sorcerers

[Jdvn1]

Right, but at any given time, the wizard will have three, and so will the sorcerer. And the sorcerer can cast them twice as many times. It's a question of preparation, as it has been this entire thread.

It is indeed. It is his greatest strength. Offset, in my opinion, by the drive to use that diversity. Frankly, I think any wizard with 3 9th level slots should have: Time Stop, Foresight, and an open slot. The sorcerer is also able to have those two spells, but he can cast them more times, and have a third one ready. So the question is "how important is it that you get the right 9th level spell instead of being able to cast those two necessary spells multiple times".

And I think they come out even in the end.

Obviously, which three spells a Wizard should have prepared is debatable, but (as you mention later) it also depends on your GM. In some situations, this is true, and it comes out about even. But if you know your GM likes to throw a variety of things against you, then the question for the Sorcerer becomes, "Can I guarantee those two necessary spells are actually necessary?" There's less of a chance of that being true. In this instance, a Wizard comes out ahead because, while he may know what is 'typical' and prepare the Timestop and Foresight, that third empty slot means a lot more.

Maybe not by a lot because you can use BOOM spells in just about any situation if you're creative. But then Foresight might not be one of your spells.

If that situation is typical, then yes, the wizard will be more powerful. However, its typicality is the provence of the DM, and subject to change.

Which makes a Sorcerer's limited spell selection even weaker. A lot of it does come down to the GM, though, which seems to make large parts of this discussion break down.

He can't spend it on long-lasting spell diversity, but rather spends it on immediate spell diversity. It's not as useful in the long run, but it does have virtue in being able to be used whenever the sorc needs it, eh?

Which seems to make the Sorc a specialist, right?

And that's the wizard's strength.

Sometimes you need a particular spell, "but hey, take your time" ... call a wizard.

Other times you need "Kill it, kill it, killitKILLITKILLIT!!!" ... hire a sorcerer.

But which is useful more often?

You miss the point. If you come up on a prismatic wall, and need to bypass it now, the sorcerer will be better at it. If you need to take the thing down, which takes more time, the wizard will be better.

Have time ---> Wizard
Do it now ---> Sorcerer

Different strengths, man. Who cares if you're out of 4th or 5th level spells when it's better to be alive? If there's no threat to the party, then take the time, and bring the wall down. Different situations call for different measures. Same as the strengths of any classes, eh?

The Wizard looks ahead to the next situation, though.

I can dig that. I think, however, that it is only a "bit". Overall, I think it's a wash. It really and truly depends upon the situations the characters find themselves in.

I can agree with that. It probably is a wash. The more I think about it, it all comes down the GM. If he runs a pretty straight game, I'd think the Sorcerer wins every time. If the GM likes variety, the Wizard seems to win out.

 

[Merlion]

True, I was just trying to communicate immediacy, which the sorc is better at.


The Sorcerer wouldn't bring down the Prismatic Wall, that's not what I had intended for you to think ... the sorcerer would bypass it quickly, eliminating the need to bring it down.

Unless it absolutly needs to be taken down. In which case, you're in better hands with 15 minutes and a wizard.


So you have an artillery sorcerer, since he wants him most powerful spells to be blast spells. Of course an artillery sorcerer is going to be less versatile than a wizard.

And Lightning Bolt will work just fine against Trolls... they will recieve subdual damage out the wazoo, and once they're down they're helpless, subject to CdG. Or getting their head cut off, if your DM allows that common house rule.


I would suggest that what matters most is how all of his spells together work in concert, and not just his highest level spells.


As you say.


Is that while still dismissing the threats of spellbook loss and midnight attack, as you did a few posts up?


If you need versatility, then the sorcerer is the sub-optimal choice. That isn't the point of this thread, nor is it the source of disagreement here, so you certainly don't need to quote yourself to say it again any more.

I think my particpation in this discussion is at an end. Its starting to turn into a fight, and to border on incivility, rather than being a discussion.


As I've said I dont hate the class, and I dont think people who choose to play it are stupid. I think the designers made various mistakes when creating it

 

[Henry]

Also note if a fighter has some sort of really amazing weapon, to me it seems a bit overboard to destroy it either. I just prefer to attack the characters, rather than attack their ability to function as their character type. The point after all is to enjoy the game, and if you decide your going to enjoy playing a spellcaster being rendered unable to cast spells for long periods just seems...pointless to me.

Well, being of the second generation of gamers myself, I'm no stranger to being prepared for it. And while I certainly wouldn't like it, I also don't like monsters attacking me and hurting me, either, but it doesn't mean I don't find it a thrill in overcoming the challenge, just as I would losing my spellbooks.

It's obscenely cheap nowadays to prepare a backup spellbook compared to previous editions. To not have the money invested seems a bad move, to me, unless I know for a fact that a given DM doesn't play that way, in which case that 2000 gp is better spent on another wand or three for the cleric.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDIT: Must not post after working for 30 hours.

 

[Thanee]

I've found that players who are new to Spellcasters prefer the Sorc over the Wiz. However a veteran Arcanecaster player will choose Wizard everytime.

This is simply wrong. There are plenty veteran players, who like sorcerers at least as much as wizards.

Sorcs are easy to play, and you can go with being walking artillery.

That's the warmage.

Bye
Thanee

 

[werk]

EDIT: Must not post after working for 30 hours.

Edit: Must not work 30 hours!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

MM & FB are "normal" Sorcerer spells because they're the most popular combat spells for all casters?

No that doesn't answer that question at all. There is no reason to say that they're more popular for Sorcerers than they are for Wizards or Clerics who have access to them as well. They're just the most popular lower level combat spells, period. Nothing to do with the class.

...which is completely beside the point. Fact is, there are a bunch of spells that are more common for sorcerers than other spells. The point of the exercise is to find out if anyone has found any interesting synergies, tactics, or shticks with any of the lesser-used spells that might be fun and informative to hear about. The sorcerer can take certain tactics with spells that wizards and clerics can't, just because he can cast the same spell over and over again. The idea was to find out which spells people had found to be "diamonds in the rough" from the various sourcebooks, specifically for sorcerers, to perhaps be used as spell selections for future sorcerer characters if it turned out to be interesting enough.

Now, you can continue to pee in my pool, or you can wait to see if anyone has had any insights about some of the more obscure sorcerer spells.

 

[Thanee]

And once PlaneSailing sees this, he will educate you about the wonders of Pyrotechnics, I'm sure.



Bye
Thanee

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Thats a big disadvantage with Wizards - if they don't know specifically what to prepare for, they're taking a huge gamble with wasting spell slots on spells you won't need.

I keep seeing this argument in these Wizard/Sorcerer threads: that the wizard's need to choose his spells is some kind of disadvantage compared to the sorcerer who doesn't need to choose his spells. I really can't understand this logic. Certainly, it is a problem if you choose the wrong spells that day. But it is even more of a problem if you lack the ability to choose your spells for that day at all. A forewarned wizard can alter his spell selection. A forewarned sorcerer cannot. Neither a surprised wizard nor a surprised sorcerer can alter their spell selections. Advantage: wizard.

Not being able to choose your spells each day is not an advantage. Don't get me wrong: I like sorcerers, but this argument is quite common here and on the WotC boards, and it just doesn't make sense. The sorcerer loses out with regard to flexibility. He simply cannot adapt his spell selection to suit a problem. If he can "work within his spell list, being creative and squeezing every advantage out of his spells," then so can a wizard whose spellbook includes the sorcerer's list. Creativity and resourcefulness are not the exclusive province of sorcerers.

Sorcerers have other advantages, but flexibility is not their forte.

 

[KarinsDad]

The sorcerer can take certain tactics with spells that wizards and clerics can't, just because he can cast the same spell over and over again. The idea was to find out which spells people had found to be "diamonds in the rough" from the various sourcebooks, specifically for sorcerers, to perhaps be used as spell selections for future sorcerer characters if it turned out to be interesting enough.

Now, you can continue to pee in my pool, or you can wait to see if anyone has had any insights about some of the more obscure sorcerer spells.

Not so obscure, but Ray of Enfeeblement is a good multi-cast spell, even at higher level, due to the fact that it has no saving throw, especially if the DM is handling the encumbrance rules as written.

Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement (3rd level slot, 6 to 16 penalty depending on caster level and roll) is even better. Granted, most Sorcerers do not have a high to hit for the ranged touch attack, but combine this with a True Strike and you only miss 5% of the time.

Not only does this reduce the damage melee opponents can do, but it also reduces their to hit (with the exception of those few Weapon Finesse characters) and can reduce their movement.

Even a Sorcerer can take quite a few melee shots from a Fighter if the Fighter is only averaging 3 points of damage per successful swing.


Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement is a 4th level slot, but it ranges 10 to 11 Strength penalty. Maximized Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement is a 6th level slot, but it ranges 14 to 16 Strength penalty and at these levels, often hits even without a True Strike (although a simple Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement at that level is nearly as good, 9 to 16 penalty).

These will slow up most combatant types.