Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9827326" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Let me spell it out a little more clearly.If the Wizard chooses to not take rituals and was correct not to, in that they would not be useful in the campaign, then that's a campaign where the sorcerer is already outright better (outside very high levels), regardless of this wizard being able to potentially scribe more diverse scrolls in downtime.  The combination of metamagic and innate sorcery is better than arcane recovery and a few more options to scribe scrolls in virtually every environment.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.  And I think we agree there's no particularly good reason for the wizard to scribe most if any ritual spells to a scroll?I thought it was fairly clear Zard was talking about prepared spells and not known spells for spell scribing there.And it's also an objective fact that all of those extra spells may go to rituals and that access to at least some rituals is the biggest thing that sets the wizard apart from the sorcerer.  If you aren't leaning into rituals at all then it's really hard to justify Wizard over Sorcerer in most campaigns.Don't you agree that for a Wizard that takes many rituals that the sorcerer will have more useful spells to scribe into scrolls?And also, my OP explicitly made the point that which was better was situational.  So don't be acting like I'm saying the Wizard doesn't have any strengths.  Disagreeing that this particular thing is a strength isn't the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification