective in nearly all situations, though not peak effectiveness. It also means there is a good option in any situation, even one not prepared for

So yes, there are many spells, and the wizard can bring a key for every lock to solve most problems. But just because it is more efficient doesn't mean that most locks can't also be broken by the big hammer of the sorcerer.

Does a sorcerer need more than one damaging AOE? It may be nice, but Fireball is 'good enough' and they can swap to Synaptic static later.
Do they need more than one Control AOE? Maybe they start with Web, but swap it for hypnotic pattern, which has a better but similar usecase

Wizards may get more spells leveling up, but after a while, they have a lot of spells that are just obsolete that will clog their spellbook. The vast majority of spells as you level up do the same thing as lower level spells but more effectively. So a sorcerer always carries the best spell for a use case and rids itself of the obsolete spells, even if those older spells may be better in very specific scenarios.

I do not think there are more unique scenarios that can be solved in only a single way, then there are spells a sorcerer knows. So while it may not be 100% effective at every scenario, maybe its 80% effective at all of them, and can make up the difference in places where metamagic gives the sorcerer a key to a lock that the Wizard can not replicate, like twinning buffs, or subtle spells, or using quickened sunbeam to trigger the blast twice in a single turn, or a divine soul Extending Aid and Death Ward buffs from one day through a long rest into the next day

I kinda agree with the first part of this- though on the second part I think it's less that the sorcerer gets rid of the obsolete spells and more that they need to kick something out for the new ones. I also think a wizard wouldn't have all that many obsolete spells- but that's more subjective.

That said, it strikes me as somewhat of the opposite that ship is saying. According to them those two additional moves the pokemon wizard has are essentially useless- in addition the sorcerer can afford to bring more 'keys' for multiple locks while the wizard can only focus on the good, always usable spells.

[Xervous]

Everyone could have scrolls for conditional spells in your ship encounter, but assume they don't have the money. Sorcerer might have Polymorph spell since her casting system provide more choice, while wizard probably have no polymorph, water breathing or other spells in their list. Have a spell on your list or spell book doesn't mean wizard have the choice, wizard have the choice only if he prepare the spell, and it's extremely stupid to prepare conditional spell.

In most modules team know almost nothing for most encounters they would face, how many times did you really prepare a meaningful conditional spell with certain information? Maybe once or twice in a long AP, this effect is small while wizard suffer from lack of choice in every encounters.

Introducing scrolls is a slippery slope that allows such ludicrous things as propping up a 3.5e Fighter alongside a wizard. It is irrelevant bluster serving only as an attempted evasion of the topic. Additionally, scroll inclusion at sufficient quantities just feeds the wizard more spells known.

You pointedly ignored the 3.5 wizard’s partial preparation feature brought up in the example after dismissing it earlier as irrelevant. I’ve demonstrated quite clearly there are circumstances both reasonable and common for its relevance. Provide facts and framing or you have no argument of substance.

Let us be clear that the 3.5 wizard undeniably gets more choice in spell availability. 10th level sorc has 5/4/3/2/1 spells known. An 18 INT start, 10th level wizard will have 11/4/4/4/4 spells known at the barest minimum. Adventure paths feature many a scroll and spell book to cannibalize. Random treasure generation vomits out scrolls (70% of which will be arcane scrolls).


Minor magic item: 38% chance for a scroll. More than 1/4 random minor magic items will be an arcane scroll. Each will have an average of two spells

Medium: 15%. 1/10 medium magic items will be an arcane scroll. Average 2.5 spells

Major: 10%. Roughly 1/14 major will be an arcane scroll. Average 3.5 spells

At about 5th level the random treasure rewards start having 30%+ chance of 1d3 or 1d4 minor magic items as entries. The DMG calls out fourteen such treasure hoards per level.

Assessing levels 1-9 for loot the average expected number of arcane spells on scrolls is 42. Even if everyone in the party sees duplicates 10 unique spells is a sizable difference.

One thing I’m curious about is what definition you’re using for versatility. Lack of choice with no other qualifier is meaningless, as the impact of said choice is absent. A wizard making fewer in the moment choices can easily have massive impact due to the overly versatile spells that allow the sorcerer to work in the first place. While many valid moves are open to the sorcerer in an encounter, very few are actually good moves. Having one or four combat spells during an audience with the Duke is meaningless.

Again, sorcerer is preferred if you know everything is going to stay within the narrow scope of your known spells. If the campaign asks for more potential approaches than the limits of the sorcerer can accommodate then the wizard’s versatility shines.

The games that overly favor the sorcerer are the exception rather than the rule.

[Atranen]

I feel you’re giving Ship too much credit there, Geist.

They’re claiming significantly more absolutes than your shades of grey allow.

I think Geist did a great job of summarizing the best version of Ship's argument (and a better version than Ship presented). Which is still wrong, as Ship won't address the point about preparing conditional spells during the day! At best, the argument applies to a very specific type of campaign.


I have say same argument for many times but you still refuse to listen.

1. Three spells are equally effective in different encounters, so the value to know the 3rd is only about half the value of know the second, no matter which one.
They are equally effective means ABC-AB=ABC-AC=ABC-BC, not ABC-AB=AB-A, in fact 2(ABC-AB)=2(ABC-AC)=2(ABC-BC)=(AB or AC or BC) - (A or B or C)

[Copy Paste] Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3.

I'm pretty mathematically inclined and I have trouble following this. I don't think it makes sense to compare spells this way. I think you need a concrete example with specific scenarios to make this clear. Repeating it again is not going to help.

[GeistInMachine]

That said, it strikes me as somewhat of the opposite that ship is saying. According to them those two additional moves the pokemon wizard has are essentially useless- in addition the sorcerer can afford to bring more 'keys' for multiple locks while the wizard can only focus on the good, always usable spells.

The two extra moves are useful when they apply, but the extra coverage is for more and more niche situations, i think is the point. In my type example, Water is the workhorse move of the moveset, it is super effective and neutral against a lot of types. Dark then is super effective against a lot of types that Water is neutral against, and neutral against things water isnt very effective against. Grass and Poison coverage though? Those are specifically for Water and Grass enemies respectively, who resist water. Its a strong counter in those situations, but only useful because Water type has situations it can't deal with. A Water/Fighting pokemon like Keldio for example counters water/dark coverage and you need an extra grass or psychic move to deal with it.

Ghost/Normal coverage on the other hand, is perfect neutral coverage in two moves. There are no hard counters to it, but it also doesn't excel in every situation.

So thats how i see wizards and sorcs.
Wizards have supereffective converage but spend more spells to attain that, and if they prep spells badly can be caught off guard. A sorcerer has strong neutral coverage, never being the perfect fit for a sitaution, but they can usually do somthing effective and use metamagic to increase the number of situations their spells are neutrally effective in

[KorvinStarmast]

The games that overly favor the sorcerer are the exception rather than the rule. In 5e, yes, though I can't say for sure about 3.x as my time playing it was limited.

[Segev]

God, please read my arguments again, I have rebuke same argument 5 times in ONE POST, seriously?

You have not rebuked nor rebutted these arguments. Repeating something that THEY are rebutting doesn't rebut them.

If you feel what you copy/pasted again rebuts it, you need to recognize that people either don't believe you are right or don't understand your argument. Try explaining your argument in different words. Try using an example.

[Xervous]

In 5e, yes, though I can't say for sure about 3.x as my time playing it was limited.

I’ll clarify this is often the case in 3.5 because of the potency of general options and the large number of casts each class ends up with. In isolation the sorcerer’s slots approach 6/6/6... while the wizard approaches 4/4/4... but this is first tempered by high casting ability score adding extra spell slots. A 10th level character in the example is likely getting 2/2/2/2/1 bonus casts, bridging the gap between the 4/4/3/3/2 wizard and the 6/6/6/5/3 sorcerer. 6/6/5/5/3 to 8/8/8/7/4. But wait, specialist wizard. Throw out two schools to get 1/1/1... slots for your specialty school. The sorcerer is ahead 1/1/2/1/0 spell slots at this point.

Casters don’t have attacking cantrips of note here, they just have the capability to determine fights in 1-3 spells. And these spells are often generally applicable. Referencing three of the biggest 1-20 adventure paths from 3.5 (Shackled City, Age of Worms, Savage Tide) you’ll generally know when you’re headed towards a big stretch of combat, and even then there are numerous opportunities to fit in a 15 min wizard arsepull break. A paranoid wizard can still be comfortable leaving a quarter to half their spell slots open because of the potency of general options and the relative demands of combat. If the boss fight only lasts 4 rounds you’re only throwing 4 spells after all. Or if you know it’s time to rip off Demogorgon’s heads you go all in on spell prep for that.

[Atranen]

it's extremely stupid to prepare conditional spell.

Another objection: suppose Karl the Magnificent is a high-level wizard. Being a high level character, Karl has a lot of options to dictate when and where he engages in combat. To make sure his resources don't run too low, he limits himself to 10 rounds of combat per day. He also casts 5 utility spells per day, for a total of 15 spells.

However, Karl has 30 spell slots available every day, meaning he only uses half of his spells. He can choose two kinds of spells: "General", which have value 0.8 in all circumstances, or "Conditional", which are worth 1 20% of the time and 0.2 80% of the time.

Given this set up, Karl typically prepares 15 "General" spells and 15 "Conditional spells". In the impossible scenario that no conditional spells come up, ((0.8)^15)^15 = 10E-22, he will have enough general spells to always get value 0.8. Otherwise, he will get value 1.

It should be obvious that it never makes sense for him to prepare fewer than 15 conditional spells. But it will often make sense for him to prepare more!

I don't think this scenario reasonably captures actual play; it glosses over spell level, how much value each spell has, whether a spell values is independent of other spells value, etc. But I mean it to show that even under the contrived, abstract model you present, conditional spells are useful.

Your set-up only works if A) it is a long adventuring day and B) the players have no idea what they will encounter on that day.

[RSP]

I have say same argument for many times but you still refuse to listen.

1. Three spells are equally effective in different encounters, so the value to know the 3rd is only about half the value of know the second, no matter which one.
They are equally effective means ABC-AB=ABC-AC=ABC-BC, not ABC-AB=AB-A, in fact 2(ABC-AB)=2(ABC-AC)=2(ABC-BC)=(AB or AC or BC) - (A or B or C)

[Copy Paste] Assume there are three spells and they produce 1/2/3 value in different encounters(1/2/3, 1/3/2, 2/1/3, 2/3/1, 3/1/2, 3/2/1), then know 1/2/3 spells would make your spell slot worth 2/2.67/3.

Repeatedly telling us to assume something isn’t the same thing as telling us why we should assume something. Also, you’ve yet to address why having 3 equal values spells means the third is less valuable than having the first.



2. Sorcerer have multiple choice on their spell slots, while wizard have only one. [Copy Paste] Prepared casters can't get it when they need it, they only have one choice on each spell slot and have very limited spell choice. They are not versatile but the opposite of versatile, can not pick conditional spell like a sorcerer could due to fundmental disadvantage of prepared casting system.

Wizard could prepare a good spell always worth 1, or one of the five condition spells worth 2 in 20% case and 0 in 80% case in each of their spell slot. So, wizard should almost always prepare the good spell and each of their spell slot worth 1. Prepare conditional spell is a stupid choice and reduce the value of spell slot to 0.2. Sorcerer know a good spell always worth 1, and one of the five condition spells. With benefits of choice, sorcerer could get two choice on each of their spell slot, so each of their spell slot worth 1.2 or 20% more than wizard!

Again, you’ve yet to explain where your values are coming from. And you’re completely wrong in your assumptions: the “prepared caster” in this case is a Wizard, who can not only change up their spells, but will have more spells available to choose from at any given point in time.

Sorcerer’s spells aren’t more versatile, with the exception of those using Transmuted Metamagic.

However, that doesn’t actually make the Sorcerer more versatile. Let’s look at an example from a published module: Storm King’s Thunder. Let’s compare the Wizard and Sorcerer at level 9. The Sorcerer has 10 spells known from the Sorcerer list. The Wizard has 12-15 spells known depending on if their Int is 16, 18 or 20. Let’s make this as easy a comparison as possible and assume the Wizard only has a 16 Int, so 12 spells available.

Right off the bat, the Wizard can prepare every spell the Sorcerer has known, and then has two more spells available. So the Wizard can do everything the Sorcerer can in terms of versatility, plus they have two other spells available to cast.

Now, the Sorc has 9 Sorcerer Points that can make a 5th slot, and a 1st, if all used to create slots. The Wizard can regain a 5th level slot with a SR, so the Sorcerer can get one extra 1st level slot cast than the Wizard. Now, the Wizard has a bunch of rituals that can more than make up for 1 extra 1st level slot: FF, Detect Magic, Identify, Alarm, Tiny Hut, Phantom Steed, Water Breathing, Telepathic Bond. The Wizard has those spells, for free in exchange for the Sorcerer’s extra 1st level slot. If the Sorcerer can even cast those spells, they need to use a slot, and have it take up a Spell Known. Detect Magic and Water Breathing are the only ones actually on the Sorcerer’s list though. Let’s assume the have DM for party utility. Now the Wizard can have every spell the Sorc does and 3 extra spell options available. And the Sorc might not have an extra 1st level slot anymore if they need to use it to cast DM in a situation where the Wizard cast DM as a ritual.

So Transmuted Spell let’s the Sorcerer be more versatile in damage type, right? Kind of.

Let’s say this party is going after Fire Giants. The Sorcerer can use Transmuted Spell to change Fireball to Iceball, right? Sure, but only at the cost of 1 SP per casting. If they do that twice, they lose that 1st level slot. If they do it more than twice, they lose the 5th level slot.

So any use of Transmuted just means they lose spell slots compared to the Wizard.

And the Wizard, knowing they were going after Fire Giants, didn’t even prepare Fireball and just chose a backup damage spell that deals a different type (like lightning bolt, perhaps), so the advantage the Sorc has from Transmuted Spell is very slight.

And that’s not the end of it, because if those same PCs go after Frost Giants instead of Fire Giants, there’s no advantage the Sorc has. In fact, that Sorc is less capable as they’re now carrying Transmuted as one of their two Metamagics that won’t do anything during the Frost Giant fights (most likely - we’re assuming Fire spells are the selection here).

So, at best, the Sorc has a first level slot on the Wizard (assuming they use no Metamagic), while the Wizard has their Rituals, every option the Sorc does for spells plus 3+ extra spell options. If the Sorc uses Metamagic, the Wizard has the same or more slots.

[strangebloke]

Sorcs have all the spells they need because they got fireball.

[Kane0]

Sorcs have all the spells they need because they got fireball.

Except you cant twin fireball, and enlarge didnt make it into 5e for some reason.

[shipiaozi]

To use a competitive Pokemon analogy, I think what Ship is trying to say is that spell wise, 'Neutral Coverage' moves can be just as valuable as 'Super Effective' moves

If the 'wizard' can prepare a Water type, Ice type, Grass type, and Poison type moves, it has Super Effective coverage against many pokemon. In this analogy, Super Effective is a move that completely solves a single type of encounter

The 'Sorcerer' on the other hand, having less spells, needs to use their spells more efficiently. So maybe in this analogy, they only have two moves to choose. The pairing of Ghost type and Normal type moves has exceptionally good Neutral Coverage, where they are not super effective against most targets, but rather is not resisted by most types, and will be effective in nearly all situations, though not peak effectiveness. It also means there is a good option in any situation, even one not prepared for

So yes, there are many spells, and the wizard can bring a key for every lock to solve most problems. But just because it is more efficient doesn't mean that most locks can't also be broken by the big hammer of the sorcerer.

Does a sorcerer need more than one damaging AOE? It may be nice, but Fireball is 'good enough' and they can swap to Synaptic static later.
Do they need more than one Control AOE? Maybe they start with Web, but swap it for hypnotic pattern, which has a better but similar usecase

Wizards may get more spells leveling up, but after a while, they have a lot of spells that are just obsolete that will clog their spellbook. The vast majority of spells as you level up do the same thing as lower level spells but more effectively. So a sorcerer always carries the best spell for a use case and rids itself of the obsolete spells, even if those older spells may be better in very specific scenarios.

I do not think there are more unique scenarios that can be solved in only a single way, then there are spells a sorcerer knows. So while it may not be 100% effective at every scenario, maybe its 80% effective at all of them, and can make up the difference in places where metamagic gives the sorcerer a key to a lock that the Wizard can not replicate, like twinning buffs, or subtle spells, or using quickened sunbeam to trigger the blast twice in a single turn, or a divine soul Extending Aid and Death Ward buffs from one day through a long rest into the next day

"Wizard" can prepare one of the Water type, Ice type, Grass type, and Poison type moves.
"Sorcerer" could prepare BOTH Water type and Ice type move.
Although wizard looks like they could prepare 4 types of moves, in fact they only prepare 1 type move while sorcerer could preapre two and select from them

[Valmark]

The two extra moves are useful when they apply, but the extra coverage is for more and more niche situations, i think is the point. In my type example, Water is the workhorse move of the moveset, it is super effective and neutral against a lot of types. Dark then is super effective against a lot of types that Water is neutral against, and neutral against things water isnt very effective against. Grass and Poison coverage though? Those are specifically for Water and Grass enemies respectively, who resist water. Its a strong counter in those situations, but only useful because Water type has situations it can't deal with. A Water/Fighting pokemon like Keldio for example counters water/dark coverage and you need an extra grass or psychic move to deal with it.

Ghost/Normal coverage on the other hand, is perfect neutral coverage in two moves. There are no hard counters to it, but it also doesn't excel in every situation.

So thats how i see wizards and sorcs.
Wizards have supereffective converage but spend more spells to attain that, and if they prep spells badly can be caught off guard. A sorcerer has strong neutral coverage, never being the perfect fit for a sitaution, but they can usually do somthing effective and use metamagic to increase the number of situations their spells are neutrally effective in
Ah, I see it. The example kinda breaks once you consider utility though.

Except you cant twin fireball, and enlarge didnt make it into 5e for some reason.

I can't say wether it's as good as before, but Enlarge/Reduce exists in 5e. I kind of like it, even if I see it more for the potential utility (works on objects as well! I think that's how it was in 3.0?).


"Wizard" can prepare one of the Water type, Ice type, Grass type, and Poison type moves.
"Sorcerer" could prepare BOTH Water type and Ice type move.
Although wizard looks like they could prepare 4 types of moves, in fact they only prepare 1 type move while sorcerer could preapre two and select from them

No...? Wizards would pretty obviously prepare one of each. And then some. There's no point in playing a wizard if you just prep the same thing multiple times (that and having many of the better PRCs).

[shipiaozi]

I think Geist did a great job of summarizing the best version of Ship's argument (and a better version than Ship presented). Which is still wrong, as Ship won't address the point about preparing conditional spells during the day! At best, the argument applies to a very specific type of campaign.

I'm pretty mathematically inclined and I have trouble following this. I don't think it makes sense to compare spells this way. I think you need a concrete example with specific scenarios to make this clear. Repeating it again is not going to help.

There are three spells called A, B, C. They have no clear power order and no overlap with each other. In encounters one of them worth 3, another worth 2, the last worth 1.

If a caster know one spell, her spell slot worth 1/3*3+1/3*2+1/3*1=2
If a caster know two spell, her spell slot worth 2/3*2+1/3*2 = 2.67
If a caster know three spells, her spell slot worth 3

Have 3rd option to spend resources have far less value than have 2nd, although the 2nd option itslef is on par with the 3rd option, since:
(1) The 3rd option are best choice in less case because character alreay have 2 previous options instead of 1
(2) The 3rd option provide less extra value when it is the best option, since the value gap is smaller against the best of 2 previous options.


Another objection: suppose Karl the Magnificent is a high-level wizard. Being a high level character, Karl has a lot of options to dictate when and where he engages in combat. To make sure his resources don't run too low, he limits himself to 10 rounds of combat per day. He also casts 5 utility spells per day, for a total of 15 spells.

However, Karl has 30 spell slots available every day, meaning he only uses half of his spells. He can choose two kinds of spells: "General", which have value 0.8 in all circumstances, or "Conditional", which are worth 1 20% of the time and 0.2 80% of the time.

Given this set up, Karl typically prepares 15 "General" spells and 15 "Conditional spells". In the impossible scenario that no conditional spells come up, ((0.8)^15)^15 = 10E-22, he will have enough general spells to always get value 0.8. Otherwise, he will get value 1.

It should be obvious that it never makes sense for him to prepare fewer than 15 conditional spells. But it will often make sense for him to prepare more!

I don't think this scenario reasonably captures actual play; it glosses over spell level, how much value each spell has, whether a spell values is independent of other spells value, etc. But I mean it to show that even under the contrived, abstract model you present, conditional spells are useful.

Your set-up only works if A) it is a long adventuring day and B) the players have no idea what they will encounter on that day.

Most offical adventures don't allow players to rest too many times, usually casters would use most of spell slots, lost a spell slot due to preapre conditional spell is pretty bad choice.

[Xervous]

In encounters one of them worth 3, another worth 2, the last worth 1.


Why? You’ve presented no context or justification for this valuation. Given you also state the spells have no overlap it’s weird to think the spells could be worth a fraction of the others, which itself implies there is overlap.

Logically, your statement doesn’t hold up, so what are you actually trying to say?

[Lavaeolus]

Most offical adventures don't allow players to rest too many times, usually casters would use most of spell slots, lost a spell slot due to preapre conditional spell is pretty bad choice.

In 5e, Wizards do not prepare certain spells in each spell slot. They prepare a certain amount of spells and can use any spell slots they have to cast any one of those choices, much like Sorcerers. As an example, a Wizard could prepare Magic Missile for combat and Disguise Self for social situations, then spend all their spell slots casting Magic Missile if the need to disguise themself never comes up. They don't lose a spell slot for doing so.

EDIT: Sorry, I think this might have already been clear? I got my wires crossed as to whether we were currently discussing 3.5e or 5e.

[shipiaozi]

Why? You’ve presented no context or justification for this valuation. Given you also state the spells have no overlap it’s weird to think the spells could be worth a fraction of the others, which itself implies there is overlap.

Logically, your statement doesn’t hold up, so what are you actually trying to say?

Please reply after understand the argument
3/2/1 are simple representation of spell's value in different encounters
Overlapped spells would have simliar value in different encounters, like two AOE spells usually both are good or bad, provide almost no value for know more of them.

[Copy Paste to debuke same argument for 6th times]
Have 3rd option to spend resources have far less value than have 2nd, although the 2nd option itslef is on par with the 3rd option, since:
(1) The 3rd option are best choice in less case because character alreay have 2 previous options instead of 1
(2) The 3rd option provide less extra value when it is the best option, since the value gap is smaller against the best of 2 previous options.
[Copy Paste end]

[Valmark]

Please reply after understand the argument
3/2/1 are simple representation of spell's value in different encounters
Overlapped spells would have simliar value in different encounters, like two AOE spells usually both are good or bad, provide almost no value for know more of them.

[Copy Paste to debuke same argument for 6th times]
Have 3rd option to spend resources have far less value than have 2nd, although the 2nd option itslef is on par with the 3rd option, since:
(1) The 3rd option are best choice in less case because character alreay have 2 previous options instead of 1
(2) The 3rd option provide less extra value when it is the best option, since the value gap is smaller against the best of 2 previous options.
[Copy Paste end]

The thing is, your simple rapresentation doesn't cover well the extent of situations- and no, two AOE spells definitely aren't both good and bad- you don't prepare a second AOE if the other one suffices. You prepare a second AOE because the other one is bad in X situation.

In addition having similar values in different encounters doesn't lead to spells giving diminutive increments- Fireball will be completely useless when you need Counterspell or Fly, and so on.

[paladinn]

I'm starting to Really like the idea of sorcerers using the spell point variant. I'd throw all the spell points and sorcery points into one pot. Spells cost 1 sp per spell slot level. Metamagic costs what it costs. Sorcerers get bonus sp equal to their Cha mod.

Give me a Divine Soul sorc and Transmute Spell, and Robert is my mum's bro!

It also works Really well MC'ed with paladin. Sp also equals smite points :)

[Atranen]

There are three spells called A, B, C. They have no clear power order and no overlap with each other. In encounters one of them worth 3, another worth 2, the last worth 1.

If a caster know one spell, her spell slot worth 1/3*3+1/3*2+1/3*1=2
If a caster know two spell, her spell slot worth 2/3*2+1/3*2 = 2.67
If a caster know three spells, her spell slot worth 3

Have 3rd option to spend resources have far less value than have 2nd, although the 2nd option itslef is on par with the 3rd option, since:
(1) The 3rd option are best choice in less case because character alreay have 2 previous options instead of 1
(2) The 3rd option provide less extra value when it is the best option, since the value gap is smaller against the best of 2 previous options.

To clarify, you are saying:
Spell A, B, and C are worth:
3 1/3rd of the time
2 1/3rd of the time
1 1/3rd of the time

By "no overlap" you are defining that for each scenario each spell has a unique value, 3, 2, or 1.

Therefore for each scenario there is a spell worth 3, one worth 2, and one worth 1.

And this doesn't strike you as a large number of assumptions? What if there is a conditional spell worth 5 1/10 of the time and 1 9/10 of the time--but I have prior knowledge that it *will* be worth 5 today?


Most offical adventures don't allow players to rest too many times, usually casters would use most of spell slots, lost a spell slot due to preapre conditional spell is pretty bad choice.

If you are playing an adventure where you can't do this, yes! But at high level you have a lot of options for choosing where and when to engage, and it's easy as a player to take the adventure off the rails. As a GM, I wouldn't count on being able to force a high level party through many combats in one day.

You're baking a lot of assumptions into the style and type of game one is playing. Your argument may hold for a specific, niche scenario: long adventuring days, no rests to prepare additional spells, no prior information about what adventure you're on.

What rankles people is when you assert that the niche scenario you prefer is the only type of game worth considering, and that folks playing other games and preferring other builds are misguided or making some major optimization mistake.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except you cant twin fireball, and enlarge didnt make it into 5e for some reason.
Enlarge/Reduce
2nd-*‐‑level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of powdered iron)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
{snip} Enlarge. The target’s size doubles in all dimensions, and its weight is multiplied by eight. This
growth increases its size by one category— from Medium to Large, for example. If there isn’t enough
room for the target to double its size, the creature or object attains the maximum possible size in
the space available. Until the spell ends, the target also has advantage on Strength checks and
Strength saving throws. The target’s weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons
are enlarged, the target’s attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage. But it can't stack, not sure if earlier versions allowed this.
I think that you can twin this spell.

[Valmark]

But it can't stack, not sure if earlier versions allowed this.
I think that you can twin this spell.

They didn't- there was no 'same effects don't stack' rule, but Enlarge Person specifically said casting it multiple times didn't work.

[strangebloke]

But it can't stack, not sure if earlier versions allowed this.
I think that you can twin this spell.

he's talking about the 'enlarge spell' metamagic that was in 3.5 and allowed you to increase the radius of a spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

he's talking about the 'enlarge spell' metamagic that was in 3.5 and allowed you to increase the radius of a spell. Aha, meta magic, nvm. :smallsmile:

[Valmark]

he's talking about the 'enlarge spell' metamagic that was in 3.5 and allowed you to increase the radius of a spell.

Oh I see. Though it's the Widen one I believe, as the Enlarge metamagic is equivalent to Distant metamagic in 5e. At least so says the SRD, I haven't fished out my old books.

[Segev]

In an attempt to help shipiaozi, I will share what I think his latest argument is saying. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I hope it will help us get on the same page.

Spells A, B, and C have "no overlap." This means, I think, they do distinctly different things, so they can't be compared as simply as saying "fireball does a different kind of damage in a different area than lightning bolt."
Spells A, B, and C can have "utility values" of 1, 2, or 3.
None of them have a particular value all of the time in every situation
In some situations, A will be value 3 and C will be value 1, for example.
No two spells have the same value at the same time in the same situation; in every individual situation, you can rank A, B, and C with 1, 2, or 3 (not necessarily respectively) once and only once.
Scenarios where A, B, and C have a given arrangement of values are evenly and uniformly distributed: A will have a value of "3" a third of the time, a value of "2" a third of the time, and a value of "1" a third of the time.

I draw this from how he's calculating his marginal utility measure.

As an example, if "A" is fireball, "B" is fly, and "C" is haste, there will be some scenarios where fly trivializes it, haste can help out but not as much as fly, and fireball will take some serious effort to make useful. If fighting a flying monster, fly would let the fighter get into the fight with it, fireball would let the wizard get one good shot (though it's only against a single monster), and haste might give the fighter the action he needs after dashing to make his jump in order to attack.

His marginal utility calculation, however, is flawed in that he's assuming that haste will always be useful at at least a value of "1," and thus you never need fly, so getting fly, while helpful, is always less useful than if you got fly without already having haste.

[shipiaozi]

In an attempt to help shipiaozi, I will share what I think his latest argument is saying. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I hope it will help us get on the same page.

Spells A, B, and C have "no overlap." This means, I think, they do distinctly different things, so they can't be compared as simply as saying "fireball does a different kind of damage in a different area than lightning bolt."
Spells A, B, and C can have "utility values" of 1, 2, or 3.
None of them have a particular value all of the time in every situation
In some situations, A will be value 3 and C will be value 1, for example.
No two spells have the same value at the same time in the same situation; in every individual situation, you can rank A, B, and C with 1, 2, or 3 (not necessarily respectively) once and only once.
Scenarios where A, B, and C have a given arrangement of values are evenly and uniformly distributed: A will have a value of "3" a third of the time, a value of "2" a third of the time, and a value of "1" a third of the time.

I draw this from how he's calculating his marginal utility measure.

As an example, if "A" is fireball, "B" is fly, and "C" is haste, there will be some scenarios where fly trivializes it, haste can help out but not as much as fly, and fireball will take some serious effort to make useful. If fighting a flying monster, fly would let the fighter get into the fight with it, fireball would let the wizard get one good shot (though it's only against a single monster), and haste might give the fighter the action he needs after dashing to make his jump in order to attack.

His marginal utility calculation, however, is flawed in that he's assuming that haste will always be useful at at least a value of "1," and thus you never need fly, so getting fly, while helpful, is always less useful than if you got fly without already having haste.

You are mostly correct. Overlapped spells like two AOE, would have similar value in different encounters, one would be 2.9-3.1 if another worth 3, 0.9-1.1 if another worth 1. It' not very fair and far away from reality(BTW don't prepare spells with similar effects in 5e) that new known spell worth almost zero, same as the most extreme example that each spell are conditional spell only useful in 1/N case that each spell worth 100% of the last known spell.

I don't assume haste is always useful and at least worth 1, you could replace 1 with 0 and the effect would be more clear, know 1/2/3 spells make spell slot worth 1.67/2.67/3, the 3rd spell only worth 1/3 of 2nd spell!

[Kane0]

he's talking about the 'enlarge spell' metamagic that was in 3.5 and allowed you to increase the radius of a spell.

Yeah sorry I meant widen; a metamagic to make an AoE bigger didnt make the transition from 3.X to 5e unfortunately.

[Segev]

You are mostly correct. Overlapped spells like two AOE, would have similar value in different encounters, one would be 2.9-3.1 if another worth 3, 0.9-1.1 if another worth 1. It' not very fair and far away from reality(BTW don't prepare spells with similar effects in 5e) that new known spell worth almost zero, same as the most extreme example that each spell are conditional spell only useful in 1/N case that each spell worth 100% of the last known spell.

I don't assume haste is always useful and at least worth 1, you could replace 1 with 0 and the effect would be more clear, know 1/2/3 spells make spell slot worth 1.67/2.67/3, the 3rd spell only worth 1/3 of 2nd spell!

I don't mean to be rude, but what is your native language? Can you explain this more clearly in that language? This is not at all clear, and I cannot be sure I understand what you're trying to say.

[Nadan]

I don't mean to be rude, but what is your native language? Can you explain this more clearly in that language? This is not at all clear, and I cannot be sure I understand what you're trying to say.
He is from a chinese trpg forum, and believe me even there nobody understand what he is talking about. He got banned from posting there because he post too much nonsense(in mod's eye) and wasting everyone's time to counter what he said.

[Kane0]

He is from a chinese trpg forum, and believe me even there nobody understand what he is talking about. He got banned from posting there because he post too much nonsense(in mod's eye) and wasting everyone's time to counter what he said.

Wait wait wait, the same guy that had that backwards 5e class tier list?

[Nadan]

Wait wait wait, the same guy that had that backwards 5e class tier list?
Yes, that guy.

[Captain Panda]

Comparing sorcerers to wizards isn't entirely fair, for a few reasons:
1. Wizards are generally regarded as the strongest class in the game.
2. They do pretty different things, despite both being arcane casters.
3. In many areas, and during certain level ranges, sorcerers are actually better than wizards in combat.

As I'm sure has been pointed out already (not gonna read the entire thread to confirm, but seems very likely): sorcerer's on their own are okay, not spectacular, but unlike the wizard they have a huge variety of multiclass options that dramatically enhance what they can do on their own. Sorcadins, hex dips, coffee/cocaine builds, these are things that are built on the fact that sorcerers have a much, much better casting stat.

Are wizards a better caster? Well, they get a much better spell list, and if you are going to play to level 13+ and want to really flex magical power, you should probably play a wizard or bard. If you're going to hit level 17+? Definitely pick wizard or bard. But in the lower tiers of play, wizard and sorcerer both do fine. Sorcerers are a lot better at picking up a dip in something else, strapping on some armor and kicking ass as a gish, they have the unique ability to say 'lolno' to counterspell, and that comes in very, VERY handy when you are up against a big, mean caster. Sorcerer weakness is pretty overstated, and very overstated once you account for the power and variety of sorcerer builds. Some are so great that people call them busted and ban them (cocainelocks).

And besides, wizard v. sorcerer? Who cares, in the 1-9 level range, druids are the best. Conjure those animals. :smallcool:

[shipiaozi]

Wait wait wait, the same guy that had that backwards 5e class tier list?

That backwards 5e class tier list was not written by me, the writer 落雨随枫 is extremely bad at optimization.
However he is an admin so he ban everyone who disagree with him, totalitarianism supporter are quite common in totalitarianism state after all.


I don't mean to be rude, but what is your native language? Can you explain this more clearly in that language? This is not at all clear, and I cannot be sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I don't think it would help, since most readers here don't understand Chinese.

I would explain it for 7th times:
1) Additional choice to spend resources are useful because they produce value when this choice is better than any other previous choices.
2) With more previous choices exist, the additional choice is less likely to be the best choice and produce less value on average.
3) The value of additional choice decrease as your have more previous choice.

You could try some number to calcualte the value of additional choice.
It's quite resonable to assume that 3rd choice only worth 1/2 of the 2nd choice even if the 3rd choice itself is as strong as the 2nd choice.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would explain it for 7th times:{snip} I'll distill what you wrote there: paralysis by overanalysis is a thing for most full casting classes in D&D 5e. :smallwink:

[Segev]

I think you have too sharp a drop-off in marginal utility analysis, ship.

Sorcerers simply do not know enough spells. Wizards may know "enough," but they're also not yet to the point that ability to learn more isn't a big boost - if they WERE, then nobody would complain about wizards getting more spells.

[shipiaozi]

I think you have too sharp a drop-off in marginal utility analysis, ship.

Sorcerers simply do not know enough spells. Wizards may know "enough," but they're also not yet to the point that ability to learn more isn't a big boost - if they WERE, then nobody would complain about wizards getting more spells.

In reality the value drop is usually worse than 1/2, because the 2nd, 3rd spells usually are much worse. A tier3 druid only want 5 spells(healing word, lv healing, 2 conjure, AOE) and then +10 extra spells only worth <5% of their spell slot

Yes, more choices are always good, but people tends to massively overestimated their value. A lv10 non-divine soul sorcerer/cleric only need about 7 spells (Shield, Absorb, Bless, Command, AOE, CS, summon, about 2 choices per each spell lv) but in fact he could prepare 4+10. Remove 7 known spell from sorcerer only worth ~5% of their spell slot, which means half the known spell for sorcerer to get an extra lv4 spell slot in lv10 is a good deal.

[KorvinStarmast]

A tier3 druid only want 5 spells(healing word, lv healing, 2 conjure, AOE) and then +10 extra spells only worth <5% of their spell slots. If you say so. :smallconfused: My druid player seems to disagree with you, however.

Yes, more choices are always good, but people tends to massively overestimated their value. I agree somewhat with this. We spent a lot of sessions with my bard (who, like a sorcerer, has to pick and hold spells) using a few spells a lot and many other spells not as much. As I level up, though, I've been dropping some spells and picking up others, and what happened in the last four sessions was that spells I had not been using all of a sudden got used.
Hypnotic pattern had been a very common 'go to' control spell that hasn't been used in a while. Many enemies immune to charm, for one. I will probably not drop it, but in the short term it seems to be a drag. Used to use conjure animals a lot (magical secrets) but not as much now since so many enemies have immunity or resistance to mundane damage.

Freedom of movement (for my two martials) and blindness (a non-conc debuff); used A Lot since gained.
Your 'it's a short list that you use a lot' is at least partly true, in my experience. (My tome warlock doesn't suffer from this, but that's a different campaign)

But the real winner? Ever since I got it, counterspell is my most common spell to cast since we keep running into spell casters.

[clash]

The reason why sorcerer has too few spells known is pretty easy to illustrate actually. It works on a few premises.

1. Every spell slots should have competitive options for what spell to cast in it.
2. Upcasting spells is generally not competitive with spells of the slots level.

Therefore, at a minimum casters need access to at least 2 spells for level. That's a minimum of 18 over their career and is 3 more than sorcerer gets. That is a minimum to have real choices for each spell slot. Do they need more than 18? I can't say but they need at least 18.

[Atranen]

In reality the value drop is usually worse than 1/2, because the 2nd, 3rd spells usually are much worse. A tier3 druid only want 5 spells(healing word, lv healing, 2 conjure, AOE) and then +10 extra spells only worth <5% of their spell slot

Yes, more choices are always good, but people tends to massively overestimated their value. A lv10 non-divine soul sorcerer/cleric only need about 7 spells (Shield, Absorb, Bless, Command, AOE, CS, summon, about 2 choices per each spell lv) but in fact he could prepare 4+10. Remove 7 known spell from sorcerer only worth ~5% of their spell slot, which means half the known spell for sorcerer to get an extra lv4 spell slot in lv10 is a good deal.

Any justification for these numbers? <5% implies you did something quantitative.

[JNAProductions]

In reality the value drop is usually worse than 1/2, because the 2nd, 3rd spells usually are much worse. A tier3 druid only want 5 spells(healing word, lv healing, 2 conjure, AOE) and then +10 extra spells only worth <5% of their spell slot

Yes, more choices are always good, but people tends to massively overestimated their value. A lv10 non-divine soul sorcerer/cleric only need about 7 spells (Shield, Absorb, Bless, Command, AOE, CS, summon, about 2 choices per each spell lv) but in fact he could prepare 4+10. Remove 7 known spell from sorcerer only worth ~5% of their spell slot, which means half the known spell for sorcerer to get an extra lv4 spell slot in lv10 is a good deal.

Fog Cloud is missing from that list.
So is Enhance Ability.
Pass Without Trace is a huge boon to a party.

Those spells are hugely useful, and yet do not appear on your proposed list for a T3 Druid.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Ship, I think the latest examples help a lot in trying to convey your point, as opposed to the generic ABC ones.


Fog Cloud is missing from that list.
So is Enhance Ability.
Pass Without Trace is a huge boon to a party.

Those spells are hugely useful, and yet do not appear on your proposed list for a T3 Druid.

I entirely agree with you, but ship's point isn't that those aren't useful, is that they aren't strictly needed.

From their example, there's a pretty clear underlying assumption that, fundamentally, you only really need to be able to win fights. Everything else is, presumably, secondary or circunventable. And with half a dozen or so spells, you are theoretically well covered as far as having a fairly optimal response to a combat situation goes.

That's what I got from looking at the examples, at least.

I kind of get that, even if I entirely disagree that the value something like Pass Without Trace adds is 5% to your total abilities if it's your 8th spell prepared.

The conclusion is still weird to me, tho. As I see it, it means Sorc can significantly close the gap, but it's not like they have such outstanding class features that being theoretically on even footing with the Wiz on the spellcasting department puts Sorcs ahead. At least for 5e.

Under that paradigm of "this handful of spells are all you want or need", I can see how someone would credit Sorcs as coming ahead of Wizards in 3.PF.

[KorvinStarmast]

Any justification for these numbers? <5% implies you did something quantitative. Retrieval from a body cavity is a method, is it not? :smallbiggrin: I mean, it's the internet.

[Xervous]

So Ship is playing modules where the only failure point is combat, glad that’s cleared up.

[KorvinStarmast]

So Ship is playing modules where the only failure point is combat, glad that’s cleared up.
fog cloud is such a good spell. :smallsmile: