Wizard Or Sorc.

[Dykstrav]

I'm with the wizard camp here. If you have the cash to keep scribing spells into your spellbook, you can theoretically learn every spell that your DM makes available in the campaign. Item creation and metamagic feats and Knowledge skills. I just find the wizard to be a much stronger choice.

The sorcerer has the charm of simplicity. Although I tend to think of the wizard as "better" in some respects, there's no beating a sorcerer for a straight dungeon crawl or any other situation in which you're going to be expected to do nothing but blast critters.

 

[MeSleepNow]

ok thanks again guys ( Any one have any thing els to say plz so i love reading these )

 

[Chupacabra]

If you have a DM (like mine :\ ) who does not give a whole lot of "downtime" in the campaign then the Wizard may actually be at a big disadvantage.

Scribing scrolls takes time.
Crafting wands take time.
Memorizing spells take time.
Placing new spells in your spellbook takes time.
Learning a decent number of new spells takes money, or a friendly NPC, or capturing a foe's spellbook...oh, and... you guessed it: time.
Time is commodity controlled exculsively by the DM and not the player.

Sorc just kinda mystically picks up his spells on the fly. If you have a full-throttle, no-stopping, no-downtime, were-out-in-the-wilderness-and-not-shopping-in-the-big-city style campaign, a wizard can get left in the dust.

Example, in the current campaign that I am a player in, my wizard has progressed from 1st to 4th level, all while in a pretty epic adventure out in the hinterlands away from civilization. We haven't even seen a village in months, much less a town with a library or a spell seller or a mage guild. My PC has had time to scribe exactly 3 scrolls in those 4 levels. The rest of the time the group was either fighting, traveling, resting, or otherwise occupied.
Can't scribe a scroll while on horseback.
Can't add to your spell book in the middle of combat.
Can't craft a wand while you are sleeping.

He has exactly 4 2nd level spells: the ones he learned "for free" when he leveled up from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th. Can't learn more than that w/o leveling up unless he finds an enemy spellbook or scroll or runs across a friendly npc.

If I had chosen a Sorc, all my spells would simply appear in my head upon level-up and I'd be as ready to rock at each level as I would ever need to be.

Do you detect a bit of buyer's remorse that I chose wizard instead of sorc for this particular campaign????

Know thy DM.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It depends upon the DM, the player, and the campaign. To illustrate:

If your DM runs a lot of combats where you just need to lay down the same useful spell over and over again, those extra Sorcerer spell slots can come in handy. Or if, as recently happened in a particular game, your DM bamboozles the party into going after one group of "elementally themed" bad guys when you thought you were going against another, the wizard may find his attack spells so carefully memorized to be utterly useless- Fire Elementals don't exactly fear Burning Hands & Fireballs, after all.

A player who visualizes his PC as charismatic and chaotic and a general wild card may find the Sorcerer class to fit better than the more academic Wizard. A Sorcerer who goes for accurate spells (like rays and orbs) will also find his facility with such spells translating to things like javelins, crossbows, and spears, all of which which he has familiarity- and coupled with a Quiver of Ehlonna, can mean he expends his spells only when he actually has to. Though the Wizard will have the advantage in feats, that additional mundane firepower may increase the PC's low-level survivability.

In a campaign I'm designing, there will be very few scrolls, spellbooks, etc. from which Wizards will be able to cull spells. They will be hard pressed to min-max their spell selection. Sorcerers, whose spells are "innate" will have no such handicap.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

Several important magic skills are also INT linked (Such as Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft) which means not only does the wizard have more skills, but several key skills are always going to be better. In the meantime the only social skill a Sorcerer has is bluff, which means his high Chr isn't even going to make him able to do the social scene with any sort of success like other Chr oriented types (bard).

 

[Elf Witch]

As someone else pointed out your DM can influence what is better to play. I have been in campaigns where we have been captured. The first thing they do when they take weapons is to also take spellbooks. In a scenero like that the sorcerer is better than a wizard.

I don't think sorcerees are weaker than wizards. I have played both. It depends on waht you want your character to be able to do.

You want to lay ruin to armies and blast your enemies to smitherens? Then play a sorcerer that is something they are good at.

If you want to play a magic user that is more verstile then play a wizard because that is what they are good at.

 

[MerricB]

The "wizard with wand" is nowhere near as effective as a sorcerer when it comes to damage dealing.

At 10th level, the wizard has a fireball wand (11,250 gp) that does 5d6 damage with a DC of 14. If he's willing to spend the money (22,500 gp), then the wand does 10d6 damage with a DC of 14.

At 10th level, a sorcerer with a 20 Cha, Empower Spell and SF: Evocation can cast fireball 13 times a day for 10d6 damage with DC 19, and 4 times a day for 1.5*10d6 damage with DC 19.

The ability of the sorcerer to apply metamagic feats - esp. Empower Spell - on the fly is crucial to playing a sorcerer well.

I love Wizards, and would always play them in preference to a sorcerer, but I'm someone who enjoys managing my spell list for each day. The wizard can easily find that half their spells are useless. The sorcerer doesn't care, especially once they reach the higher levels.

Cheers!

 

[Nightfall]

I'd say half is being a bit harsh Merric...but you are right, there a number of spells they have in their spellbooks that probably won't ever see the light of day again.

Still think Wizards make the best strategists and sorcerers (unlike you let in Warlocks) the best blasters.

Stalker,

Eh?! Metamagic feats with a sorcerer?! Why? I mean sure they can apply it post casting and all...but that just seems like a waste of an action that they might need later. (moving wise I mean.)

 

[Venator]

Eh?! Metamagic feats with a sorcerer?! Why? I mean sure they can apply it post casting and all...but that just seems like a waste of an action that they might need later. (moving wise I mean.)

Thats what the PHB II alternate class features are there for . They are far from chessy and give the sorc a little more flexibility at a respectable cost.

 

[Nightfall]

AH!! See I forgot all about that! *nods* NOW that makes sense. I was thinking...well sorcerer without that feature. You know, the useless one.