D&D 3E/3.5 Is Sorcerer the weakest 3.5 base class now?

[Nifft]

Wizards are strategically flexible.
Sorcerers are tactically flexible.


Do you fear ambushes by unknown foes with special abilities? Take a Sorcerer.

Do you plan on assaulting others with surprise on your side, with at least a day to prepare? Take a Wizard.


I do try to make my campaign a mix of strategy and tactics, to reward both plan-based and reaction-based characters.

-- N

 

[beaver1024]

It is only in 3.5 that sorcerers are really crap. In 3.0 sorcerers are on par with wizards. Why is this? Lets look at the major changes in 3.5 that affected sorcerers.

1) Metamagic nolonger stack with themselves. This is a huge change. This means that sorcerers must choose more spells at higher levels and use up more feats slots to do the same thing as they did in 3.0. So you can't live with 1 or 2 attack spell and rely on 1 or 2 metamagic feats to boost them up when necessary. The sorcerer needs to use up more of her precious spells known at higher level just to breach the level cap on the spells. This change defeats one of the major abilities of sorcerers. Metamagic on the fly. Yet sorcerers got nothing to compensate for this.

2) Generic spells are nerfed. This is another huge change that really weakened sorcerers. They have to invest more of their spell known just to be able to do the same things they had been able to do before.

3) Spell duration nerf. With duration on things like stat buffing spells, Invisibility, Polymorph etc etc being nerfed, the sorcerer need to spend more and more slots on these spells to keep them going. Because of the drastic reduction in duration even the sorcerer's spell slots cannot keep up.

The 3 nerfs compound the major problems that the sorcerer is already having, that is lack of flexibility because of low number of spells known and lack of skills. As magic is the only thing the sorcerer can do, the nerfing of magic makes sorcerer a really really underpowered class.

 

[Stalker0]

The other advantage to wizards is outside of combat in my mind. They can play with things like tenser's floating disk, explosive runes, fog cloud, darkness, etc. Most sorcs can't afford to take these spells because they aren't versatile enough, leaving them the same spells every time you make one.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Monte Cook's variant sorcerer is the sorcerer for me.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I agree with Beaver that 3.5 is worse than 3.0 for Sorcerors... especially fly and invisibility having much reduced durations.

 

[billd91]

I agree with Beaver that 3.5 is worse than 3.0 for Sorcerors... especially fly and invisibility having much reduced durations.

So 'de-nerf' the spell and take it back to 10 min/level duration. Personally, I can't find any significant justification for the 1 min/level duration. The army scouting rogue probably can barely even make it to an opposing army's camp with that lame duration. I think this is one of the examples of the 3.5 revision getting out of hand with feature creep.
As far as the buff spells go, I agree with reducing them from 1 hour per level. But 1 hour or 10 min/level would have been quite sufficient, especially since now you can't use Eagle's Splendor to keep your Charisma up for the whole audience with the king or during a whole stage performance (unless it's a very short performance).
Like my comments earlier in the thread about the sorcerer, WotC spends WAY too much time agonizing over combat balance and power and not enough about other aspects of character balance in the game.
If you truly think the sorcerer is nerfed too much by shortened durations but agree that the buff spells and some other spells were too open for abuse (and I think that certainly applies to the buffs) then start thinking about 10 min/level or flat 1 hour durations. I find they make an excellent compromise.

Edited for spelling and HEY! It's my 200th post!

 

[Davelozzi]

Charisma is IMO the major reason for the Sorcerer's weakness.

More like the Charisma is the major reason for the Sorcerer's existence, IMO.

Seriously though, no one in my group has played a sorcerer so it's hard to say but I think that the wizard is better. Bonus feats are key. I do like the sorcerer for easy NPCs though, although frankly I wouldn't be at all disappointed if the class didn't make the cut for teh next edition.

 

[jgsugden]

I agree with Beaver that 3.5 is worse than 3.0 for Sorcerors... especially fly and invisibility having much reduced durations.

A note: This reduces the power of sorcerers, but not as much as it reduces the power of wizards. A sorcerer can always toss up another spell ... he has the extra spells per day and the flexibility to decide on his spells at the time of casting. A wizard has fewer spells ... and must predict what he'll need. If the party uses the wizard's fly spell so that the rogue can search the high ceiling, then the wizard is without it later in the day when the dragon is flying overhead and breathing on the PCs.

Wizards almost always waste spells by memorizing things that turn out not to be useful (ie; knock, resist energy, etc ...). You need to have them when a situation arises, so you memorize it - but that situation may or may not arise. Some of these problems can be avoided with wands or scrolls, but that eats up resources. A well planned sorcerer can have these spells available without wasting daily resources on it if the need for it does not arrive.

Wizards memorize spells that have an effect, but would not be the best choice in their spellbook for the current situation. Sorcerers can choose the optimal spell at the moment it is needed. This results in wizards tending to be less effective than a sorcerer while in combat. A wizard is likely to memorize an empowered lightning bolt, an empowered fireball and a cone of cone so that he has a good variety of spells on hand for mass damage. A sorcerer doesn't have to set up that variety before hand - so if he runs up against a white dragon, the sorcerer can have three spells that are ideal (empowered fireballs) instead of one great spell, one ok spell and one useless spell.

In the end, wizards and sorcerers each have their strengths. An individiual sorcerer may be the weakest member of his party, or the strongest. It all depends upon the campaign and the players.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I have increased the skill list for the Sor to include Intimidate and Use Magic Device. Personally, I think Bluff was a silly choice: surely Intimidate is more the Sor's Schtick?

Anyway, UMD adds a lot to the Sor's flexibility (and makes sense for an intuitive spellcaster). It's quite handy when the arcane spellcaster can also grab a wand of cure x wounds etc... to aid the party.

 

[pawsplay]

Shorter spell durations hurt the Wizard more than the Sorcerer, advantage: Wizard. If your spell lasts 10 minutes, but you need it for 11, the Sorcerer can always cast it again. The Wizard is unlikely to have a second copy.

Generally weaker spells means the Sorcerer has lost ground compared to the Fighter, but they can afford to lose ground.

Sorcerers can still jump into a full spell progression PrC and lose virtually nothing, giving them another advantage over Wizards.