• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

5e Sorcerer versus Wizard, which is better?

Mistwell

Hero
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!
Evidence suggests that is not the case. I have seen nothing to support the claim a majority of games use feats. Do you have a citation for that?
 

Mistwell

Hero
Do you have a citation that they don't?
"Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. " - Jeremy Crawford.

Now you can quibble with that all you want, but you're going to have to provide a citation to what you said before it will mean anything.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
"Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices. " - Jeremy Crawford.

Now you can quibble with that all you want, but you're going to have to provide a citation to what you said before it will mean anything.
Nice try but..... Characters not having a feat yet doesn't equate to feats not being an option in most games.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Nice try but..... Characters not having a feat yet doesn't equate to feats not being an option in most games.
Now you can quibble with that all you want, but you're going to have to provide a citation to what you said before it will mean anything.

That's the only response you'll get until you provide support for the statement, " in practice they are used in most D&D games being played."
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Now you can quibble with that all you want, but you're going to have to provide a citation to what you said before it will mean anything.

That's the only response you'll get until you provide support for the statement, " in practice they are used in most D&D games being played."
Then find some support for your statement that "in practice they are not used in most D&D games being played". I'll wait as no evidence exists for that.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Then find some support for your statement that "in practice they are not used in most D&D games being played". I'll wait as no evidence exists for that.
That isn't even the first statement you challenged. You challenged " In fact according to WOTC a majority of players don't use feats for their characters."

Again, you can quibble, but my opinion has some support from WOTC. What does yours have? Nothing. You made up that claim, and have zero support for it.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
That isn't even the first statement you challenged. You challenged " In fact according to WOTC a majority of players don't use feats for their characters."

Again, you can quibble, but my opinion has some support from WOTC. What does yours have? Nothing. You made up that claim, and have zero support for it.
Separate issues. Both of which are false but one of which doesn't matter for this thread. For this discussion we are talking about whether games allow feats which is far different than whether a character of X level has taken a feat. You do understand the difference right?

So how about some evidence to support the claim that most games don't allow feats?
 

Mistwell

Hero
Separate issues. Both of which are false but one of which doesn't matter for this thread. For this discussion we are talking about whether games allow feats which is far different than whether a character of X level has taken a feat. You do understand the difference right?
Cite support for your statement that "in practice they are used in most D&D games being played.".

If you have none other than personal experience or instinct, then just say that.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Cite support for your statement that "in practice they are used in most D&D games being played.".

If you have none other than personal experience or instinct, then just say that.
Cite and support your statement that "in practice they are not used in most D&D games being played."
 

Mistwell

Hero
Cite and support your statement that "in practice they are not used in most D&D games being played."
That is not a quote of mine by the way. But whatever...you don't have support for your claim apparently. Claiming I don't have support for mine (which I do) is just a whataboutism. It doesn't change the fact you made up that claim about most games using feats.

So here you go. You want to play? Sure...

 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
That is not a quote of mine by the way. But whatever...you don't have support for your claim apparently. Claiming I don't have support for mine (which I do) is just a whataboutism. It doesn't change the fact you made up that claim about most games using feats.

So here you go. You want to play? Sure...
Typical internet discussion:

1. @Mistwell makes up a statement about "most D&D games not using feats"
2. I call him out on that because there's not evidence that's the case
3. He then attempts to act like he made no such claim and simply challenge my counter claim as if it was the original claim.

The whole point went over his head, that the only reason he believes most D&D games don't allow feats is because he's misinterpreting some statements about data that in no way say what he thinks was said.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Summary of my points

1. The rules stating feats are optional don't matter, what happens in practice is what matters
2. WOTC saying "a larger group of players don't use feats" is not evidence that feats aren't allowed in their games.
3. No evidence supports the statement "most games don't allow feats"

Mistwell's responses have simply amounted to, "but you can't prove most D&D games allow feats".

So ask yourself, even assuming I can't give evidence for that (which I can), does proving my statement lacks evidence mean that his statement has evidence?
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Oh and here is that evidence I was talking about...

1568093818031.png


Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)

1/3 of all characters take a feat by level 4 (most characters first opportunity) From my personal experience, a minority of players take a feat at level 4 which matches up with this chart. However, in my experience in my groups there's typically at least 1 player taking a feat by level 4 and more characters take them as they level higher.

To me this chart models that behavior as I'd expect if a majority of games allowed feats. I'd hate to see the explanation of this chart if a majority of games did not allow feats.
 
Last edited:

Ashrym

Explorer
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.
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.
Lol, so which is it? "Why are we talking about a feat" vs "Anything is open for discussion"?

It's open for discussion and we are talking about it. I was responding to someone who was talking about it. It seems kind of silly for you to question my continuing to discuss something already being discussed.

Feats are mentioned in the basic rules, the SRD, and the PHB. If they were meant to not be a standard they would have been in the DMG options instead. Unless the DM says no feats they are a typical option available to the players.

You were discussing them in this example from another thread. Hell, this thread you started last year opens with "I've enjoyed feats since 3e, and used them in every version since then."

It looks to me like you are trying to play the "but they are optional so not really there" card because you don't like the fact this feat reduces one of the wizard advantages. If you don't want to talk about the ritual caster feat for sorcerers that's fine. I will continue to discuss it because it's a valid option unless a DM chooses not to allow it.

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.
I don't think insignificant is a word I've ever used. I've used "over-rated" many times and "rarely crucial" in this thread but not insignificant. Iirc I said sorcerer spells can be restrictive but it's not that hard to work around.

Also, a sorcerer cannot prepare any spells. Just sayin'. 🙃

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
Cantrips: Firebolt, Mage Hand, Sword Burst, Minor Illusion, Infestation

1st level: Shield, Sleep
2nd level: Alter Self, Suggestion
3rd level: Fireball, Haste

Meta-magic: twinned spell, quickened spell

Sorc points: 6
 

delph

Villager
I didn't read it whole (just first 20 and last 10 posts) What about 3 lvl sorc (CHA only 13 for taking MC) for metamagic and Wizard X (with max INT)? MC spell slots remain same, so in 20 lvl you have access to 9th spellslots and spells too. And "at will" transfering spellslots need more higher slots? sacrifice lower and vice versa.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Mistwell is quoting what WotC said about feats a couple of years ago.

Without feats Sorcerers are a bit better due to concentration mechanic.

Feats allow things like warcasterwhich wizards probably want (or resilient con).

I haven't yet seen a game with feats and no multiclassing.

Sorlock tomelock is very good MC.
 

Seramus

Explorer
100% of the games I run, play in, or have seen at FLGS use feats. I intellectually know there are games that don’t use feats, but that’s like China to me.
 

Esker

Exploree
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.
To be fair, wizards will often want Resilient Con, which sorcerers get innately

Edit: Ah, crap, responded to this without reading the many subsequent comments some of which already said what I said
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
100% of the games I run, play in, or have seen at FLGS use feats. I intellectually know there are games that don’t use feats, but that’s like China to me.
They're default in AL games and may as well me in FLGS.

What Mistwell is referencing was from 2 years ago.
 

Advertisement

Top