Are Sorcerers really that bad?

[Graf]

As a completeist I tend to play wizards. OK until recently I was almost never a player but I remember enthusiastically working to get spells when I was a (much younger) player and as a DM I used to love to make up NPC wizards with strange themed spell collections for PCs to trade with.

But I also used Sorcs extensively (partially because if you DM a lot you see everything) but also because the world that I ran a lot of games in (Scarred Lands) had a strong set of themed sorcerers serving the different titans.

Recently I've been involved in a couple of new campaigns with new people and we've spent a lot of time talking about the basics and one theme has emerged...
Everyone dismisses the idea of playing sorcerers out of hand.

Are they really that much weaker than wizards?
(And if you post about metamagic I would love to hear about actual situations where people use metamagic because I see it very infrequently)

 

[DragonLancer]

In my opinion and experience, Sorcerers are on par with Wizards they just come at it from a different direction.

A wizard can add every spell to their spellbook and thus have a huge pool to draw upon when they need it, but unless they leave slots open (and I've never anyone to do this, mainly because they view it as a waste) they can easily be stuck with spells that are no use in a given situation. While sorcerers can be in the same situation they don't have to worry about memorising spells, they have what they have at every opportunity. That evens them out in my experience.

Its also my experience that the two classes work better along different lines. Wizards can cover any base very very well, but its as a combat mage that sorcerers operate best.

 

[GeorgeFields]

The ONLY thing I don't like about playing sorcerers is the limited spell selection. The spell trade in 3.5 didn't change my mind about it because you aren't getting a bigger selection, just a slightly different one.

On the other hand, I LOVE them as a DM for a few reasons. For me, it's easier to whip up a sorcerer's spell list than a wizard's set of spell books. Also, I can introduce a new spell to the campaign without giving the player's immediate access by gaining it in a spellbook from a defeated wizard.

Since 3rd edition emerged, I can only think of one player in any game I've ran or played that has ever player a sorcerer.

I don't think they are that bad from any angle. they just don't appeal to me as much as wizards.

 

[Storminator]

Sorcerers are awesome. They pound out the spells, and have no wasted slots, ever. I ran a campaign where, after a series of combats, the sorcerer had used every single spell slot (12th level, a lot of slots). In my 20+ years of D&D I've never seen a wizard higher than 4th level do that.

Sorcerers also have 2 other great advantages: with a little bit of advice on spell selection, a newbie can play a competent sorcerer, and a level or two of sorcerer is a much better multiclass option than wizard.

That said, an exceptionally well played wizard is the most powerful character in the game. If your wizard players are very good at what they do, they will be much more useful than the sorcerer.

PS

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Maybe it is because of material components. The way I have rectified this in my games is using Monte's variant Sorcerer from Eldritch Might. Basically Sorcerers are their material components. In a case where the material component is costly the character pays an xp cost equal to 1/25 the gp cost of the component in XP (min loss 1 xp). In the case of casting stoneskin, the character pays 10 xp (250/25=10).

 

[DaveMage]

I love sorcerers.

Great firepower - especially at high levels. Also, instant metamagic is a huge plus, although they (sorcerers) never get to use "quicken spell".

 

[Mercule]

Game-balance wise, sorcerers are fine. The only tweak I'd make is to give them 4 base skill points.

I have problems with the Sorcerer in terms of flavor, because the self-powered magic archetype is better served by psionics. Mechanics-wise, the Sorcerer is something of an admission that the Vancian "fire-and-forget" system is flawed, too. We use the UA spell-point system, and it makes sorcerers completely extraneous.

I hate the explicit tie between the sorcerer and dragon blood that has been created. It was fine in 3.0 when it was stated that that was one theory, but all the dragon-blooded feats that have shown up are a bit annoying. That is entirely subjective, though.

 

[Aaron L]

I hate the dragonblood stuff as well.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I love sorcerers.

Great firepower - especially at high levels. Also, instant metamagic is a huge plus, although they (sorcerers) never get to use "quicken spell".

Unless they get Sudden Quicken (CArc).

A sorcerer, IMO, will be as effective as any other character that's highly specialized. If he gets into situations for what he was built for, he'll shine.

I have seen sorcerers played, and it's true that they often come out as Magic Missile Machineguns. It ain't too glorious or spectacular, but it gets the job done, much like a fighter gets the job done by hacking away at the enemies.

Try to build your sorcerer in a way that when you pick a spell or feat, it's usable in more than one way, and you'll be better off. And for all the spells that you would want to take but can't because they're too specialized, that's what wands and scrolls are for...

AR

 

[Vrecknidj]

Much, very much, depends upon the DM and campaign. In a setting where it's very hard to find new spells to add to a spellbook, and where scrolls aren't just fluttering out of Ye Olde Magick Shoppe doors everytime another gnome walks in, Sorcerers can have a significant edge over Wizards.

Dave