Is the Sorceror as bad as I think?

[Fedifensor]

Come up against a white dragon? The wizard can't use his cone of cold so he's consigned to fireballs (of which he has memorized only 1 or 2). The sorcerer meanwhile just uses a full-round action to Energy Substitution: Fire his cone of cold, and Empowers it for good measure. And he can do it again the next round.

If you're running just the core rules, you won't have the option for Energy Substitution. And if your GM uses the builder books, convince him to let your wizard take Archmage from the FRCS so you can switch energy types on the fly with Mastery of Elements.

Got a spell effect that just HAS to work? (Say for example you want to quietly take out that guard using a hold person) No problem - the sorcerer can just heighten it up to maximum level on the fly.

Assuming your sorcerer has the right spell for the situation among his limited number of spells known...and no spell is a sure thing, even with Heighten. What you're doing is taking a wimpy spell and giving it a high DC save. I'd rather cast a powerful spell that also has a high save.

As for buffs, the sorcerer's vast spellcasting capacity means they can easily keep a party fully buffed and still have plenty of spells to spare.

The wizard will get higher-level spell slots earlier, which means they can give better buffs. They also get bonus feats, which means they're more likely to have access to things like Persistant Spell.

I agree with an earlier poster that says sorcerers have tactical flexibility, while wizards have strategic flexibility. The problem is that the sorcerer's flexibility is a bit of an illusion. Half the time, sorcerers don't have a choice of what to cast for their highest level spell. A specialist wizard can have two different spells of their highest level memorized as soon as they get a new spell level (a level earlier than sorcerers). If their intelligence is high enough, they can have three different spells memorized, while the sorcerer can only cast a single one (though it can be cast several times).

Sorcerers were a cool concept, but they fall flat in game play unless you just want to play a blaster loaded up on magic missiles and fireballs. A smart wizard knows what spells he'll end up casting 90% of the time, and memorizes appropriately. As for the other 10%...that's why they get Scribe Scroll at 1st level. The main weakness of a wizard is the spellbook...but even Sorcerers have to use spell components.

Now, that said, I'd love to see a more effective Sorcerer in D&D 3.5. Maybe a prestige class that makes one spell known per spell level a "variable slot", that could be changed with access to a spellbook. Or just increasing the number of spells known so you could get to a new spell level and have more than one spell to cast.

 

[Gez]

Re: Third time's the charm...

I hope that was sarcasm... *laugh*

Our party's sorceror is all about Enchantments... the few that there are. Chr 18, with Spell Focus: Enchantment, plus various charms and suggestions *prevents* a lot of fights... throw in Alter Self and you've got a one man super-spy agency. Which is what our slightly over-weight, highly personable Str 8 sorceror is all about.

Very scary.

Nope.

Cha 18. No SF: Ench, but still Cha 18.

Charm nobody worked once, on a guard, while we were making an escape. I charmed before he saw us, and then we told him to scout for us. It was great.

All other attempts failed. When trying to make someone more amiable in negociation ? Failed. And a POed dude with which negociations are impossible. When trying to calm a drunkard looking for a fight in a tavern ? Failed. When trying to convince a low-level mercenary to not kill a goblin we wanted to interogate ? Failed. Etc., etc., and so on. It worked once. Even people with a likely Will save of -1 or 0 always save when we try to cast charm person (or, for that matter, sleep) at them.

Magic missile all the way...

 

[Bauglir]

If you're running just the core rules, you won't have the option for Energy Substitution. And if your GM uses the builder books, convince him to let your wizard take Archmage from the FRCS so you can switch energy types on the fly with Mastery of Elements.

Energy Substitution is from Tome & Blood iirc, which while not core is a non-campaign-specific WotC book, and accepted by many. FRCS while, campaign specific is still used by some, however the arch-mage prestige class, while allowing you to substitute on the fly, still doesn't allow empowering, silent, still, chaining etc on the fly. Metamagic is often very situational - a wizard who finds himself in a silence effect with no silent spells is in trouble, while at the same time if the wizard learns silent spells and never finds themselves in a silence effect, that's the extra spell level going to waste.

Assuming your sorcerer has the right spell for the situation among his limited number of spells known...and no spell is a sure thing, even with Heighten. What you're doing is taking a wimpy spell and giving it a high DC save. I'd rather cast a powerful spell that also has a high save.

Firstly, any sorcerer that doesn't try to build a spell list that gives them access to the widest variety of effects is just a dumb sorcerer, so while he might not have Hold Person, he should have at least *1* disabling spell, which he then in turn heightens to maximum level to make the saving throw as difficult as possible.
As for casting a more powerful spell that all depends what you want to do - a hold person disables the guard, allowing you to knock them out quietly. If you want to kill the guard then go nuts with your more powerful spell, but hold person is ALWAYS useful for the non-lethal takedown.

The wizard will get higher-level spell slots earlier, which means they can give better buffs. They also get bonus feats, which means they're more likely to have access to things like Persistant Spell.

A whole 1 level earlier. As for having things like persistant spell that means they will have to use their precious high level slots for low level buffs. I don't know many wizards that are too willing to do that (at least until the very high levels where they have those slots to spare)

I agree with an earlier poster that says sorcerers have tactical flexibility, while wizards have strategic flexibility. The problem is that the sorcerer's flexibility is a bit of an illusion. Half the time, sorcerers don't have a choice of what to cast for their highest level spell. A specialist wizard can have two different spells of their highest level memorized as soon as they get a new spell level (a level earlier than sorcerers). If their intelligence is high enough, they can have three different spells memorized, while the sorcerer can only cast a single one (though it can be cast several times).

Funnily enough I've always found the reverse to be true . The wizard's power depends largely on knowing in advance everything you're going to face, and having the right spells prepared, which ime is rarely the case. YMMV

Sorcerers were a cool concept, but they fall flat in game play unless you just want to play a blaster loaded up on magic missiles and fireballs. A smart wizard knows what spells he'll end up casting 90% of the time, and memorizes appropriately. As for the other 10%...that's why they get Scribe Scroll at 1st level. The main weakness of a wizard is the spellbook...but even Sorcerers have to use spell components.

Like you said the wizard uses the same spells 90% of the time. The sorcerer can easily know all of those spells (or enough that they can power them up with metamagic) and still others. While the sorcerer's spell list isn't huge, nor is it tiny, and the smart sorcerer can easily come up with a spellset that will serve any occasion.

Now, that said, I'd love to see a more effective Sorcerer in D&D 3.5. Maybe a prestige class that makes one spell known per spell level a "variable slot", that could be changed with access to a spellbook. Or just increasing the number of spells known so you could get to a new spell level and have more than one spell to cast.

Personally I don't see a problem. I see a new spell level as opening up a new spell AND slots for new metamagic combinations on my existing spells, giving me plenty to do, and if there's a spell effect I'm missing out on, then I'll use a scroll.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Third time's the charm...

Even people with a likely Will save of -1 or 0 always save when we try to cast charm person (or, for that matter, sleep) at them.

Gez, you bring this up every time Charm Person makes an appearance in a thread.

From the way you describe it, it's not a problem with the Enchantment school. It's a problem with your DM.

Would I be right in assuming that none of these miraculous saves are ever rolled in the open?

-Hyp.

 

[Petrosian]

I will weigh in with my opinions.

First, my bias.

I prefer to play the sorcerer for several reasons.

The sorcerer class opens up a much wider scope of character concepts from singing mage to elemental mage to the enchanter to any number of mage style character themes that are not "the bookish academic who spends most of his time hunched over his spellbook or rooting around arcane shops in search of scrolls." The time and money involved in feeding the spellbook habit eats way too much into "character downtime" and IMO restricts the wizard to a rather narrow concept. (When i feel like that concept would be fun, then the wizard is my choice but i find that one concept very rarely desirable.)

The sorcerer involves a lot less accounting and bookkeeping, especially in play, with the trade off of making the out-of-session character development decisions more crucial. I like that idea. Having a character i can fit the stats for on one sheet and being able to just play and not tabulate as much in play is great for my money.

Finally, the few times i do get to play, its nice to know what I am getting. The sorcerer is fairly self-contained and self-evident. The wizard is so very much dependent on campaign setting "how the Gm runs things" issues including wealth levels, wealth distribution, free time (VITAL!!!) and even something as basic as how often the plot is PC driven (we pick time and place) vs story driven (invaders sacking town) and how much foreshadow and how much availability of information ahead of time (crucial for dialing specific key spells even with typically some open spell slots.) These elements are all vital to the capabilities of the wizard and these all vary from game to game from Gm to GM and from player group to player group. So, a wizard is not a known quantity... if the game features lots of wealth, tons of free time, and lots of player driven events with ample resources for advance knowledge of the challenges ahead... the wizard will walk as a god among insects... if instead its a harried seat-of-your-pants survive the evil overlord's invasion and save as many people as you can and try and turn the tide before he defiles the holy city and breaches the wards entombing the evil god.... then these aspects will work against the wizard to a great deal and he will find himself struggling quite a bit.

I prefer knowing what I am buying before i spend my time.

**********************

balance wise... the 500 lb gorilla for the wizard is the ability to when given adequate info dial up specific key spells. This does presume a broad spellbook. The 500 lb gorilla for the sorcerer is the spontaneous casting, which means if he has just one spell that is beneficial for the current encounter... he can ram that one spell down your throat until you choke. The sorcerers spells per day is not just slots but the fact that he never "wastes" slots" he never has two shadow cache spells prepared and eating slots when the drow invade the castle.

Its extrem,ely hard to assess independent balance between these two classes because the wizard is so very much dependent on external campaign issues which are NOT defined and regimented.

So, like most things, balance is derived from the cross referencing of the challenges presented and the character's abilities. A Gm can certainly run a game where sorcerers are balanced and a game where wizards are balanced as well as games which work towards imbalance. The classes are so different as to make these require different styles for these.

So to me balance is a GM choice issue more than anything else.

The only time i would routinely look to preferring to play a wizard for "balance" would be when i was going to be the only spellcaster. If there was any other spellcaster, even just a cleric, then i consider the choices equally balanced.

About the only time

 

[Otterscrubber]

Rather than making comments on how fair loot distribution is I would like to comment on the overall effectiveness of wizards vs. sorcerers. In my experience they are fairly well balanced in terms of game play. There are basically two types of situations, ones where you have an idea of what you are getting into and can plan ahead and those where you have no clue what you are getting into and have to improvise as needed.

I tend to find that the wizard is better at the first, since they will usually have a larger spell selection and can pick those anti undead (or whatever) spells if needed, while sorcerers are better at the second as a well chosen spell selection will enable them to be somewhat flexible as well as able to make full use of their available spells. As long as your DM alternates what type of scenario you are getting into then sorcerers and wizards are fairly balanced. If all your adventures are all planned out and you know what you are getting into though then wizards do start taking an advantage though. And vice-versa.

Also, one of the things I have really like about sorcerers is that they rarely "waste" any spells. If a certain spell turns out to be usefull in an adventure they dont have to worry about only having memorized it once, they can keep using it as needed, or not at all as needed. With a properly thought out spell selection you should be able to find at least one spell of every level that you can use in just about any adventure. For utility spells that are often needed, but not important enough to make part of your selection wands are a nice addition.

Having played in groups with both wizards and sorcerers I have not noticed the players of either class not enjoying themselves.

 

[Pickaxe]

This rather depends upon how you play wizards. As the player of a wizard myself, I've found that, 95% of the time I stick with a short and specific list of prepared spells. Consequently, adding any significant number of spells to my spellbooks rapidly becomes a matter of diminishing returns.

I definitely agree that the balance between these two classes shifts in a campaign-specific way. One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is magic item creation, other than scrolls, and not so much for making the wizard more the sorcerer as to enhance the party in general. In a campaign where opportunities to buy magic items are extremely limited, the wizard's greater access to item creation feats can be very important. In addition, the expanded spell selection for a wizard is extremely important for item creation, since many required spells are not necessarily the most popular for adventuring. Sorcerers are a lot more limited in their ability to produce magic items. Of course, if you can just buy any magic item, the item creation feats are greatly diminished in value, and therefore a unique part of the wizard's role is diminished. In such a campaign, the sorcerer does make more sense to play.

--Axe

 

[Grog]

Purely in terms of treasure value ... that's a LOT of gold "spent" on those spells. If you and I were to make 10th level characters... you'd have to sink a goodly amount of money into those spells.

Also, don't forget the time it takes to scribe all those spells.

It takes 2&1/2 weeks to scribe a single 9th level spell! So if a wizard found just a handful of 8th and 9th level spell scrolls, it would take him months just to scribe them all into his spellbook (I'm assuming that, since BBB doesn't reduce the scribing costs (right? I thought that was the official ruling) it wouldn't reduce the scribing time either).

What if your campaign doesn't allow for that kind of downtime? It's the same problem that exists with making magic items - it just takes way too long.

 

[Storm Raven]

It takes 2&1/2 weeks to scribe a single 9th level spell! So if a wizard found just a handful of 8th and 9th level spell scrolls, it would take him months just to scribe them all into his spellbook (I'm assuming that, since BBB doesn't reduce the scribing costs (right? I thought that was the official ruling) it wouldn't reduce the scribing time either).

There is no official ruling. There are statements by Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds that is does reduce scribing cost. There is also the text, which clearly states "freely".

However, there is no indication that it reduces scribing time. For a possible fix to that problem, check the Amauneunsis spell from Magic of Faerun.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is also the text, which clearly states "freely".

(... not, you'll note, 'for free'...)

(... ignore me.)

-Hyp.