Sorceror in current edition worse than wizard?

[Stalker0]

I've found wizards to be better on the whole, here's why.

1) For 18th level, your getting 3 more bonus feats to spend on metamagics and item creation as well as having scribe scroll. Very nice to have.

2) With pearls of power and wands, I don't see the spells per day difference between the two casters to be an issue. And with a specialized wizard- the difference is even smaller.

3) While at low level, the spontaneous power of sorcs is GREAT, at high levels, you have teh money to create scrolls for the quirky spells you need once in a while, wands for the common buff spells that don't need good DCS, and then the wizard can prepare the spells with high dcs that he needs. Sponteanousness doesn't mean as much with all that magic.

4) The ability to obtain more spells is huge- especially if your building this character up from low levels. There are so many good spells, it is so nice to just pick up a few more, even if it is expensive.

 

[Stalker0]

I thought I would add my two bits in to the BBB argument as well.

While based on the wording of the item, I always thought it meant no cost, here's my thinking.

1) BBB is way way way too cheap if it possesses such as awesome ability. As was pointed out, why would any wizard worth his salt not have one?

2) I like the argument that you still have to pay for the ink. I mean, what is it an echi sketch, I just move my finger down the page and ink appears?

 

[Number47]

Has everyone stopped playing with the XP cost for magic item creation?! If you tout the wizard's ability to create magic items, then compare the 18th level sorceror to a 17th level wizard.

 

[LuYangShih]

The fact that Monte and Skip both stated what the intention was regarding Boccobs Blessed Book cements my position on the matter. If the designers themselves state the intention of a magic item, I'm going to trust they know what they're talking about.

As for the general debate of Wizards Vs. Sorcerers, I'd still say Wizards have an edge. The Wizard has bonus feats, allowing for increased power and versatiliy that Sorcerers simply do not possess.

Wizards also have far greater versatility than Sorcerers, and they possess almost as many spells per day as a Sorcerer (particularly if they are a specialist caster). A Wizard is almost always useful, in almost any situation, but a Sorcerer is only useful in specific, certain situations that may or may not have to do with the adventure at hand.

And finally, Wizards also have a superior prime statistic. Intelligence is more useful than Charisma, and it has much more solid mechanical benefits attached to it. Wizards can easily max a non class skill that will be useful to them because of this, like Tumble. In addition, the skill list itself that a Wizard possesses is superior to a Sorcerers skill list, and the Wizard will have more skill points to spend on them than a Sorcerer.

The only benefit Sorcerers offer against all that is a few more spells per day, (which, in many campaigns, is meaningless as all your spells are rarely used up anyway) and Simple Weapon Profiency. Sorcerers are a good, fun class, but they just don't have the power and versatility of the Wizard, in my opinion.

 

[Pax]

The fact that Monte and Skip both stated what the intention was regarding Boccobs Blessed Book cements my position on the matter. If the designers themselves state the intention of a magic item, I'm going to trust they know what they're talking about.

Just like "Oh, the Halfling Outrider isn't SUPPOSED to have a BAB" ... ?

As for the general debate of Wizards Vs. Sorcerers, I'd still say Wizards have an edge. The Wizard has bonus feats, allowing for increased power and versatiliy that Sorcerers simply do not possess.

Strategic versatility, but not tactical. The sorceror doesn't have to guess which spells need which feats ahead of time; s/he takes a touch of extra effort to cast, and applies them on the fly.

Wizards also have far greater versatility than Sorcerers, and they possess almost as many spells per day as a Sorcerer (particularly if they are a specialist caster).

As has been said before, and not just by me -- the spells per day isn't really a Sorcerors' advantage. It's the cast-on-the-fly ability, the option to decide on the spot wether or not to apply X, Y, or Z metamagic to spell A, B, and/or C.

A Wizard is almost always useful, in almost any situation, but a Sorcerer is only useful in specific, certain situations that may or may not have to do with the adventure at hand.

Nice way to grossly mischaracterise the situation and over-polarise the issue, all in one sweeping generalisation.

Sorcerors, on average, will know only a FEW less spells than a standard wizard; for those wizards who invest scads of time and money into hunting down new spells and scribing theminto their spellbooks, the Sorceror gets a comparative material resource advantage.

And finally, Wizards also have a superior prime statistic. Intelligence is more useful than Charisma, and it has much more solid mechanical benefits attached to it. Wizards can easily max a non class skill that will be useful to them because of this, like Tumble. In addition, the skill list itself that a Wizard possesses is superior to a Sorcerers skill list, and the Wizard will have more skill points to spend on them than a Sorcerer.

Oh really? Paladin(1)/Sorceror(whatever). I have an epic Sorceror on tap who has two levels of Blackguard, to get that Charisma bonus to saves. It's an ECL 25 character, a Ghoul Sorceror(18)/Blackguard(2). Here're his saving throws:

[color=white]
+28 FORT (0/ghl  6/sor 0/blg 15/cha 1/epic 5/rst 0/con 1/luck)
+35 REF  (0/ghl  6/sor 0/blg 15/cha 1/epic 5/rst 7/dex 1/luck)
+41 WILL (3/ghl 11/sor 0/blg 15/cha 1/epic 5/rst 5/wis 1/luck)
[/color]

I will concede that the Sorceror's skill list is needlesly anemic, however.

The only benefit Sorcerers offer against all that is a few more spells per day, (which, in many campaigns, is meaningless as all your spells are rarely used up anyway) and Simple Weapon Profiency. Sorcerers are a good, fun class, but they just don't have the power and versatility of the Wizard, in my opinion.

And ... what a surprise, you misee the point of the sorceror ENTIRELY.

It's not spells per day. It's not weapons.

It's deciding, on the spot, which spell you need to cast, and which metamagick(s) you need to apply. It's not having to try and out-guess the GM with regard to what spells to prepare each game-day.

And any sorceror, or wizard, who's going an entire day without using up most or all of their spells ... is being GMed by a wimp. I'm serious. Sorcerors tend to throw spells around like candy, if they're not played by an utter incompetent ... or if the GM is being too gentle on the party.

Sorcerors and Wizards are -- skill list aside -- fairly and reasonably balanced to each other.

 

[greycastle]

Out of Curiosity...what WOULD the best combination of Rogue/Fighter/Wizard be? and PLZ don't say 'oh drop this class completely, and infact jsut start wizard'...

my aim is to create a secondary spellcaster *as i don't want ot spend ranks on Use Magic Device, and instead would prefer to be able to use any device flawlessly, and cast some buffs, and even a little attack spells...*

My original idea as you know was Rogue3/Fighter2/Wiz15...

however, would it simply be wiser to go Rogue/Fighter the entire way?...and would it possibly be worth takeing 2 levels of wizard *+3 will saves, +1 BAB, a few detect magic/poison, ray of enfeeblement a day* or what? i don't know exaclty wqhat i want, though Rogue is the main idea...though as you can see above, my original intention was to go a little along the lines of Elminster and such *once i learned my original intention was of like mind*...without going into epic...and only worring truly about at least 1 level of rogue, and 1 level of fighter...how should i divi up the levels to make an effective character that can do everything...

Note: one of my main considerations is to be able to fight in melee...but i want to cast spells...

i'm greedy

Any advice?

 

[LuYangShih]

Just like "Oh, the Halfling Outrider isn't SUPPOSED to have a BAB" ... ?

I hardly see the correlation. That was the official company line at the time, and as employees of WoTC at the time, they were required to tow it.

Strategic versatility, but not tactical. The sorceror doesn't have to guess which spells need which feats ahead of time; s/he takes a touch of extra effort to cast, and applies them on the fly.

The Sorcerer doesn't have to guess because the Sorcerer doesn't have a choice of which spells to use in the first place. And if the spells they have don't fit the situation, they simply can't do anything about it. Yeah, that's versatility for you.

As has been said before, and not just by me -- the spells per day isn't really a Sorcerors' advantage. It's the cast-on-the-fly ability, the option to decide on the spot wether or not to apply X, Y, or Z metamagic to spell A, B, and/or C.

Which is nice, but doesn't change the fact that the limited spells KNOWN make that "advantage" moot in many situations. Which has been said before, and not just by me.

Nice way to grossly mischaracterise the situation and over-polarise the issue, all in one sweeping generalisation.

Thanks. It's what I do.

Sorcerors, on average, will know only a FEW less spells than a standard wizard; for those wizards who invest scads of time and money into hunting down new spells and scribing theminto their spellbooks, the Sorceror gets a comparative material resource advantage.

This is really a campaign specific issue, but by the book, specifically, Boccobs Blessed Book, Wizards will not just know a "few" more spells than Sorcerers, they'll know many more spells than Sorcerers. And unless your DM house rules Boccobs Blessed Book, that is going to be the case Furthermore, access and availability of scrolls depends greatly on your campaign, regardless. If you are playing in a low magic world, for example, the Sorcerer is definitely a better choice.

Oh really? Paladin(1)/Sorceror(whatever). I have an epic Sorceror on tap who has two levels of Blackguard, to get that Charisma bonus to saves. It's an ECL 25 character, a Ghoul Sorceror(18)/Blackguard(2). Here're his saving throws:

[color=white]
+28 FORT (0/ghl  6/sor 0/blg 15/cha 1/epic 5/rst 0/con 1/luck)
+35 REF  (0/ghl  6/sor 0/blg 15/cha 1/epic 5/rst 7/dex 1/luck)
+41 WILL (3/ghl 11/sor 0/blg 15/cha 1/epic 5/rst 5/wis 1/luck)
[/color]

Right. A Ghoul Sorcerer/Paladin. Well, if all Sorcerers were multiclassed with one level of Paladin, and had a race that gave them high bonuses to their Charisma statistic, I guess you might be able to say that Charisma is as good of a prime statistic as Intelligence. Unfortunately for your argument, most Sorcerers do not multiclass with one level of Paladin (which is hardly endemic to most character concepts out there), and fewer still PC Sorcerers are going to be Ghouls.

I will concede that the Sorceror's skill list is needlesly anemic, however.

What, I don't get to argue anymore? It cannot be!

And ... what a surprise, you misee the point of the sorceror ENTIRELY.

It's not spells per day. It's not weapons.

It's deciding, on the spot, which spell you need to cast, and which metamagick(s) you need to apply. It's not having to try and out-guess the GM with regard to what spells to prepare each game-day.

I do not miss the point of the Sorcerer, not at all. I simply think that the low amount of spells known handicaps the Sorcerers supposed advantage, which is on the fly spellcasting. It's not very good to be able to pick any of your spells to use when none of the spells you have can help the party in the first place.

And any sorceror, or wizard, who's going an entire day without using up most or all of their spells ... is being GMed by a wimp. I'm serious. Sorcerors tend to throw spells around like candy, if they're not played by an utter incompetent ... or if the GM is being too gentle on the party.

I actually agree on this point. I prefer playing warrior types, and it's annoying to never see the casters run out of resources. However, with most campaigns I've observed, the GM will be a "wimp". Too many GMs do not like having more than one or two encounters a day, if that. Often, you will see them spring a truly challenging encounter on the PCs only once in a great while, and that gives Wizards an unfair (though admittedly campaign specific) advantage.

Sorcerors and Wizards are -- skill list aside -- fairly and reasonably balanced to each other.

I agree, but I still think the Sorcerer is slightly less powerful than the Wizard in most cases. It's close enough not to be a major problem, and you can suffice with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard most of the time, but on a few occassions you will wish you were a Wizard instead.

 

[Pax]

Well, Greycastle, if you want to focus mostly on melee, you can go for spells where your caster level won't eally make an appreciable difference -- IOW, spells you cast on YOURSELF.

The highest level spell you wil probably want, is Improved Invisibility ... which would take 7 levels of Wizard, or 8 levels of Sorceror.

Most likely, you won't need/want anything form yourself above Haste and Fly, along with the various 2d level buffs.

You'll want Haste and/or Fly, Invisibility, Bull's Strength, Endurance, and/or Cat's Grace. Magic Missile is always useful, and with Spider Climb, who needs a climb skill?

Let's say you take 5 levels of Wizard. For the fighter level, you want at least 4 (for specialisation).

Conveniently, that lets you take Rogue (11), which means you can get improved evasion, and hit a Sneak Attack breakpoint (6d IIRC).

You won't be an offensive wizard, but you can do your own buffs, aside from GMW. 5 hours or 15 hours, do you expect to need your attribute buffs for much longer than a fight or two, each day? And duration is one of the two places your caster level will matter (dispels would be the other).

In essence -- if you're not going to be a dedicated spelclaster, don't expect to do much at ALL with your spells, aside form your own buffs.

 

[LuYangShih]

Out of Curiosity...what WOULD the best combination of Rogue/Fighter/Wizard be? and PLZ don't say 'oh drop this class completely, and infact jsut start wizard'...

Rogue 1/ Fighter 1/ Wizard 18. Seriously, if you're set on multiclassing with Rogue, Fighter, and Wizard, you are not going to be very effective. You could effectively multiclass with two of the above, but all three will leave you weak or moderately talented in each, but not great or even good in the rest.

my aim is to create a secondary spellcaster *as i don't want ot spend ranks on Use Magic Device, and instead would prefer to be able to use any device flawlessly, and cast some buffs, and even a little attack spells...*

If you want to use any device flawlessly, you are basically required to take the Use Magic Device skill. If you would prefer to cast buffs, and just have a few attack spells, why not go with a divine spellcaster or a Bard instead of a Wizard or Sorcerer? Also, if you go Bard, you can cover the Rogue skills fairly well, (especially once 3.5E comes out, since Bards have 6 skillpoints per level in 3.5E) cast spells, and you can multiclass with Fighter to round out your fighting skills.

My original idea as you know was Rogue3/Fighter2/Wiz15...

however, would it simply be wiser to go Rogue/Fighter the entire way?...and would it possibly be worth takeing 2 levels of wizard *+3 will saves, +1 BAB, a few detect magic/poison, ray of enfeeblement a day* or what? i don't know exaclty wqhat i want, though Rogue is the main idea...though as you can see above, my original intention was to go a little along the lines of Elminster and such *once i learned my original intention was of like mind*...without going into epic...and only worring truly about at least 1 level of rogue, and 1 level of fighter...how should i divi up the levels to make an effective character that can do everything...

It's not really worth taking two levels of Wizard. You'd be better off just taking one level, if that. You would be much more effective staying a pure Rogue/Fighter.

Note: one of my main considerations is to be able to fight in melee...but i want to cast spells...

i'm greedy

Any advice?

Like I said above, I really think you'd do well by going with a Bard/Fighter build. You'd be able to buff, cast spells, and fight. It would seem to be an excellent choice for your character. By the way, I missed if you gave this information earlier, but are you allowed to take Prestige Classes in this campaign?

 

[Pax]

I hardly see the correlation. That was the official company line at the time, and as employees of WoTC at the time, they were required to tow it.

The point being, what's said AFTER the fact does not always eflect what was intended BEFORE hand. Sometimes it's simply easier to shrug and say "meant to do that" ... even when it's not true.

That, or noone ever bothered to playtest BBB, because with absolutely free scribing costs, it IS stupid NOT to take it.

Anytime not doing something is considered "stupid" or "suicide" ... there's something wrong.

The Sorcerer doesn't have to guess because the Sorcerer doesn't have a choice of which spells to use in the first place. And if the spells they have don't fit the situation, they simply can't do anything about it. Yeah, that's versatility for you.

Very very very very VERY rarely will the Sorceror not know an applicable spell for a given, general situation, when the wizard would likely have prepared an apropriate spell ahead of time.

You know what, I've played both wizards and Sorcerors; I don't think you've ever PLAYED a sorceror.

Knows too few spells? BAH! If the player is careful in his selection of spells, and knows how and when and where and WHY to apply each one, well, there're plenty of options open to him or her, in almost any situation.

Which is nice, but doesn't change the fact that the limited spells KNOWN make that "advantage" moot in many situations. Which has been said before, and not just by me.

The Wizard will eitehr have fewer spells prepared (overall) than the Sorceror knows, each day -- or the Wizard will be a "one-hit wonder" in terms of any given spell.

This is really a campaign specific issue, but by the book, specifically, Boccobs Blessed Book, Wizards will not just know a "few" more spells than Sorcerers, they'll know many more spells than Sorcerers.

Even just in terms of scroll cost, the Wizard still doesn't get those spells for free.

And unless your DM house rules Boccobs Blessed Book,

As has been pointed out to you -- since nothing official says otherwise, it's not a houserule, it's a difference of interpretation..

that is going to be the case Furthermore, access and availability of scrolls depends greatly on your campaign, regardless. If you are playing in a low magic world, for example, the Sorcerer is definitely a better choice.

High or low magic isn't the issue. It's DM effort to maintain a balanced game that is.

Right. A Ghoul Sorcerer/Paladin. Well, if all Sorcerers were multiclassed with one level of Paladin,

Or two levels of Blackguard. *shrug* And it's an option NOT open to a wizard (or at the least, not as effective for a wizard as for a sorceror).

and had a race that gave them high bonuses to their Charisma statistic,

Okay, we'll lop off the Ghoul's charisma bonus ... so the saves all drop by ... *gasp* all of 4 points each.

I guess you might be able to say that Charisma is as good of a prime statistic as Intelligence. Unfortunately for your argument, most Sorcerers do not multiclass with one level of Paladin (which is hardly endemic to most character concepts out there), and fewer still PC Sorcerers are going to be Ghouls.

I never said most do. Most wizards don't play in games where the DM hands out new spells (either on scrolls, or in spellbooks) like they were candy, either.

I do not miss the point of the Sorcerer, not at all. I simply think that the low amount of spells known handicaps the Sorcerers supposed advantage, which is on the fly spellcasting. It's not very good to be able to pick any of your spells to use when none of the spells you have can help the party in the first place.

Oh, but you DO.

Seriously -- hwo many third-level attacks pells do you NEED? Give me a couple Elemental Substitution feats, and my sorceror can have an applicable spell for just about any opponent -- with no second-guessing during spell prep, either.

You keep assuming a Sorceror will run into a situation in which his spells (eventually 34 of them, 43 including cantrips!) will all be useless.

Yet you assume the same will never happen to the Wizard.

Together, those constitute one big FALSE assumption.

I actually agree on this point. I prefer playing warrior types, and it's annoying to never see the casters run out of resources. However, with most campaigns I've observed, the GM will be a "wimp". Too many GMs do not like having more than one or two encounters a day, if that. Often, you will see them spring a truly challenging encounter on the PCs only once in a great while, and that gives Wizards an unfair (though admittedly campaign specific) advantage.

Actually, by "wimp" I don't mean only number of encounters per day. I've seen some encounters where the casters were "dry" only 3/4 of the way through (sufficient numbers of targets will DO that).

I agree, but I still think the Sorcerer is slightly less powerful than the Wizard in most cases. It's close enough not to be a major problem, and you can suffice with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard most of the time, but on a few occassions you will wish you were a Wizard instead.

Make an ECL 25 wizard, and we'll see how well you do against Thraven the Unclean.

Go to www.rpol.net, and check out the game "The Exodus", under the Arena category. Use the characetr generation rules there (that's the game Thraven's made for, though he's not gotten the final green light for use there, just yet).

Heck, join Exodus; once your wizard is up and running, and Thraven is also ... we'll see who outdoes who. If you think Wizards are more powerful ... make a wizard powerful enough to kick Thraven's unliving teeth in.

IOW, "put up or shut up", because I'm getting tired of your assumptions and presumptions (90% or more of which aren't even near to being in SPITTING range of the truth).