D&D 5E (2024) Wizard vs Sorcerer In-Depth Analysis (2024)

[saviirkad]

i don't especially think metamagic by itself feels wizardy, but i do think we could delete wizard and recreate 90% of their experience with a sorcerer subclass that has a spellbook, innate ritual casting and that memorize spell feature they got that lets them swap a spell from their spellbook on short rest, and metamagic wouldn't feel out of line in that.

Yeah I dont want to say that my view of that wizard fiction is anything other than my own view.

For me, an integral part of a wizard showing understanding, knowledge, and skill is to do more than repeat the same spells the same way as everyone else every time. It's not about having more access. Metamagic helps portray what I want in a way I like more than the wizards' own school-based subclasses. Their other subclasses, like Scribe and Bladesinger, they don't have the same issues for me. The Scribe subclass does engage with the wizard fiction I would find interesting, and though I'm not into the Bladesinger subclass, it does at least engage with the wizard mechanics in a way I find the school-based subclasses to be lacking in.

The Citadel Wizard put out by Worlds Beyond Number is what I wish the Wizard class was as its foundation.

 

[Zardnaar]

Have your read Keys from the Golden Vault? You are going to want to focus on out of combat stuff if you are playing that.

Very few indicate that there are no scroll vendors. Just like they don't indicate that their are no brothels. There are a great many things that are not included in the adventure text that can normally be assumed to be available. There simply isn't room in the page count of an official adventure to mention anything that is not directly relevant to the adventure. The existence of some facilities are even implied by game mechanics, such as backgrounds and bastions.

In pretty much every adventure you are screwed if no one has Detect Magic.

Detect magic isnt exclusive to wizards.

I've ran a few adventures from Golden Vault. Some adventures do have scrolls others have 0. Can't assume DMs sell magic items.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's more of an upcast with an alternative cost, not more spells. There's no real way to argue that its more spells, because its still linked to one Concentration, one turn casting that's using 1 spell slot (or 1 charge on a staff/wand), and isn't going beyond what said spell was already capable of.

I'd agree if it was the 2014 version, but that's not what the OP started this conversation with. The sorcerer and wizard in question reference 2024 abilities.

I'm going to pause you here, because this is one hell of a massive claim that is just... unsupported. No, make that two massive claims.

You're bouncing between saying that either a wizard player is compelled to take all rituals or no rituals at all; there's an entire spectrum of options in between those two extremes you're pushing. This isn't a binary thing.

Further... there's a bunch of spells that the wizard has access to that the sorcerer doesn't that are highly useful, but are not rituals, and can be exceedingly helpful in any given campaign.


Aaaand the truth comes out - you're biased in favor of one class over the other. This is a "sorcerers are better!" thread in disguise, instead of a critical analysis of both, isnt' it? Gotcha. I'll leave ya to it.

I've seen a few Sorcerers rolled up in 5.5 . At levels that matter theyre better than Wizards imho. Based mostly on Wizards e abd y abilities.

Wizards end up better later.

I value the first 10 levels way higher than the last 10 levels. I don't think its a hot take to say level 10 is essentially a capstone in most games. Hell most games dont go past lvl 7 apparently.

The wizard will very really see it's power. The scroll and spells thing are DM, campaign and loot dependent. And player dependent.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're bouncing between saying that either a wizard player is compelled to take all rituals or no rituals at all; there's an entire spectrum of options in between those two extremes you're pushing. This isn't a binary thing.

I literally didn't. I'll even quote the relevant bit for you...

And if the Wizard chooses to take rituals and was correct to do so, in that they are useful in the campaign, then he's not going to have all those extra spell slots you keep bringing up. At most it will be a minimal amount extra. At worst it might be fewer non ritual spells known than the sorcerer.

Note: I specifically left open how many rituals he might take. I only noted that if rituals are taken it ranges from very few more non-ritual spells known than the sorcerer to potentially fewer non-ritual spells known.

Further... there's a bunch of spells that the wizard has access to that the sorcerer doesn't that are highly useful, but are not rituals, and can be exceedingly helpful in any given campaign.

Another point from my OP. Wizards have the better spell list. I discussed this exact point in more detail there.

Aaaand the truth comes out - you're biased in favor of one class over the other. This is a "sorcerers are better!" thread in disguise, instead of a critical analysis of both, isnt' it? Gotcha. I'll leave ya to it.

1. It's not bias when one class is actually better than the other.
2. More importantly, the whole premise of my OP is that there are many situations where Wizards are actually better. I go into detail to spelling those out.
3. Not agreeing that every 'pro wizard' argument has merit is exactly what critical analysis is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Detect magic isnt exclusive to wizards.

But only wizards can ritual cast it without preparing it. So characters who are not wizards don’t tend to have it. Clerics sulk over having to prep it if there is no wizard in the party.

Some adventures do have scrolls others have 0

You can get choose them as rewards for completing the quests. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that a wizard can swap out combat focused spells for heist focused spells.

Can't assume DMs sell magic items.

The adventures do not follow on from each other, so we can assume there is Down time between each. Which means the downtime rules for finding magic items can be used, items can be crafted, etc. It would be an outlier DM who did not allow players to buy scrolls between heists.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wizards do have more spells without adding scrolls or books, though the amount is small. They start with 6 known spells, then gain additional 2 per level, and the spell school grants them an additional 1 per new spell level when they get subclass. At level 3, they have 12 known spells. A sorcerer starts with 2, and has 10 by level three, thanks to subclass. By level five, sorcerer has 15 spells, but wizard 17. Level nine? Sorcerer 24 spells versus a wizard's 27.

And when you factor in some of those being rituals, it's very possible the wizard has even fewer non-ritual spells known than the sorcerer. And even if only a few rituals are taken it makes the gap nearly nonexistent. It only takes knowing 4 rituals by level 5 for the Wizard to not know any more spells known than the sorcerer.

It's the same reason I don't counter points about Arcane Surge countered with points about Font of Magic for the Sorcerer. When there's a single resource pool it's typically best to focus on the better use cases for that ability. I believe the better use case for a number of the Wizards limited spells known is rituals, just like i believe metamagic is the better use case for sorcery points and it's why I didn't even mention font of magic in the OP analysis.

From here on out, however, wizards gather spells faster since sorcerers lose their bonus subclass spells. At level eleven, sorcerers have 26 spells and only gains another 6 by level twenty. Wizards have 32 at level eleven, and gain another 21 by level twenty.

Sure, and I've agreed multiple times now that by t4 and maybe mid t3 the wizard has pulled ahead. A key premise of my OP was again that the levels you are comparing at matters. But, knowing more spells is such a minor thing since at that point because I believe that t4 wizards are typically better than t4 sorcerers, due to the much better t3 and t4 spell list alone.

I'd just add points about t4 wizards don't counter points about level 1-10 wizards.

Admittedly, these are spells in the spell book for the wizard, and not prepared spells. Sorcerer blows the wizard out of the water when we talk about spells prepared at once, its not even a competition. But in terms of spells known, even just taking leveling into account? The wizard wins.

Right, when do you think knowing more spells of itself matters more than having more spells prepared?

 

[FrogReaver]

I've seen a few Sorcerers rolled up in 5.5 . At levels that matter theyre better than Wizards imho. Based mostly on Wizards e abd y abilities.

Wizards end up better later.

I value the first 10 levels way higher than the last 10 levels. I don't think its a hot take to say level 10 is essentially a capstone in most games. Hell most games dont go past lvl 7 apparently.

The wizard will very really see it's power. The scroll and spells thing are DM, campaign and loot dependent. And player dependent.

That's the thing, i think in the style of game you play that Sorcerers are better through level 10. I don't think that's universal, but probably a bit more common than wizards being better in those levels.

Arcana Expertise, Intelligence Skills, Find Familiar, Tiny Hut, Augury and Detect Magic make for a formidable out of combat ability set. If those abilities start really mattering in a campaign I'd suggest the Wizard is probably better for that campaign.

 

[Merlecory]

And when you factor in some of those being rituals, it's very possible the wizard has even fewer non-ritual spells known than the sorcerer. And even if only a few rituals are taken it makes the gap nearly nonexistent. It only takes knowing 4 rituals by level 5 for the Wizard to not know any more spells known than the sorcerer.

I am confused by the math you are doing here, at least in the back half of the quote. The wizard does still know the ritual spells.

Additionally, they are taking the rituals because they think they are better than taking the other options. Are those rituals better than the subclass spells a sorcerer might have? Maybe. But saying a wizard doesn't know many spells because they chose rituals is very strange to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am confused by the math you are doing here, at least in the back half of the quote. The wizard does still know the ritual spells.

Additionally, they are taking the rituals because they think they are better than taking the other options. Are those rituals better than the subclass spells a sorcerer might have? Maybe. But saying a wizard doesn't know many spells because they chose rituals is very strange to me.

Why?

 

[Zardnaar]

But only wizards can ritual cast it without preparing it. So characters who are not wizards don’t tend to have it. Clerics sulk over having to prep it if there is no wizard in the party.

You can get choose them as rewards for completing the quests. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that a wizard can swap out combat focused spells for heist focused spells.

The adventures do not follow on from each other, so we can assume there is Down time between each. Which means the downtime rules for finding magic items can be used, items can be crafted, etc. It would be an outlier DM who did not allow players to buy scrolls between heists.

DM can still say no or there's n vendors nearby. Your opinion doesn't change that basic fact.

Various classes also get free rituals or origin feats. Theres really only 1 thats "required".