PDA

View Full Version : Sorcerers or wizards



Emperor Demonking
2008-01-14, 12:35 PM
We all know that sorcerers are more powerful but which one do you prefer to play.

Personally I prefer wizards as you can butcher the wizard to give him the sorcerers flavour and that's probably why you'd play a sorcerer if you don't mind complexity.

PlatinumJester
2008-01-14, 12:40 PM
We all know that sorcerers are more powerful but which one do you prefer to play.

Personally I prefer wizards as you can butcher the wizard to give him the sorcerers flavour and that's probably why you'd play a sorcerer if you don't mind complexity.

Wizards are more powerful actually. I prefer Sorcerers since you don't have to prepare a million different spells each day though wizards are still cool.

Severus
2008-01-14, 12:42 PM
Actually, I think wizards are significantly more powerful than sorcerers. Versatility is an amazing benefit. You can craft a spell list for each scenario. Sorcerers are kinda stuck, and if they've got a creative GM who throws lots of different things at them, they're really stuck.

That said, I'm playing a sorcerer at the moment because the flavor just worked so much better for the character.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-14, 12:46 PM
Wizards are great, but are based very much on planning ahead. Prepare the wrong spells for the day and you're not going to have much fun. Filling up your spellbook with every scroll you can lay your hands on is fun, but DMs can be stingy about getting new spells.

I prefer sorcerers because there is much less bookkeeping, and yes, I like the flavor of the charisma-based spellcaster. Wizards are the studious physics alterers and sorcerers are the wild-cannon types. Additionally, a sorcerer can cast spells all day long without worrying about what he's got prepared. He knows what he knows and he has a limited number of slots. Much cleaner.

Also, you lock a wizard who's used his spellbooks up in a chamber, with no gear, he's a commoner with a good will save and the ability to 'read magic'. Lock a sorcerer up, and you'd better hope it's an antimagic cell because in 8 hours he's going to be back in full force.

Edit: And yes, wizards are more powerful.

Edit 2: There are two things that I don't like about sorcerers in comparison to wizards. One: Spell progression. Sorcerers get their spells a level later than wizards. Two: Class features. Wizards at least have bonus feats. The only reason for a sorcerer not to PrC out as soon as he can is if for some reason s/he wants the familiar progression.

Ossian
2008-01-14, 12:48 PM
I like the fluff better on war-casters. It fits a lot more in my settings, where magic should be just extrema ratio. The spell list is a bit smaller, granted, and level by level wizards seem to be slightly more powerful, but a Sorc. is funnier to play and a lot easier. Even with the narrower spell selection, by level 6 or 7 they should have whatever they need to handle most situations, perhaps complemented by some magic.

I really pushed for our caster to be a Sorcerer, but he insisted on the tome thing, and on being able to do everything almost as well as all the other specialists. Could not find a way out of a Bard 1/ Wizard 6 (that is, the present character level)....

O.

Talya
2008-01-14, 01:01 PM
Wizards are far more powerful.

Sorcerers are more fun.

Draco Ignifer
2008-01-14, 01:04 PM
Personally, I'm doubly under-optimized. Not only do I prefer sorcerers, but I prefer to take at least one spell per level as a blasting spell, and tend to avoid save-or-suck/lose/etc. spells. I greatly prefer the roar of a cloud of dice avalanching across the table to a "OK, he's incapacitated." Save-or-die spells are fine, though, because "bang, you're dead" is fun too.

I also like to sometimes do other things when not in combat, though, which is why I don't go warmage instead.

13_CBS
2008-01-14, 01:06 PM
Sorcerers are more fun.

The main thing that annoys about Sorcerers is the limit on spells known. Of course, it's there for balance, but nothing frustrates me more when I have to decide between really useful and cool spells like Defenestrating Sphere and another powerful 4th level spell. :smallfurious:

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-14, 01:17 PM
I was joking on the sorcerers are more powerful thing.

Metal Head
2008-01-14, 01:28 PM
I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

1. They're simply more fun
2. I'm lazy

CASTLEMIKE
2008-01-14, 01:29 PM
Ultimate Magus Beguiler/Specialists although I really like Spellcasters and Sorcerers for spontaneous spellcasting with less recordkeeping.

Morty
2008-01-14, 01:34 PM
I'm not entirely sure about power, but when it comes to enjoyability and fun, sorcerers are like wizards with best parts thrown out and silly fluff added. What arcane caster is someone without a spellbook? So I choose wizards.

Gorbash
2008-01-14, 01:45 PM
Wizards are great, but are based very much on planning ahead. Prepare the wrong spells for the day and you're not going to have much fun. Filling up your spellbook with every scroll you can lay your hands on is fun, but DMs can be stingy about getting new spells.

I prefer sorcerers because there is much less bookkeeping, and yes, I like the flavor of the charisma-based spellcaster. Wizards are the studious physics alterers and sorcerers are the wild-cannon types. Additionally, a sorcerer can cast spells all day long without worrying about what he's got prepared. He knows what he knows and he has a limited number of slots. Much cleaner.

Also, you lock a wizard who's used his spellbooks up in a chamber, with no gear, he's a commoner with a good will save and the ability to 'read magic'. Lock a sorcerer up, and you'd better hope it's an antimagic cell because in 8 hours he's going to be back in full force.


Well if you do manage to lock up a sorcerer or a wizard, you probably already knew what they where, so they would also bind your hands, mouth and take away your spell components.

But yes, if you do manage to get locked up by 5 year olds, sorcerer is the way to go.

Not to mention every sane wizard would take Spell Mastery and trap his spellbook in order to avoid losing it...

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-01-14, 01:48 PM
"More Powerful" depends on perspective. Sorcerers need little foresight and in general can cast more spells per day than a wizard of the same level and of similar attributre bonuses. Being able to cast on the fly, Sorcerers can use meta-magic feats fairly easily (sacrificing only a speedy casting time in most cases).

Wizards, however, are frequently more versatile as they can have more spells in their spellbook than a Sorcerer has in his brain. Thus, a wizard with scrolls and spellbook is more likely ready to help out in a myriad of situations. The Wizard is more versatile in Item Creation Feats as well, as his spell knowledge gives access to a plethora of magic item requirements.

Personally, as an old gamer, I love playing a wizard. Specialization always gives me something new to try. At present, I've created an Enchanter (with prohibited schools in Evocation and Necromancy). It's been fun so far, and the rest of the party has been impressed that one can find different solutions to situations where we frequently toss out Evocations.

I've never minded bookkeeping for spell-casting, and I've found ways to keep it simple. My present method that I've found to be my favorite, is to print out spells on 3x5 cards with all pertinent details. A index card box with dividers serves as my spellbook. The dividers are there so I can organize what spells I've memorized (with occasional marks if I duplicate a spell in memory, and whether I use a metamagic feat). It's served me well, and the best part is that it has been re-useable.

Uncle Festy
2008-01-14, 01:58 PM
I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

1. They're simply more fun
2. I'm lazy

Amen, brother! Amen! Spell preparation and spellbook selection gives me a headache. Sorcerers are simpler, more clear cut, and still let you do awesome stuff with magic. Oh, and... yay Defenestrating Sphere!

Reinboom
2008-01-14, 02:08 PM
The main thing that annoys about Sorcerers is the limit on spells known. Of course, it's there for balance, but nothing frustrates me more when I have to decide between really useful and cool spells like Defenestrating Sphere and another powerful 4th level spell. :smallfurious:

May I point you towards the dragon compendium's bloodline feats?
They each add an additional preset spell for each spell level.

Also, giving sorcerers an extra spell per spell level in general doesn't make them much more powerful. Er, until they get into high levels - but this is more because of the power of arcane casting in general more so than the spell selection.


I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

1. They're simply more fun
2. I'm lazy

I completely agree, as well. :smalltongue:

Crow
2008-01-14, 03:01 PM
Wizards are more powerful in one-encounter-per-day (even if it's by their choosing) scenarios and sterilized theoretical forum debates. In actual game play, things are a little different.

In an actual game; Between a sorcerer who has made wise spell selections and a batman wizard, I would say neither has an edge over the other.

valadil
2008-01-14, 03:08 PM
I definitely liked wizards better up until PHB2. Now that you can swap a sorc's familiar for fast metamagic sorcerers have grown on me quite a bit.

I'm slightly biased against wizards because mine survived level one to twenty four. He has all the core spells. When you include metamagic and epic spell slots, do you have any idea how long memming spells takes? Last time we played, the prep time took longer than the game itself. I'm sorry, but I just don't like paperwork that much. If I did I'd probably go for some sort of tax auditor prestige class.

Meanwhile, sorcs with fast metamagic and residual magic, who mix and match metamagic spells as they go are just so much easier to keep track of. I don't know about the rest of you but I have more fun figuring out what to do on the fly than planning for every possible situation. I guess clever is more fun than smart for me so I'll have to take sorcs for now.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-14, 03:09 PM
Wizards are stronger when you can predict what will happen that day, sorcerers are better when your gm/party is crazier than a fish on wheels. But wizards in general are more powerful, and Sorcs probably should get another spell known at each spell level. Eh, maybe 4e will make it so I don't need 3 spreadsheets to keep track of my character.:smallannoyed:

Saph
2008-01-14, 03:13 PM
Wizards do require an insane amount of bookkeeping to run effectively. By the time my wizard reached 12th-level, her character sheet was four pages of single-spaced A4, not including background.

What really cripples sorcerers is being a full spell level behind the prepared casters. If it wasn't for that, I'd much prefer playing them.

- Saph

valadil
2008-01-14, 03:56 PM
Another factor to consider is the availability of spell scrolls. One of my wizards was played under a GM who didn't believe in magic shops. This pretty much negated the wizard's advantage of being able to learn new spells.

On the flip side if scrolls and consumables are too plentiful a resourceful sorcerer can stock up on scrolls. Solid Fog for instance has no save and no SR. The only difference when you cast it yourself instead of off a scroll is the duration and CL for dispel. Basically what I'm getting at is that if you gave a sorcerer a wizard's spellbook budget I'm sure the sorcerer could find plenty of spells that are useful off a scroll.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-14, 04:08 PM
Another factor to consider is the availability of spell scrolls. One of my wizards was played under a GM who didn't believe in magic shops. This pretty much negated the wizard's advantage of being able to learn new spells.

On the flip side if scrolls and consumables are too plentiful a resourceful sorcerer can stock up on scrolls. Solid Fog for instance has no save and no SR. The only difference when you cast it yourself instead of off a scroll is the duration and CL for dispel. Basically what I'm getting at is that if you gave a sorcerer a wizard's spellbook budget I'm sure the sorcerer could find plenty of spells that are useful off a scroll.

You do get two new spells every level as a wizard. Even without magic items readily available on the open market (a practice which I mostly agree with), a DM in that sort of setting should at least provide scrolls in the possession of powerful enemies. Of course, that leads to the question of where these bad guys got the scrolls if the players have such a hard time of it. I feel your pain.

Nitpick: The CL on the scroll determines all CL-based affects such as the number of dice in a fireball (just as an example), not just the duration and CL for dispel. :smallbiggrin:

Zeful
2008-01-14, 04:28 PM
Actually most utility spells have durations marked at rounds/minutes/hours per level so yes buffs and utilities take a hit when cast from a scroll due to the decreased caster level.

I don't know the formulae for dispelling but I believe that it's 10+CL+ability mod so you're wrong again.

valadil
2008-01-14, 04:31 PM
Nitpick: The CL on the scroll determines all CL-based affects such as the number of dice in a fireball (just as an example), not just the duration and CL for dispel. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with your nitpicking. Fireball is a terrible spell to rely on scrolls for. Something without dice, saves, or spell resistance is ideal. If you're in a game with plenty of scrolls, I'd suggest a sorc learn fireball (and one or two other direct damage spells) but keep something like Solid Fog handy on scrolls. I'd avoid using scrolls for anything that scales damage up or relies on a save, unless of course you're buying a scroll above what you can cast now.

-edit-

I'm not saying scrolls are as good, but they can come close. You have to be careful which spells you learn and which you scroll. Again, Solid Fog is still a good example because it's duration is minutes per level. Since its a level 4 spell the scrolls are going to last for 7 minutes, which is plenty for a huge majority of combats.

Talya
2008-01-14, 04:31 PM
Actually most utility spells have durations marked at rounds/minutes/hours per level so yes buffs and utilities take a hit when cast from a scroll due to the decreased caster level.

I don't know the formulae for dispelling but I believe that it's 10+CL+ability mod so you're wrong again.

How is he wrong when he mentioned both those things?

Zeful
2008-01-14, 04:36 PM
Because I misread what he said and thought he was arguing the opposite point.

Fiery Diamond
2008-01-14, 04:39 PM
I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

1. They're simply more fun
2. I'm lazy

What he said.

-Fiery Diamond

FinalJustice
2008-01-14, 04:43 PM
I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

1. They're simply more fun
2. I'm lazy

I second this too. Besides, I prefer the 'I have the innate power' fluff over the 'I study to gain power' fluff.

Sleet
2008-01-14, 04:45 PM
Is there a sample stat block of one of these nigh-unstoppable Batman wizards running around on these boards somewhere?

Edit: Yes, I've looked at TLN's Batman wizard thread.

RandomFellow
2008-01-14, 05:26 PM
Is there a sample stat block of one of these nigh-unstoppable Batman wizards running around on these boards somewhere?

Edit: Yes, I've looked at TLN's Batman wizard thread.

No. I doubt anyone posted 4-5 pages of spreadsheets and word doc's to explain their character's crunch.

This is why I never play a batman wizard. I'll play a focused wizard (e.g. Save or Suck centric Conjurer) not a batman. When the book keeping for the character requires more than 3 pages it is time to retire imho. My memory sucks.

Behold_the_Void
2008-01-14, 05:49 PM
If it weren't for the 1 spell level behind and lack of any kind of interesting class features, I'd enjoy sorcerers a lot more. I like the mechanics, just not some of the execution of the fiddly bits.

Talya
2008-01-14, 06:09 PM
lack of any kind of interesting class features

True. While it's silly, it also means there is no reason not to multiclass out of sorcerer into a full caster progression PrC, which gives you basically the entire sorcerer class with whatever the PrC gives you.

Star_Rider
2008-01-14, 07:10 PM
I prefer Wizards a lot more than Sorcerers. Wizards to me seem more honored and hard-working, and Sorcerers... they sorta resemble pretty-boy Wizards. And the dragon blood thing seems really REALLY wrong to me.:smalleek:

2xSlick
2008-01-14, 07:35 PM
I was actually going to create my own thread comparing sorcs and wizards today but it looks like I was supremely ninja'd. The problem with sorcs is those missing bonus feats. The bonus spells per level is balanced with the slower spell progression but why doesn't the sorc get some other bonus? Here are a couple of ideas I had, let me know what you think.

1. Dragon's breath
If the sorcs power comes from a dragon great aunt, why not give them one of keystone abilities of a dragon? Let em pick what kind of damage it does. Starting at level one, sorc can use a dragon's breath that does 1d10 once per day. Every four levels afterward damage dice increases by 1d10. Number of times can use each day increases by one every three levels. This lets a sorc grab some utility/ save or suck spells why still maintaining the blaster aspect.

2. Master blaster
For a sorc that wants to go all out with those d6 damage spells I submit the Empowered Sorcer feat. At level five, sorc gains the empowered feat for free. At level 10 empowered spells occupy one spell slot higher instead of the normal +2 for empowering spells. At level 15, empowered spells are treated as +0. Kaboom.

What you think? The dragon's breath gives the sorc something to handle mooks for those that want to grab other spells besides fireball. The Empowered feat lets thoughs that enjoy fireball use it all wiley-niley.

Crow
2008-01-14, 07:42 PM
I would not lament the passing of the terrible "All sorcerers are descended from dragons" thing. It was a little piece of fluff that was blown way the hell out of proportion. Sure, some sorcerers may have been related to dragons. But why do all of them have to be?

Talya
2008-01-14, 07:56 PM
I would not lament the passing of the terrible "All sorcerers are descended from dragons" thing. It was a little piece of fluff that was blown way the hell out of proportion. Sure, some sorcerers may have been related to dragons. But why do all of them have to be?



They don't. I don't know where that came from. (literally, I don't know. Was it part of 3.0? Because it's not in 3.5 as a requirement. It's "rumored" that many sorcerers have some magical blood somewhere in their background, but it's not across the board. Some seem to be just regular humans born with a connection to the weave (or whatever passes for the source of magic in your campaign setting.)

Metal Head
2008-01-14, 08:12 PM
I think Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, and PHII had "heritage feats" that let sorcerers take advantage of the heritage that gave them their powers. They were based on more than dragons. There were fey, celestials, and some others that escape my memory at the moment.

Brom
2008-01-14, 08:14 PM
I have good book-keeping skills, fast typing, the ability to plan well ahead and have studied magic (out of game) IE the usefulness of some core spells over others ETC. Basically I'm an evil powergamer who works the core hard. My Wizard is an Abjurer (banned Conj/Necro) who is 4th level. He's fun to play. I hear my friends talk about how much less book-keeping there is, but honestly, the book-keeping isn't all THAT bad. The spells/day thing annoys me sometimes, but my thing is, if I can't destroy whatever's in my way rounds 1-3, I pull out a crossbow. I stick to buffing party members and scorching a few select key targets, rather than just trying to singlehandedly decimate whatever is visible. My turns usually look like this:

R1: True Strike
R2: Scorching Ray with a +20 bonus to the most annoying thing on the battlefield. I killed off a big mean Cleric with a 27 AC this way :)
R3: Enlarge Person on our TWF Ranger
R4: Crossbow'ing/Scrolls/Magic Missiles
R5: Variations of the above turns, saving an invisibility spell for if the s*** hits the fan :P

Roderick_BR
2008-01-14, 08:21 PM
I was joking on the sorcerers are more powerful thing.
You opened a box that shall be locked away for eternity :smallamused:
Yeah, that's a hot topic here, as is "monks/fighters are better than xxxx"

KoDT69
2008-01-14, 09:54 PM
I much prefer the Sorcerer flavor than the Wizard. "I can manipulate the unseen forces of the weave with my very will" coming from a guy with inherently magical blood makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than "I am a master of the arcane powers because I read a bunch of dusty old tomes" from the Wizard. Really, one has a magical bloodline, and the other one studies. Even in Harry Potter the "Wizards" are not limited in spells per day, they're really Sorcerers using wands as a focus, or like Warlocks minus a bunch of fluff. Plus the fact that prepared casters make me wanna puke. :smallyuk: You can have all the spells in print, but if you didn't prepare the right one, you're SoL. Yah I know the general consensus is to cater to the Wizard and never allow him to be at any disadvantage, but in a sensible campaign even Batman can be caught unprepared. Porting out and coming back tomorrow is not always an option, and no fun for the rest of the party. I used to play Wizards a lot in the past (read AD&D 2e) and always hated having to choose spells beforehand. Sure I was never useless in any situation, but there were definitely some trying times, and that made it fun. A challenge is fun. That's the point of the game. D&D is not called "Oh you picked Wizard as your class, you win! What should we do to please you?". :smallfurious:

North
2008-01-14, 09:59 PM
Wizards are more powerful, Sorcerors are much more fun.

Flexibility and less bookkeeping. I definitely prefer sorcerors. It would be nice though if their charisma also boosted their spells known. ..

CASTLEMIKE
2008-01-15, 03:30 AM
I was actually going to create my own thread comparing sorcs and wizards today but it looks like I was supremely ninja'd. The problem with sorcs is those missing bonus feats. The bonus spells per level is balanced with the slower spell progression but why doesn't the sorc get some other bonus? Here are a couple of ideas I had, let me know what you think.

1. Dragon's breath
If the sorcs power comes from a dragon great aunt, why not give them one of keystone abilities of a dragon? Let em pick what kind of damage it does. Starting at level one, sorc can use a dragon's breath that does 1d10 once per day. Every four levels afterward damage dice increases by 1d10. Number of times can use each day increases by one every three levels. This lets a sorc grab some utility/ save or suck spells why still maintaining the blaster aspect.

2. Master blaster
For a sorc that wants to go all out with those d6 damage spells I submit the Empowered Sorcer feat. At level five, sorc gains the empowered feat for free. At level 10 empowered spells occupy one spell slot higher instead of the normal +2 for empowering spells. At level 15, empowered spells are treated as +0. Kaboom.

What you think? The dragon's breath gives the sorc something to handle mooks for those that want to grab other spells besides fireball. The Empowered feat lets thoughs that enjoy fireball use it all wiley-niley.


They are fine IMO because of the Spellcaster variant in UA/SRD already exists and most games won't go to level 20 so not very expensive to pursue for the benefits:

Variant spellcaster - 20 (Extra 4 generic class bonus feats at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20 in additoin to the first level feat which can choose from all spell lists for slightly less daily spellcasting and losing Simple weapons proficiencies and a skill or two for getting to choose 4 skill of choice like Diplomacy, Spellcraft, UMD, Concentration sticking to core). IMO since a spellcaster gets Summon Familiar as an option for a bonus feat it should get the option to take all the sorcerer and wizard class variants for trading in Summon Familiar for somthing else.

Spellcaster - 15, Thaumaturgist - 5 is better.

This can be improved IMO just sticking to core:

Arcane Spellcaster - 8, Thaumaturgist - 5*, Loremaster -2*, ACM - 5*

Intelligence as the primary in a skill based campaign and Charisma in a summoning based campaign. (* this build only really needs a single of Thaumaturgist for the Improved Ally class special), knowing Planar Ally and a L12 PC)

Basically the PC only needs two feats and will acquire the rest in PRCs so lots of feats to tailor the caster PC: Spell Focus Conjuration feat and Skill Focus Spellcraft (ACM), allocating the skill points for the PRCs and choosing the minimum numbers of required school spells. One single "Known" spell supercharges this build Planar Ally for Summoning Noble Djinni and Efreeti which works best with a LG alignment because Noble Djinni are Good and Efreeti are Lawful so you get a price break on a good Diplomacy check to Friendly.

At L18+ you can use High Arcana to make No cost Miracles a spell-like ability 2/day since they are arcane spells for the PC. You could also have a Noble Djinni ECL - 16 (10 HD + 6 LA) since L18 - 2 = 16 with an appropiate alignment. Efreeti are normally ECL 19 (the SRD is missing the LA adjustment but Savage Species has it).

Now consider all the other source book options for just your extra feats before even considering other PRCs just using the Spellcaster for the base class and a level dip or more in Thaumaturgist - 1+ and ACM - 1+ for Improved Ally and High Arcana Spell-like ability No Exp Miracle 2/day.

Little things like a UA/SRD Major blood line Fey for that +6 bonus when dealing with Fey (Bluff, Diplomacy.... (Genies are Fey according to the Shaman class)) since it is so easy to pay down and throwing in a +2 LA template like Half Fey or Phenic already paid down. FRCS Magic in the Blood feat from PGtF for increasing "all" single daily spellcasting abilities from 1/day to 3/day.

Lastly this build would only be fun to play in a really high powered game since it would break a normal game IMO but it is a nice exercise utilizing the rule limitations.

leperkhaun
2008-01-15, 03:42 AM
i prefer wizards. With smart spell selection you can handle a variety of different situations, meaning i ussually build a "ussually prepared spell list", that unless i mention to the DM that i changed it, thats what i have prepared. Then if i know what type of situation im getting into (going to fight a red dragon), i can pepare specific spells for that fight.

I dont like the fact that once a sorcerer chooses his spells, thats all he gets.

Morty
2008-01-15, 06:04 AM
I think Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, and PHII had "heritage feats" that let sorcerers take advantage of the heritage that gave them their powers. They were based on more than dragons. There were fey, celestials, and some others that escape my memory at the moment.

All in late attempt to make sorcerers actually different than wizards by exploiting single sentence in Sorcerer description in PHB.

toysailor
2008-01-15, 06:14 AM
With preparation, wizards win - its like a batman thing.

However, I've had evil DMs who like to do the "bad-guys-steal-your-spellbook" thing, or are just terribly stingy when it comes to giving new spells. In those cases, sorcerors would definately outshine Marty McBookworm wizards.

Jack_Simth
2008-01-15, 06:24 AM
I was joking on the sorcerers are more powerful thing.
Yet curiously, depending on the campaign, it's true.

Just a few examples:
An exceptionally low wealth Core campaign: If, at level 16, the Fighter's lucky to scrape together the cash to purchase the materials for a suit of Fullplate (and the DM has closed the assorted "cash spells" the Wizard/Sorcerer has access to) the Wizard's going to have issues knowing every spell in the game (where mr. Wizard gets much of his power).

In a campaign where the DM makes sure that you never have info on the coming battles, the Sorcerer's "good enough" spell set will be more useful than the Wizard's preparation issues.

In campaigns with a lot of encounters per day and little to no downtime, the Sorcerer's endurance will make him shine.

kamikasei
2008-01-15, 08:54 AM
They don't. I don't know where that came from. (literally, I don't know. Was it part of 3.0? Because it's not in 3.5 as a requirement. It's "rumored" that many sorcerers have some magical blood somewhere in their background, but it's not across the board. Some seem to be just regular humans born with a connection to the weave (or whatever passes for the source of magic in your campaign setting.)

It was, just as you say, a "rumor" in the PHB. With each supplement, it seems, Wizards has bought in to it more and more heavily. Nowadays WotC books basically assume that all Sorcerors are approximately one-sixteenth dragon. It's just silly, but meh.

It's a little similar to the way that Warlocks as written could have demons, devils, fey, or (celestial) eladrin as ancestors/patrons, could be lawful evil or chaotic good, could be descended from an powerful being, have made a pact with one, or be the descendant of someone who made such a pact... but are widely assumed to be half-fiend tieflings who have sold their souls to the Abyss and are Alignment: Any Chaotic Evil.

Ellisthion
2008-01-16, 09:26 AM
I prefer wizards, for several reasons:
*Get spells 1 level earlier
*Spell diversity (e.g.: at 6th level, I want more 3rd level spell choice than to cast the same one 4 times)
*Int as primary stat, which gives more skill points, and means my character is intellectually equal to myself, which makes it easier to roleplay.

Rad
2008-01-16, 09:51 AM
I like the idea of spontaneous magic, but I'd gladly subscribe to the ugly and charmless sorcerers liberation front. When the stats used to have very little mechanical impact on the game you were much more free to use them to describe your character's personality; now if you want to make a sorcerer you have to be charming, strong-willed and have a starting Cha of 18 (or just write 18 and then not roleplay it).

Balance-wise, my opinion is that spontaneous casting was over-rated by the designers in the first place. I think that the extra slots and flexibility are well balanced by the small number of spells known and I'd gladly shift the spells per day table to put the new levels on par with Wizard and Cleric. And I could still add the bonus feats in without feeling bad for the wizards.