Are Sorcerers really that bad?

[MerricB]

Here's one:

Do the "Sudden" metamagic feats screw up the sorceror?

I've seriously contemplated them, but I think they make the old metamagics obsolete.

Well, except for the sorcerer, the old metamagics are obsolete in any case. They only really become interesting for level 15+ Wizards, and that's a bit too long to wait. That's why there have been so many variants on the "Sudden" metamagic style of feats - Rods, Sudden feats, Divine Metamagic, and now an Incarnum-based metamagic.

The Sudden feats are good for wizards, but limiting. Once/day is useful (and I've seen enough Sudden Empowered Maximised fireballs to know that), but the resource depletion because of it is severe. Sorcerers get much more use from the regular metamagic feats.

Cheers!

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's one:

Do the "Sudden" metamagic feats screw up the sorceror?

Answer: No.

I've got sudden empower on my wizard, and while it IS true that it's useful, I'm really regretting taking it over the regular empower.

I think that's a low-level vs high-level thing though. Unsurprisingly, when you don't have high level slots to use, a feat that lets you empower without increasing the level is better. But when you're looking at cone of cold as your best 5th level damage spell, an empowered fireball looks a lot sweeter, and once per day doesn't really cut it.

As for who's more powerful, sorcerors or wizards?

I think with normal assumptions about wealth and gear (ie - you more or less follow the chart, and you can buy whatever you can afford within reason), they're balanced with each other.

I think if you reduce either (or both), then you hurt the wizard while leaving the sorceror more-or-less untouched. If a wizard cannot scribe more useful spells into his book, then he may as well give up and become a sorceror.

That's why I can't understand people who think that empty wizard (or even cleric!) slots are somehow a waste. As a wizard you can afford to have an empty slot in all but your highest spell level. In fact, at low levels, it's probably even worth leaving one of those spare!

I think it comes down to this: A wizards spell selection should consist of every spell available, even the obscure and specialized ones. If it does, then a party can take care of basically any out-of-combat situation as long as they have time (and 10 minutes is hardly a vast amount of time, especially if you've got access to dimensional hidey holes and transport magic... which you do, because you're a wizard) and a lot of combat situations as long as they have advance warning (which is good, because the rogue gets to do things).

A sorcerors spell selection should consist of the most broadly useful spells. In a combat heavy campaign damage, buff and single-shot-removal spells are all going to see a lot of use, so a sorceror can safely concentrate on those. If you can't imagine a spell being useful in 50% of the situations you may find yourself in, you should probably not take it unless there is some overwhelming case in it's favour.

If that is taken into consideration, then the two are balanced. Once you start telling the wizard he can't scribe spells, he'll drop behind. Once you start giving out lots of advance intelligence on every adventure, the wizard pulls ahead. And goodness forbid if the sorceror picks bad spells.

That's another thing I've noticed. Classes which depend on "take it once and never change it" mechanics (sorcerors, fighters - their feats, bards etc) are often seen as underpowered, especially at higher levels. Conversely all of them have their proponents, claiming they're the most powerful characters in a game. I think this is evidence of the wide variation in character optimization skills, and should probably be taken as a warning to DMs - prepare to be flexible when it comes to a character wishing to swap some of this stuff out.

 

[genshou]

I like Sorcerers, but I never play them. Mainly because of their spell progression. If the 2nd level spells weren't delayed until 4th level, but came in at 3rd like Wizards, then I'd play them more. I also don't like how few feats they get.

Unlike many, I think they're the best class for metamagic feats.

Dimwhit, I noticed you when I saw the Boise State avatar. I'd email you about this but you're set up not to allow fellow Enworlders to send you emails through the site.

I'm looking for a gaming group in the Treasure Valley area, so if you could use another player, let me know!
TimothyCampbell (a t) mail (d o t) boisestate (d o t) edu

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've played RAW sorcerers in 3.0 and 3.5 - it was considerably easier in 3.0 before they broke up most of the multi-use spells!

I did expressly set out to create and play a sorcerer who didn't take the 'obvious best choices'. At 4th level she didn't have magic missile, mage armour, shield or scorching ray - instead she had endure elements (still useful in 3.0), burning hands (could be enlarged in 3.0), charm person and pyrotechnics (one of the few multi-use spells which survived the purges of 3.5). She was fire and charm themed, and I had no intention of taking other no-brainer spells such as invisibility, fly and haste

She was about 6th level when we converted to 3.5, which was a major PITA, but she reached 12th level before the campaign was paused. Metamagic? Used it all the time. Sorcerers can have much more fun with metamagic than any other core class in my experience.

The nicest house rule suggestion that I've seen for sorcerers is to give them a higher level spell slot at the level when a wizard gets the higher level spell. They don't get the spell known, but at 5th level the sorcerer gets '0' 3rd level spell slots (instead of '-' 3rd level spell slots). This allows the 5th/7th/9th sorcerer to get a slot which they can metamagic a spell into if they've got a high enough Charisma.

Cheers

 

[ARandomGod]

This has gotten a lot of commentary, so I'm going to chip too. First I'll comment before reading anyone else's:

"Are sorcerers really that bad?"

Yes. Yes they are.

"Are they really that much weaker than wizards?"

No, not at all! They're simply different. But weaker? Quite the contrary. Within their limited scope they're clearly much much more powerful than wizards.

Ok. A short and simple answer, because I haven't read anyone elses comments yet. Now for The Reading!

On the other hand, I LOVE them as a DM for a few reasons.

They are pretty awesome for a GM. In fact, I'll go on to say that they're nearly the ideal NPC caster. For a one use NPC there can be nothing better, because the GM gets to assign them the perfect spells for his reasons. For a multi-use NPC they're still really good because you don't have nearly the bookkeeping.

A lot of people have meantioned that they've housr-ruled improved sorcs. I should note here that I have too. I definitely use slightly better sorcs in my campaigns when I'm the GM.

Finally, instead of the very weak dragon-bloodline theory, sorcerers IMC claim to follow the 'Greater Path' of magic, ala the Tsurani black-robed mages in Raymond E Feist's Magican: Apprentice, Magician: Master and other books of the Riftwar Saga series. You might be surprised to learn how much of the antipathy sorcerers recieve is simply due to a lack of inspiring fantasy 'rolemodels'. Once my players identified Pug and Macros as the archtype for sorcerers -- wresting raw power from the cosmos itself, taming and molding it with sheer will and discipline, while the 'lesser mages' putter about with their rats tails and bat droppings -- they took to the sorcerer class much more enthusiastically.

Basically, the sorcerer becomes more 'cool' while the wizards becomes simply 'nerdy'.

Ahh! Awesome book. My altered sorcs also use this as a base flavor. Well, I tie in other stories too, and use the term "Spell Matrix". In fact, in my storylines sorcs were/are the first casters. They use their force of personality and long, complicated setting rituals to set their spell matrix (spells known), which they can then fire off without losing the matrix using their "spells per day". Wizards came along first as a very bright student who never managed to lay a spell matrix, but managed to go through the motions so well one day he lay down an inferior spell matrix that collaped the first time he used it (memorized a spell). The good part was that he was intelligent enough to lay this down relatively fast, as compared to the long complicated process sorcs use. Ahem. AND other mechanics, that's just my base story.

Hmm... interesting. Many of us like sorcerers, but almost all of us sorcerer-lovers have given sorcerers some extra benefits, be it bonus feat or skill boost or extra spells known.

Has anyone here chosen a RAW sorcerer over a wizard? Or can I conclude that the RAW sorcerer is really a bit weak, and could stand to use a few feats/skills/spells known worth of boosts?

Awesome point. I'm going to give you my personal reasoning here... Someone had the idea for the Sorc (I personally had made a custom class very similiar pre-3.x). They brought out the idea, and it was slashed, cut down, nerfed incredibly... basically there was a knee-jerk reaction against it. And so the final product that was released was an extremely crippled version of the original. Is it too weak? Many I've rarely seen anyone who doesn't think so. Is it a good flavor? YES!

Can it be chosen as written over the wizard? Certainly. Of course, I personally rarely even see anyone play one with the power boosts. Which I think is a shame, it's an awesome theme for a character. But the loss of versitility... People who generlly like spellcasters often are looking for that versitility. Those who just want the stamina and the limited, brainless smash pick fighters. Generally.

Unlike many, I think they're the best class for metamagic feats.

They're not only the best class for metamagic feats, they're the ONLY class for metamagic feats! Any preparatory caster who takes a MM feat either has a GM that I find too restrictive (to put it politely), or is lazy/unimaginative. I mean, for Magic's sake, don't take "empower spell", research a new fireball spell! You're a Wizard, man, start acting like one!!

 

[Thunderfoot]

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

What's a magic shop? Yeah, my players like sorcerers for some reason. I make wizards work for all of that phenominal cosmic power they throw around, so scrolls and spell books aren't available unless: 1) you scribe them, 2) you pay a fellow wizard to do it (gp drain) or 3) you kill a fellow wizard and take theirs (not always the safest of propositions). What really makes them work is when the get to that level up and I don't just give them spells, if they don't have one of that level, they have to use it on lower levels spells or let it sit empty.
Yeah I'm mean, but what are you gonna do about it, I'm the Game Operations Designer. (G.O.D.)

 

[iwatt]

How good they are depends on DMs and campaign style.

I've played in a campaign were the wizard sucked, because the DM wouldn't let him craft.

I've played in a campaign were the sorceror sucked, because there only was one combat per day.

I've played in a campaign were a wizard rocked, because although he didn't have one attack spell, he always had the right spell for the right time (scribe scroll is bar none the best item ceration feat for a wizard with enough time/gold).

I've played in a campaign were the sorceror rocked, because he could keep blasting all day long.

Also, wizards are nerds

The only change I introduced in my current campaign (Uthgardt themed) was to say that Uthgardt sorcerors get d6 instead of d4. They're manly men.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I concur. If you don't mind my asking, how did you categorize the various themes? Were they similar to the domain wizard variant in Unearthed Arcana?

They're actually the Bloodline Feats from dragon magazine. They add a list of nine spells known (1 at each level) and the opportunity to take feats that provide small bonuses or spell-like abilities that tie into the same theme. In return for the extra spells, you give up access to a themed group of spells. So for example if you're a fire bloodline sorcerer, you give up access to [Cold] spells.

I also allow the sorcerer to replace the "--" on the spells per day chart at every odd level with "0", so where the wizard would have 1 spell per day at his new highest spell level, the sorcerer gets 0, like a bard, and can use his bonus spells to cast any spells he knows at that level. Since the bloodline feat gives him one spell, usually a sorcerer at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. will have a single spell per day to cast their bloodline spell for spell level 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. respectively.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

and again the sor works better when one knows the rules.

a sor would NOT have to know the spell, just have a scroll or lacking that have a friend who could cast it, or someone who could be paid to.

the sor in my game juts counted the 25 gp for the scroll purchase as part of the cost, so his wand of RoEnf would cost him 400 gp instead of 375 gp.

now, sure, those 25 gp would add up after a time but frankly, by 6th level or so, is 25 gp really a "critical deal"?

again, having seen a sorcerer in play for years who made great hay from his wands feat, i really don't see this as a major difference, the whole wands thing.

SRD under magic item creation:
"These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."

The problem with this is that if you make a wand, you need to cast the spell every day you work on the wand. With many wands above 1st level, the cost of providing all those scrolls starts to get a little pricy, compared to what you're saving on making the wand yourself.

 

[swrushing]

The problem with this is that if you make a wand, you need to cast the spell every day you work on the wand. With many wands above 1st level, the cost of providing all those scrolls starts to get a little pricy, compared to what you're saving on making the wand yourself.

true but if you look back at the post you will see the context. We were both talking about cheap 1st level wands.

while for higher level wands the savings tends to be eaten up by scrolls, the time at that point becomes an issue. 3rd level spells at only 5th caster level take 12 days, 4th levels at 7th caster take three whole weeks, etc. Add to that the demands of money and time put on him for bulging spellbooks.

So, unless the gm has removed the "time for creating magic items" (either by rule or by script) then the mage's ability to exploit this advantage is somewhat questionable. its not just free money.

heck with 21 days to play with in a city, what can a sorcerer accomplish? Social skills and magic, two-three weeks free time and urban environments ought to add up to profit in some fashion.

but again, i have seen GMs who wouldn't allow downtime activities for anyone but the mage, so maybe this will also be de facto not an option.

the wizard is better at magic item making, if he wants to be. No argument there. its just not as lopsided as it seemed to be being portrayed.

YMMV.