Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6369110" data-attributes="member: 43019">This isn't a very good comparison. The wizard was an older class than the sorcerer and benefitted from receiving spells from the later essentials products (necromancer, nethermancer, witch, etc).This is incorrect. It is quite possible to build combat effective versions of both, and it is certainly possible to build a very good AE blasting wizard, or enchanting monster blender, but the sorcerer is a better striker if well built for damage. It is true that the ways of doing so were sometimes too subtle; flame spiral, explosive pyre, etc. If you wanted to stand back and just shoot someone from afar, the elementalist might also have better served. It's certainly _far_ better at striking in heroic tier to anything the wizard can bring to the table.I'll concede that a 3e sorcerer was specifically nerfed to make it worse than the wizard, for no good reason; it was the experiment at the time and they erred on the side of traditional casting. I'd have rather they didn't, personally. Well, technically, depending on usage they're nearly identical words. It's certainly true that wizards have access to a better breadth of spellcasting, and easier ritualing. The sorcerer might, with care, be a more versatile combat caster, but I suspect it would take some work. Personally, I think the sorcerer in 5e has too few known spells, and should emulate the bard's known spells at a minimum baseline.I do miss the sorcerer from playtest, as something truly different. The spell point system is interesting, at least, but I'm a little more dubious on how it'll work out in actual play. I'll need to see one in play side by side before I commit strongly to an opinion there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="keterys, post: 6369110, member: 43019"] This isn't a very good comparison. The wizard was an older class than the sorcerer and benefitted from receiving spells from the later essentials products (necromancer, nethermancer, witch, etc). This is incorrect. It is quite possible to build combat effective versions of both, and it is certainly possible to build a very good AE blasting wizard, or enchanting monster blender, but the sorcerer is a better striker if well built for damage. It is true that the ways of doing so were sometimes too subtle; flame spiral, explosive pyre, etc. If you wanted to stand back and just shoot someone from afar, the elementalist might also have better served. It's certainly _far_ better at striking in heroic tier to anything the wizard can bring to the table. I'll concede that a 3e sorcerer was specifically nerfed to make it worse than the wizard, for no good reason; it was the experiment at the time and they erred on the side of traditional casting. I'd have rather they didn't, personally. Well, technically, depending on usage they're nearly identical words. It's certainly true that wizards have access to a better breadth of spellcasting, and easier ritualing. The sorcerer might, with care, be a more versatile combat caster, but I suspect it would take some work. Personally, I think the sorcerer in 5e has too few known spells, and should emulate the bard's known spells at a minimum baseline. I do miss the sorcerer from playtest, as something truly different. The spell point system is interesting, at least, but I'm a little more dubious on how it'll work out in actual play. I'll need to see one in play side by side before I commit strongly to an opinion there. [/QUOTE]

Verification