So my players are figuring out what characters they're going to play for the upcoming campaign and the spellcasting guy was having trouble deciding between Sorceror and Wizard. The main conflict being over spell choices.
For Sorceror you usually take combat spells and/or a repeatedly useful utility spell ala Fly.
For Wizard, it's really all about the daily spell selection, which at early levels really sucks. Wizards don't really come into full blown power until 5th level at which utility and combat spells shine.
So... I like what 4E has done in the sense that a lot of tangentially useful spells have shifted off into rituals. I disagree that any class can access these and I disagree that they need to be shifted off into a separate spell system. But I like the idea that some utility spells which you may need (occasionally) are there but you don't need to worry about taking day to day, especially when you're out an adventure.
Any solutions out there besides taking the utility spells as scrolls?
|
Wizards are better than Sorcerers.
Alot!
It's not even close.
Higher spell levels earlier; extra Feats; only need one high Ability Score (as opposed to high INT & CHA)
Play a Wizard.
Buy a wand.
You wanna do "the combat thing" like a shmuck, er, Sorcerer, at 1st level, prepare all magic missiles. At 3rd level or your soonest opportunity buy a wand of magic missiles. Now you can do all the (one) things Sorcerers do and you also have real spells -- and an extra Feat every 5 levels.
-W. E. Ray
|
Have to say im a very big fan of the Paizo sorceror Especialy now since it has a lot of customisation. As for lack of spells known, I generally find (in my games at least) that wizards usually prepare the exact same spells over and over unless they know they are fighting/doing something specific so a wizard having more spells known isent really that big of an issue.
|
Have to agree with Molech on this one, it is a lot cheaper to buy wands for the commons spells and use Wizard slots for the oddballs you rarely need.
Not to mention, but there is a little thing called "spell research", which Sorcerers can only do once in a blue moon, or with wish spells. How many sorcerers have cool spells named after them? (Okay, fallacy!)
But really, flying a lot or blasting things with raw elemental power means very little if you can be immune to spells, teleport, turn into iron, and then disintegrate your opponent. All 1 level earlier than the Sorcerer could dream of!
Not to mention, but there is a little thing called "spell research", which Sorcerers can only do once in a blue moon, or with wish spells. How many sorcerers have cool spells named after them? (Okay, fallacy!)
The Simbul comes to mind. The Simbuls Synostodweomer and Simbuls Spell Trigger are two well known spells named after her.
As for my opinion, Sorcerer is more fun and always was. The only problem is that the class simply should have one more spell known per spell level, IMO, as the selection gets way too scarce in the upper levels.
|
I'm not a huge strategist, so sorcerers work better for me. I always disliked choosing a spell list. It was a chore, not fun. I wouldn't try to keep up with a wizard in the party. If there was already a wizard in the party, I'd probably just go for rogue or fighter. If the party is lacking an arcanist though, sorcerer is going to be my choice.
|
|
The Simbul comes to mind.
Heh, this from someone who looks like Elminster! (Who was the genius that said Elminster is a cross between Willy Wonka and Gandolf?)
Sure, the Simbul is awesome; I have to admit. In fact, the Witch Queen of Aglarond is one of the few non-evil characters from FR that I like.
So, what've we learned: if you're a CR36 Sorcerer, specially "chosen" by the god of magic, you get to put your name in front of a few ALREADY-IN-EXISTENCE spells. And then share them with Shmuckminster, Limpstaff Arunson and your sisters.
Nuthin' butt love to ya,
-W. E. Ray
|
|
The Simbul comes to mind.Heh, this from someone who looks like Elminster! (Who was the genius that said Elminster is a cross between Willy Wonka and Gandolf?)
Sure, the Simbul is awesome; I have to admit. In fact, the Witch Queen of Aglarond is one of the few non-evil characters from FR that I like.
So, what've we learned: if you're a CR36 Sorcerer, specially "chosen" by the god of magic, you get to put your name in front of a few ALREADY-IN-EXISTENCE spells. And then share them with Shmuckminster, Limpstaff Arunson and your sisters.
Nuthin' butt love to ya,
-W. E. Ray
And Halastar kicks the crap out of you if he wants, at CR 30 no less.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Wizards are better than Sorcerers.
Alot!
It's not even close.
Higher spell levels earlier; extra Feats; only need one high Ability Score (as opposed to high INT & CHA)
Play a Wizard.
Buy a wand.You wanna do "the combat thing" like a shmuck, er, Sorcerer, at 1st level, prepare all magic missiles. At 3rd level or your soonest opportunity buy a wand of magic missiles. Now you can do all the (one) things Sorcerers do and you also have real spells -- and an extra Feat every 5 levels.
-W. E. Ray
I have to slightly disagree. Magic missile is for saps until you hit 5th level. At 1st level you should be using sleep, or better yet, color spray, and then by 2nd you can add in burning hands or shocking grasp.
Have to agree with Molech on this one, it is a lot cheaper to buy wands for the commons spells and use Wizard slots for the oddballs you rarely need.
Cheaper to buy wands for the more common spells? This is completely backwards. You buy disposables for the stuff you use rarely and cast the stuff (for free) that you use all the time. Wands are seriously suck for most stuff because the caster level is fixed. The casters I play very rarely buy wands or scrolls... big waste of gold.
The new Staves are a big help for the sorcerer because they broaden the selection of spells available to a caster and are not disposable... of course the sorcerer has to know one spell on the staff to recharge it. To be honest I really like the Runestaff a little better than the PaizoStaff.
|
One thing many people over look with the Wizard, is that though he can be a great Swiss army knife, he can be an even better one if you choose not to prepare all your spells in the morning. You have always had the option to prepare some spells in the morning and then, take 15 minutes at a later time and prepare more. That way you are not making decisions that will cost you later. Do I prepare KNOCK on the off chance I will need it or do I prepare that extra MAGIC MISSILE?Plus as others have mentioned you can also use wands, to beef up your offensive capabilities. One other thing to keep in mind is if you choose to play an elf especially in 3.5 rules, you have the option to use a bow. Point blank shot and then Precise shot are always good options especially at low levels. This doesn't mean you have to be an arcane archer either, it is all about survivability really. You stay out of the way of the fight using a bow to soften the target and when your fighter gets into melee' well that's what MAGIC MISSILE's are for. Also a nice cherry pick is to be a specialist Wizard and then take 1 Level of Sorcerer, that way you are in now way restricted to the type of wands or magic items you can use.
Do I prepare KNOCK on the off chance I will need it or do I prepare that extra MAGIC MISSILE?
Didn't think of that. Good point.
To be honest I really like the Runestaff a little better than the PaizoStaff.What and where is the Runestaff?
Runestaff is in Magic Item Compendium... maybe the best item from the book. Actually almost certainly the best item from the book.
Runestaves have no charges, instead the caster burns spells slots to power the item's abilities. It helps allows wizards because it gives them some spontaneous spell casting, for sorcerers it essentially gives them additional spells known. Either way it's nice. Best spells IMO for runestaves are utility spells that are 'must haves' but not necessarily used every day. Teleport, fly, knock...
You have always had the option to prepare some spells in the morning and then, take 15 minutes at a later time and prepare more.
Excellent point. Incidentally Knock is one of those few perfect spells for a wand. Nothing caster dependent, just a simple effect. This sort of strategic thinking for the wizard is a great example of why the wizard rocks.
Also a nice cherry pick is to be a specialist Wizard and then take 1 Level of Sorcerer, that way you are in now way restricted to the type of wands or magic items you can use.
Hmmm... Well as of alpha 3 this is not an issue, specialists can use any magic item in the book, prohibited spells and all.
|
|
Do I prepare KNOCK on the off chance I will need it or do I prepare that extra MAGIC MISSILE?Didn't think of that. Good point.
Honestly I didn't even think of it we have a player who just rocks as a Swiss army knife effete Elf Wizard. He rides in a tent on the back of a Tensor's Floating disk that is commanded to follow the Cleric around and uses Prestidigitation to keep his self cool. Funny and at the same time quite aggravating to deal with in game, but he always has the right spell for the job so no one has slit his throat in his sleep yet, but the Halfling Monk whom he calls by the moniker "Rogue" just might one of these days.
|
|
Have to agree with Molech on this one, it is a lot cheaper to buy wands for the commons spells and use Wizard slots for the oddballs you rarely need.Cheaper to buy wands for the more common spells? This is completely backwards. You buy disposables for the stuff you use rarely and cast the stuff (for free) that you use all the time. Wands are seriously suck for most stuff because the caster level is fixed. The casters I play very rarely buy wands or scrolls... big waste of gold.
The new Staves are a big help for the sorcerer because they broaden the selection of spells available to a caster and are not disposable... of course the sorcerer has to know one spell on the staff to recharge it. To be honest I really like the Runestaff a little better than the PaizoStaff.
Unless you are buying wands with 20 or less charges, it is not more expensive:
If you pay gold for a wand of magic missile, you know you are going to use all the charges eventually, and there are only a few "combat" spells that are absolutely essential.
If you buy a wand for a utility spell, you either waste money getting 50 charges you will never use, or you have 50 wands laying around for spells you won't need. I am not saying "no wands for niche spells - a wand of knock or identify is a beautiful thing, but you can't expect to have a wand for everything you might need. I would rather have one wand of fireball (essentially a free [as in, doesn't hog XP] 6th level sorcerer) - not to mention, but a wizard can also get these wands dirt cheap with easily acquired item crafting feats.
Either way, it is never a "waste" of money to buy a wand - money exists to help you kill monsters, how you do that is up to you.
|
|
Also a nice cherry pick is to be a specialist Wizard and then take 1 Level of Sorcerer, that way you are in now way restricted to the type of wands or magic items you can use.
A good multiclass option. I prefer using Sorcerer to nab magic missile and either mage armor or shield (usually shield). Leaves your wizard levels for the interesting spells.
A good multiclass option. I prefer using Sorcerer to nab magic missile and either mage armor or shield (usually shield). Leaves your wizard levels for the interesting spells.
The Problem with using sorcerer levels for Magic Missile, Mage Armor or Shield is that those are all dependent upon your caster level and since your wizard and sorcerer levels don't stack you just have real crappy spells for the cost of 1 level (would be great spells if your level was higher... but it isn't).
Personally, I try to use my own spells that I cast for the things I really expect to cast on a regular basis. I carry around a wand of anything that I expect to want to use a lot but not necessarily in every encounter (and watch for level influenced effects... those are bad to put into magic items... so knock is fine... identify can be more easilty done with an artificers monocle or whatever from the Magic Item Compendium). Scrolls are then beautiful for fleshing out the low level caster and more importantly for any of those situational spells that will make a HUGE difference in one or two specific situations but most of the time just sit there.
Sean Mahoney
Unless you are buying wands with 20 or less charges, it is not more expensive:
If you pay gold for a wand of magic missile, you know you are going to use all the charges eventually, and there are only a few "combat" spells that are absolutely essential.
So you have a wand that is either reasonably priced and nearly useless at high levels (caster level 1) or expensive and only slightly more useful (caster level 9). Because of the low spell caster level wands are best used for spells that are level independent.
If you buy a wand for a utility spell, you either waste money getting 50 charges you will never use, or you have 50 wands laying around for spells you won't need. I am not saying "no wands for niche spells - a wand of knock or identify is a beautiful thing, but you can't expect to have a wand for everything you might need. I would rather have one wand of fireball (essentially a free [as in, doesn't hog XP] 6th level sorcerer) - not to mention, but a wizard can also get these wands dirt cheap with easily acquired item crafting feats.
The problem is that a 6th level sorcerer is pretty worthless the time you can afford to blow through a wand of fireballs. The save DC is pitiful and it averages 21 HP damage on a successful save. A failed save is 10HP... maybe you can take out a room full of kobolds.
50 wands? You propose using spell slots for utility spells, do you have 50 spell slots for them? I can see maybe 10 wands, and as you say you will likely never burn through 50 charges on most of those wands. The way you propose using wands you will burn through those same 10 wands quite quickly, and to poor effect (low damage, low DCs, low duration). Grab a wand of knock for 4500 GP, and likely never have to worry about casting knock again. Get a wand of scorching ray for the same cost, be stuck with 4d6 damage until level 20 and you will likely wind up buying 3 of them.
A wand of gaseous form is useful at nearly any level, a wand of fireballs with caster level 5? Maybe useful until 10th level.
Either way, it is never a "waste" of money to buy a wand - money exists to help you kill monsters, how you do that is up to you.
I have 4000 GP, am I going to buy another wand of fireballs or a headband of intellect? A heightened wand of MM or a cloak of resistance?
You want Fireballs? Craft a staff of fire which costs 18,000GP, lets you use your caster level and save DC, gives you wall of fire and you can recharge instead of burning up.
Yeah money is there to kill things but spending money on expendable items is a poor return on your GP.
It's like a fighter picking a stack of magic arrows versus buying a bow +1.
Personally, I try to use my own spells that I cast for the things I really expect to cast on a regular basis. I carry around a wand of anything that I expect to want to use a lot but not necessarily in every encounter (and watch for level influenced effects... those are bad to put into magic items... so knock is fine... identify can be more easilty done with an artificers monocle or whatever from the Magic Item Compendium). Scrolls are then beautiful for fleshing out the low level caster and more importantly for any of those situational spells that will make a HUGE difference in one or two specific situations but most of the time just sit there.
Exactly.
|
|
So you have a wand that is either reasonably priced and nearly useless at high levels (caster level 1) or expensive and only slightly more useful (caster level 9). Because of the low spell caster level wands are best used for spells that are level independent.
EDIT: Whoa! Long post, spoiler added:
That is true, and I admitted as much. Wand of Knock? Great. Wand of Detect Secret Doors? Fantastic. Wand of Spider Climb? Good for all of 3 rounds, which could mean death - I think we are talking at crossed-purposes. I fully agree that some spells are better in wands, but others (bull's strength, enlarge person) are better left to the caster for duration purposes.
The problem is that a 6th level sorcerer is pretty worthless the time you can afford to blow through a wand of fireballs. The save DC is pitiful and it averages 21 HP damage on a successful save. A failed save is 10HP... maybe you can take out a room full of kobolds.
I wouldn't call the ability to throw 50 fireballs in 5 minutes worthless. Are you going to waste a round fighting those kobolds? Use up a 3rd level prepared spell? Or just whip out the wand and blast 'em! Besides, 10 damage on a failed save is a heck of a lot better than rolling to hit with a magic crossbow. It seems you value liquid resources more than I do. I have no qualms about burning through a new wand in one adventure. Once you let go, you have a "blast"! ;)
50 wands? You propose using spell slots for utility spells, do you have 50 spell slots for them?
No, but you could theoretically have 50 utility spells in your spellbook(s). And although you might only need one spider-climb to reach a pesky tower-top, the wizard needs only 10 minutes to do so. The sorcerer? An entire wand.
I can see maybe 10 wands, and as you say you will likely never burn through 50 charges on most of those wands. The way you propose using wands you will burn through those same 10 wands quite quickly, and to poor effect (low damage, low DCs, low duration). Grab a wand of knock for 4500 GP, and likely never have to worry about casting knock again. Get a wand of scorching ray for the same cost, be stuck with 4d6 damage until level 20 and you will likely wind up buying 3 of them.
Which is exactly my point. At the end of the game, your sorcerer has a wand of knock with 40 charges left. Since you can sell your wand for 1/2 price, you have wasted resources. Plus, you might run out of combat-spells, the wizard keeps on truckin'.
A wand of gaseous form is useful at nearly any level, a wand of fireballs with caster level 5? Maybe useful until 10th level.
But it is a lot less painful reaching 10th level when you can fling a fireball with reckless abandon every round. No more 15 minute adventuring day!
I have 4000 GP, am I going to buy another wand of fireballs or a headband of intellect? A heightened wand of MM or a cloak of resistance?
Entirely different argument. We were discussing what wands to buy, not what is better than a wand. And a Headband of Intellect +2? Good for an evoker, but the transmuter/abjurer/diviner doesn't care, a pearl of power is a lot cheaper at low levels. As for the cloak? I would rather do an extra 3 damage with an auto-hit than have an extra 5% chance to make a saving throw. Depends on what you want your character doing.
You want Fireballs? Craft a staff of fire which costs 18,000GP, lets you use your caster level and save DC, gives you wall of fire and you can recharge instead of burning up.
Again, different argument. I never said wands were better than staves. Staves are just as good for sorcerers because they eliminate the spell-level gap. But a wizard can still craft better ones easier. Yes, staves are good.
Yeah money is there to kill things but spending money on expendable items is a poor return on your GP.
It's like a fighter picking a stack of magic arrows versus buying a bow +1.
Except a fighter can fire a bow every round as long as they have ammo (magic or mundane, and mundane ammo is dirt cheap). Even a sorcerer has a limited number of spells per day, and once you run out of combat spells the wizard with the wand of fireball is still flinging magic - hence, they kill enemies faster and gain levels faster and get more treasure and use that treasure to buy more wands, etc, etc, etc...
Really, my last sentence is a little sarcastic, but the point I am making is that it isn't a "waste" to spend gold on things. Theoretically, gold is an unlimited resource in the game - just take a few months off and make some profession checks or sell some plate mail.
And I haven't even discussed magic wands as treasure - it drives me crazy when players sell these or save them away (utility OR combat wands, it doesn't matter).
The point is, until about 9th-11th level, wands are a great resource to buy if you buy one good combat wand, or a few low-charge utility wands. I just think the combat wand is a slightly better option in the long run, as long as you use it liberally.
EDIT: Thanks for reading! Do your local hedge-wizard a favor and buy a wand.
I wouldn't call the ability to throw 50 fireballs in 5 minutes worthless. Are you going to waste a round fighting those kobolds? Use up a 3rd level prepared spell? Or just whip out the wand and blast 'em! Besides, 10 damage on a failed save is a heck of a lot better than rolling to hit with a magic crossbow. It seems you value liquid resources more than I do. I have no qualms about burning through a new wand in one adventure. Once you let go, you have a "blast"! ;)
It sounds to me like your game has more liquid resources available to players than ours does... makes for significantly different strategy. Blowing through a wand in a single adventure is certainly a blast. You also wind up broke at the end of that adventure.
I wouldn't call the ability to throw 50 fireballs in 5 minutes worthless.
....
The point is, until about 9th-11th level, wands are a great resource to buy if you buy one good combat wand, or a few low-charge utility wands. I just think the combat wand is a slightly better option in the long run, as long as you use it liberally.
I didn't say it was worthless, I said that by the time you could afford it it was worthless. The wand of fireballs is more than 1/2 the expected wealth of a 7th level character and 1/3 the wealth of a 9th level character. You as much as admit the wand is of limited use past 10th level. Would you spend 30-60% of your wealth on an item which you are going to burn up that quickly? If your character is disposable or if you get tons of gold I suppose it doesn't matter. My wizard doesn't have that much money to burn.
|
|
It sounds to me like your game has more liquid resources available to players than ours does... makes for significantly different strategy. Blowing through a wand in a single adventure is certainly a blast. You also wind up broke at the end of that adventure.
Broke but alive! :)
Yes, my groups tend to pool resources to the best available option. If that means getting the wizard a wand of fireballs at 7th level, they do it. That is a major presumption, I know.
I didn't say it was worthless, I said that by the time you could afford it it was worthless. The wand of fireballs is more than 1/2 the expected wealth of a 7th level character and 1/3 the wealth of a 9th level character. You as much as admit the wand is of limited use past 10th level. Would you spend 30-60% of your wealth on an item which you are going to burn up that quickly? If your character is disposable or if you get tons of gold I suppose it doesn't matter. My wizard doesn't have that much money to burn.
Sorry, I should have fully quoted you. I also meant "worthless at that level" - I also want to point out that crafting the wand is half price (something any of my self-respecting wizards can do), and so is a wand with 1/2 the charges. So that is 1/4 the wealth of a 7th-level character, and 1/6 that of a 9th. Yes, I would rather have that item for a few levels than a permanent item that needs to be sold or upgraded later on. Mind you, I don't ALWAYS use wands. I just prefer to use them in combat over all of my spell slots.
(edited to remove 2nd edition AD&D terminology)
On the subject of a wand of knock spells, it's not exactly useful to a character who has been strip-searched and is hanging in chains from the wall of a dungeon-cell. (Not unless the captors missed the wand somehow.) Now a wizard with a prepared knock spell (or a sorcerer with it as one of their 'spells known') is another matter altogether.... (Why else did you think that it was a verbal components only spell? :D)
Why else do you think that known spellcasters are usually gaged and chained after a few hits in the head?
Even in third edition, I seem to recall Alassra having levels of Wizard, as well as of Sorcerer.
Plus in second edition AD&D she was a pure wizard, and had several more spells that carried her name....
Your point is? She has 20 levels of Sorcerer, 2 of Archmage and 10 of Wizard ( as of the Epic Level Handbook, where she was restatted ). I guess so that she doesn´t get too powerful, because that right there is a crappy build, in comparison to what she could be. I´d think that if she would be restatted with all WotC splat books in account, she´d be a very scary Ultimate Magus for most of her levels.
Heh, this from someone who looks like Elminster! (Who was the genius that said Elminster is a cross between Willy Wonka and Gandolf?)
Well, El gets to boink the Simbul, so there. :P
Sorcerer or wizard... sorcerer or wizard... No. The original question, in the absence of data on the make up of the rest of the party, defeats me alas...
Dwarf Cleric
Human FighterElf or Halfling Rogue
Decision: Human Wizard or Gnome Sorcerer
Sorcerer or wizard... sorcerer or wizard... No. The original question, in the absence of data on the make up of the rest of the party, defeats me alas...Dwarf Cleric
Human Fighter
Elf or Halfling Rogue
Decision: Human Wizard or Gnome Sorcerer
If you want to make difficult decisions once, when you create the character or level up, then take the Sorcerer.
If you want difficult decisions everytime you rest, take the Wizard.
All in all, the Wizard is more powerful, the Sorcerer more flexible. Hence my remark that I prefer Sorcerers, because that flexibility translates to more fun play for me.
Ask your DM if he allows Runestaffs in his campaign... if yes, that also solves a lot of the limited spell selection problems of the Sorcerer.
Ask your DM if he allows Runestaffs in his campaign... if yes, that also solves a lot of the limited spell selection problems of the Sorcerer.
May have been unclear from the original post. I'M the DM. :) I'll check those out; the players are pretty reasonable so I don't foresee anyone looking to abuse anything.
May have been unclear from the original post. I'M the DM. :) I'll check those out; the players are pretty reasonable so I don't foresee anyone looking to abuse anything.
Oh, good. :) I also have two groups with reasonable players, it always is much nicer that way. Especially the high levels.
If you want to make difficult decisions once, when you create the character or level up, then take the Sorcerer.
If you want difficult decisions everytime you rest, take the Wizard.
All in all, the Wizard is more powerful, the Sorcerer more flexible. Hence my remark that I prefer Sorcerers, because that flexibility translates to more fun play for me.
QFT.
Though most people who play wizards don't take the time to select spells every time, they just memorize the same spells every time and change them when they get a new spell or if one spell isn't working well.
I've played both and like them both... but I think sorcerer is a little more fun especially under the Alpha 3 rules.
I'm not sure that "flexible" is the word you want to describe the sorcerer; after all, his spell choices are set in stone (that's "inflexible" to me). He's "flexible" only inasfar as which of his (very limited number of) spells known he chooses to use. The wizard is "flexible" inasfar as he can prepare spells for any occasion -- if you're playing Prince of Redhand, the wizard can ignore all his combat spells and instead prepare things like detect thoughts, etc. The sorcerer is stuck with his "dungeoneering" list, which probably consists of attack spells, battlefield control spells, and general utility spells (fly, etc.) -- none of which are doing him any good in that situation, so it really doesn't matter much if he can ignore fireball and cast fly six times instead. Maybe we should say the wizard is "adaptible," vs. the sorcerer's greater staying power.
Of course, I tend to play in combat-lite, espionage-heavy campaigns, in which you never know what kind of oddball spell is going to be needed next. Playing a fighter or sorcerer under those conditions is suicidal; rogues and wizards are the kings of the game. If dungeon crawls are more the norm, however, fighters and sorcerers are WAY better. Depends on what you want to do with them.
OP:
You speak as though you are the DM of the group.
If so:
Do you readily allow the group to purchase magic items they want and can afford?
Do you readily give out spell books as rewards? Do you create new spells for the PC's to find, as part of enemy hoards and stashes?
Do the PC's have any idea "what kind of campaign" they are going into, or will they find that out as they go along?
(sometimes you know the campaign arc and the "theme" sometimes not. It can make a difference).
The fewer magical items shops there are, they more arcane casters should be wizards rather than sorcerors. The more likely you are to put unique spells in spellbooks, the more likely it should be a wizard.
The more they know about the campaign, the better off the sorceror is.
What level is it going to? Are you starting at 1? 3? 5? higher?
The problem with sorc's isn't their limited spell selection- the problem is When they choose that new spell.
Fireball is all well and good until 2 levels later when your PC's are fighting 100% red-half dragon monsters. Then fireball sucks.
Lightning is good until the BBEG and the campaign arc encompassing it is made of up blue-half dragon critters.
Knowledge is power and the Sorc needs *alot* of foreknowledge.
For the wizard it's a bad day and a new spell list the next morning and all is well.
For the sorceror, well.. he's just screwed until the next time he can level up and swap it out.
But I would say: If your PC is having this much trouble, suggest he go to a different class. Not every person is cut out to be a wizard/sorc (or cleric.. or druid, for that matter). Some folks just don't want to take the time to pay attention to the spells- and those classes are *all* about the spells.
-S
I tend to think of sorcerers as role oriented. You build a sorcerer to fit one specific role, much as a fighter build his character around either melee or ranged combat a sorcerer is built around some core party roles. The sorcerer is very tightly bound to that role, and generally uses magic items to do anything outside the role. UMD on the skill list means they can really kick butt with the magic items... Staff of life? Of course with their INT so high wizards can max out UMD also but they they are always 6+ ranks behind the sorcerer.
Do you readily allow the group to purchase magic items they want and can afford?
No. It's Rise of the Runelords, so they'll be in and around Sandpoint a lot. Even if they go to Magnimmar, I don't plan on letting their selecting be very good. I believe magic items should be either A) found or B) made.
Do you readily give out spell books as rewards? Do you create new spells for the PC's to find, as part of enemy hoards and stashes?
I never create new spells, but I do have spellbooks as part of treasure hoards.
Do the PC's have any idea "what kind of campaign" they are going into, or will they find that out as they go along?
(sometimes you know the campaign arc and the "theme" sometimes not. It can make a difference).
Gonna find out as they go along. None of the guys has ever played with me before as DM. I've been a player alongside another guy, but that wasn't for very long. Once Pathfinder came out, I just HAD to get a group together.
What level is it going to? Are you starting at 1? 3? 5? higher?
Starting at 1.
He's actually a very experienced player and has played both Sorcerors and Wizards. Just having a tough time deciding since he hasn't played in a while.
The problem with sorc's isn't their limited spell selection- the problem is When they choose that new spell.
Fireball is all well and good until 2 levels later when your PC's are fighting 100% red-half dragon monsters. Then fireball sucks.
Lightning is good until the BBEG and the campaign arc encompassing it is made of up blue-half dragon critters.
Knowledge is power and the Sorc needs *alot* of foreknowledge.
For the wizard it's a bad day and a new spell list the next morning and all is well.
Personally I think the DM needs to help all of his players a bit... it's a fine line but should you let your ranger pick 2 favored enemies he will never encounter? Same thing with the sorcerer.
For my group, I dropped a meta-magic rod of energy substitution (cold) for the sorcerer. A 3000GP item and suddenly he is much more flexible. The same effect can be accomplished at higher levels by dropping a PaizoStaff (the staves from alpha 3) or a RuneStaff for the sorcerer.
I'm not saying the GM should make it easy for everyone and let them know exactly what's coming up but the DM shouldn't just let the player paint himself into a corner where he is useless either. Of course if you drop some major hints and the player is daft about it then let him have it :)
|
|
Do you readily allow the group to purchase magic items they want and can afford?
No. It's Rise of the Runelords, so they'll be in and around Sandpoint a lot. Even if they go to Magnimmar, I don't plan on letting their selecting be very good. I believe magic items should be either A) found or B) made.
Do you readily give out spell books as rewards? Do you create new spells for the PC's to find, as part of enemy hoards and stashes?
I never create new spells, but I do have spellbooks as part of treasure hoards.
Do the PC's have any idea "what kind of campaign" they are going into, or will they find that out as they go along?
(sometimes you know the campaign arc and the "theme" sometimes not. It can make a difference).
Gonna find out as they go along. None of the guys has ever played with me before as DM. I've been a player alongside another guy, but that wasn't for very long. Once Pathfinder came out, I just HAD to get a group together.
What level is it going to? Are you starting at 1? 3? 5? higher?
Starting at 1.
He's actually a very experienced player and has played both Sorcerors and Wizards. Just having a tough time deciding since he hasn't played in a while.
Well, if you are doing Runelords, this changes my argument for why the player should pick a wizard:
1) Knowledge skills help investigate the ruins/runes.
2) Int based skills help solve problems, decode script, idenitfy enemies.
3) Roleplaying-wise there is more for wizards in Sandpoint.
That is my opinion after preparing my RR1 adventure.
|
|
Why else do you think that known spellcasters are usually gaged and chained after a few hits in the head?
Or, in the case of my Human Scout character, who treats his enemies as worthless scum: spellcasters are stripped naked, have their jaw broken and their wrists smashed. Spellcast your way out of that.
|
|
*Only glazed over these posts*
To the OP DM, all jokes aside:
If the Player is a newbie, go with Sorcerer. Players running Wizards have to make -- as has already been mentioned -- tough decisions. And those decisions are only made well by experienced Players. In fact, for newbies I would prefer to only ALLOW 3 choices: Sorcerer, Monk, Barbarian. At the first two levels or so, these classes are the best for a newbie to figure out this complex game we play without being overwhelmed.
. . . .
"Flexible" is most certainly not the word for Sorcerer. More like "straight jacket."
. . . .
Well I'll be the first to admit I don't know a tenth of the RAW but I GUARANTEE that if a Player running a Wizard said to me, I can prepare half of my spells in the morning for 1/2 an hour and then later in the day spend 15 minutes for some more and then 15 minutes later on for the rest of them, I would "politely" tell him he has to toss the salad of the next three monsters the group encounters. And then I'd spend a good time plying through my books to choose what to throw at the group
If you want to run a Wizard with this ability choose the "Mage of the Arcane Order" PrC.
. . . .
Not in MY homebrew does Shmuckminster get to boink The Simbul! ;)
(Nothin' butt luv for you)
-W. E. Ray
|
|
Well I'll be the first to admit I don't know a tenth of the RAW but I GUARANTEE that if a Player running a Wizard said to me, I can prepare half of my spells in the morning for 1/2 an hour and then later in the day spend 15 minutes for some more and then 15 minutes later on for the rest of them, I would "politely" tell him he has to toss the salad of the next three monsters the group encounters. And then I'd spend a good time plying through my books to choose what to throw at the group ** spoiler omitted **. AIN'T NO FRIGGIN WAY he's getting that by this DM.
Then you are houseruling, and should make it clear to wizard players they do not have this option. You can houserule if you want, I am not suggesting you stop.
Spell Preparation Time
After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.Spell Selection and Preparation
Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.
I tend to choose the sorceror and buy spells that you know you're going to use a lot. I use scrolls for the spells you might need once in while, and wands/staves for things you know you're going to use eventually and that aren't too penalized by caster level.
I've seen several games where a sorceror cast fly or invisibility on a whole party - something a wizard can rarely do. This uses up most or all of a sorceror's spells of that level, but it can be invaluable in some cases. True, a wizard can do that with a wand, but unless the wand was made with a high caster level the duration is more limited. And sorcerors can get the same wands.
One of the best combos is a sorceror teamed up with a wizard. Having another spellcaster allows one to focus on untility and the other to focus on combat. Often in this case a warmage and wizard make a good team.
|
|
You know, I was going to read your post until I saw "RAW wrote:" and
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
and quickly ignored the post.
** spoiler omitted **
Leaves of Grass hit the ground in 3.82 seconds.
Where's my dollar?!
Believe me, I am no more a slave to RAW than you, I add rules to RAW all the time. I was just pointing out that wizards can prepare spells when they want, which makes sense to me. I was just providing you with the information in case you wanted it.
If you choose to ignore my comments, that's fine.
You know, I was going to read your post until I saw "RAW wrote:" and
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
and quickly ignored the post.
** spoiler omitted **
Leaves of Grass hit the ground in 3.82 seconds.
Where's my dollar?!
GEEK FIGHT! GEEK FIGHT!