Just plain out simple, Sorcerer or Wizard? I mean come on I seem to be the only one that plays a sorcerer in my group. And all the rest are Wizards... I know that Wizards get all those special stuff but wheres the love for the Sorcerer? It would appear that they don't respect the sorcerer. I heard that fighters are a bad class...wrong, that's why they made alot of up close perstige classes right? So which would you rather play, sorcerer or wizard?
Me=Sorcerer
~GtG
|
Sorcerer. I don't need to adjust spell lists. My party's wizard has 3-4 pre-prepped spell lists for different types of challenges, one for wilderness travel, one for cities, one for dungeons. It just seems like too much prep to me, besides I love the idea that magic flows through my character's veins! How cool! Never worry about your spellbook being stolen/burned/eaten. Besides, casting six of one needed spell is cool. Sure you don't know em all, so what! Buy scrolls. Carry wands. Most of the time the wizard doesn't have the right one prepared anyway, "lets rest in enemy territory overnight so I can cast _______." You either got it or not. Done sitch.
My 2
FH
I'm playing a sorceror right now. I'd rather play a wizard. I'd rather have a wider spell selection than more spells. Picking sorceror spells is hard, because they're so "final."
FH makes good points advocating the sorceror, but I love strategerizing over how I can F up the bad guys with a variety of spells.
I played a Mystic Theurge in a short term campaign recently, and his "arcane" side was sorcerer. I was amazed at how many spells I had, and I was thinking I would be invincible, and dominating every combat.
Then we went into a dungeon . . . I couldn't case Cone of Cold for fear of damaging my compatriots in enclosed spaces. I ended up turning my allies invisible and letting them fly . . . a lot.
My most commonly used offensive spell was scorching ray. In fact, I cast fireball twice, cone of cold once, and every other combat I used scorching ray, over and over again.
Sorcerers can be cool, but after a while you start to feel like a one trick pony.
|
Wizards are better because:
- Sorcerers can't use a cloak of resistance, possibly one of the best items in the game, unless they give up their cloak of charisma. Wizards can have the cloak along with their headband of intellect.
- Wizards get more skill points because of their intelligence. They can dump their lowest scores in strength and charisma. Socerers need good charisma and intelligence for skills so they need 5 good ability scores instead of 4.
- Ability to specialise.
- Extra feat at every 5 levels.
- Wizards can make use of Quicken Spell feat, very useful at high levels.
But you forget all of Dragon's wonderful supplements to help make the sorcerer better! Apply bloodline feats, "diety" structures as in issue #343, and if you want it to feel differant from the wizard the battle sorcerer variant from unearthed arcana.
Then you got an arcane cleric bassicaly.. Infact, The Koga will compare this battle sorcerer w/Dragon stuff compared to a cleric.
Battle Sorcerer gains more domains. (If the exact alingment as god.)
Battle Sorcerer gains more spells per day.
Battle Sorcerer has potential to know "better" spells.
Battle sorcerer can cast spontanously.
Battle Sorcerer gains a familiar. (Not that great, but it's something..)
Clerics gain more proffietcies with weapons and armour.
Clerics gain turn or rebuke undead.
Clerics have good will AND fortitude saves.
Clerics don't suffer arcane spell-failure.
Clerics know more spells.
All in all this evens the arcane and divine casters out.
Now if only this balance applied to casters vs melee characters lol..
A while back I found something to change my sorcerer from the average wizard. And that perstige class would be, Wild Mage! It suits me well, say no preperation. I tried a wizard once just for a test run. Preparation is a drag in my mind. But I will check those things for the sorcerer out. That battle sorcerer variant. Thank you all for posting I will check back later.
~GtG
Most of the time the wizard doesn't have the right one prepared anyway, "lets rest in enemy territory overnight so I can cast _______." You either got it or not. Done sitch.
My 2
FH
Ha! That is so true. for all their diversity, this still happens all the time. It seems strange to me that the most scholarly PC in the group is the one advocating for an extra night of "camping out." Still, I gotta say I love the wizard anyway. Mostly for the reasons everyone else mentioned.
One of the things that sticks in my craw about sorcerers is their unfettered ability to use scrolls and wands from the sor/wiz spell list. One of the neat things about playing a wizard in 1st and 2nd edition was that they had access to many magic items that were useless for any other class. Now, that feature has been undermined by this undisciplined upstart. Fie upon you, sorcerer!
|
|
But you forget all of Dragon's wonderful supplements to help make the sorcerer better! Apply bloodline feats, "diety" structures as in issue #343, and if you want it to feel differant from the wizard the battle sorcerer variant from unearthed arcana.
Then you got an arcane cleric bassicaly.. Infact, The Koga will compare this battle sorcerer w/Dragon stuff compared to a cleric.
Battle Sorcerer gains more domains. (If the exact alingment as god.)
Battle Sorcerer gains more spells per day.
Battle Sorcerer has potential to know "better" spells.
Battle sorcerer can cast spontanously.
Battle Sorcerer gains a familiar. (Not that great, but it's something..)Clerics gain more proffietcies with weapons and armour.
Clerics gain turn or rebuke undead.
Clerics have good will AND fortitude saves.
Clerics don't suffer arcane spell-failure.
Clerics know more spells.All in all this evens the arcane and divine casters out.
Now if only this balance applied to casters vs melee characters lol..
Koga, nice to hear from you. Haven't seen ya posting lately and was a bit worried. Good to see you are still around.
FH
Update: Remember when I had that post up saying how much I wanted to like sorcerers but I just thought wizards were better? Well mission accomplished! I've been playing a gnome sorcerer for a while now and he has quickly become one of my favorite characters of all time.
The only problem is I still like wizards a lot too.
However, as a matter of style I'd have to go with sorcerer.
The prospect of tons of spells per day and not slowing the party down with you prep/spellbook maitenence/crafting items is a winner in my book.
And my sorcerer is enjoying a cloak of charisma+2 right along with his VEST of resisance+1
What Hagen said; I think Int is better than Char in general game play; the skill bonuses mean you have more skills and therefor get to do more hence play more. Sure, Charisma has its advantages and the classes are really pretty close so it is a toss up, but Wizards are also more flexible which is very good as an adventuring group never knows what it will face adventure to adventure. Sorcerers are specialist in my view and are very good at what they are set up to do, but not much else. The prestige and multiclass options are extensive for both so no real advantage there unless you also want to be a bard.
|
(...)Most of the time the wizard doesn't have the right one prepared anyway, "lets rest in enemy territory overnight so I can cast _______." You either got it or not. Done sitch.
My 2
FH
That is so true!
I never read a fantasy novel where a wizard said something like that.I once (back in 2E days) worked out a system with my wizards player, that he doesn't have to memorize, but therefore can cast every spell only twice a day (spells per day per level still the rule!), so he was almost always good prepared. He had to take an hour to meditate though.
That worked quite good actually, but I never tried it again.
I would prefer a sorcerer over a wizard any time. Away with those heavy spell-books!!!
Wizard, hands down -- if you're willing to capitalize on the magic creation feats (that means give up xp).
More spells, more powerful spells, and any spell you don't currently have memorized can be on a scroll for those pesky, unexpected situations.
And what can be better than being able to create a wand of tactical nukes -- err, I mean wand of fireballs?
IMO :)
Jack
I still say sorcerer!
I've played a few wizards and what I noticed was that I always held back, because I never knew if this particular foe was worth the casting of a spell. Now on the other hand I have enough magic to deal with the current foe and whatever comes next.
I am ofcourse one of those brainy sorcerers => I select good spells that will work in any situation ;>
Sorcerers are made for prestige classes. All they get as they advance levels is spell progression, something most prestige classes for spell casters preserve, while wizards have to give up their bonus feats.
- Ashavan
I prefer the sorcerer partly because they get more spells per day. Also it prevented arguments with my DM over what spells I could cast. ("You didn't prepare that spell today!" "Yes, I did!")
Most of the time the wizard doesn't have the right one prepared anyway, "lets rest in enemy territory overnight so I can cast _______." You either got it or not. Done sitch.
My 2
FH
I think a lot of people forget that Wizards can prepare an empty slot. Then if they need a specific spell they only need to study their spell book for like 10 minutes or something. This mostly takes care of the not having the right spell issue for them. I usually have them memorize the damage and buff type spells then leave a slot open for a utility spell. Typically you don't need them on the fly. It also fits better to the way stories are written, "Oh wait I think I have a spell for this situation" as the wizard consults his spell book for 10 minutes.
I say wizard. Preparing spells is a tactical element that I love. And the Item Creation/Metamagic Feats aids with augmenting their magical arsenals sooo much. Wands and scrolls are awesome. I, too, had forgotten about the empty slot option, but that's excellent, too. I had never really considered writting up multiple optional spell lists for different situations, but that's an excellent idea.
Wizards take planning and thought to be powerful, but when that is done right, they are near unstoppable. They are supposed to be meticulous and super-intelligent in game, and thus you have to play the mechanics that way, too.
They should use divinations to find out what foes they are likely to face, what tactics they should prepare to use and counter. This requires the DM to be prepared, but he should be, anyway, or he's inadvertently (sp?) nerfing his players by denying them this option.
Prpare spells with saving throws, then make scrolls and wands (which use the poorer saves) of spells that don't allow for saves. Or, if you have oodles of money to throw around, make the aforementioned wand of tactical nukes (fireball) heightened, so that the save is good, too.
I love wizards as villains and masterminds. They fill that role so well. They have a built-in lore of wide spell versatility, performing arcane experiments (which are outside the normal realms of "defined" spells and magic), etc. Thus, I can see them creating strange beasts, magical devices, and other things much more easily than a sorcerer, who's power is limited soley to the spells he can launch from his fingers/eyes/whatever.
Granted, if you don't want to take that amount of time to plan your actions, the sorcer is for you, but remember you can develop those spell lists and plan strategies outside of the game session (something I highly recommend due to the slowing effect it could have inside a session), so that you can just play when you're in the game.
...I think a lot of people forget that Wizards can prepare an empty slot...
Or never knew :o
Thanks! Somehow this bit of info has escaped me.
Jack
I also agree with Saern -- wizard is a thinking/plotting man's (or woman's) spellcaster.
Sorcerors are much easier to play; that's not bad, but it's not as appealling to me.
Jack
|
|
Preparing an empty spell slot is a wizards dream. It actually takes 15 minutes to fill it, but being able to do that essentially on the fly is great for alot of situations. I normally fill up about half of my slots with my 'combat' spells, and then save the others, that way if you need to open a locked door, find something that you are sure you have missed via a detect, or just set up a safe place for the night you can. This also leaves you the option to fill the rest of your spells with combat spells during a break between battles if the dungeon ends up being really combat intensive.
...I think a lot of people forget that Wizards can prepare an empty slot...Or never knew :o
Thanks! Somehow this bit of info has escaped me.
Jack
In typical D&D fashion it is located in a weird place really. I believe it's in the magic section about spell books and preparing spells. So maybe not a weird place but a place I think most don't read regularly. It's only a single line I think so easy to overlook. The Arcane Order PrC uses it as a way to access the "Spell Pool" so that's mainly why I am familar with it.
So which would you rather play, sorcerer or wizard?
Wizards, for all of the reasons above and my own.
Personally I have to say I like playing wizards, this is probably a bias because one of my favorite characters is a wizard. Tactically I can see the advantage of being able to cast spells on the fly and this can come in very handy in any number of situations. I for one though hate giving up the versatility of being able to store tons of spells in my spell book. This can be a great boon for parties that think ahead. For instance, if you know that you will need a spell for an upcoming task you can shell out the gold and buy it instead of having to wait for the sorcerer to level so that he can learn the spell. This also means you will only have to pay for the spell once instead of every time you need it. More importantly I am glad that D&D gives the choice of playing more than just one vein of magic user. The bookish wizard is all well and good, but I like having the option of playing the charismatic bard, the enigmatic sorcerer, etc. Having these options adds flavor to the D&D universe.
In my gaming group the sorcerer is more popular. For myself I like the wizard. For me it is a matter of style. I like the tactical and stratigic aspect of playing D&D. The wizard has to think a head, do some intellegence, and prepare for the coming challenges.
Sorcerers can out spell sling a wizard, but a wizard just remains more tactically flexible. This adds to the variety of solutions for a wizard. The catch for a wizard is being prepared, that is what make divination spells and ranks in a variety of knowledge skills important.
The bookish wizard is all well and good, but I like having the option of playing the charismatic bard, the enigmatic sorcerer, etc. Having these options adds flavor to the D&D universe.
I like the option of playing different approaches to arcane magic as well. One of my first 3rd edition characters was a gnome bard (a novel idea coming out of 2nd edition). I also like the opportunity of playing the overbearing, bombastic fireball flinging sorcerer one day.. Some day..., Sigh!
I have no preference for either. I have been thinking about combining them into one arcane caster class. Perhaps the mage could cast a few spells like a sorcerer, and has to prepare the rest like normal. And in my next campaign, I will boost them to d6 hit dice. I don´t recall if there is any kind of creature with hit dice weak as that, even faeries have d6. So what´s the point in making them that weak ? Most area effect spells do d6 damage per level, which means a mage of the same level as the party casting a fireball on the party will knock out the mage, while everybody else has a chance of surviving.
The possibility of preparing a "blank slot" had escaped me, too. It is a very valuable hint for a mage. Just prepare a few combat spells and leave the rest open for spells as needed - great idea, and very simple, too.
I´m playing in a AD&D2 round, and we had ruled that mages could choose just like sorcerers from their repertoire, but that is too generous. Now we will try a new ruling: Spells from at least two spell levels lower than the maximum the mage is able to cast can be chosen freely. So a mage of level five can choose 1st level spells up to his daily maximum from his whole repertoire, but has to prepare 2nd and 3rd level spells normally. By this, we try to represent the growing mastery of magic. We will see how this works out.
Stefan
Wizards.
Sorcerers can out spell sling a wizard, but a wizard just remains more tactically flexible. This adds to the variety of solutions for a wizard. The catch for a wizard is being prepared, that is what make divination spells and ranks in a variety of knowledge skills important.
Not if the wizard knows he'll be fighting said sorcerer (say, a recurring villain or divination spells for the upcoming adventure), in which case he can easily deck himself out to counter and nullify all the sorcerer can do, while still having enough of both tactical and simple damage spells to easily remove the sorcerer. Now, the Sorcerer could do this as well, but he'd have to hope to the Gods he had most of the right spells and/or item creation feats, or he's going to have to go buy everything for just this one fight. The wizard makes a one-time deposit and gets all that versatility forever.
Which isn't to say that the sorcerer is "bad," and shouldn't be played. The thought that something shouldn't be done because it is statistically inferior is one of the hearts of munchkinism to me. Do what you want, what feels fun and cool, and don't worry if you could have gotten 2 more points to X and Y if you had done A and B instead.
But wizards still kick @$$. :)
To Fake Healer: Yeah, The Koga's just been busy, and he's already half way done reading The Necronomicon! When he meationed "human banishment spells" his Wiccan mother freaked out. XP
As for sorcerer or wizard, The Koga's going to have to go with sorcerer, for one, he likes underpowerd over overpowerd games, secondly, the sorcerer has more roleplaying depth, with charsima as the casting stat, he's going to get modifier bonuses in cha based skills, which offer alot more roleplaying legroom then the wizard, sure the wizard "knows" stuff (knowledge) but can he LIE and say he knows things to get everyone to listen to him anyway? Can he intimidate foes with his spellcraft without actually casting a spell? Not very likely.
Though The Koga would never use diplomacy, diplomacy is for weakling Swedish characters like bards. XP
Wizards.
Not much for small talk, hmmm? :)
Sorcerers can out spell sling a wizard, but a wizard just remains more tactically flexible. This adds to the variety of solutions for a wizard. The catch for a wizard is being prepared, that is what make divination spells and ranks in a variety of knowledge skills important.Not if the wizard knows he'll be fighting said sorcerer (say, a recurring villain or divination spells for the upcoming adventure), in which case he can easily deck himself out to counter and nullify all the sorcerer can do, while still having enough of both tactical and simple damage spells to easily remove the sorcerer.
But wizards still kick @$$. :)
You make my point, the wizard is prepared and ready to kick a$$, because he knows his opponent, said sorcerer.
thats why wizards kick a$$
Wizards unquestionably, but if you are willing to take a level or two of paladin or blackguard, depending on alignment, your sorcerer can have incredible saving throw bonuses.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the pearl of power. Unavailable to Sorcerers (as they don't prepare spells), this may be one of the biggest overlooked magic items in the game. They don't take up an item slot, and for 10k, you can get 10 (!) 1st level pearls of power. That's 10 more magic missles/rays of enfeeblement per day, every day. And when the fighter is thinking about adding 'holy' to his favortite weapon, you can buy 4 second level pearls for the same price. (That's 4 more 12d6 scorching rays @ 12th level with no save).
Wizards.Not much for small talk, hmmm? :)
No. :)
Actually, the reason I prefer Wizards is to do with the flexibility of the class. However, since others had posted about that at length, I didn't think I really had anything to add to the discussion beyond my vote.
|
|
There are feats that sorcerers can take to allow them to prepare spells so as to allow use of metamagic feats without using full-round actions to cast and to use pearls of power.
There are also feats allowing wizards to master spells and spontaneously cast certain spells.
These feats go a long way towards equalizing the classes and adding flavor to each respectively.
FH
still love sorcerers!
There are feats that sorcerers can take to allow them to prepare spells so as to allow use of metamagic feats without using full-round actions to cast and to use pearls of power.
There are also feats allowing wizards to master spells and spontaneously cast certain spells.
These feats go a long way towards equalizing the classes and adding flavor to each respectively.FH
still love sorcerers!
Where does one come about such lore?
I know about spell mastery for wizards, but spontaneous spell casting for wizards, preparing spells for sorcerers such things sound cool.Wizards still kick a$$
Wizards!
Wizards get each spell level advancement a level before Sorcerers.
Also, there's nothing like the feeling of copying a scroll to your spellbook, and having access to a huge number of spells.
Sorcerers are OK, but limited.
I like the idea that Sorcerers have a measure of dragon blood, though. I'd allow any character who has a level of Sorcerer to count as "draconic heritage" for the "dragon disciple" prestige class.
Wizards are great, but for me they had a big turn off. I like the item creation feats and since wizards are obviously superior to sorcerers in versatility it seemed like a no brainer to take the class. And even though it was awesome combing through my spells to make "combos" and exit stratagies It took to much time to build up his aresenal. The thing I love most in D&D is interacting with PCs and while I played my wizard I was always up in a lab crafting something or scribing a spell in my book when an important PC was meeting the rest of the party. It was frustrating.
Now with my sorcerer I not only am present for all our meetings I have skills that can help us mechanically. And yes I do miss the versatility terribly but I've supplemented by taking major image a spell that can do something different (indirectly) with every casting.
|
Nearly every homebrew 2nd edition D&D that I played in ignored the memorization rule for wizards. I think that is why WotC went with two different classes. There are benefits for each.
It is hard for me to see sorcerers as much more than artillery. They have a much smaller spell selection and can cast spells much more often. I really feel that it is a really great class for either new players or for players who don't really play spell-casters very often (Sorcerer and Favored Soul). It gives people a way to play a spell-caster without needing to know 137 different spells and still be very useful in the party. I also like sorcerers when I DM -- Don't have to worry about memorization and fewer spell choices. I don't like that they get fewer feats and that intelligence isn't a useful stat for them and that they get so few class skills. There are some nice feats out there for sorcerers, but you don't get to use as many as you like (of course that could probably be said for all the classes).
When I play, I generally play a wizard. I like having more options and I like that they get more skill points (class skill list is still pretty lame) and more feats.
I like this post -- I didn't know about the leaving some spell slots open option for the wizard. Great information to know next time I play a wizard -- of course lugging around the 85 lb. spell book won't be fun...
Bill
I prefer the wizard because they're so versatile on so many levels. Spells, skills, feats... They're one of my favorite classes because they're intellectual and subtle, and they have such potential for diversity.
The sorcerer seems to have an air of chaos surrounding it, a wild talent for spellcasting that might have ties to dragons or celestials (or fiends), something frowned upon by wizards and feared by those who can't explain it. That's what makes them cool, of course, but what ALSO makes them cool is building the ultimate hunter/killer in the sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster.
The gnome sor9/rog6/at12 from our recently-retired epic campaign could unleash four ray spells in one round, one being an impromptu sneak attack (d8 from Sacred Strike) as a standard action (arcane prep., quicken, multispellx2). It was jaw-dropping witnessing him chew holes through boss monsters with two empowered force orbs AND two regular force orbs PLUS sneak damage after a move.
Being a sorcerer, he never ran out of spells, and the spells he picked were the spells the party needed. That's the trick.
I agree that sorcerers can be little more than artillery, but they can also outfit an entire party with stoneskin, haste, and fly and still be able to launch magic missiles and scorching rays to his/her heart's content.
The best mage class, is the Magister from Arcana Evolved. Monte Cookes spell system just blows the lid of of the standard PHB.
If you want to see a good cross between wizard and sorceror, read the magister from AE, even the magic system in it is amazine.
If my DM wouldnt let me play a magister, I'd quit. If that wasnt an option, Wizard every time. Sorcerors are cool if you just wanna fireball all day, but Wizards have flexibility.
I'm undecided.
I love the fact that the sorcerer can cast more spells per day, and never has to worry about what he's prepared on any given day. And mindful feat and spell selection, a sorcerer can be almost as versitile as a wizard. Though, a few house rules would likely go a long way toward improving the class. As they stand, I think they're a bit weak compared to the wizard. Just a bit, though.
Mostly, however, I play psions or wizards.
Just wanted to ellaborate on why the Arcana Evolved Magister rocks...
He memorizes spells, but, he doesnt memorize how many. So while the wizard says he will memorize 2 Magic Missiles and 1 Grease, the Magister says he will memorize Magic Missile and Grease. The magister is then free to use 3 Magic Missiles and 0 Greases, or any combination ect.
Also, the magic system is such that a spell book is only need to change the spells you KNOW. For example if you have chosen 6 spells to memorize and your spellbook is stolen, then you cannot change spells for the next day, those are your spells, BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE THOSE ONES! In contrast if a wizard loses his spellbook he is screwed.
The last nail in the coffin for both the sorceror and the wizard is the spells in Arcana Evolved. Many of the spells have variant energy types (you choose the energy when you cast it). When you get the 3rd level damage spell in AE, it is of any enery type! Compare that to the sorceror and wizards fire and lightning fetish...
Also the spells in AE have diminished and heightened versions. Take a 3rd level spell like Energy Bolt, it works like a fireball except that you choose the energy. You can diminish Energy Bolt and instead use it in place of a 2nd level spell, if you do this it only deals Caster Level*D4 damage. On the other hand, you can heighten it, and use it in place of a 4th level spell, if you do this is deals Caster Level*D8 damage. This makes for very flexible mages, if you need to do a lot of damage you can use all your 2nd slots, 3rd slots and 4th slots on ONE SPELL!
In my campaigns the races and system is all standard Players handbook, except for the wizard and sorceror, they just dont exist. In their place is the Magister, check it out.
Also the Witch from AE is phenomally cool.
I still say sorcerer!
Yesterday I got to play my sorcerer once again, at the end we were up against a chuul and if I had played a wizard we would all be dead! Chuuls are tough!
The situation:
The law came looking for us so we fled on a boat across the harbor, all my teammates (rogues) got charmed by a naga and they agreed to free another naga from some underwater dungeon.
I wonder what kind of wizard would have had the good sense to prepare for such an impromptu encounter, you can have all the flexibility in the world but a wizard would have been dead, no doubt about it.
I still say sorcerer! ...
Yesterday I got to play my sorcerer once again, at the end we were up against a chuul and if I had played a wizard we would all be dead! Chuuls are tough! ...
I think this suggests the standard situation -- sorcerors can cast their offensive spells as often as needed, making them disproportianately reliable in combat.
They are usually less useful otherwise, given a shortage (and for some sorcerors a complete absence) of non-combat spells.
Just my experience and opinion, that some may refute :)
Jack