Wizard or Sorcerer?

[Zappo]

I voted Wizard, assuming a long-running campaign. On a short campaign, though, one where you aren't likely to find lots of spell scrolls or have lots of time to craft items, a sorcerer is probably the best choice.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I prefer the flexibility that the wizard class has to offer in spell selections, and the balance decision behind the fact that Sorcerers don't reach 2nd level spells until 4th level still puzzles me.

More spells per day and spontaneous casting. A limited number of spells alone does not balance the Sorcerer against the Wizard. There's that "Balance" word again.

 

[irdeggman]

I agree in the opinion that these polls are too narrow, or at least the reference they are made in should be expanded. What exactly is a standard D&D camapaign? Outdoors, dungeon crawl, high magic, low magic, epic level, low level, etc.

That is one of the reasons for the choices in character classes in the first place - they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I voted for wizard, becasue overall I think it is a much better class. Between quicker spell progression (at the trade off-of of fewer spells per day and the flexabilitiy of spontaneous casting) and the bonus feats - which really come into play when a gsetting allows the PC to create magic items.

 

[Quasqueton]

To address the issue of these polls being too narrow or the setting too open:

I'm thinking in terms of the long-range campaign. A "standard" D&D campaign tends to cover a lot of types. Look at the Adventure Path series -- Sunless Citadel was a dungeon crawl; Forge of Fury was another dungeon crawl; Speaker in Dreams was city-based; Standing Stone was wilderness; Nightfang Spire was a dungeon crawl against undead; Deep Horizon was a dungeon crawl spread out over a wide area (underdark); Iron Fortess was planes-hopping with "outdoor" and dungeon adventure; Bastion of Broken Souls was more planes-hopping.

Most extended campaigns don't stay centered on one type of adventure. PCs might be in the forest during one adventure, a city for the next, a mountain fortress, then a on a ship, then a flying castle, then the Abyss. When answering these polls, consider a full campaign setting -- not just one adventure.

Quasqueton

 

[Epametheus]

Wizard. I'd rather play a wizard, and I'd rather have a wizard around than a sorcerer.

 

[bradikus]

I picked wizard only because the question was not specific and wizards are just more versatile. But if the party already had a wizard I would go with a sorcerer in a second. As for enemy NPCs, I have been having a lot of fun with sorcerers. The sheer number of spells combined with some of the meta magic feats has been throwing off the party. The nice thing about enemies is they don’t have to have all the extra item crafting feats and miscellaneous spells, because they are only around for one encounter.

 

[Marius Delphus]

A single wizard has the opportunity to learn so many more spells than a whole bushel of sorcerors will ever know... potentially every spell the DM permits... that IMHO it's no contest. Wizard, definitely.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

For PCs I like Wizards but as a DM I prefer Sorcerers for my NPCs. Spell versatility isn't that big a deal for villains and it is much easier to have them throw whatever spell I need them to rather than worry about if they have it memorized.

 

[Kaji]

Turn me loose....

There is no comparison. Wizard.
Don't get me wrong, I dig sorcerers and think they are plenty fine. But with the availablity of Prestige Classes and a few meta magic feats, higher levels a well prepared wizard is an awesome tool of destruction, protection, knowledge, or whatever. Scribing scrolls is free, so all those rarely used spells in your spell book can be jotted down and stuck in a pouch for a rainy day. A sorcerer is limited by either using what ever scolls he/she finds or spending premium money to buy a scroll which they can then use only once. A wizard who buys a scroll can transfer it into her spellbook and then make their own scroll very cheap. Wizard.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

A single wizard has the opportunity to learn so many more spells than a whole bushel of sorcerors will ever know... potentially every spell the DM permits... that IMHO it's no contest. Wizard, definitely.

Several posters have noted the versatility inherent in the wizard's spellbook, but I would argue that this is not as great an advantage as others are stating.

First, unless the GM throws in a lot of scrolls as loot, the PC wizard is going to have to buy these extra spells. That's money that he doesn't have for other things. Then he has to spend money to scribe them into his spellbook. Even less money available for other things. Once you start buying and scribing spells 3rd-level and up, the cost becomes huge.

Second, even assuming you've houseruled the costs way down (as I do), what happens when the wizard memorizes spells for the day? 4 times out of 5, he'll take the same spells. Depending on the situation, he might leave a few spell slots unfilled, but he can't do this too often, as wizards don't get that many spells per day.

Three, metamagic feats have to be memorized with the spell by a wizard. A sorcerer has much more flexibility in using them. If my sorcerer has Still Spell, he'll use the feat only when he's grappled or otherwise needs it. The wizard, OTOH, only gets the benefit of the feat if he guesses correctly which spells to memorize with the feat that day (which is almost certainly, none).

Instead of playing a wizard, try a sorcerer. Spend the same amount of money on scrolls, but for use in an emergency. So what if the character doesn't know knock - he has a scroll of it! Much better than the wizard who knows knock, but didn't memorize it that day, and used up his scroll of it to write it in his spellbook.

Note, all these things together don't make the sorcerer superior. I do think, however, that the choice is not so cut-and-dried as it seems. The sorcerer has his own flexibility which can sometimes trump that of the wizard.