sorcerers
- Thread starter vince33
- Start date
Aust Diamondew
First Post
lol My group feels the exact opposite to yours. Maybe it has something to do with power gamers liking the wizard better. My group in general has lazier gamers.
I thought the same about sorcerers being underpowered, especially since scrolls can make up for the wizard's fewer spell slots. But some friends pointed out some advantages, and, having now played a sorcerer a bit, I'm convinced that sorcerers are at the very least equally fun to play as wizards (which to me is what's most important).
Keep in mind a few of things:
Sorcerers don't have to prepare spells, and therefore are much more flexible. If you need five teleports, all the sorcerer needs is five fifth level or higher slots (and knowledge of teleport, which is probably a staple for most sorcerers). Or he could turn those into five fly spells, or five invisibility spells, etc.
Specialist wizards can get close to the number of slots of a sorcerer, but in every case they give up a significant part of their power by giving up schools. Especially in 3.5, every school has a valuable spell at some point.
Wizards have access to more spells, but they really need to spend cash or find spellbooks to capitalize on this diversity. Otherwise, they get two spells per level. At higher levels, sorcerers get three or four new spells per level, which actually means that they may outpace wizards. Furthermore, at higher levels, both wizards and sorcerers are more likely to have spell repertoires that are more diverse than they really need on a day-to-day basis.
Overall, I think the two classes are pretty balanced and have different advantages. Sorcerers are fun because you get to fire spells off all day long, and a well-built sorcerer will always have something to cast. Wizards can make scrolls of little-used but handy spells, their intelligence allows them to grab ranks in Knowledge and Craft in campaigns that favor those skills, and they give the party more item creation opportunities.
--Axe
Keep in mind a few of things:
Sorcerers don't have to prepare spells, and therefore are much more flexible. If you need five teleports, all the sorcerer needs is five fifth level or higher slots (and knowledge of teleport, which is probably a staple for most sorcerers). Or he could turn those into five fly spells, or five invisibility spells, etc.
Specialist wizards can get close to the number of slots of a sorcerer, but in every case they give up a significant part of their power by giving up schools. Especially in 3.5, every school has a valuable spell at some point.
Wizards have access to more spells, but they really need to spend cash or find spellbooks to capitalize on this diversity. Otherwise, they get two spells per level. At higher levels, sorcerers get three or four new spells per level, which actually means that they may outpace wizards. Furthermore, at higher levels, both wizards and sorcerers are more likely to have spell repertoires that are more diverse than they really need on a day-to-day basis.
Overall, I think the two classes are pretty balanced and have different advantages. Sorcerers are fun because you get to fire spells off all day long, and a well-built sorcerer will always have something to cast. Wizards can make scrolls of little-used but handy spells, their intelligence allows them to grab ranks in Knowledge and Craft in campaigns that favor those skills, and they give the party more item creation opportunities.
--Axe
A sorcerer's power relative to a wizard is completely determined by his spell selection. If he chooses spells that have a wide range of uses (like Shadow Conjuration, Telekinesis, Major Image), or spells that are frequently used (Magic Missile, Fireball, Invisibility), then his flexibility and applicibility of spells can rival the broad spell selection of the wizard.
What a sorcerer will never be able to do is beat the Wizards ability to research a foe, and prepare the exact right spells for the situation. But, if the spells are picked properly (as above), the wizard will never best the sorcerer's ability to react quickly to an unexpected situation.
What a sorcerer will never be able to do is beat the Wizards ability to research a foe, and prepare the exact right spells for the situation. But, if the spells are picked properly (as above), the wizard will never best the sorcerer's ability to react quickly to an unexpected situation.
Jdvn1 said:
Funny I have the oposite view. High level Sorcerers with well chosen spells can generally be useful in almost any circumstances. The problem with sorcerers as a class is no flavor mechanics. Ideally sorcerers should get d6 hit points, and some sort of bonuses powers dependent upon bloodline.
Li Shenron
Legend
vince33 said:
I've played several Sorcerers and several Wizards, and from my own experience I can say the following:
- generally speaking the two classes are well balanced with each other
- if there's a moment when the sorcerer suffers a little, it is between levels 3-5; at level 1 (only) the sorcerer is actually preferable
- supplement books do not support the sorcerer enough: the more supplements you use beyond the core books, the more advantage to the wizard (esp. with prestige classes)
- the 3.5 changes to spells hurt the sorcerer much more than the wizard, but not enough to make it underpowered
Depends entirely on the style of play.
Sorcerers are very good in a combat oriented game with not much down time. Their casting flexability is handy in those situations.
In a more planned out one a wizard is better because he has no limit to the number ofspells he can know given time and money while a sorcerer has an absolute limit.
Also when metamagic spells come into play a sorcer has problems since any metamagiced spell he casts takes at least a full round.
Also sorcerers get access to higher levels spells slower than wizards do.
Sorcerers are very good in a combat oriented game with not much down time. Their casting flexability is handy in those situations.
In a more planned out one a wizard is better because he has no limit to the number ofspells he can know given time and money while a sorcerer has an absolute limit.
Also when metamagic spells come into play a sorcer has problems since any metamagiced spell he casts takes at least a full round.
Also sorcerers get access to higher levels spells slower than wizards do.
This is the first time I've seen this thread over here.
Check out the Wizards of the Coast message boards. They have had something like 100 threads on this very topic, and they never tire of rehashing the same arguments over and over. At no stage has anybody there ever said "Wow, I hadn't thought of that. I've changed my mind."
Personally I love sorcerers. They are great fun to play. I couldn't care less whether or not they are "weaker" than wizards. As soon the 3rd edition sorcerer came out I realised I was never going to play a wizard again.
However, to answer your question, my OPINION is :-
Given a reasonably experienced player who is willing to spend a considerable amount of time planning his character
Given a DM who is not looking to mess over his players, but believes in challenging them and occasionally targetting their weaknesses (so the sorcerer may sometimes be stumped because he lacks a spell, the wizard has to spend resources protecting his spellbook, and can't always take the time to scribe scrolls, come back tomorrow with the optimum spells prepared etc.)
Given fairly random treasure hauls which doesn't favour any particular character class, but with all characters having to "pay" for magic items they keep (rather than as sometimes happens, useful items being given to those who best suit them, and only the proceeds from the sale of any remaining items being split equally)
Then a wizard is slightly stronger as I think greater flexibility and gaining spell levels earlier gives him the edge.
What does annoy me though is people who think there's only one way to play D&D - hence my listing the assumptions behind my opinion.
In particular, wizard lovers quite often assume that any BBEG spellbooks they come across are theirs by right, but they should also get a full share of the remaining treasure. You can play that way (our group does), but my opinion is that the "default" way to play is to split treasure equally and that is the only fair basis on which to compare classes.
I've also heard opinions like "the spellbook isn't a weakness, because no DM would dare destroy it" but later on they say "and the sorcerer is always finding himself in positions where he doesn't have any spells on his list that he can use to solve the problem." That to me is biased DMing and not a fair basis for comparison.
Check out the Wizards of the Coast message boards. They have had something like 100 threads on this very topic, and they never tire of rehashing the same arguments over and over. At no stage has anybody there ever said "Wow, I hadn't thought of that. I've changed my mind."
Personally I love sorcerers. They are great fun to play. I couldn't care less whether or not they are "weaker" than wizards. As soon the 3rd edition sorcerer came out I realised I was never going to play a wizard again.
However, to answer your question, my OPINION is :-
Given a reasonably experienced player who is willing to spend a considerable amount of time planning his character
Given a DM who is not looking to mess over his players, but believes in challenging them and occasionally targetting their weaknesses (so the sorcerer may sometimes be stumped because he lacks a spell, the wizard has to spend resources protecting his spellbook, and can't always take the time to scribe scrolls, come back tomorrow with the optimum spells prepared etc.)
Given fairly random treasure hauls which doesn't favour any particular character class, but with all characters having to "pay" for magic items they keep (rather than as sometimes happens, useful items being given to those who best suit them, and only the proceeds from the sale of any remaining items being split equally)
Then a wizard is slightly stronger as I think greater flexibility and gaining spell levels earlier gives him the edge.
What does annoy me though is people who think there's only one way to play D&D - hence my listing the assumptions behind my opinion.
In particular, wizard lovers quite often assume that any BBEG spellbooks they come across are theirs by right, but they should also get a full share of the remaining treasure. You can play that way (our group does), but my opinion is that the "default" way to play is to split treasure equally and that is the only fair basis on which to compare classes.
I've also heard opinions like "the spellbook isn't a weakness, because no DM would dare destroy it" but later on they say "and the sorcerer is always finding himself in positions where he doesn't have any spells on his list that he can use to solve the problem." That to me is biased DMing and not a fair basis for comparison.
