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

[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.

[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.

[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.