Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8096978" data-attributes="member: 6802951">I've never claimed that a wizard is guaranteed to have more than 44 spells known, much less their entire list. It is unquantifiable. Myself and most of the people making similar arguments to me have not been including it because it cannot be assumed (it is completely under the DM's control) and so would be bad form unless already brought up. It would be like comparing classes in a game in which a DM tended to only have a couple of really hard encounters per day rather than the standard adventuring day format.My argument about the number of spells each class gets was pointing out that the wizard gets so many more spells known compared to the sorceror, that they can already cover what the sorceror can in terms of utility. The wizard can already know most of the sorceror utility spells, plus the ones unique to wizards. They have a better chance to have them ready to use that day (more spells prepared than the sorceror knows + rituals). Even if they cannot cast the required spells that day, it still only takes them overnight to swap to the required loadout, compared to the sorceror taking a day for every spell needing changing.As I said, if you want to make comparisons using a sorceror with Ritual Caster and a bunch of scrolls with a wizard with a bunch of scrolls, feel free. But each scroll that you give them makes the wizard more powerful compared to the sorceror because the wizard can make better use out of them.Thus the comparison that keeps the sorceror in the best position compared to the wizard is the position without giving extra spells. But that position does not allow you to claim that the sorceror just using a feat can do rituals like the wizard can. Its like saying the wizard can use the two sorcery points from that feat to do metamagic like the sorceror can. - The feat is no substitute for the actual class feature.</blockquote>

Verification