| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proficiencies: Identical except wizards get 2+INT skills (6) and sorcerers get 5+INT (5 to 7). Sorcerers also get all simple weapons while wizards get a list. Extremely minor benefit to sorcerers.
1st level Wizard: Heightening spell's, spellbook, 2 spell's per level known, arcane focus, 1 extra spell slot per spell level, school power plus spell point pool of 4.
1st level sorcerer: 2 spell's known per level, bloodline power plus spell point pool of 4. Extra signature skills. Major benefit to wizards.
Without seeing specific feats for each class it looks like wizards do win at 1st level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers do have the same number of spells per day as the Wizard. Wizards get extra spells (over 3) from school or the Universalist getting bonus uses of Arcane Focus, Sorcerers get an extra spell use from their Bloodline. Both can cast (eventually) 4 spells per spell level as their baseline.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, the two classes are so similar, especially in the spell casting area, that I don’t known why one would opt to play a sorcerer. The two classes need to be delineated in much more specific ways.
As I saw it, in PF1, it was very nicely balanced between brawn vs precision-in magical casting terms. Besides the sorcerer being able to encroach on other spell casters magical traditions, the sorcerer seems very bland. I would prefer that they go back with being able to cast more but knowing less spells, than how the class is formulated now.
The class is in a very unfinished form and Paizo needs to do more work on it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorc has better options for damage-increasing and DC increasing abilities. Sorc innately has more resonance, and access to occult, divine, and primal spell lists, whilst likewise being more flexible in their signature skills.
Sorcerers have 2 less feats than wizards and do not have access to all spell lists, the bloodline features imposes 1 spell lists, which means there is no flexibility since the spell list is determined at first level.
Sorcerers is better to be seen as 4 different classes, one for each spell lists, that shares some feats and the same progression.
Sorcerers do have the same number of spells per day as the Wizard. Wizards get extra spells (over 3) from school or the Universalist getting bonus uses of Arcane Focus, Sorcerers get an extra spell use from their Bloodline. Both can cast (eventually) 4 spells per spell level as their baseline.The baseline is true, but all wizards get the arcane focus, which puts their baseline at 5/day. Universalists are 4/day but with flexibility, which is supposed to be sorceroers' trick.
Not Universalits are at 4/day plus one extra spell, which can be of any level. That's 5 day at 2nd level, but not as you go on.
I didn't see any DC increase options, and the only two damage increase options I saw were "deal extra damage based on spell level" and "add a somatic to ignore first 10 pts of resistance", at the cost of counterspell and quicken spell, respectively...That's because the book's layout is suffering.
The first level imperial spell point power is a DC increase.
That's not a Sorcerer DC increase, it's a single bloodline increase. All Wizards can choose Spell Penetration at 8th level which has the same effect on most tough monsters. They can also do a once per day +2 DC to any spell with the Empowering Focus feat.
The damage increase options are garbage on both sides. Your feat and your action are not worth that small of a damage increase or resistance decrease.
"Not Universalist" = Specialist. Both have four spells per day, the Specialist has one extra spell of an undefined level. We're not disagreeing.
EDIT:I mean, you may as well talk that way because it's how we compared s%&* before anyways. Sorc has lots of access to good things in 1e so long as you don't take stupid bloodlines that are wonderfully flavorful but inevitably worse than Arcane. I don't see why we should evaluate it much differently nowThat's not a Sorcerer DC increase, it's a single bloodline increase. All Wizards can choose Spell Penetration at 8th level which has the same effect on most tough monsters. They can also do a once per day +2 DC to any spell with the Empowering Focus feat.
The damage increase options are garbage on both sides. Your feat and your action are not worth that small of a damage increase or resistance decrease.
The different spell lists are a pretty good reason.
...no it isn't. The only advantage it has on the spell list comparisons is against *bard*. Otherwise you're competing against druid and cleric as wellThe different spell lists are a pretty good reason.
EDIT:I mean, you may as well talk that way because it's how we compared s%&* before anyways. Sorc has lots of access to good things in 1e so long as you don't take stupid bloodlines that are wonderfully flavorful but inevitably worse than Arcane. I don't see why we should evaluate it much differently nowThat's not a Sorcerer DC increase, it's a single bloodline increase. All Wizards can choose Spell Penetration at 8th level which has the same effect on most tough monsters. They can also do a once per day +2 DC to any spell with the Empowering Focus feat.
The damage increase options are garbage on both sides. Your feat and your action are not worth that small of a damage increase or resistance decrease.
The Sorcerer and Wizard have more class feat overlap than they do with any of the others.
Wait, I'm confused. My understanding was that Wizards get 3 spells per spell level, with specialists getting an extra spell but universalists getting to use drain arcane focus to recast an expended spell of each level. So that's 4/level for every wizard, which is precisely what sorcerers get- 3 per level plus one per level from their bloodline, so 4/level.
Wait, I'm confused. My understanding was that Wizards get 3 spells per spell level, with specialists getting an extra spell but universalists getting to use drain arcane focus to recast an expended spell of each level. So that's 4/level for every wizard, which is precisely what sorcerers get- 3 per level plus one per level from their bloodline, so 4/level.
Yes, except that specialist wizards also get 1/day use of their highest level of spells. So 5/level of that, or simply 5 spells at 2nd level, or 4 at 1st level. In all cases they have a single spell (total, not per level) advantage over everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love it when people compare wizards to sorcerers and decide that wizards are just better. Yes, they have access to all the arcane spells, theoretically, and sorcerers just don't.
Everybody ignores the fact that preparation spellcasting means you as a player have to call the ball exactly right at the beginning of each adventuring day or you ended up wasting resources on a certain number of useless spells.
Narrow as they have to be built, sorcerers aren't goaded into speculative resource waste. If I know lightning bolt, when a lightning bolt is needed, I cast it.
Designing the imperial sorcerer to have the same spell progression as a universalist wizard is very strong.
I'd be hard pressed to determine which caster is stronger. Certainly an arcane sorcerer is a better artillery piece or battle-mage. And certainly a wizard is a better toolbox. Pick your poison, they did a good job here.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are flexible in pinch situations. The problem is that with the super-short spell durations there is little incentive for parties not to retire to a safe distance and let the Wizard use Quick Preparation to change out his spells as he needs. Most AP encounters as written allow the party to do that. In PF1E longer running buffs meant that a party had an incentive to do as many encounters in a row as possible and hence the Sorcerer's flexibility was more noticeable.
That's a problem which only has appeared with this new edition, so talk about unintended consequences. At this rate, maybe it would really be a good idea to give Sorcerers Spontaneous Heightening for all their spells. Overall, I feel much less incentive to play a Sorcerer over a Wizard so far, and Sorcerer was BY FAR my favorite class through all 3.X iterations.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If somebody has found a good, mechanical reason for me to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard, I would love to hear it. Sorcerers in this edition are just flat-out outclassed by their prepared counterparts, having lost the sole (and already flimsy) advantage they possessed in extra spell slots.
Now, here are a few things that I would do to the Sorcerer to catch it up to speed with its prepared sibling casters.
-10 class feats in total, with bloodline powers being optional class feats.
-More spells per day (maybe one more for every level it can cast). Giving the Sorc back its old advantage would also grant it more spells known, which would give it more versatility in any given situation than any other caster. If this means getting rid of bloodline spells, then that is a sacrifice I am willing to make (they could just get the bloodline spells back anyway by selecting them).
-Do away with the whole Spontaneous Heightening thing. Spontaneous casters should have the ability to heighten spells without ever having to re-learn them (and having to take what is effectively the same spell multiple times defeats the purpose of heightening in the first place).
And, if a particularly radical rejiggering is in order...
-Give the Sorcerer the ability to select spells from all spell lists, with bloodlines determining what kinds of spells they are. This would allow the Sorcerer to do things with its magic that no other caster could, and would play better with the whole "inherited magic from a strange outer power" concept (fiends can get divine Dimension Door, so why couldn't the magically-potent child of a fiend get it?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If somebody has found a good, mechanical reason for me to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard, I would love to hear it.
Put a high investment in intelligence, multiclass wizard on a sorcerer. Get 9 levels of arcane spellcasting on top of 8 more levels of arcane spellcasting, be the uber-arcane spellcaster. Spellcaster spells/day are hard nerfed, this means you can pick up some more. And wizards simply can't multiclass sorcerer yet.
|
|
If somebody has found a good, mechanical reason for me to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard, I would love to hear it.Put a high investment in intelligence, multiclass wizard on a sorcerer. Get 9 levels of arcane spellcasting on top of 8 more levels of arcane spellcasting, be the uber-arcane spellcaster. Spellcaster spells/day are hard nerfed, this means you can pick up some more. And wizards simply can't multiclass sorcerer yet.
Except that in order to gain 8 spell levels from wizard multiclassing, it will require of the sorcerer to sacrifice 2/3 of his class feats, while when the wizard will be able to multi class into another caster, it will cost him only half of his feat... Making the wizard still better than the sorcerer!
If somebody has found a good, mechanical reason for me to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard, I would love to hear it.
Wizards don't quite have the versatility that one might be led to expect from last edition. Look at how much it costs to learn additional spells outside of leveling. You might learn an additional 2 spells of each level by draining all your wealth by level currency.
You could have the sorcerers flexibility with four spells per level in your repertoire, or you have to do prepared casting and deal with potential waste with only six spells per level in your spellbook.
Really, the two aren't that different. Wizard still has heightening flexibility and a little more versatility, sorcerer doesn't. Sorcerer has spontaneous spellcasting and a better primary stat and skills, wizards don't. Pretty much a wash.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, when the Bard has better Heightening than the sorc you know someone on the design board hates the class
I mean, when the Bard has better Heightening than the sorc you know someone on the design board hates the class
It is weird that Sorc doesn't get the ability to Heighten as many spells as Bard but that might have been a choice for when you're going arcane/primal your damage options for spells it much broader than as a Bard.
As for which is a better blaster your Sorc can choose a couple different options like if you choose to have flaming sphere and made it one of your heightened spells makes it do 4d6 damage at level 3 which is 2 less than your fireball but if it's one tough target you're likely to do 8d6 or 12d6 after 3 rounds while fireball requires you to carefully aim to not kill your allies and if things are going badly you might even get up to more depending on how badly things are going.
If I was playing a wizard I'd probably take fireball + flaming sphere and then i'd have the option to cast either twice but not both while a Sorc could choose either option 3 times and I'm sure there's much better examples of where Sorc might shine while Wizard is stuck with spells that are too dangerous to use and end up casting a cantrip.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards don't quite have the versatility that one might be led to expect from last edition. Look at how much it costs to learn additional spells outside of leveling. You might learn an additional 2 spells of each level by draining all your wealth by level currency.
Please remember than learning a spell in 2nd edition has a lot more value. You do not have to learn summon monster 1 to 9, learning a single spell gives you that.
I think that the increased value to learn spell is a direct consequence of the new spell structure, where individual spell have a lot more value than in 1st ed.
Wizards don't quite have the versatility that one might be led to expect from last edition. Look at how much it costs to learn additional spells outside of leveling. You might learn an additional 2 spells of each level by draining all your wealth by level currency.Please remember than learning a spell in 2nd edition has a lot more value. You do not have to learn summon monster 1 to 9, learning a single spell gives you that.
I think that the increased value to learn spell is a direct consequence of the new spell structure, where individual spell have a lot more value than in 1st ed.
True, I can't argue with that.
That being said, in my own opinion, heightening isn't so valuable as to make the wizard de facto better than a flexible sorcerer. I'd be perfectly happy as a sorcerer to heighten summon monster and fireball for my two free heightens, for instance, and then I'll use my highest level spells at their levels when necessary. Typically, heightened spells aren't any better or even as good as higher level spells anyway (with the notable exception of summon monster).
Given the wizard only has 5 or 6 spells in his spellbook per level that he has to precisely apportion with prepared casting, and doesn't necessarily have any great incentive to heighten anyway, I'll happily play my imperial sorcerer with 4 spells per level that I can cast any way I see fit.
I'd also play a wizard too, honestly; when I play Vancian wizards I tend to develop a standard loadout anyway. The drain focus mechanic gives them greater flexibility as well. My guess is that the two classes won't play that differently on average or have too much to distinguish between them in terms of role or efficacy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, in my own opinion, heightening isn't so valuable as to make the wizard de facto better than a flexible sorcerer. I'd be perfectly happy as a sorcerer to heighten summon monster and fireball for my two free heightens, for instance, and then I'll use my highest level spells at their levels when necessary. Typically, heightened spells aren't any better or even as good as higher level spells anyway (with the notable exception of summon monster).Given the wizard only has 5 or 6 spells in his spellbook per level that he has to precisely apportion with prepared casting, and doesn't necessarily have any great incentive to heighten anyway, I'll happily play my imperial sorcerer with 4 spells per level that I can cast any way I see fit.
Let's take the example of Mage Armor. It's a really common spell that a lot of people are going to use, but if you want it to be meaningful as a sorcerer, you will have to learn it every 2 level and retrain your previous version, since previous version of mage armor are almost obsolete every time a new one is available.
On the wizard side, he can easily learn it as a 1st level spell and it will be useful for him for the rest of his career.
What about Invisibility? the Heightened (4th) version is really useful, and as a Wizard you have free access to it when learning the normal version of the spell! Sorcerers? You'll have to sacrifice 2 of your spell slots for that since in the long term using your Spontaneous Heightening on this spell is probably a waste (you can cast it at your regular level or 4th, no other options).
Want to learn Haste as a wizard? It's only going to cost for the 3rd level spell, not the 7th!
The new spell system is bringing down the average level of the spells by a lot, and as your wizard level up, it will become more affordable to learn more low level spells, which will open greatly his spellcasting abilities.
I do agree that Heightened spells that deals damage are weaker than a damage spell of your highest spell slot. But utility spells that can be heightened are actually great, and will be the wizard's best tools!
Here is the number of spell for each level: (XH means that X number of spells have heightened effect).
1st level: 35 common (20H), 1 uncommon (1H)
2nd level: 35 common (22H)
3rd level: 23 common (8H), 3 uncommon (1H)
4th level: 24 common (13H), 7 uncommon (2H)
5th level: 18 common (10H), 7 uncommon (2H)
6th level: 16 common (9H), 3 uncommon (2H)
7th level: 8 common (5H), 7 uncommon (2H)
8th level: 11 common (3H), 3 uncommon (1H),1 rare
9th level: 7 common(2H), 2 uncommon (1H)
10th level: 3 uncommon
As you can clearly see, there are a LOT more low level spell than high level one.
Without learning any additional spells, and by always selecting spells of highest level available, a wizard spellbook will contain:
cantrips: 10
1st level: 10 (or 11 for specialist)
2nd level and beyond: 4
which means that without having to learn any spells, the wizard will know half of the 7th and 9th level spells, a third of the 8th level spells, about a quarter of the 6th and 5th level of spells, a 1/6 of level 3 and 4 spells and 1/9 of second level spell and almost a third of first level spells!
Honestly, the wizard knows a lot... and he should be able to learn a lot of lower level spells in his career, just by looting other spellcaster spellbooks.
At lower levels (especially around level 3-7) the sorcerer might be better than the wizard since the wizard will not have the time to accumulate enough spells, but afterward... the wizard utility toolbox will grow and beat the sorcerer.
An other thing to think about: A wizard can access an uncommon spell has soon as he has learned it. The sorcerer must retrain before being able to select it, which is a lot more costly since during that time, the wizard could raise money to buy himself some more spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take the example of Mage Armor. It's a really common spell that a lot of people are going to use, but if you want it to be meaningful as a sorcerer, you will have to learn it every 2 level and retrain your previous version, since previous version of mage armor are almost obsolete every time a new one is available.
I think your argument makes more sense if you leave out the Mage Armor part. I don't think it's going to be anywhere near common to see people spending one of their highest spell slots on Mage Armor. It's a huge resource investment and if you're someone who cares about Mage Armor you can easily pick up Bracers of Armor instead.
If somebody has found a good, mechanical reason for me to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard, I would love to hear it.
Wizards don't quite have the versatility that one might be led to expect from last edition. Look at how much it costs to learn additional spells outside of leveling. You might learn an additional 2 spells of each level by draining all your wealth by level currency.
You could have the sorcerers flexibility with four spells per level in your repertoire, or you have to do prepared casting and deal with potential waste with only six spells per level in your spellbook.
Really, the two aren't that different. Wizard still has heightening flexibility and a little more versatility, sorcerer doesn't. Sorcerer has spontaneous spellcasting and a better primary stat and skills, wizards don't. Pretty much a wash.
I would argue that learning from looted spellbooks and scrolls should only cost half as much as learning from another wizard. Part of that price would be the fee the other caster charged.
Also, wizards start with eight first-level spells, although the spellbook section is badly written and makes it sound like they only get four if they start out higher than level 1.
Finally, recall that if a sorc wants to heighten a spell he has to relearn it, where a wizard can freely prepare it in every slot. If the sorcerer has eight spells that he wants to heighten, he has to sacrifice at least six spells known to be able to heighten all of them (since he can do 2 spontaneously). Possibly more if he wants to heighten them to different levels.
"What is this nonsense where Wizards think they are more powerful than us Sorcerers?"
I played in an Ebberon campaign during a 3.5 edition and the DM told us that Wizards and Sorcerers hate each other in that setting.
"Us Sorcerers are born with magic, it is our gift, you inferior sorcerers have to study it. That is true with all editions."
"Come on Wizards, roleplay with me if you think you are the superior casters."
Some good points raised; I still wouldn’t mind playing a sorcerer though.
But wizards and sorcs should find at least one thing to agree on: spells hit like a wet noodle, and are a consumable resource. They seem weak. God wizards have been nerfed into Nerd Wizards, and blockbuster wizards seem pretty gimpy. If anything, a bit more dpr for the arcane casters is in order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is the classes need to be clearly explained in terms of what they do.
Wizards
Know lots of spells and can learn every arcane spell if they want or make new ones.
Have to prepare them in advance.
Can only cast a handful of spells at a time.
Make scrolls, wands and other magic items to make up for limits.
Sorcerors
Know very few spells.
Don't need to prep.
Can cast a lot of spells at a time (at least 50% more if not twice Wizards)
Use Metamagic to cover for the limits on their casting.
Can't use rituals
Can't make magic items
Are better at using magic items then Wizards.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerors
Know very few spells.
Don't need to prep.
Can cast a lot of spells at a time (at least 50% more if not twice Wizards)
Use Metamagic to cover for the limits on their casting.
Can't use rituals
Can't make magic items
Are better at using magic items then Wizards.
Except that Wizards can cast more spells than sorcerers, and the wizards are the one who can create wands for a day in order to cast even more spells while sorcerer are more limited.
The better at using magic item is true at lower levels but as you level up more, the majority of the Resonance pool will come from your level and not from charisma.
And my post goes completely over his head.
Thats what they should be its the baseline for what the classes should be like in 2.0. Can we agree on that?