Hello!
Hey everyone, just saying hi. I'm a new 3rd edition player, this is my third attempt to get a group together but hopefully this time I'll be succesful. Also, I tried to make a thread but it wouldn't let me, so if I can't get that sorted out I may just edit my thread into this post.
Edit: Yep, my broswer goes to a blank page when I try to 'submit new thread'. :\ Maybe somebody could post this for me?
Excuse me if I'm being too brief, but I'm studying for final exams at the moment

. I've tried to get a DnD group together for a while now, and I've always wanted to play the spellcaster class. I was always set on being a wizard, particularly a gnome illusionist, because the sorcerer class always seemed kind of nebulous. It always seemed to me to be a kind of 3/4 wizard 1/4 fighter. This being in that a sorcerer focuses on arcana but does not have the complication (or effectiveness) of a wizard, trading this in for a mild fighting ability. Is this true? As I prepare for my first game I look through the players handbook and am starting to see complications that make the wizard seem very rigid. You need to study and prepare your spells ahead of time, meaning you need to know what you will use before the situation arises. This seems difficult to me, as do things like copying things into my spellbook. The wizard class has started to seem encumbersome, and I look to sorcerer for the solution, but sorcerer seems as ambiguous as ever.
Which class better benefits a party of four? (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Spellcaster?) Does the sorcerer's accesibility and flexibility make him more useful to a small party of newbs? Or when only taking one spellcaster is it better to go for the most powerful option, despite the difficulty?