D&D 3.x Is Sorcerer the weakest 3.5 base class now?

[Endur]

I like the idea of giving Sorcerors the "Eschew Materials" feat for free. Maybe even "Still Spell" and/or "Silent Spell" as bonus feats.

I like the idea of sorcery as being "distinctly different" from wizardry.

I usually try and take those feats for my sorcerors.

 

[Thanee]

With 3.5 I started to play the sorcerer quite a bit, and I can't say, the class is weak, if you have a well-planned spell selection. The advantage of spontaneous casting is immense, once a certain level is reached and the spell selection has become flexible enough to be useful in most situations.

At higher levels, I believe the sorcerer still outshines the wizard, while the wizard is clearly superior at the lower levels. I think the two are about equal, all things considered. It wouldn't hurt to give the sorcerer a free Eschew Materials feat at first level, tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

The weakest base class is the rogue, I think (or the monk).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The weakest base class is the rogue, I think (or the monk).

Bye
Thanee

Then I'd say you haven't seen a good Monk or Rogue played. Those are two powerful classes when done well. In fact, I don't think there really IS a weakest class. I've seen every class played well without people being 'weak'.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It depends a lot on the campaign style and how your PCs work together.

I spent a lot of time playing 1e/2e wizards where I was effectively tapped out after using only half my spells -- the remaining spells were not useful for the encounters we were up against. A sorceror would have had less variety to work with but he would have only begun to warm up.

In 3e I have done a lot better, but I think it has a lot to do with great teamwork and good scouting. I would note that a lot of extremely difficult combat encounters can be "solved" by making the entire party Invisible or Flying or both. As a wizard, that is not easy to set up. It is a trivial trick for a Sorceror to pull off.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Then I'd say you haven't seen a good Monk or Rogue played. Those are two powerful classes when done well. In fact, I don't think there really IS a weakest class. I've seen every class played well without people being 'weak'.

There are weakest classes for a given campaign style, character level, wealth level, and stat generation scheme.

Low level 3.0 Monks were extremely weak for stat point buys <32 IMNSHO. Even those characters do okay if they live to see ~8th level. 3.5 Monks are slightly better at low levels, but not that much.

Clerics are extremely powerful in games with very low wealth, especially once you get up in levels.

 

[The Hanged Man]

There are three mechanical issues w/ the sorcerer that make it simply inferior to the Wizard. Even assuming that spontaneous casting w/ few spells known is roughly equal to memorized casting w/ lots of spells know, the Sorcerer still suffers wrt the Wizard b/c of:

1. Late spell progression.

2. Fewer feats.

3. No PrC's.

But Sorcerer is far from weak. Mid- to high-level Sorcerer is still better than most any non-caster. Really, the better solution is to tone down the Wizard, Cleric and Druid, not to buff up the Sorcerer.

 

[apsuman]

There are three mechanical issues w/ the sorcerer that make it simply inferior to the Wizard. Even assuming that spontaneous casting w/ few spells known is roughly equal to memorized casting w/ lots of spells know, the Sorcerer still suffers wrt the Wizard b/c of:

1. Late spell progression.

2. Fewer feats.

3. No PrC's.

But Sorcerer is far from weak. Mid- to high-level Sorcerer is still better than most any non-caster. Really, the better solution is to tone down the Wizard, Cleric and Druid, not to buff up the Sorcerer.

1. Given. The later spell progression really gives an advantage to the wizard at odd levels, especially levels 3 and 5. I think the sorcerer class would benefite mightily if on odd levels they received one spell slot of the next highest level but knew no spells of that level. In other words, at level 5 a sorcerer would have 1 third level spell slot but know no third level spells. That way they could metamagic spells into that slot, and have potentially more slots of that level from a high ability score.

2. True the sorcerer goes get fewer feats than the wizard. But in my post above about how flexible the sorcerer is throughout the day, perhaps it is the wizard that is inferior and he needs the feats to stay competitive. Maybe not but think about it that way for a little bit. I do think the feats that the wizard gets does give the players something to look forward to as they progress. Sorcerers are pretty much front loaded, but more on that in number 3...

3. What do you mean no prestige classes? Given that the sorcerer is front loaded, there is absolutely NO reason not to go into a prestige class, except that your familiar will no longer advance -- but there is a prestige class for familiar centric types too. The wizard has to give up bonus feats, but the sorcerer does not. The candlecaster from Tome and Blood gives the sorcerer practically all the metamagic feats for his candles. Any prestige class that offers +1 level of existing class at every (or nearly) level would make sooo much since for the sorcerer to take.

 

[Otterscrubber]

3. What do you mean no prestige classes? Given that the sorcerer is front loaded, there is absolutely NO reason not to go into a prestige class, except that your familiar will no longer advance -- but there is a prestige class for familiar centric types too. The wizard has to give up bonus feats, but the sorcerer does not. The candlecaster from Tome and Blood gives the sorcerer practically all the metamagic feats for his candles. Any prestige class that offers +1 level of existing class at every (or nearly) level would make sooo much since for the sorcerer to take.

I think he was saying it is hard for a sorcerer to take a PrC as they have such awful skill selections and no extra feats to toss around. Being as front loaded as they are it is a great idea to take a PrC as long as it continues your spell progression, but it can be hard to qualify as a sorcerer for many PrCs. Not only do they have fewer class skills but they often do not have a high Int like wizards do so fewer skill points.

 

[andargor]

I will pitch in with the campaign-depended crowd. Heck, it's even encounter-specific.

If you have 10 encounters a day, then, yeah, the Sorcerer will shine. If you have 2, but big ones, chances are the Wizard will shine.

In our group, believe it or not, the characters that seem the weakest are the pure Cleric and a Wizard/Cleric. I play a Wizard and another plays the Sorcerer (going for DD). And there's a Rogue, a Fighter and a Monk. We are at 15th level.

The Fighter is a total tank. He dishes out damage like there's no tomorrow. Against a single big baddie, the Wizard doesn't even bother casting. He knows the baddie is toast within 3 rounds if the Fighter can close and use his full attack (intelligent Greatsword). The Sorcerer may assist the Fighter, or not.

The Rogue is good, but in limited circumstances. She's an archer, and has to be close to use her sneak attack. If she gets it, goodbye baddie. She's the unlocker and trap disarmer as well.

The Wizard is the WMD guy. Lots of targets, he casts. Nothing will clear the field like an Empowered Firebrand. He buffs the Monk and Fighter with protective spells early in the day using Extend Spell, which last all day. Hes the party know-it-all and frequently uses his Knowledge and Spellcraft skills. Identifies monsters, items and spell effects. And he scribes scrolls for the Sorcerer.

The Sorcerer basically participates all the time, but in a measured fashion. He basically chips away at the opposition constantly, compared to the Wizard's infrequent Big Bang.

The Monk is not as totally smackdown as the fighter, but he's damn impressive. SR, Flurry, Trips, all we see is a cloud of hands and feet, and then a dead baddie.

The Cleric basically fixes us up after a nasty fight, resurrects, buffs, etc. The Cleric/Wizard's role varies, but he's definitely a support type.

Bottom line is, the Wizard shines with his large selection of buffing spells that last all day and WMD spells that can wipe out a whole battlefield. The scrolls also give the Sorcerer some versatility. The Sorcerer is good at dishing out constant amounts of damage, one time, all the time.

All in all, I think the Wizard and Sorcerer synergy is great. The Wizard can choose his spells less carefully as he knows that the Sorcerer will be there for just about any situation. And the Sorcerer can use scrolls in a tight spot when he needs a spell he doesn't know.

Andargor