I disagree. Ritual Casting alone makes Wizards better than Sorcerers. Combine with Wizards' ability to learn more spells, which translates to learning more rituals, sorcerers just cannot measure up. Versatility IS power.
Curious as to what spell you cast as a ritual for your fights that impacts them more than metamagic.
Metamagic is incredibly overrated. Their balance is way off, there are the obvious good ones, which most people take, and the bad ones that nobody bothers. Then they are limited by the small pool of Sorcery Points, which is used to fund certain subclass powers, or used to create spell slots. The net result is having less features than it seems. For example at Level 3, you think you have Font of Magic and Metamagic? But you only have 3 Sorcery Points. If you spend them on Heightened metamagic (which may still fail), then you cannot use Font of Magic. Then once you hit Level 6, there is more competition for the Sorcery Points.
Sorc damage builds are popular because of metamagic. They are not necessarily pure sorcs but metamagic is the clear factor. It's hard to call that over-rated. I do agree not all metamagic choices are equal value but all it really takes is working with one good one. Twin is an example of an excellent one because it's cheap on low level spells and increases damage and/or allows concentration on two targets.
If there are obvious good ones, as you say, they are obviously good. Your argument is that the whole system is bad because there are obvious good choices made and other choices exist?
Your comment on heighten makes no sense because if the heightened spell fails anyway then casting the same spell from another class would have also failed. There's no getting around the fact that heighten decreases the rate of failing to land a spell.
Prepping more spells than a sorc knows does not chajge how often spell slots used fail or save; heighten does.
I have to question your experience with the class, tbh. Your argument sorc points limit use but ignore burnng a spell slot for more sorc points. If the sorc needs another spell slot, he can create that second level slot for 3 points or a first level slot and still apply a meta; or the sorc can apply all the sorc points on enhancing up to half his or her daily slots with a 1pt meta on 3 spells; or the sorc can burn a second level slot after using 2 sorc points and end up applying a 1pt enhancement to 5 slots.
Selectively picking an expensive meta applied in a scenario with low points requires the assumption the character will not be built efficiently and the versatility in sorc point conversion will not be used effectively. Reimagine it as burning a third level slot to increase the chances of landing a fifth level spell against a critical opponent because that is far more likely in the event points are running low.
You claimed versatility is power and then missed how versatile the sorc point system actually is in how the points can be applied.
Do you know how to make a sorcerer feel stupid? Look at this spell list, if he has Shield/Mage Armour or both, give him a Staff/Wand that can cast them. He'll have to level up twice before he can replace both spells.
I don't take mage armor. I usually go dragon. To me it's just a spell slot lost to playing a wizard without armor. On that same note, it's not really different than giving any other character something he or she might not want or need. For example, how useful is giving a wand of mage armor to a dwarf wizard wearing armor?
If it's extra castings of spells I use regularly it's still the equivalent of more castings. If it's not then why did it come to me instead of another party member who might use it? Why wouldn't I give it to another party member who might need it? If no one in tbe party needs or wants it why wouldn't I barter it away?
It's an irrelevant point. The difference in using something of intrinsic value like those wands only changes how I make use of that value in a worst case scenario. Having something of value isn't worse than not having that same item. You are clearly reaching.
'I dont need Knock because my party Rogue has thief tools'. That's not a good argument. You always don't need something, until you actually do. What if the Rogue left the party or died?
I have a better argument. I don't need knock because it sucks. Who needs a rogue to open locks anyway? If I really wanted to invest in opening locks I would just learn the proficiency somehow. I don't take knock on any spell caster.
It's always nice to have more spells available. That much is true. The problem is that there will always be that one spell that might have come in handy but all arcane casters cannot have all spells at any given time. Only clerics and druids have that luxury.
I counter with facts here
- the wizard is limited by slots available
- the wizard is limited by spells prepared
- for a spell to be useful the situation must first present the opportunity
- for the opportunity and prepared spell to coexist the wizard must first know of the opportunity and have the availability to prepare it and give up another prepared spell in exchange
- the other prepared spell given up is being prepped becaused it's commonly used instead of rarely used
Rituals don't directly impact important fights, prep can situationally be useful but metamagic is very commonly useful, and in the end at high levels a wizard prepares only about a single spell per spell level over what a sorc knows. The versatility in the wizard gets over-rated.
If I had to choose one magic man, it would be the Wizard.
If that's wgat you prefer then play it. No one will make you play a sorc. Wizards were my first choice in most previous editions but in 5e they gave become my last for arcane casters.