D&D 5E (2014) Sorcerer vs. Wizard: Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better?

[ExploderWizard]

One important distinction for role play purposes is that the sorcerer is someone who can sling powerful magic without having to be terribly bright. That is why I chose to base a villain in one of my campaigns on the class. He is a megalomaniac, very charming, wields great arcane power but he is flighty, impatient, and kind of dumb. Take that character and have him bumble around doing magical research that he keeps screwing up because he can't be bothered to properly research history and you have one hilarious bad guy. He wouldn't be nearly as entertaining in the same way if I had made him a wizard. The INT needed to make him effective with magic would have made his idiocy implausible.

For that I'm glad the archetype exists.

 

[Jester David]

There's two different ways the sorcerer and wizard are different: flavour and mechanics.
Now, the mechanically differences are functionally meaningless, as you can separate an infinite number of classes with mechanical variations. So the real difference is fluff and that fluff's connection to the mechanics.

Both classes are magic users. They could easily have been folded into a single more generic "magic user" or "mage" class in the same way many games fold the cleric/healer and the wizard into a single "spellcaster" class. The difference between a sorcerer and wizard is really their background, their origin story. It's the "how I learned magic" part of a back story. Really, there aren't sorcerer and wizard classes there are sorcerer and wizard characters. And in fiction, there tends to be a mixture of the two where magic is inherent and innate to the blood but requires education and practice to bring it out.

I would have prefered to not have the two different classes, especially since there wasn't even mechanical distinction between the two in 4e and the mechanical difference in the two in 3e was so minor. Sorcerer spellcasting didn't make a new class any more than the various magic variants in Unearthed Arcana made the wizard into a different class when applied. But c'est la vie...

 

[Mr Fixit]

I am of the opinion that 5E sorcerer, as presented, has very few reasons to exist as a separate class. Make it a wizard's "school" and call it a day. Of course, in order for this to work properly and not clash with background and RP, the core wizard class would ideally have to move its choice of school to first level, as with cleric domains, but that hardly seems problematic.

 

[Larac]

The difference becomes clear when you're adventuring and the need for a magical solution keeps coming up and the sorcerer is all like, "Sorry man, but I only know a couple of spells. But I can cast them a lot!"

How does he cast a lot of them?
Spell Points? I guess you mean.
But Wiz gets slots back also.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, I think each ability needs its own class.

Casting magic via INT, WIS or CHA has implications that make it needlessly muddied to mix them together in a single class. But we already have a CHA-based arcane caster class.

The problem with the 5E sorcerer is how little you gain compared to all the things you need to give up.

In 3E you had to give up pretty much the same. But what you got was so sweet it was worth it.

5E needed to invent a whole new reason for choosing a sorcerer. Just "you get to play a caster that isn't INT-based" doesn't cut it. Just relying on "the sorcerer was there in 3E, we need to include it here too" doesn't cut it.

In fact, I consider the sorcerer the least essential class in 5E. In fact, it is somewhat of a trap option, especially for small parties.

In a party of four, there's only one job opening for "arcane caster". That caster better be ready do all the stuff we expect arcane casters to do.

And if you think Fireball is it, you're wrong.

The game-changing spells are those the Fighters can't reproduce. Fighters can already do damage.

What the only arcane caster in a small party needs to do is not Fireball.

Apart from that, the warlock already offers the "sturdy, not puny, spellcaster" schtick also associated with sorcerers.

Finally, locking away metamagic into one particular class is boring.

Not only is the sorcerer the least well equipped class to truly use metamagic (because of his restricted spell options), but also a bad "it is the sorcerer's fault wizards don't get these fun toys" vibe...

 

[El Mahdi]

They have things in common, and also have distinct mechanics and narratives.

 

[famousringo]

In 5e (disregarding these classes in earlier e's), are the sorcerer and the wizard basically the same class with a slightly different coat of paint? Or are they distinct and unique in play?

5-point scale:
1 = "they are only different cosmetically."
2 = "they have some differences, but these differences don't matter much."
3 = "maybe they fill the same role or have the same story, but they've got meaningful distinctions."
4 = "they have some superficial similarities, but they don't really play the same at all."
5 = "they are only the same if you ignore basically everything about them."

It's kind of a judgement call, IMO - not sure there's any absolutely right threshold for "different."

Some thought-provoking questions to consider:

• If you gave them the same exact spell list, spellcasting ability score, and/or skill/weapon/armor proficiency list, would they still be different? How?
• If you took a subclass out of one and dumped it in the other, would it still work? Does it still make sense?
• How would you help someone who has never played D&D before choose between these classes?
• How often does the difference come up in play? In what situations would it be clear that the class is different? In what situations would they do basically the same thing?
• If you were to make them MORE THE SAME how would you do it? If you were to make them MORE DIFFERENT how would you do it?
• Would a member of one class with a different race/background be the same as the member of another class? (Ie: is a sorcerer who took the Scholar background basically doing the same thing as a wizard? Or is a wizard with the Noble background the same thing as a Sorcerer?)

I voted 3, but kinda wish I'd hit 4. So 3.5, I guess.

The sorcerer can nova like no other class, but they can't sustain their output like a warlock or rogue can. The trimmed spell list and restrictive spells known place a severe limit on the sorcerer's versatility, especially outside combat. Any spell taken to improve a sorcerer's performance in exploration or social situations is going to diminish combat versatility even further.

The wizard has a similar sustained output to to a sorcerer, but smaller novas and slightly worse survivability. In exchange, low level wizards display excellent versatility in any situation, familiars and ritual magic giving them a particular edge in the exploration pillar. High level wizards gain access to exclusive spells like Contingency and Magic Jar that allow them to prepare for bad situations like no other class.

To answer your particular questions:

- Sorcerers would still nova bigger, wizards would still be more versatile. A sorcerer would need to think twice before spending precious known spells on one of the wizard's long cast preparatory ritual spells.

- Some would, some wouldn't. It's easy to imagine a wizard touched by wild magic or a sorcerer with a gift for visions. Harder to imagine a sorcerer alchemist.

- Do you want to a bomb primed to go off, or do you want to be Batman? A smooth talking rogue with a loaded fireball, or a know-it-all boyscout prepared for any tricky situation?

- In combat, they basically are the same thing. They throw AoE and control spells to make enemy groups more manageable. Sorcerer burns brighter, while wizard can be prepared for more situations and burn longer.

Out of combat, social pillar is a wash, with sorcerers generally enjoying a better CHA score while wizards have better access to enchantment spells.

Exploration pillar is strong advantage to wizard, with familiars, far more spells known, and the best ritual casting in the game always ready with a Water Breathing or some such.

- Bigger spell list and more spells known to the sorcerer. Some metamagic-like surge feature to the wizard.

To make them different, the first thing I'd do is give sorcerers a couple of distinct signature spells. Even half casters have those. For wizards, I'd figure out a class feature that reflects their studious, preparatory nature.

- Eh, no more than a fighter with a criminal background is a thief. Sure, he can wear leather armour and pick locks, but his fighting style will be to launch a flurry of powerful attacks in somebody's face, not carefully choose his moment to strike a devastating blow. You might find both in a thieves guild, but the guild will probably assign different jobs based on these styles.

The sorcerer can read a lot of books, but when the gauntlet goes down, she'll still be stuck with a less versatile spell selection.

 

[houser2112]

I said in another thread that the cleric, druid, and wizard (I'm going to shorten this to CDW) beat up the sorcerer and stole his lunch money. The reason to play a sorcerer when he was introduced in 3E was because he was a spontaneous caster. For those who hated the fire-and-forget, "exactly how many fireball spells am I going to need today?" aspect of playing a wizard, the sorcerer was a godsend. He had a narrower repertoire than the wizard, but he also had more slots to work with.

Yes, CDWs can now only prepare a certain number per day, and spontaneously cast from that short list, but they don't have a hard limit on the number of spells they could potentially cast. The sorcerer still has that limit, picks from a smaller list, has the same number of slots, and his only other attractive feature, Metamagic, pulls from the same sorcery point pool as his Arcane Recovery-equivalent feature.

There's very little in the sorcerer that compels me to play one over a wizard.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A few notes:

1 - I see that I probably should've made the poll less swingy, judging by the MASSIVE SPIKE at #3. But I was hearing others describe #1, and I was more at #4 or #5, so I figured I'd cover it. Lesson for next time I suppose!

2 - This isn't about how good the sorcerer is, or how attractive either class is to play, it's about the similarities of the classes - how a like or how different are they? Clearly if you prefer one over the other, they're pretty different in your mind (4+, I'd guess!; maybe 3), and if you think they're pretty much equal in terms of how much you'd like to play one, they'd be kind of the same (1-2; maybe 3).

Thanks and keep the ideas coming! I'm learning a lot.

 

[Ashrym]

It's a bit odd to ask about the same spell list when a prominent wizard feature is the ability to change prepared spells.

For the record, sorcery points do provide more spell slots than arcane recovery if used solely for that purpose but do not require any rest period to do so and have the added advantage of fueling other options (particularly metamagic) and is far superior to arcane recovery for that reason. It tends to be either more spells or metamagic spells but both options are useful for different reasons while wizards are more restricted in recovery and tradition spell enhancement.

Metamagic is good. Very good. It is the main reason aside from flavour to play a sorcerer.

More an extra cantrip helps at low levels compared to wizards because more spells available is worthless without the slots and both are relying on cantrips. At higher levels there is room for utility spells because only so many defensive and offensive spells are needed. Sorcerers rely more on skills than Wizards to accomplish similar results, like most classes.
[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]: the combination of inate ability plus learned spellcasting can be seen in the bard.