Sorceror in current edition worse than wizard?
- Thread starter greycastle
- Start date
Darklone said:
As long as the spells work, what is the problem? And, IME, a wizards ends up preparing the same spells over and over again as well - can't really go without a dispel magic or better two, maybe a silent or still in case you are held or silenced, a fireball or similar area-effect spell just in case, perhaps two, or another energy type, a shield or two as well as other protection spells, fly and/or dimension door or teleport - you may need it to escape a wall of force or a land-bound monster, maybe prepare two, in case you need to save a comrade...
If your wizards never need a couple of the same spells right now, then, imho, your DM is playing to their strengths. It is about as skewed as playing a low-treasure/low-magic items campaign whith no rest for the party and then comparing sorcerer and wizard.
IMC, my sorceress often had to cast half a dozen of fireballs in one battle, due to the number and placement of opponents, followed up by 3 to 4 dispel magics until one dispel check succeeded. Dimension Door as well is more often than not used multiple times to transport the party back and forth over obstacles or out of a sticky situation. And don't remind me how often she had to cast invisibility on all PCs, repeatedly due to some fights.
Some general comments and even a repeat and expansion of my earlier point...
Even a "well designed" sorcerer may not have the best spell in a given situation where a specific or very narrow niche of spells will make things a whole lot easier. Specifically it is less likely he will be able to dial-up a spell answer to a "puzzle challenge" scenario.
Neither can a fighter, a rogue, probably a bard, and depending on the puzzle maybe even a cleric or a druid.
The key is the sorcerer is not a class or usually a character who INTENDS to approach these problems looking for a specific trick key that will unravel the situation entirely. His class and perhaps character approach (if character matches class choices) is to have something useful to dealing with more typical challenges and dealing with them solidly and opporessively.
The wizard on the other hand, as a class, is absolutely intended to be the "few key pieces" type of class which meets a wider batch of situqtions with a lesser number of more precisely targetted effects.
A sorcerer will typically find one or two of his spells as useful options in a given situation, assuming he has chosen a variety of spells, and will then be able to burn slot after slot of level upon level to ram those spells down the throat of the scenario until it squeals. If he knows fireball and meets a fire elemental he will throw magic missiles and endurances or maybe endure fire a lot.
The wizard would be more likely to approach the same fire elemental with protection from fire on one key fighter and perhaps a cone of cold or an appropriate fire shield or an ice burst.
These are two equally valid approaches.
It is no more reasonable to criticize the sorcerer for being less than flawless at choosing a WIZARD STYLE answer to a problem ("he cannot dial up the specific key spell like "commune with other plane" on demand") than frankly it is to criticize the wizard for his lack of slots for "hammering him down."
BTW, as an aside, the sorcerer's MORE SPELLS PER DAY is NOT just a count of available slots, but the additional fact that theslots are never wasted. he will never have a slot or two spent for a dispel magic and a silent still dispel magic go unused because his adversaries today were bruisers. Think of it this way... every sorcerer slot is a magic missile until the situation demands another spell.
a decent sorcerer (after the first few levels) will have some direct effect spells, some party assistance spells, some terrain generating spells and so on and be able to find one or two reasonable and helpful in most any challenges, with the obvious exception being puzzle challenges specifically designed to hit a blindspot of his.
************************
I would not prefer having a sorcerer as the SOLE spellcaster in a party of four. Without at least one spellcaster to cover demands such as dispel magic and such, the sorcer will be forced into the catch-all cover-every-possibility role that the classes such as cleric and wizard do better.
As the second caster in a party, with a cleric or a mage, he is good, though if the other is a cleric then a wizard is also good.
In a larger group, as say the third spellcaster, the sorcerer is IMO the preferable choice, especially if one of the others is a wizard. His hammering approach will serve as a great contrast to the others.
**********************
I prefer to play the sorcerer for several reasons.
First, i find the wizard to be very much less fun to me. One reason is that he is definitely a class for bookkeepers, requiring a lot of money work with spells, scribing, and the like. Another reason is the bookish mage pouring over his spellbooks and spending a LOT of time, most of his downtime, nose deep in his scribing and arcanist stuff is BUT ONE character type. If i wanted my character's spare time to be spent 'at work" in a workaholic flurry of scribing, I would play more wizards.
The sorcerer is a basic no frills guys which means i can add to him many different "personalities" and produice very different characters to play. I have played a performer/musician as a sorcerer who viewed his spells as songs he composed and who chose most of his flexible spells as comfort spells... choosing mount because he got tired of dealing with the care and feeding of his own horse, for instance.
A sorcerer means less bookeeping, more flexible time, wider scope of character concepts available to me and the DOWNSIDE is that when i meet an unusual situation i have no direct answer for I have to try and find unusual solutions (as opposed to taking 15 minutes to dig out the key from my spellbook). I actually consider the latter issue of me being tasked now and again to find a way to make it work anyway, even if i don't have the perfect spell for the puzzle, to be a pleasant and intriguing thing.
********************
However, the main difference between the sorcerer and the wizard is INDEPENDENCE.
A sorcerer is pretty much well defined and understood in terms of what he can and cannot do. Under a new Gm or even a known but only moderately competent GM, I know what my sor will and wont be able to do and can plan accordingly. I am INDEPENDENT of many campaign influences and GM whims.
A wizard is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on a great many things not defined and very much subjective from campaign to campaign.
How much free time is there? How knowable is it in advance? How relaible is it? These all directly impact my wizard's ability to scribe spells into his spell book and make scrolls, much less other items.
How localized is the campaign? Will we be moving a lot or staying in an area and setting roots? These directly affect my wizard's ability to market and network for scrolls and the ability to have an arcane lab to make items at all as required from the PHB.
How PC driven is the campaign as opposed to NPC driven? Are we often taking the initiative and pursuing our own goals or are we fighting against the darkness as it swoops in to strike at us? This determines not only the time control mentioned above but also how much info we have in advance, how often we know ahead of time specific dangers and thus how good i will be at having a "key spell" prepared. A wizzard caught in an unplanned assault probably has several slots open or on non-combat spells.
How many resources for advance information exist in this campaign? is the big bad and his minions an invading neighbor who we have been fighting for hundreds of years (so that i can prepare in advance with good choices and accurate expectations) or is this some new threat long since forgotten where i will be continually meeting new and unexpected dangers (so that i will liekly be going for multipurpose spells rather than the key spell sets)?
How free is money in the campaign? IS wealth frequently tied up in found treasures which are difficult to sell for "materials" i need for scribing or for item prerequisites or is there a glowing magic commerce so that i can turn the "surplus" +1 staff we find into 1000 gp of scribing components?
Are the enemies mages more often sorcerers or wizards or clerics... or to put it bluntly, how many spellbooks will i find and capture?
Are there mage organizations, houses, or even a well organized church of boccob so that i can reliably expect to find resources other than captured scrolls and captured spellbooks for acquiring new spells?
How often are scenarios run where PCs LOSE THEIR STUFF... whether by having thing stolen, broken, specifically targetted by cunning enemies or simply having to abandon them? How often do i have to suffer the loss of one of my spellbooks?
etc...
etc...
etc...
From looking at arguments on these boards, some people think the sorcerer is a clearly preferred class... and they tend to cite many of the above issues of campaign definition as going against wizards... probably because the campaigns they have been in have seen those in play.
Some people clearly see wizards as OBVIOUSLY the superior class, and they likewise often see the above situations as playing out in the wizard's favor... they may see time as OBVIOUS...you can just take the time... or see BBS as obviously available... and consider the loss of s spellbook to be inappropriate gaming... and so on. They presume bulging spellbooks because thats what their campaigns allow.
One very basic reason i so dislike the wizard class and consider it a flawed design gamewise is that its balance is tied up so much in these "non-defined" campaign specific elements that it is impossible to assign any value to the class without knowing a whole lot about the campaign scope and story arc.
DND 3e specifically has a goal of making classes balanced, and even went to the point of defining wealth by level for campaigns because they recognized its impact. The wizard class fails to make this goal possible, without a whole lot more campaign pre-definition.
**************
All that said... look at my sig line.
In truth, he is what we all see.
The value of any class, or rather its characters, is set by the usefullness of its abilities in PLAy and that means it is entirely dependent on what challenges are faced.
As such, it all boils down to the GM for his campaign defines and sets what the value of each class/character is by choosing the challenges he throws at them. How often does the wizard run into a situation where his bulging spellbooks hold a key spell or how often is 10 magic missiles in a surprise engagement the answer?
So, frankly, regardless of how good or bad a job wotc does in its core rules, in YOUR GAME you the GM are the one not only responsible for making things "balanced" between the characters but you are the one and only one who has the ability to do so.
Balance defined as "IN A GENERIC CAMPAIGN" is meaningless since none of us actually runs a GENERIC CAMPAIGN.
******************
Long and short...
for my preference, the sorcerer provides me a wider rnage of character types that fit well within his class than the locked into the academic-bookish-study-guy wizard class does. His power is more consistent and less circumstantial in its application. His play is more a case of using his tools than selecting his toolkit with all his bookkeeping done away from the gaming table rather than during the game.
All of these lead me to prefer the sorcerer class IN PLAY to the wizard class... not because of balance becuase balance will occur or not occur between these two classes depending on the GM and his skill and savvy.
Enjoy your games.
Even a "well designed" sorcerer may not have the best spell in a given situation where a specific or very narrow niche of spells will make things a whole lot easier. Specifically it is less likely he will be able to dial-up a spell answer to a "puzzle challenge" scenario.
Neither can a fighter, a rogue, probably a bard, and depending on the puzzle maybe even a cleric or a druid.
The key is the sorcerer is not a class or usually a character who INTENDS to approach these problems looking for a specific trick key that will unravel the situation entirely. His class and perhaps character approach (if character matches class choices) is to have something useful to dealing with more typical challenges and dealing with them solidly and opporessively.
The wizard on the other hand, as a class, is absolutely intended to be the "few key pieces" type of class which meets a wider batch of situqtions with a lesser number of more precisely targetted effects.
A sorcerer will typically find one or two of his spells as useful options in a given situation, assuming he has chosen a variety of spells, and will then be able to burn slot after slot of level upon level to ram those spells down the throat of the scenario until it squeals. If he knows fireball and meets a fire elemental he will throw magic missiles and endurances or maybe endure fire a lot.
The wizard would be more likely to approach the same fire elemental with protection from fire on one key fighter and perhaps a cone of cold or an appropriate fire shield or an ice burst.
These are two equally valid approaches.
It is no more reasonable to criticize the sorcerer for being less than flawless at choosing a WIZARD STYLE answer to a problem ("he cannot dial up the specific key spell like "commune with other plane" on demand") than frankly it is to criticize the wizard for his lack of slots for "hammering him down."
BTW, as an aside, the sorcerer's MORE SPELLS PER DAY is NOT just a count of available slots, but the additional fact that theslots are never wasted. he will never have a slot or two spent for a dispel magic and a silent still dispel magic go unused because his adversaries today were bruisers. Think of it this way... every sorcerer slot is a magic missile until the situation demands another spell.
a decent sorcerer (after the first few levels) will have some direct effect spells, some party assistance spells, some terrain generating spells and so on and be able to find one or two reasonable and helpful in most any challenges, with the obvious exception being puzzle challenges specifically designed to hit a blindspot of his.
************************
I would not prefer having a sorcerer as the SOLE spellcaster in a party of four. Without at least one spellcaster to cover demands such as dispel magic and such, the sorcer will be forced into the catch-all cover-every-possibility role that the classes such as cleric and wizard do better.
As the second caster in a party, with a cleric or a mage, he is good, though if the other is a cleric then a wizard is also good.
In a larger group, as say the third spellcaster, the sorcerer is IMO the preferable choice, especially if one of the others is a wizard. His hammering approach will serve as a great contrast to the others.
**********************
I prefer to play the sorcerer for several reasons.
First, i find the wizard to be very much less fun to me. One reason is that he is definitely a class for bookkeepers, requiring a lot of money work with spells, scribing, and the like. Another reason is the bookish mage pouring over his spellbooks and spending a LOT of time, most of his downtime, nose deep in his scribing and arcanist stuff is BUT ONE character type. If i wanted my character's spare time to be spent 'at work" in a workaholic flurry of scribing, I would play more wizards.
The sorcerer is a basic no frills guys which means i can add to him many different "personalities" and produice very different characters to play. I have played a performer/musician as a sorcerer who viewed his spells as songs he composed and who chose most of his flexible spells as comfort spells... choosing mount because he got tired of dealing with the care and feeding of his own horse, for instance.
A sorcerer means less bookeeping, more flexible time, wider scope of character concepts available to me and the DOWNSIDE is that when i meet an unusual situation i have no direct answer for I have to try and find unusual solutions (as opposed to taking 15 minutes to dig out the key from my spellbook). I actually consider the latter issue of me being tasked now and again to find a way to make it work anyway, even if i don't have the perfect spell for the puzzle, to be a pleasant and intriguing thing.
********************
However, the main difference between the sorcerer and the wizard is INDEPENDENCE.
A sorcerer is pretty much well defined and understood in terms of what he can and cannot do. Under a new Gm or even a known but only moderately competent GM, I know what my sor will and wont be able to do and can plan accordingly. I am INDEPENDENT of many campaign influences and GM whims.
A wizard is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on a great many things not defined and very much subjective from campaign to campaign.
How much free time is there? How knowable is it in advance? How relaible is it? These all directly impact my wizard's ability to scribe spells into his spell book and make scrolls, much less other items.
How localized is the campaign? Will we be moving a lot or staying in an area and setting roots? These directly affect my wizard's ability to market and network for scrolls and the ability to have an arcane lab to make items at all as required from the PHB.
How PC driven is the campaign as opposed to NPC driven? Are we often taking the initiative and pursuing our own goals or are we fighting against the darkness as it swoops in to strike at us? This determines not only the time control mentioned above but also how much info we have in advance, how often we know ahead of time specific dangers and thus how good i will be at having a "key spell" prepared. A wizzard caught in an unplanned assault probably has several slots open or on non-combat spells.
How many resources for advance information exist in this campaign? is the big bad and his minions an invading neighbor who we have been fighting for hundreds of years (so that i can prepare in advance with good choices and accurate expectations) or is this some new threat long since forgotten where i will be continually meeting new and unexpected dangers (so that i will liekly be going for multipurpose spells rather than the key spell sets)?
How free is money in the campaign? IS wealth frequently tied up in found treasures which are difficult to sell for "materials" i need for scribing or for item prerequisites or is there a glowing magic commerce so that i can turn the "surplus" +1 staff we find into 1000 gp of scribing components?
Are the enemies mages more often sorcerers or wizards or clerics... or to put it bluntly, how many spellbooks will i find and capture?
Are there mage organizations, houses, or even a well organized church of boccob so that i can reliably expect to find resources other than captured scrolls and captured spellbooks for acquiring new spells?
How often are scenarios run where PCs LOSE THEIR STUFF... whether by having thing stolen, broken, specifically targetted by cunning enemies or simply having to abandon them? How often do i have to suffer the loss of one of my spellbooks?
etc...
etc...
etc...
From looking at arguments on these boards, some people think the sorcerer is a clearly preferred class... and they tend to cite many of the above issues of campaign definition as going against wizards... probably because the campaigns they have been in have seen those in play.
Some people clearly see wizards as OBVIOUSLY the superior class, and they likewise often see the above situations as playing out in the wizard's favor... they may see time as OBVIOUS...you can just take the time... or see BBS as obviously available... and consider the loss of s spellbook to be inappropriate gaming... and so on. They presume bulging spellbooks because thats what their campaigns allow.
One very basic reason i so dislike the wizard class and consider it a flawed design gamewise is that its balance is tied up so much in these "non-defined" campaign specific elements that it is impossible to assign any value to the class without knowing a whole lot about the campaign scope and story arc.
DND 3e specifically has a goal of making classes balanced, and even went to the point of defining wealth by level for campaigns because they recognized its impact. The wizard class fails to make this goal possible, without a whole lot more campaign pre-definition.
**************
All that said... look at my sig line.
In truth, he is what we all see.
The value of any class, or rather its characters, is set by the usefullness of its abilities in PLAy and that means it is entirely dependent on what challenges are faced.
As such, it all boils down to the GM for his campaign defines and sets what the value of each class/character is by choosing the challenges he throws at them. How often does the wizard run into a situation where his bulging spellbooks hold a key spell or how often is 10 magic missiles in a surprise engagement the answer?
So, frankly, regardless of how good or bad a job wotc does in its core rules, in YOUR GAME you the GM are the one not only responsible for making things "balanced" between the characters but you are the one and only one who has the ability to do so.
Balance defined as "IN A GENERIC CAMPAIGN" is meaningless since none of us actually runs a GENERIC CAMPAIGN.
******************
Long and short...
for my preference, the sorcerer provides me a wider rnage of character types that fit well within his class than the locked into the academic-bookish-study-guy wizard class does. His power is more consistent and less circumstantial in its application. His play is more a case of using his tools than selecting his toolkit with all his bookkeeping done away from the gaming table rather than during the game.
All of these lead me to prefer the sorcerer class IN PLAY to the wizard class... not because of balance becuase balance will occur or not occur between these two classes depending on the GM and his skill and savvy.
Enjoy your games.
Having played in a group large enough to support it, by far the best situation is having one Wizard and one Sorcerer who will work with each other.
The wizard can cover the areas the sorcerer doesn't and almost never takes the spells that the Sorcerer knows. The two in combination really work well together.
I have to agree that the Wizard's power is heavily influenced by the campaign. Anyone who doesn't agree should be run through the old Slave Lord's modules. Few wizards take Spell Mastery, and without a spellbook the wizard is in trouble. Even finding other spellbooks, the wizard is still hurting until they have spent money on making a new spellbook or use the Forgotten Realms rules for mastering a foreign spellbook.
The wizard can cover the areas the sorcerer doesn't and almost never takes the spells that the Sorcerer knows. The two in combination really work well together.
I have to agree that the Wizard's power is heavily influenced by the campaign. Anyone who doesn't agree should be run through the old Slave Lord's modules. Few wizards take Spell Mastery, and without a spellbook the wizard is in trouble. Even finding other spellbooks, the wizard is still hurting until they have spent money on making a new spellbook or use the Forgotten Realms rules for mastering a foreign spellbook.
Let's also not forget that the wizard gets bonus feats, so he is more likely to have metamagic feats as well as others that make his spellcasting more potent. He will also have more item creation feats as well and will be more likely to have the feats AND spells necessary to make magic items to cover his shortfalls by not having as many spells per day available to him. Don't need to memorize the spell if you have a item that can duplicate the effect. I know sorcerors have this ability as well. But they are less likely to have the spells needed to create the item. And let's not forget every item creation feat they take means one less metamagic feat/spell focus/spell penetration feat etc., they get to take.
Wizards have more flexiblity when it come to feats. And need I remind you that they get the scribe scroll feat at 1st? Scrolls are very cheap to make and are great for those utility spells that you just don't use every day!
Let's take a look at prime stats. The sorceror would be able to shine in social settings with his charisma score so high. Unfortunately, his skill list leaves him wanting, not really having many skills that use his prime stat. So really the only thing that his high charisma is good for is to power his spellcasting ability. A lower score in intelligence means that he will struggle to keep his Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft, and Concentration checks up, leaving very little left to spend in anything else.
The wizard favors intelligence. A high intelligence will boost his spellcasting ability, but it will also give him more skill points. A wizard usually has enough skill points to max out several beneficial knowledge skills as well as dabble a few here and there into valuable cross-class skills as well. Let's face it...knowledge is power. A wizard will usually be able to use this knowledge to his advantage. He can use this knowlegde to uncover secrets, identify items, relics, and monsters, and most importantly, to strategically plan ahead.
Strategically planning ahead is what wizards do best. Combined with their deep spell lists which almost always contain more utility spells that a sorcerors spell list and their vast knowledge skills, a wizard will be able to figure how to plan for what's lying down the road better than any other class. He uses this information to better prepare his spells. He has to. His and his party's survivability depend on it.
Edited: Removed content dealing with sorceror's casting time when casting metamagic spells to preserve original intent of thread: Wizard's vs. Sorcerors.
Wizards have more flexiblity when it come to feats. And need I remind you that they get the scribe scroll feat at 1st? Scrolls are very cheap to make and are great for those utility spells that you just don't use every day!
Let's take a look at prime stats. The sorceror would be able to shine in social settings with his charisma score so high. Unfortunately, his skill list leaves him wanting, not really having many skills that use his prime stat. So really the only thing that his high charisma is good for is to power his spellcasting ability. A lower score in intelligence means that he will struggle to keep his Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft, and Concentration checks up, leaving very little left to spend in anything else.
The wizard favors intelligence. A high intelligence will boost his spellcasting ability, but it will also give him more skill points. A wizard usually has enough skill points to max out several beneficial knowledge skills as well as dabble a few here and there into valuable cross-class skills as well. Let's face it...knowledge is power. A wizard will usually be able to use this knowledge to his advantage. He can use this knowlegde to uncover secrets, identify items, relics, and monsters, and most importantly, to strategically plan ahead.
Strategically planning ahead is what wizards do best. Combined with their deep spell lists which almost always contain more utility spells that a sorcerors spell list and their vast knowledge skills, a wizard will be able to figure how to plan for what's lying down the road better than any other class. He uses this information to better prepare his spells. He has to. His and his party's survivability depend on it.
Edited: Removed content dealing with sorceror's casting time when casting metamagic spells to preserve original intent of thread: Wizard's vs. Sorcerors.
Last edited:
<Groan> Not another Full Round Action does not equal full round casting time discussion!
Suffice to say that the consensus was that a Sorcerer that uses a metamagic feat has to take a full round action, like a fighter taking the full attack option, and so is limited to a 5-foot step as movement. It does not mean, however, that the casting time becomes 1 full round.
Suffice to say that the consensus was that a Sorcerer that uses a metamagic feat has to take a full round action, like a fighter taking the full attack option, and so is limited to a 5-foot step as movement. It does not mean, however, that the casting time becomes 1 full round.
Bauglir
First Post
A sorcerer using metamagic has a casting time of a Full-round action This is the same time that a fighter will use to do a full attack routine. It consumes all your actions for that round so that you may not perform a full-round action and a move action in the same round (haste notwithstanding). Nonetheless it all happens on your initiative.
This is NOT the same as summoning spells, which actually DO have a casting time of '1 full round', starting on your initiative, and ending on your initiative on the next round.
I suspect this (mis)interpretation leads to a LOT of people thinking of sorcerers as much weaker than they actually are.
Last edited:
From the SRD:
Some spellcasters choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to use metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. If its normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them.
A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of the character's turn in the round after the character began casting the spell*
Cast a spell(full-round) [Full][AoO: Yes]
Description: The spell will take effect just before the caster's action in the next round.*
A character can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after casting such a spell, but cannot otherwise move.
A character may attempt to cast a spell while on the defensive. Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level). Failure means that the character loses the spell.
*Emphasis mine
Some spellcasters choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to use metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. If its normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them.
A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of the character's turn in the round after the character began casting the spell*
Cast a spell(full-round) [Full][AoO: Yes]
Description: The spell will take effect just before the caster's action in the next round.*
A character can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after casting such a spell, but cannot otherwise move.
A character may attempt to cast a spell while on the defensive. Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level). Failure means that the character loses the spell.
*Emphasis mine
Bauglir
First Post
Sorcerer metamagic has a casting time of 1 full-round action. It is not casting a spell(full-round). The word 'action' makes an important distinction, as detailed above. Casting a spell(full-round) is, as we've already mentioned, used in Summon Monster type spells. To further enforce the point:
A fighter (or any class with a BAB of 6+) must use a Full-round action to perform a full attack. Do you then spread these attacks over the round, ending at the fighter's next initiative? (so the target can just wander out of range in the middle of the attack routine, meaning the extra attacks are wasted...)
Similar Threads
