Absurdly Foolish Question about Sorcerers

[FrankTrollman]

That is a nice sentiment on your part, but you and I both know the real reason you do not compare non-specialist wizards with sorcerers. It is because sorcerers get SO many more spells at low level than non-specialist wizards that even you are not willing to debate the effectiveness issue between the two.

WTF?

Sorcerers get spells from at most 5 schools in any level ever. That's because they can't know more than 5 spells in any school. A Specialist Wizard is restricted to "only" picking spells from 6 schools.

If you are willing to give up 3 schools for getting more spells per day by being a Sorcerer you'd obviously be willing to give up only 2 by being a Specialist.

This isn't a big confrontation thing - this is mathematical analysis. And I am in no way running away from your argument - you just don't have a good one.

Every time you and I have discussed wizards, you immediately jump into the specialist wizards camp because you know that specialist wizards are much more potent and capable of survival than non-specialist wizards at low level.

I believe that Specialist Wizards are superior to Non-specialist Wizards. Yes. What you give up is the ability to learn spells from 2 schools. Compared to a Sorcerer that's trivial. In fact, a non-specialist Wizard can only prepare at most 6 spells of any spell level even at high levels. Thus on any randomly chosen day there is no difference between a Non-Specialist who happened to not prepare any spells of two schools and a Specialist who "can't" prepare those spells anyway - except that the Specialist has more spells per day.

So yes - Specializing is a no-brainer. There is no reason why you wouldn't be a Specialist. So any comparison of wizards vs. anything should assume the Wizard specializes in the same way that a Fighter comparison should assume the Fighter uses armor and weapons.

First off, you blew off levels one and two where the specialist wizard has at most two and three spells respectively that he can pick out of his entire repertoire and one spell that he can pick from typically one or two spells out of his specialty class.

Um... at first level the Specialist Wizard has 3 spells and the Sorcerer has 4. At second level the Wizard has 4 spells and the Sorcerer has 5. But at first level the Wizard is selecting from six or seven spells instead of 2. At second level the Wizard is selecting from 8 spells and the Sorcerer is still selecting from 2.

There's no clear winner there. The Wizard has 3 times the customizability, but one less spell per day. That's a sharp tradeoff. After that, the Wizard still has more customizability and has as many or more spells per day.

I'm not saying Sorcerers are out of the running at level one or level 2. They are definately in the running. And they'd stay in the running if they only got new spell levels at the same time as Wizards do. But they don't - so they suck.

1) The specialist Wizard can do this IF the best spell is one from his specialty. Otherwise, one of his spells is limited to his specialty which may or may not be helpful in a given day.

Statements like this don't make any sense. The Sorcerer only gets one spell - which is definitionally from only one school. A Sorcerer who chooses a spell from Conjuration would be compared to a Conjurer and come out poorly in the comparison. A Sorcerer who chose a spell from Illusion would be compared to an Illusionist and again come out poorly.

There are eight flavors of 6th level Wizard - each specialized in a different school. However, there are 42 different flavors of 6th level Sorcerer - each one knows a different single 3rd level spell. Each of those 42 different Sorcerers can be replicated better by one of the 8 different kinds of Wizard. That doesn't mean that Wizards have to plan things perfectly to keep up - it means that even if Sorcerers plan things perfectly they still can't keep up.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not saying Sorcerers are out of the running at level one or level 2. They are definately in the running. And they'd stay in the running if they only got new spell levels at the same time as Wizards do. But they don't - so they suck.

Only if you design them poorly.

A sorcerer with the Feather Fall spell almost never falls. A wizard with the Feather Fall spell will fall almost every time the chance comes along unless he knows about the risk ahead of time.

A sorcerer with the Silent Spell feat almost never fails a spell due to Silence spells or Deafness or other anti-spell caster techniques of that nature. A wizard with the Silent Spell feat will fail or not be able to cast spells (or only be able to cast one or a few) almost every time the chance comes along unless he knows about the risk ahead of time.

A sorcerer with the True Strike spell will almost never miss a touch or ranged touch attack that he desperately wants to make. A wizard with the True Strike spell will take his chances nearly every time he wants to desperately make a touch or ranged touch attack.


Wizards will almost always fall prey to various attacks or lack of opportunities because they rarely have the exact spell they need when they need it. For all of his versatility, the best a Wizard can do is create scrolls (or other magic items) to compensate for his lack of choice at spell casting time. Granted, this can help tremendously, but the real issue is that magic items cost a LOT of money and some experience. Wizards, having to spend a lot to just put additional spells in their spell books, are often low on funds and even lower if they have to craft items.


A well designed sorcerer will not fall prey to most attacks/hazards once he acquires the spells to defeat them (assuming he picks a good selection to do that).

One or two offensive spells, two defensive spells, and one or two miscellaneous or mobility spells per spell level plus metamagic feats is typically all the sorcerer needs. Plus, there are several spells that increase his versatility considerably (Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation, etc.).

Both Sorcerers and Wizards have strengths and weaknesses. The Sorcerers strengths give him a better chance to immediately adapt (and hence survive, especially at low levels) due to his ability to use whichever spell he needs out of his limited spell repertoire. The Wizards strengths give him a better chance to adapt overall, but not to typically adapt immediately (although scrolls can compensate for this). This can more easily result in a Wizard not having the spell he needs, when he needs it (i.e. you cast your Shield spell already today, you may suddenly be in trouble in melee), especially at lower levels.

Your problem is that you overvalue overall versatility and undervalue immediate versatility. Depending on situation, either of them could be crucial to saving the life of the spell caster, but the latter is more useful in unexpected situations.

And in 3.5, the ability for Sorcerers to swap out their lower level spells make them even more versatile.

 

[Darklone]

Without adding to much to your dispute, I just wanted to point out that wizards have to invest a lot of money and time into their spellbooks (this was even worse in 3.0), while sorcerers can go strolling around and buy nifty magic items (if available).

 

[brendan candries]

replace "have to" by "can"

scribing spells isn't mandatory, it's an option (wizards only)

 

[Storm Raven]

replace "have to" by "can"

scribing spells isn't mandatory, it's an option (wizards only)

However, if they don't, they will have fewer spells to choose from than a sorcerer, negating their primary advantage over sorcerers.

 

[Zhure]

I find that most of the wizard vs sorcerer comparisons suffer from what I call "Schroedinger's Wizard." He's an illusionist and a transmutator and a diviner and an enchanter. He has prepared all possible spells and selected all possible spells.

What I find far more revealing is to open the pizza box and see if the wizard is hot or cold. Build a wizard and a sorcerer of a given level (I don't recommend third, as we all know a third level wizard is superior theoretically, and everyone has pretty much acknowledged that) and whatever stat is used for INT for the wizard, use the same stat for CHA for the sorcerer. In fact, make two of each, one at level n and one at level n+1 and compare the two sets.

In my experience, the odd levels go to the wizard by a shade, and the even levels go to the sorcerer by a shade.

Greg

 

[Darklone]

replace "have to" by "can"

scribing spells isn't mandatory, it's an option (wizards only)

Right. I had one wizard in a group who was pretty lazy ... he ended up nearly with less spells known than the sorcerer.

 

[Dreeble]

Heya:

Sorcerers get spells from at most 5 schools in any level ever. That's because they can't know more than 5 spells in any school. A Specialist Wizard is restricted to "only" picking spells from 6 schools.

I'm likely misunderstanding, but this sounds like "Sorcerors can never know more spells in a level than there are schools available, so they're essentially the same as 'specialists' anyway." Something similar was said about a non-specialist wizard on any given day. This seems a little silly to me, however, since the specialist _always_ has to avoid the exact same schools, whereas the sorceror and non-specialist can "avoid" different schools for different level slots.

So, if there's a really cool Xth lvl spell in Y school the specialist is out of luck. The sorceror chose that spell, although maybe he didn't choose any spells in that school in any other spell level. The non-specialist scribed that spell a couple adventures ago and might prepare it, even though for whatever reason he has never scribed a scroll from that school before.

On the other hand, I think Sorcerors need something. Maybe not before 6th, possibly. Maybe something like Rogues at higher levels. I dunno. A reason to continue in the class, rather than hopping to a PrC.

[Edit: "Y" should be "Banned Y"]

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[apsuman]

Sorcerers are not underpowered.

I have two thoughts here, the first one is that the sorcerer is not underpowered. The second is that both sorcerers and wizards acquire magic items to make them more like the other.

Sorcerers are forced to choose versitile spells. They are further forced to use those spells in a versitile way. Because of this sorcerers are always useful character to have around.

Wizards have lots of potential. A high level wizard that has three days to prepare for a known challenge can have every one of his spells selected optimized for that challenge. When the wiz is going to summon that balor next week he will be the most prepared for that event, ever. Period.

But in the everyday adventure world (hey that's today oxymoron: "everyday adventure world") the wizard's selected spells are his best guess at what to do today. I think in analogy too much but here goes: If the mage caster is trying to fit into a perfect cirlce of a hole, the sorcerer is a hexagon that becomes a heptagon that becomes a octagon as he gains levels, while the wizard could
potentially be a circle but if he chooses wrong he is a triangle that is too large to slide through.

Also, it has been my experience that sorcerers and wizards gain magic items that make them more like the other. A sorcerer that knows fireball will never own a wand of fireball, but a wizard with fireball in his spellbook will happily take the wand. Because the sorcerer gains nothing but the
wizard frees up a spell slot.

I think that you could give sorcerers bonus feats like you do wizards and it would not unbalance them but I do not think that you have to. And, while I am on the topic of feats, Metamagic only make the sorcerer more versitile allowing him to do things that a wizard could not.

 

[Thanee]

1. At low levels, Wizards run out of spells.
2. At high levels, they don't.

3. At low levels, Wizards get more spells per day than Sorcerers do.
4. At high levels, Sorcerers get more spells per day, but Wizards get the same or more high level spells and greater versatility of which they can cast in a day.

5. Once the day is over, any spells you have left may as well not have been there in the first place.

.: Sorcerers are underpowered compared to Wizards.

While this is probably not entirely correct as it stands there, the general statement is pretty much.

At low levels Wizards have the same casting ability roughly as Sorcerers, with more higher level spells, which are extremely important at the lower levels!

In fact, the Wizards cast spells "better" than Sorcerers at lower levels.

Also, Wizards get bonus feats, Sorcerers get more weapons... woohoo!

Anyways, at really high levels, I think the Sorcerers actually have the edge, as it's not uncommon to run out of spells, in our games at least, and Wizards have that burden of choosing their spells ahead of time, altho at high levels they usually have a very decent selection and spells like Mordenkainen's Lucubration add a lot to their flexibility.

However, a Sorcerer with a good spell selection is usually prepared for pretty much anything, while the Wizard often finds one or two spells missing or not having enough of a single spell prepared or something along those lines.

This does not mean, tho, that Sorcerers are actually better. Over the course of 20 levels, Wizards are clearly ahead (even if you would say their casting ability is basically the same, Wizards still have bonus feats and a more useful caster attribute)!

Bye
Thanee