sorcerers
- Thread starter vince33
- Start date
Merlion
First Post
Thanee said:
Well as for Clerics and Druids, mainly Clerics, I've never subscribed to the idea that the Sor/Wiz spell list is superior to the Clerics, and I still dont.
Druid is a bit tough. their list is definitely limited. But they can cast almost as many spells in a day as a Sorcerer, and they have auto access to every spell on their list.
So overall, as far as overall magical contribution to the party, I still tend to think the other full casters would tend to come out ahead of the Sorcerer.
Individual experiences will, of course, vary. A lot of the difference is very circumstantial...in some campaign styles it may vanish altogether. Thats why I focus on the numbers, because they are not subjective or variable.
Sorcerers and Wizards both have no meaningful class features but spells. They cast exactly the same spells. The Wizard however has considerably more spells than the Sorcerer, and gains better spells faster. And gains bonus feats that can enhance his magic.
Thanee
First Post
Merlion said:
Right. But those are also the only ones that really count, because it's irrelevant how a character plays hypothetically, it's relevant how the character plays in a given campaign in the end.
The biggest issue here is the number of encounters per day. The wizard is really strong on the first and grows continually weaker with every one that follows (if you sort the encounters from toughest to easiest or something, it doesn't matter in what order they actually happen). The sorcerer is at full power during each of them usually. That's something the wizard will always struggle to achieve, unless there are only very few encounters in a day.
Yeah, and the sorcerer has spontaneous casting, the single most powerful ability in the whole game, after full-scale spellcasting in the first place.
The bonus feats put the wizard ahead a little overall IMHO, but the spellcasting itself is pretty even between the two classes.
That's how I see things at least, both in theory and in practice (and I play arcane spellcasters like 80% of the time
).Bye
Thanee
Merlion
First Post
It would be, but the price is too high. The Sorcerer gets that versatility, but gives up everything else in exchange. being able to spontaneously cast a handful of spells mostly defeats the benefits of spontaneous casting.
Thats why I say I dont really think D&D can handle Spontaneous Spellcasting without at least a partial revamp of the magic system. It works ok with the Bard because they arent full casters. But it seems to me that a Spontaneous, full-level caster without other class features, in D&D is going to either be slightly underpowered (as the Sorcerer is, paying to much for the spontaneity) or slightly overpowered (as the Sorcerer would be if it had enough spell access not to be underpowered).
Thats why if I wanted the Sorcerer to be more competitive, I'd leave its casting alone and give it something else.
But all of that is too subjective and circumstantial to have anything like a rational discussion about or to draw meaningful conclusions from.
Merlion
First Post
KarinsDad said:
Except that they are interchangble. They are two forms or aspects of the same thing.
And I dont feel the Sorcerer ends up with very much of either, in practice. No more so of either, meaningfully than the Wizard.
And in the end, in a game like D&D, what you call "versatility" is whats going to matter more often anyway. If either of them do...and if you except that they are actually different things.
Merlion said:
Yes, let's compare:
12 level:
Wizard: 2 6th level spells castable out of x spells (where x tends to be <= 6)
Sorcerer: 3 6th level spells castable out of y spells (where y includes his 1 6th level spell, his 2 5th level spells, his 2 5th level spells metamagicked, his 3 4th level spells, his 3 4th level spells metamagicked, etc.).
It seems to me that not ONLY can the Sorcerer cast more 6th level spells (3 vs. 2), but he has a LOT of options as to what to put into those slots AND he can decide those options as needed.
The Wizard can only cast two such spells and unless he has 15 minutes in order to fill up an empty slot as needed, he is STUCK with the 2 spells he picked earlier in the day. I don't know about your games, but the people in our games are not omniscient and are not capable of always coming up with the spells they need hours ahead of when they use them.
On even levels, Sorcerers simply have more spells and more options.
The flaw in your logic is that you totally ignore spontaneous metamagic and consider it insignificant as an option whereas most of the rest of the posters here understand it for its power and flexibility.
You see it as one choice to fill those 3 6th level slots where I see dozens of choices.
The same applies to Clerics and Favored Souls. If your Favored Soul has some Cure spells, some form of Restoration (or Lesser) spell, a Dispel Magic, some way to minimize or neutralize poison, and a few party buffs, he has MOST of what is needed to keep a party going.
The same with a Sorcerer. He is able to cover the bases with most of what he needs. He cannot do everything, but he can do most of the things he needs to.
Merlion
First Post
KarinsDad said:
Ok, let me ask this....are you actually trying to say the Sorcerer is generally going to be *superior* to the Wizard?
Cause thats how it sounds, and before we can even begin to relate...or rather know if we have any chance of relating, we need to get that out of the way.
Merlion said:
You are wrong.
They mean two different things. I think your problem with them is that since they both deal with change, you think they mean the same thing. They do not.
It's like the word periodically.
People often think it means occasionally or sporadically. It does not. It means on a regular basis.
But, people misuse it a lot. Just like people here are misusing the word flexible.
If you are flexible, you can adapt.
If you are versatile, you can do many things.
Just because change is involved with both of these does not mean that it is the same type of change.
In the case of the flexible Sorcerer, it is his ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances.
In the case of the versatile Wizard, it is his ability to change slowly to changing circumstances, but to often eventually have available exactly what he needs.
Merlion said:
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Like I mentioned earlier, the game is not played in a vacuum. There are other PCs and NPC allies involved. Just because the Sorcerer does not have Teleport does not mean that some other PC or NPC ally does not.
And, just because the Wizard can EVENTUALLY teleport (i.e. in 15 minutes or the next day) does not mean that he is capable of handling the current situation. If you need Teleport and you need it NOW, it matters not a whit that the Wizard has it in his spellbook if he does not have it memorized.
Merlion said:
I think a well designed Sorcerer is superior in combat to a Wizard.
I think a well designed Wizard is superior in social settings and in problem solving (i.e. getting past guards undetected or finding a way out of a trap) than a Sorcerer.
Granted, a Sorcerer could be superior in social settings if that is what he focused on (i.e. Alter Self, Charm Person, etc.). But, if he does that, then he would be an inferior combatant. It is all dependent on what he focuses on. Ditto for problem solving.
I also think that a well designed Specialized Wizard is almost on par in combat to a Sorcerer, just due to his extra spells.
In fact, I would suspect that the majority of players who play Wizards actually take Specialized Wizards, just because the extra power of extra spells is preferable to the extra versatility of being able to cast out of all schools of magic. It is better to have spells left over and be alive than it is to be versatile and be dead.
Maybe we should take a poll on that.
