D&D 5E (2024) Wizard vs Sorcerer In-Depth Analysis (2024)

[FrogReaver]

17 with subclass, not 16. You get two from the subclass when you hit level 3 for having spell level 1 and spell level 2 magics, then a third for getting spell level 3 magics.

But if we're going to discuss Bladesinger, the subclass without offering more spells, then you have to take into account the Chaos Sorcerer, who also doesn't get any subclass spells. Both have one subclass as an exception, which makes it kind of a wash imho.

You seem very insistent that the wizard is going to be taking all these ritual spells. This is not a given, as many of these are game dependent. There's plenty of games where comprehend language, for instance, will never be taken as a spell even if you can cast it as a ritual. Said wizard might be more interested in having access to Knock, or something else.

Let me spell it out a little more clearly.

If the Wizard chooses to not take rituals and was correct not to, in that they would not be useful in the campaign, then that's a campaign where the sorcerer is already outright better (outside very high levels), regardless of this wizard being able to potentially scribe more diverse scrolls in downtime. The combination of metamagic and innate sorcery is better than arcane recovery and a few more options to scribe scrolls in virtually every environment.

And if the Wizard chooses to take rituals and was correct to do so, in that they are useful in the campaign, then he's not going to have all those extra spell slots you keep bringing up. At most it will be a minimal amount extra. At worst it might be fewer non ritual spells known than the sorcerer. And I think we agree there's no particularly good reason for the wizard to scribe most if any ritual spells to a scroll?

There is no "most of these known spells are already taken" here. Different players will have different spells they desire.

I made the point that wizards knew more spells than the Sorcerer because Zard said, "They theoretically have more spells." Suggesting that wizards do not have more spells if the DM does not include opportunities to scribe more spells into their spellbook.

I thought it was fairly clear Zard was talking about prepared spells and not known spells for spell scribing there.

It is an objective fact that wizards do know more spells, even without getting said opportunities. Granted, the number is quite small in tier 1 and 2, so its easily dismissed, but I'm kinda nitpicking here.

And it's also an objective fact that all of those extra spells may go to rituals and that access to at least some rituals is the biggest thing that sets the wizard apart from the sorcerer. If you aren't leaning into rituals at all then it's really hard to justify Wizard over Sorcerer in most campaigns.

Insisting that sorcerers have to benefit just as much as wizards from scroll scribing is such a weird take to me. Both classes approach the mage-thing as mirrors of each other - where sorcerer is better in one way, wizard is better in a different way. Social vs explorer, nova vs sustain, stick vs scroll, more prepared vs more known. Nothing wrong with each having their own strengths.

Don't you agree that for a Wizard that takes many rituals that the sorcerer will have more useful spells to scribe into scrolls?

And also, my OP explicitly made the point that which was better was situational. So don't be acting like I'm saying the Wizard doesn't have any strengths. Disagreeing that this particular thing is a strength isn't the same thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Without adding additional spells a wizard is leveraging a small number of spells from the spell book for ritual casting or spell swapping (including for making scrolls) in the first two tiers. That changes rapidly in tier 3 when the wizard continues to add spells to the spell book and other arcane casters are all only picking up a few spells prepared.

The only contention I have here is that the Wizard is going to take a few rituals. Every ritual taken is a spell that's not really worth preparing for any reason, including scribing a scroll. So to say with a blanket statement that wizards scribe scrolls better because they have more spells known, that's not really true in many circumstances.

To put this in perspective if at level 5 a wizard has taken 4 rituals he has the same number of non-ritual spells known as a sorcerer. If by level 9 he takes 7 rituals then it's the same.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Realistically you have to stock up on rituals which mostly dont matter that much

That depends on what style game is being played.

Cherry pick the best ones

The “best ones” depends on the situation. The DM suddenly announces they will be running a heist from Keys from the Golden Vault. The sorcerer's combat focused loadout isn't going to be much use. The wizard can prep relevant spells (buying scrolls if they aren't already in their book).

And that's before you take into account that many DMs, if they feel that a particular spell is overused, start to put in lots of monsters that are resistant.

I think you are falling into the trap of looking at how your table plays and assuming it's a general experience rather than an outlier.

 

[Zardnaar]

That depends on what style game is being played.

The “best ones” depends on the situation. The DM suddenly announces they will be running a heist from Keys from the Golden Vault. The sorcerer's combat focused loadout isn't going to be much use. The wizard can prep relevant spells (buying scrolls if they aren't already in their book).

And that's before you take into account that many DMs, if they feel that a particular spell is overused, start to put in lots of monsters that are resistant.

I think you are falling into the trap of looking at how your table plays and assuming it's a general experience rather than an outlier.

More looking at official adventures. Not that many scrolls and vendors are very DM dependent.

Theres only do much metsgamimg DMs can do if the Sorcerer know what they're doing.

ENworld I suspect vastly over rates rituals. Most adventures you dont need them and they're not exclusive to the wizard.

Add in skill checks and esch player knowing 3 languages you can usually get by without them.

Leomunds Secire Shelter. Most adventures dont have night time encounters. DM cares that much theres dispel magic.

 

[Mephista]

Sorcerers can in effect get more spells/fre upcasts via twin spell.

That's more of an upcast with an alternative cost, not more spells. There's no real way to argue that its more spells, because its still linked to one Concentration, one turn casting that's using 1 spell slot (or 1 charge on a staff/wand), and isn't going beyond what said spell was already capable of.

I'd agree if it was the 2014 version, but that's not what the OP started this conversation with. The sorcerer and wizard in question reference 2024 abilities.

Let me spell it out a little more clearly.

If the Wizard chooses to not take rituals and was correct not to, in that they would not be useful in the campaign, then that's a campaign where the sorcerer is already outright better (outside very high levels), regardless of this wizard being able to potentially scribe more diverse scrolls in downtime.

I'm going to pause you here, because this is one hell of a massive claim that is just... unsupported. No, make that two massive claims.

You're bouncing between saying that either a wizard player is compelled to take all rituals or no rituals at all; there's an entire spectrum of options in between those two extremes you're pushing. This isn't a binary thing.

Further... there's a bunch of spells that the wizard has access to that the sorcerer doesn't that are highly useful, but are not rituals, and can be exceedingly helpful in any given campaign.

The combination of metamagic and innate sorcery is better than arcane recovery and a few more options to scribe scrolls in virtually every environment.

Aaaand the truth comes out - you're biased in favor of one class over the other. This is a "sorcerers are better!" thread in disguise, instead of a critical analysis of both, isnt' it? Gotcha. I'll leave ya to it.