D&D 5E 5e Sorcerer versus Wizard, which is better?

[Ashrym]

Yes, I am describing the wizard method. You find spell books, and you buy low level uncommon and common scrolls, and you scribe them into your own spell book. That's how you can get most ritual spells as a wizard, without having to choose them as you level-up as your two spells.

Right, but we cannot say that works for wizards and isn't available to anyone else who might have taken the ritual caster feat. The books and scrolls are just as common for either a wizard or a sorcerer with the ritual caster feat.

The wizard has the better end of the deal with rituals either way because of the ability to add rituals while leveling up. The wizard class mechanic is better than looking for rituals for any character is what I was saying.

 

[Mistwell]

Right, but we cannot say that works for wizards and isn't available to anyone else who might have taken the ritual caster feat. The books and scrolls are just as common for either a wizard or a sorcerer with the ritual caster feat.

The wizard has the better end of the deal with rituals either way because of the ability to add rituals while leveling up. The wizard class mechanic is better than looking for rituals for any character is what I was saying.

Why would we talk about a feat though? We're talking about wizards vs sorcerers, not optional rules which take an ASI and put your ability scores behind.

 

[MoonSong]

Why would we talk about a feat though? We're talking about wizards vs sorcerers, not optional rules which take an ASI and put your ability scores behind.

I have this opinion from my unpublished sorcerer guide "Ritual Caster is a trap, if you want it so bad, multiclass for it, or go play a Lore Master. The feat is the worst version of the feature at a heavy cost, and carrying a book around that you need for spellcasting doesn't really fit with the sorcerer flavor"

 

[Ashrym]

Why would we talk about a feat though? We're talking about wizards vs sorcerers, not optional rules which take an ASI and put your ability scores behind.

Because it was brought up already and included in my other quotes in the same message you quoted?

It doesn't put the ASI behind by going variant human or waiting until 12th level. Dismissing it as an optional rule when it's listed in the PHB options is a bit disingenuous, however; clearly it's an option that exists unless excluded by the DM, and that's not something I see. I see players not take feats or wait until after ASI's but I only ever see the rare outlier case of a table using only basic rules or SRD rules to omit feats altogether.

The option to exclude a feat when that's not normal isn't a counter to the use of the feat, or the fact I was responding to a comment on that feat in the first place. ;-)

 

[Mistwell]

Dismissing it as an optional rule when it's listed in the PHB options is a bit disingenuous, however; clearly it's an option that exists unless excluded by the DM

On the contrary. As a rule specifically listed as optional (along with multiclassing), it's barred unless explicitly allowed by the DM, not the other way around. The default game is no feats. From the PHB:

"The combination of ability scores, race, class, and background defines your character’s capabilities in the game, and the personal details you create set your character apart from every other character. Even within your class and race, you have options to fine-tune what your character can do. But this chapter is for players who — with the DM’s permission — want to go a step further.

This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

 

[FrogReaver]

On the contrary. As a rule specifically listed as optional (along with multiclassing), it's barred unless explicitly allowed by the DM, not the other way around. The default game is no feats. From the PHB:

"But this chapter is for players who — with the DM’s permission — want to go a step further.

This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

While I like no feat games, I don't consider no feats to be the default game, no matter whether the rules describe them as optional or not, in practice they are used in most D&D games being played.

So you can have your "default" by rule
I'll take my "default" by practice

Every Time!

 

[Ashrym]

On the contrary. As a rule specifically listed as optional (along with multiclassing), it's barred unless explicitly allowed by the DM, not the other way around. The default game is no feats.

Sure, if it's listed in the DMG. Being listed in the PHB for all players to see opens it up for player discussion.

We also discuss multiclassing in our build options all the time. The actual passage states get dm approval so the PHB material is clearly open for discussion.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure, if it's listed in the DMG. Being listed in the PHB for all players to see opens it up for player discussion.

We also discuss multiclassing in our build options all the time. The actual passage states get dm approval so the PHB material is clearly open for discussion.

Anything if open for "discussion". Even optional rules in the DMG like flanking. But they're optional rules, not part of the base game, and not assumed to be part of games being played. Explicitly. This isn't debatable man, they're directly stated as such, all commentary from the authors of the game support the explicit statement, etc.. In fact according to WOTC a majority of players don't use feats for their characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Ashrym

You keep saying the Wizards spells known and prepared advantage over the sorcerer is insignificant. At level 5 a wizard can prepare 9 spells. A sorcerer can prepare 6.

So I propose you make a list of 6 known sorcerer spells. I'll then make a list of 9 prepared wizard spells. We can then compare those 6 spells with metamagic and the 9 with arcane recovery (more casts per day)

I think that will help make it more concrete. We can really see the impact of versatility and power from metamagic vs versatility and power due to more spells prepared and more spells casted per day

 

[FrogReaver]

Anything if open for "discussion". Even optional rules in the DMG like flanking. But they're optional rules, not part of the base game, and not assumed to be part of games being played. Explicitly. This isn't debatable man, they're directly stated as such, all commentary from the authors of the game support the explicit statement, etc.. In fact according to WOTC a majority of players don't use feats for their characters.

The data given by WOTC doesn't support that conclusion.