Sorcerers or wizards

[Emperor Demonking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wizards are far more powerful.

Sorcerers are more fun.

[Draco Ignifer]

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]

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.

[Emperor Demonking]

I was joking on the sorcerers are more powerful thing.

[Metal Head]

I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

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

[CASTLEMIKE]

Ultimate Magus Beguiler/Specialists although I really like Spellcasters and Sorcerers for spontaneous spellcasting with less recordkeeping.

[Morty]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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.

[Crow]

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]

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]

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.

[Saph]

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]

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]

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.

[Zeful]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Because I misread what he said and thought he was arguing the opposite point.

[Fiery Diamond]

I prefer the sorcerer for two reasons:

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

What he said.

-Fiery Diamond

[FinalJustice]

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]

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]

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.