Sorcerer or Wizard?

[Lamoni]

I am fairly new to this forum and so I apologize if this has been asked about many times before.

I am debating what I want my character to be for my next campaign. I was a Paladin and I know that I want to be a good spellcaster. I basically already narrowed it down to Sorcerer or Wizard. I know that one can't be better in every sense, but right now it is looking like the sorcerer is better 90% of the time.

What are the advantages of each character type?

Here is what I see from reading about their description in the PHB:

Sorcerer: Gets more spells per day, doesn't need a spellbook, doesn't need time to prepare them.

Wizard: Gets bonus feats, can scribe scrolls.

When you scribe scrolls, doesn't it cost XP? And if you are always spending XP, won't that cause you to be a few levels below the rest of your group? Could a level 8 wizard that spent XP on scribing, really be any better than a level 10 sorcerer?

From what I have seen, Sorcerer is the clear winner. That makes me believe that I am missing a lot about the Wizard. I have never seen anyone play a Wizard so I am ignorant. Could you help fill me in on why someone might take a wizard over a sorcerer? Thanks.

 

[psychognome]

Well, Wizards make for more versatile spellcasters, since they can learn almost any spell that they stumble upon.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Darth Shoju]

The key advantage a wizard has over a sorceror is versatility. Whereas the sorceror can only know a few spells of each level, the wizard is technically unlimited in how many spells he can know (of course he can only memorize so many in a day). So basically sorcerors are 2-3 trick ponies, but can cast a lot of those few spells in a day. Sorcerors can be powerhouses for firepower, but if you happen to run up against a creature immune or resistant to your chosen type of firepower you could be in trouble. That and when you aren't in a situation where you are blowing things up, a sorceror may find he doesn't have a lot to do (unless he took non-combat spells, then he wouldn't have much to do in combat).

Now, once the sorcer gets up to those mid-levels, he will get to know a decent amount of lower-level spells (and this obviously goes up as he get higher in level), and with careful spell selection you should be able to cover yourself in a lot of situations. But ultimately, the sorceror will never be as versatile as the wizard.

Yes, scribing scrolls costs xp, but copying spells into your spellbook doesn't (although it does cost gp). The xp cost to scribe a scroll is pretty small, and it is doubtfull a wizard would scribe so many he would fall significantly behind his partymates. With a good mixture of scrolls, potions, wands/rods/staffs and spells, a wizard can be effective in a LOT of situations.

So really it comes down to what kind of character you want to play: the sorceror, who is very prolific in a few spells, or the wizard who can find a spell for many situations. Either way, they can both be fun IMO.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Well, that xp cost is for scrolls, not spells in the wizard's spellbook. A sorcerer could get the Scribe Scroll feat and still have to pay the same cost, if he wanted to.

But, in general, I'm not a fan of a character who sacrifices xp to gain an item. I'd rather adventure for the thing or live without it.

Wizards have much, much, much greater spell selection. Sorcerors only have a few spells per level that they know. Wizards can theoretically know all of them.

The difference between the two is one of versiltility.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

There are two types of versatiliy when cmparing the two. The wizard can know and number of spells and is more versatile because of it but thanks to the prep system has much less versatility at the tactical level. The sorcerer knows fewer spells but since there is no prep of these spells and can metamagic them on the fly he is much more tactically flexible.

I like the sor better because its close to as good as the wizard, I wont debate all the points, but the sorcerer is much less of a pain to run. You quickly come to know your spells and what you can do, and you learn how and when best to cast thm. i don't have to wade through masive spellbook and decide on what's best for the day or deal with all the other spell prep hassles.

 

[jasamcarl]

Many people will say Wizard, but in fact the sorcerer is probably the safe pic. The versatility advantage a wizard has it ultimatly minor, because a few key combat and utility spells will cover most situations and, because the sorcerer shares the same spell list, he/she can cast from scrolls on the rare occassion that they know that they will need one. In addition, the spontaneous casting and greater number of spells per day makes the sorcerer a superior combatent in most fights. The one real balancing point for the wizard is that they gain new spell levels a level earlier than the sorcerer, so at certain key levels, it is a quality versus quantity of spells cast paradigm.

 

[Caliban]

I think they are both versatile, just in different ways.

Sorcerers can do some impressive things with their smaller number of spells, given the proper metamagic feat selection.

And being able to spontaneously cast any of their spells gives them an advantage when they run into a situation where that spell is effective. A wizard may only have one or two copies of an appropriate spell prepared, but the sorcerer can use as many of his spell slots as necessary to finish the job, provided he has the spell.


It just depends on having a good spell and metamagic feat selection for the sorcerer.

 

[Lamoni]

Thanks a lot. That helps.

I think that I will hold out on my decision based on how diverse the party ends up being. If the other characters are pretty diverse, I can more easily afford to be a specialized caster. But I can see how the sorcerer is more prone to be ineffective in many situations... at least until mid-levels.

I think that I will want to try both of them out eventually, but that might be a while because I am still on my first campaign and it has been going on for about a year (we did have 3 months where we didn't play though)

 

[Lamoni]

I like the sor better because its close to as good as the wizard, I wont debate all the points, but the sorcerer is much less of a pain to run. You quickly come to know your spells and what you can do, and you learn how and when best to cast thm. i don't have to wade through masive spellbook and decide on what's best for the day or deal with all the other spell prep hassles. [/B]

Right now that is what is making me lean more towards sorcerer also. I like fighting, solving riddles, talking to NPC's, etc. I don't like doing things like find lodging, taking time to put on armor before springing to a fight, and I can imagine that wading through spells too much and spending gold for spells might also be added to the list of things I don't like.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

also 3.5 may change things.

metamgic no longer stacks(booo)

lots of multipurpose spells are broken up which hurts the sor a lot more than the wiz, again(booooo)

no way for the sor to get 2 spells a round since they foolishly didn't fix quicken for them or since its still +4 levels ix it for anyone, once more (booooo)

and maybe more.