Are Sorcerers really that bad?

[Crothian]

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

I agree, my Sorcerer had mostly meta magic feats. They can really make the differnece and really show the versatility of the class.

 

[swrushing]

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?

First, Another nod to caliban's excellent summmary. "Effectiveness" in most cases is strongly tied to campaign presumtpions and the sor-wiz balance is very much so.

However, IMO and still I think agreeing with Caliban, i think if you look at these elements of campaign you will find the sor does what he does pretty consistently regardless, but the wizard's power level and effectiveness varies greatly by these campaign presumptions. The sor will do as he does but the wizard is very dependent on some rather carefully balanced campaign elements to be "good" and not "weak" or not" too powerful."

As for play a sor...

I did. played an elven RAW sorcerer in a campaign and had a fun time too. No power level issues.

Also ran a three year campaign where there was another RAW sor and he did fine too.

We never saw a power issue so no help was asked for. About half the other PCs did ask for class tweaks for this and that, never power, almost always flavor, but my elven sor and my player's gnomish sor were just fine, a lot different, and very fun to play.

One of the issues with wizard that keeps me from playin' them all that much is the paperwork. The wizard player who played alongside the gnome in my game was practically an accountant with the spreadsheets, the scroll buying and scribing time etc. Not only was this a lot of player "work" as far as i could tell for him to "get the most out of his wizard" and all that, it was also a lot of character "work" in game so that when push came to shove his character was "huddled over his books" during downtime so he can try and get that bulging spellbook.

By contrast, the sorcerer i played spent most of his downtime socializing, performing in bars (perform skill) and generally making friends and contacts. paid off quite a bit (both in coin and info but also in allies to call on) and was lots more fun than "i spend a day scribing" to boot.

Now, of course, I have seen campaigns where, de facto, "downtime" was only for wizards. By this i mean, when the wizard needed time it was taken and everyone else put their characters on hold, cuz most of the stuff other character would do for "profit" or "gain" wasn't something detailed out as "resolve this mechanically" in the book and the Gm sure didn't want to make the wizard actually "miss out" while the wiz was spending all that time doing his spell book stuff.

All in all, IMO, the sorcerer makes a preferrable "adventurer" character, as he has little that gets in the way of "lets go do stuff" and isn't as dependent on a whole slew of campaign dials for anything close to balance.

 

[DragonLancer]

May I ask why?

For the reasons I stated in my first reply.

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.

Sorcerers have what they have on hand, while a wizard has to make choices that can easily be useless even with all their vast library of spells. A sorcerer knows what he has and can fire them off when he needs to. IMO thats a lot better than a wizard. YMMV.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Dunno. Never liked Sorc, myself.

Unless the GM is playing the game by some other style or rules than the book presents, there's no point.

If he's heeling to wealth levels, the Wizard's free item creation feats will explode his power levels at very little cost. What items do spellcasters NEED? Spellcasting items. And Wizard starts with Scribe Scroll at 1st for free. A Sorc needs to purchase those items at full price or use their few feats to get creation feats.

Where a Sorc can choose a great spell like Magic Missile that he can cast 6 times a day, a Wiz can spend half-cash and an Orc's worth of XP to make a wand that'll cast it 50 times.

A properly played wizard will have every frontloaded 1st level spell on a wand, every spell with odd situational utility on a scroll, and generally do his job and the Sorc's too. It costs cash, sure, but wiz/sorc have fewer items they need compared to fighter types and they can choose to BUILD most of them, doubling their items-per-GP.

Situationally, the Sorc CAN outperform the wizard, but the opposite is true. Sure, if the wiz got robbed that morning and can't carry in his items, and the GM throws 5 combats at them that day, the Sorc's going to outperform the wizard.

--fje

 

[Dougal DeKree]

Sure, if the wiz got robbed that morning and can't carry in his items, and the GM throws 5 combats at them that day, the Sorc's going to outperform the wizard.--fje

Ahh, that is what happens to my wizard every game...yet, according to the PHB he can relearn all spells memorizedand uncast but no new ones...where is the harm done?

 

[William Ronald]

Ahh, that is what happens to my wizard every game...yet, according to the PHB he can relearn all spells memorizedand uncast but no new ones...where is the harm done?

Well, if this is the case, I would hope that the other PCs are losing their equipment frequently as well.

I am more familiar with wizards than sorcerors, but I think leaving a few blank slots can work well. I have done so as a PC, and find that it works well. Also, having a large supply of scrolls and wands can help.

Of course, I think one drawback of the sorceror is the difficulty in changing spells. This can make a character a bit predictable to an enemy who is familair with a character's tactics. In contrast, a wizard can vary his spell selection in different encounters.

 

[MerricB]

Although I prefer playing Wizards (and I'm very good at it), most of the players in my campaigns greatly prefer RAW Sorcerers. And they are very effective characters.

Here's the thing: a 6th Wizard will be able to cast fireball twice, and probably haste once. Your 6th level Sorcerer just lets loose with four fireballs. As a general rule, Sorcerers are twice as effective as a Wizard in combat, because the Wizard has to spend more time with situational spells.

Things get even better for the Sorcerers once they get metamagic - especially Empower Spell and Maximise Spell.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Just a note: there is nothing preventing the sorcerer from getting scrolls and wands from the local wizard, either.

Cheers!

 

[Raduin711]

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.

In more than one non-D&D fantasy world, there are people to whom magic comes naturally in stead of with study... I've always interpreted sorcerers to fill that niche. So I think the sorcerer is the answer to the "I want to play a character who was BORN with magic" question. I don't see it as an admission that the vancian system is flawed.

 

[Thanee]

Are they really that much weaker than wizards?

No.

(And if you post about metamagic I would love to hear about actual situations where people use metamagic because I see it very infrequently)

I use it all the time. Often, about half the spells my sorceress casts in a day are metamagicked (mostly Empower and Heighten, don't have Extend (only as lesser rod), but that would see a lot of use as well). Of course, I have chosen my spells specifically with metamagic in mind.

Bye
Thanee