Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6640523" data-attributes="member: 37579">A sorcerer can regain just as many spells through sorcerer points as a wizard can gain via Arcane Recovery. But the sorcerer can still use the points if a short rest is not imminent, either for more spells or other benefits. A sorcerer with the same spells prepared as the wizard are pretty darn close to equivalent. The wizard has a small number of other spells prepared, which are likely to be situational utility spells, and can cast rituals. So, yes, the wizard is *slightly* better, but not game breakingly so. In the unlikely event of a game having both a wizard and a sorcerer, the difference is likely to only come up a couple times in a campaign, making it anomalous. However, the wizard also requires much more system master, making it a harder class to learn and play. Poor spell choices and memorization for the day can easily render a wizard inept and ineffective, making the sorcerer a more effective choice. Conversely, someone with the requisite system mastery can do a lot more with the wizard, reactively swapping out spells and being strategic with spell choices each level. So the wizard has the potential to become more powerful. It can be played as more powerful, with greater player skill. But player skill will always make a character more effective, so that's a neutral argument. The sorcerer could have likely used a titch more... something. Like an extra spell castable to balance against the wizard's spells known. But I imagine WotC really wanted spells/day to be hard capped to better balance martials with casters and spell resources per day. So I'm not sure what else they could have given them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6640523, member: 37579"] A sorcerer can regain just as many spells through sorcerer points as a wizard can gain via Arcane Recovery. But the sorcerer can still use the points if a short rest is not imminent, either for more spells or other benefits. A sorcerer with the same spells prepared as the wizard are pretty darn close to equivalent. The wizard has a small number of other spells prepared, which are likely to be situational utility spells, and can cast rituals. So, yes, the wizard is *slightly* better, but not game breakingly so. In the unlikely event of a game having both a wizard [I]and[/I] a sorcerer, the difference is likely to only come up a couple times in a campaign, making it anomalous. However, the wizard also requires much more system master, making it a harder class to learn and play. Poor spell choices and memorization for the day can easily render a wizard inept and ineffective, making the sorcerer a more effective choice. Conversely, someone with the requisite system mastery can do a lot more with the wizard, reactively swapping out spells and being strategic with spell choices each level. So the wizard has the [I]potential[/I] to become more powerful. It [I]can[/I] be played as more powerful, with greater player skill. But player skill will always make a character more effective, so that's a neutral argument. The sorcerer could have likely used a titch more... something. Like an extra spell castable to balance against the wizard's spells known. But I imagine WotC really wanted spells/day to be hard capped to better balance martials with casters and spell resources per day. So I'm not sure what else they could have given them. [/QUOTE]

Verification