Conjuror vs Abyssal. The conjuror wont rely upon his summons but on the various cloud spells and battlefield control spells granted to him by his class to succesfully neutralize such an opponent.
Once again we have prick waving on who can kill whom. I am very impressed that you can come up with a way to kill an opponent that you know everything about. I really am. So what spell will you cast to determine your opponents powers and weaknesses when you meet them for the first time?
The Dragon gets wings for free and there is nothing stopping him from taking improved invisibility and resist elements also.
Now look who's dick waving.
Every counter example anyone gives the only argument you have is "yeah well there's nothing keeping my hypothetical sorcerer from having the same spells" or "I can buy a bunch of scrolls, neener neener". Yeah, sure, if you're building a sorcerer to fight a specific fight, and they're all by their lonesome, then yes the extremely specialized sorcerer will out mage the wizard *rolls eyes*.If we're going to continue with this banal hypothetical about a wizard and a sorcerer fighting (why fight? let's be friends!) then any fight that DOESN'T start by the wizard scrying on the sorcerer for days then preparing exactly the right spells is forcing the fight out of the perview of the wizard.
Back to the topic though, it's not an argument of power. Personally, as a specialist wizard with a couple prohibited schools I'll likely never use (evocation, necromancy) or can easily use on scrolls/wands, and when operating within a well formed adventuring party, sacrificing 1 (ONE!) spell slot of each level per day in comparison to the sorcerer is a fair trade for the near infinite versatility my spellbook(s) affords me.
However, if your campaign is more of a kick down the door kill the bad guys take the loot rinse repeat sort of game then sorc is for you. Just pick the right spells and diversify. Don't pass up spells like Haste or Solid Fog or Confusion just because they don't directly damage an opponent.
Yes, back to the point, even the Clerics and Druids got a bone. Druids! One of the single most broken character classes in 3.5 got more goodies in PFRPG than the Wizard. What gives? Is that bonded object really all that? One spell of your choice a day? Or is it the pathetic 3+INT abilities? The "beefy" 8th level abilities that pale against the Sorcerer 9th level powers?
Wizards were ALREADY arguably the most powerful class. They didn't need a "bone". However they got several.
Please. Show me the monster with 200 hp that is going to fail a DC 20 fortitude save against stinking cloud.Sorry; I was insufficiently clear. Let me put it this way:
Big, tough monster --> use hold monster instead.
Super-caster BBEG --> use baleful polymorph instead.
Army of mooks you don't want to fight through --> use stinking cloud.The point is that there's a "save or lose the fight" spell for every type of opponent. Damage does nothing to impede the enemy's fighting ability. We feel like it should, so we have a tendency to act like it does, but no game mechanic exists in Pathfinder for it to do so. If loss of hp led to fatigue and exhaustion, then direct-damage would suddenly become a very good strategy for a caster.
People don't want to play blasters because they are the most effective characters, people want to play blasters because they just want to BLOW THINGS UP. There are a lot of players who don't know which spells are most effective against which creatures and they really aren't interested in digging through the rulebooks enough to figure that out. For these people blasting is just as effective as other strategies.
I enjoy playing wizards and trying to find the ultimate way of defusing a situation. Sometimes I want to play a character where I really don't have to put that much thought into the character because I just want to have fun and roleplay. Ultimately, wizards are more work to play than sorcerers are. You wind up constantly fiddling with spell lists, sometimes more than once per game day. The ultimate tweak ability of the wizard is probably why the wizard is the king of kick ass.
Wizard is the ultimate class if you are an expert PLAYER. For a lot of folks they aren't interested in investing that much effort into the game.
People don't want to play blasters because they are the most effective characters, people want to play blasters because they just want to BLOW THINGS UP.
Exactly correct! So to compare blasting ability as a measure of class effectiveness makes no sense, which was ultimately the point.
People don't want to play blasters because they are the most effective characters, people want to play blasters because they just want to BLOW THINGS UP.Exactly correct! So to compare blasting ability as a measure of class effectiveness makes no sense, which was ultimately the point.
I guess I lost track of which thought chain you were replying on. So yeah I'm on board with you. Talking about how good at blasting the wizard is is kind of like comparing how good the wizard is in melee. While it measures something it isn't really measuring what they are good at.
Unless you know your DM is going to be handing out spells and letting you know what you are about to encounter, taking a Wizard is like gimping yourself for RP reasons. Maybe it won't matter, and you'll be just as cool, or you could have a fear of water where the last part of the adventure involves fighting at the bottom of the sea!
#1 wizards are decent with just the 2 spells per level they get. They are not as versatile but they still have more spells known than the sorcerer and they still get their spells a full level earlier.
#2 Most GMs give wizards SOME access to additional spells. Either by finding spellbooks or finding scrolls, or something. While I don't think 100% unfettered access is the norm, zero access is also not very common.
#3 If your GM is going to shaft you then there is nothing you can do about it. It's just as likely (maybe more so) that your GM will let you build a red dragon blooded sorcerer then encounter 6 levels of creatures with fire resistance. I know plenty of folks who have never used their ranger favored enemy because their GM didn't clue them in to good FE options. It's a cooperative game, GMs should help characters build viable characters and not letting wizards learn ANY additional spells in my eyes is just as bad as pitting that sorcerer against fire resistant enemies.
I realize this isn't really on-topic, but it's highly related. I've always thought Sorc's should have an "over-channel" ability. Where they can sacrifice hp - or take nonlethal damage - to continue casting spells past their daily limit.
I would be ok with this as a feat possibility but I would make the penalty Charisma damage. You take 1d3+spell level charisma damage for pushing to hard.
This could be very powerful but you would think twice about abusing it.
I realize this isn't really on-topic, but it's highly related. I've always thought Sorc's should have an "over-channel" ability. Where they can sacrifice hp - or take nonlethal damage - to continue casting spells past their daily limit.I would be ok with this as a feat possibility but I would make the penalty Charisma damage. You take 1d3+spell level charisma damage for pushing to hard. This could be very powerful but you would think twice about abusing it.
That sounded like a great idea, until I realized that a sorcerer and a cleric cohort with a wand of lesser restoration could go around all day killing everything that moved, using the sorcerer's best spell each time... mooks, baddies, rats, townsfolk), leaving nothing for the other party members to do... and never run out (until the wand was empty).
|
That sounded like a great idea, until I realized that a sorcerer and a cleric cohort with a wand of lesser restoration could go around all day killing everything that moved, using the sorcerer's best spell each time... mooks, baddies, rats, townsfolk... and never run out (until the wand was empty), and leave nothing for the other party members to do.I realize this isn't really on-topic, but it's highly related. I've always thought Sorc's should have an "over-channel" ability. Where they can sacrifice hp - or take nonlethal damage - to continue casting spells past their daily limit.I would be ok with this as a feat possibility but I would make the penalty Charisma damage. You take 1d3+spell level charisma damage for pushing to hard. This could be very powerful but you would think twice about abusing it.
Make it drain. That way they have to pay the diamond dust cost for Restoration every time at least
Charisma drain sounds good, but I still think 1d3+spell level is way too much (though my suggestion may be too little)
If it's drain, drop the "1d3+" part, and just use spell level. Simpler, easier to remember, less dice rolling.
EDIT: Or, if you love looking up things on tables and rolling dice (some people do), make it a scaling variable:
1st level spell = 1 drain
2nd level spell = 1d2 drain
3rd level spell = 1d3 drain
4th level spell = 1d4 drain
5th level spell = 1d6 drain
6th level spell = 1d8 drain
7th level spell = 1d10 drain
8th level spell = 2d6 drain
9th level spell = 2d8 drain
Just a couple points to bring up.
If your going to be using Summon Monster, you WANT Augment Summoning. Alot of conjuration effects are pretty nice, though some like glitterdust and web did get toned back a bit, so spell focus conjuration isn't a total waste of space, and AS gives... wait for it... +2 to hit, +2 damage (+3 in the cases of summons who's primary attack is treated as a two handed attack), +2HP per hit dice, and, thank you Paizo, 2 more natural armor.
This goes a long way to boosting a summons combat potential, particularly at the lower levels, though at the higher levels the HP does add up.
Pathfinder's summons actually have been improved to the point Summon Monster is about on par with Summon Nature's ally, which is a big improvement.
If your summons aren't hitting as often as they should be, have them flank, I'm sure your rogue would appreciate the sneak attacks, or your fighter the extra to-hit and somebody else potentially taking some of the heat (since summon monsters ARE weaker, it's common for a DM to have an enemy's weaker iterative attacks launched at them, it's one less chance for a lucky crit on the fighter)
You'd have to see an effective summoner in action to understand my perspective, I played one for an entire campaign, level 3 through 22, and I know what I'm talking about lol (the pathfinder benefits are just an analasys based on the rules, but it's been a long known fact that summon nature's ally used to dominate summon monster)
Oh, and one more thing, Summon Monster is a HUGE benefit for the sorcerer because all those summons have lots of special abilities, utilities he can't afford the spell known slot for but could benefit from often.
Edit: Also, if the enemy spellcaster is blowing an action dismissing or dispelling your summon, isn't that a good thing? For starters he could fail and totally waste his action, and regardless he's spending that turn trying to get rid of them rather than trying to dominate your fighter or cloudkill you all.
If the summons are on par with summon nature's ally that would be great, but having summons that last longer than the wizard does not matter when the fight is over before the summons expire anyway. Most fights I have seen last 3-5 rounds. For other people YMMV.
As far as the opposing caster spending his action to get rid of your summons it is great if you cast the spell before combat because you basically got a free round, but if you cast it during combat then nobody gained anything.
Reply to an earlier post: I know many summons have SLA's that are nice to have, but there are not enough good summons to justify the spell(IMHO), and the wizard can probably cast whatever spells the summon can cast anyway.
I always play sorcerers instead of wizards because I dont like doing the book keeping that comes with a spellbook. The sorcerer has a few tricks now, but it will take more than that to make him better than a wizard.
They are however subject to dispel magic and dismissal.As well as protection from X, yes. None of which were exceptionally common amongst random enemies in 3.5. We'll see when the bestiary comes out. One must likewise factor in fail rates, save rates, resistances, and immunities if one is to compare other combat spells.
They normally are not level appropriate creatures so barring a lucky high roll, can't hit the enemy. If they can't hit me they are not a threat. If they are not a threat I will ignore them and try to kill the caster before he does something useful.
Barring perhaps the first tier (Summon Monster I), this was incorrect in 3.5. Particularly if the summoned creatures were capable of benefiting from flanking, Augment Summoning, and/or multi-person buffs such as Haste. As above, we'll see how attack bonuses scale with AC when the bestiary comes out. In the mean time, I invite you to compare the bonuses and respective ACs of appropriate creatures from 3.5.
Example: Black Bear (Summon Monster III) with 3 attacks at +6/+6/+1 versus:
A Cloaker (Cr 5) or Bearded Devil at AC 19: 69% chance of doing damage per round
A Basilisk at AC 16: 86% chance per round
A Level 5 NPC Fighter at AC 21: 60% chance per round(3.5 creature list used because we know the appropriate stats)
The general AC trend listed in the 3.5 MM was: 13+CR...against which the ABs scaled very well. Particularly keeping in mind that one often faced multiple lower-level/HD opponents rather than a single CR-equivalent foe.
The fighter
6+15(dice)=21That mean a 1 to 14 misses
14/20= 70% miss chance = 30% hit chance
but more attacks so you math is correct. Hoping to hit me(assuming I am the fighter) once out of 3 times is not something to worry about.
The Basilisk would most likely have the bear turned to stone after taking about 6 hp of damage.
If the cloaker gets hit by a bear at all I need to talk to the DM.
I might need to play in a normal campaign and try the summon thing myself.
more griping about summoning
Why not make another thread on the merits of summoning under PfRPG? I really wouldn't mind talking about how wrong you are but don't want to derail this thread.
I ask again. Are you going to run a wizard?
The dragon does more damage with a certain energy type. Dealing more damage in one energy type does not make you a better blaster. As shown before the wizard can do more damage in all energy types.
All specialist are handicapped. I think this is more of a play style issue, but to limit myself in such a way is a big nerf. They depend on selecting the correct school to prohibit to much.
The Universalist still dominates the game. The power of unlimited spells simply can't be measured.
How ironic - the house-ruled 3.5 is itself getting house-ruled. I love it!It's not ironic at all, perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means? And every single version of every RPG that's played has house rules.
Dear Mr. Snarky: Dictionary.com gives one of the definitions of "ironic" as "unexpected." So it seems it can mean precisely what I thought it meant.
Dear Mr. Snarky: Dictionary.com gives one of the definitions of "ironic" as "unexpected." So it seems it can mean precisely what I thought it meant.How ironic - the house-ruled 3.5 is itself getting house-ruled. I love it!It's not ironic at all, perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means? And every single version of every RPG that's played has house rules.
Why do you think it's unexpected that an RPG has house rules? Considering every other RPG on the planet has house rules... why should this one be an exception?
more griping about summoningWhy not make another thread on the merits of summoning under PfRPG? I really wouldn't mind talking about how wrong you are but don't want to derail this thread.
I am now realizing summons were probably useless because I am not used to fighting below CR enemies past level 5. I think I need to play a less difficult campaign than what I am used to. Someone also said PF summons are more powerful than 3.5 summons.
On another note a sorcerer that is specialized in an aree will be better than a wizard in that area, but I was speaking of overall effectiveness.
I think specialist wizards are worse than any sorcerer. If you want to specialize just play a sorcerer. With the amount of feats they get now it is not hard to do.
I think that defining "power" would have to be done before this discussion could be continued, and I am to lazy to have a pre-debate.
I think we will have to agree to disagree for the moment.
Oh, and FYI, if you are of the opinion that the 3.5 Wizard was the most powerful core class, you did not play with a good Druid player.
Yes, that's why druids and clerics were "codzilla." But pointing out that the druid was awesome (which we all knew) doesn't make the wizard less so. Rather, it underscores what intelligent players have understood for years -- that at higher levels ALL of the full casters are head and shoulders above the warriors. Buffing the wizard more isn't going to help that.
I've always been of the opinion that they seem fairly even with one another with their respective strengths and weaknesses. Admittedly this depends very much on the individual game and situation.
I tend to focus on fun a bit more than anything though, something I am trying for my current game is giving spontaneous casters their spell levels at the same as everyone else, and their bloodline spells at first level of the new spell level. Wizards on the other hand can canst spontaneously from their spellbooks if they leave slots open. Its not easy, they're considered flatfooted, can't cast defensively and it takes a round per level of the spell; but its great for utility spells you don't plan on using in a fight, and might lead to "Cover me a minute guys" moments.
Oh, and I'm using one of Monte's less out there ideas, and giving them a feat every level. That goes for NPCs as well. ;p
The power of the Wizard is versatility! Unlimited spells! If you are a good PLAYER you can make it work!
So when did 4 spell slots per level become defined as Unlimited?
A good player can make the Expert NPC class work. Is that desirable or even fun?
Oh, and I'm using one of Monte's less out there ideas, and giving them a feat every level. That goes for NPCs as well. ;p
I like that idea but it seems a bit much. I would give them a bonus feat every even level like the fighters get but open it up to any feat that has anything to do with spell casting.
Combat casting
Spell Penetration
Spell Focus
Magical Aptitude
ect..
And that will be great especially if he ditches wizard and becomes an Arcane Trickster.
Just as a reminder, though this may have been posted elsewhere on the thread, you must evaluate the 'awesomeness' of a character class in context with the world or adventure in which they exist.
The wizard certainly has spell versatility on his side, but that versatility is dependent on available resources, sufficient time and a static goal. If she knows exactly what she wants to do and has all the time in the world to get just the right spell and set up the pieces in precisely the right way, then yes - she's going to lay opponents low without blinking in a way that no other class can even hope to match. Conversely, if she doesn't have time to switch out spells, find the proper spell that she doesn't already have, or the situation to which she is heading into changes without her knowledge, then she could be in real trouble.
On the other hand, the sorcerer does not have the benefits of time and resources behind her and can't set up the perfect storm of conditions, but that's OK - that's not what the sorcerer does. The sorcerer is about flexibility in the moment, not flexibility in preparation. She probably doesn't have exactly the right spell for the situation at hand, but odds are that she has always has something that will make do, even if it's ham-fisted and requires multiple castings. Consider also that sorcerers can more quickly switch to non-magical options, utilizing high CHA to wield her words and particularly in Pathfinder, may have claws or a breath weapon or some sort of bloodline ability to buy herself a round or two in combat if the tanks get distracted or make a mistake. For an excellent example of how a sorcerer can be just as powerful as a wizard, I suggest reading any of Terry Pratchett's DiscWorld novels that features Granny Weatherwax.
In short, the question is do you want to fiddle around looking for the key to open the lock or are you content to use a crowbar?
I noticed Stinking Cloud being mentioned a couple of times, but can anyone explain to me who it is useful?
I know it might not be a right topic to ask but I ask anyways.
By its description if you fail the save you cannot do anything but move. If you pass you can act normally but if you stay inside you need to get out unless you want to roll a save each round.
It also has effects of Fog Cloud.
OK, so on a open plain (or forest and similar places with plenty of space to move) almost everyone (expect those that are REALLY slow) will be able to get out in one round as its radius is only 20ft and Fog Cloud spell (whose effects is copies as well) does not limit movement.
Web at least limits movement even if you pass the save.
I noticed Stinking Cloud being mentioned a couple of times, but can anyone explain to me who it is useful?
I know it might not be a right topic to ask but I ask anyways.By its description if you fail the save you cannot do anything but move. If you pass you can act normally but if you stay inside you need to get out unless you want to roll a save each round.
It also has effects of Fog Cloud.OK, so on a open plain (or forest and similar places with plenty of space to move) almost everyone (expect those that are REALLY slow) will be able to get out in one round as its radius is only 20ft and Fog Cloud spell (whose effects is copies as well) does not limit movement.
Web at least limits movement even if you pass the save.
Think of Stinking Cloud as Tear Gas and its utility becomes more obvious. Somewhat effective for clearing small areas without causing actual harm - Clearing the criminals out of the barn to be arrested is better than fireballing the barn - at least the guy who owns the barn thinks so.
I noticed Stinking Cloud being mentioned a couple of times, but can anyone explain to me who it is useful?
I know it might not be a right topic to ask but I ask anyways.By its description if you fail the save you cannot do anything but move. If you pass you can act normally but if you stay inside you need to get out unless you want to roll a save each round.
It also has effects of Fog Cloud.OK, so on a open plain (or forest and similar places with plenty of space to move) almost everyone (expect those that are REALLY slow) will be able to get out in one round as its radius is only 20ft and Fog Cloud spell (whose effects is copies as well) does not limit movement.
Web at least limits movement even if you pass the save.
Think of Stinking Cloud as Tear Gas and its utility becomes more obvious. Somewhat effective for clearing small areas without causing actual harm - Clearing the criminals out of the barn to be arrested is better than fireballing the barn - at least the guy who owns the barn thinks so.
Actually that is not a good comparison because prolonged exposure to teargas can damage and injure a person.
Web at least limits movement even if you pass the save.But you need to have it anchored, or it collapses in on itself(as per PRD), which means in an open area, the spell can be useless(unless your DM allows you to anchor it to two enemies). Stinking Cloud has no such restriction.
Yes but Web does not have a spell of the grade of Fireball to compare itself to.
I still find Stinking Cloud a bit weak. Maybe if it does your lvl damage per round or half your lvl damage it would be better.
Yes but Web does not have a spell of the grade of Fireball to compare itself to.
I still find Stinking Cloud a bit weak. Maybe if it does your lvl damage per round or half your lvl damage it would be better.
I think of stinking cloud as a natural progression of the same spell series. If, for some reason, you didn't want to take the fog cloud spell, or couldn't, but want its utility plus some, then go with the latter.
Stinking Cloud might primarily be useful for getting your party through a mass of low level npcs/monsters without incurring AoO, when your party wants to specifically avoid attacking said npcs/monsters.
With that said, I wouldn't mind it doing subdual damage, but lethal damage?
"Oh, my god! That foul odor! It's going to make my Olfactory sense explode!" SPLORCH
What is your goal? Most offensive spells have a target they are most effective against. In the cast of stinking cloud it's most effective against casters and other low creatures who have a low fortitude save. As an example, you encounter a wizard who is bombing you with spells from the safety of a balcony and he has a horde of minions who are keeping you from effectively attacking him. You could use fireball but unless you actually kill him he is going to keep bombing your party with spells.
Hit him with stinking cloud and the very least you've done is block line of sight so you can deal with the minions. You have also cast a spell which attacks what is likely his weakest save, and unless he has dispel magic he has to either repeat the save every round, come at you, or flee. In any case he can't effectively attack your party until he deals with the cloud.
Similarly for creatures with low will saves you hit them with spells that require will saves.
FWIW... stinking cloud is super nasty in confined areas if your minions are immune to it's effects.
Horde of zombies no big deal. Hit them with stinking cloud then unleash the horde of zombies when the party has to make saves every round and suddenly it's a little scarier.
Actually that is not a good comparison because prolonged exposure to teargas can damage and injure a person.
Think of Stinking Cloud as Tear Gas and its utility becomes more obvious. Somewhat effective for clearing small areas without causing actual harm - Clearing the criminals out of the barn to be arrested is better than fireballing the barn - at least the guy who owns the barn thinks so.
Prolonged exposure, yes, but well in excess of a the duration of a typical encounter, thus the compulsion to flee. I am a veteran, so I have some experience with exposure to tear gas. For all practical purposes, it is a fair, if rough, comparison - minus the burning/watering eyes, perhaps. Such interpretation has always worked for me anyway - YMMV :)
After reading this post, my opinion (a not so experienced players opinion) is that we have two houses the sorcerer's house and the wizards house.
The sorcerers house has just gained an amazing new paint with the coming of pathfinder, now the wizards house didn't gain such an amazing paint and is jealous. So we wizard lovers would just like is a new painting to our house so the wizards get something to and isn't left behind the new shining sorcerer. Nothing major IMO but something to make the people satisfied but not unbalance it.
For better or worse, the Wizard - played to the hilt - is still far more powerful than the Sorcerer.
I'd like to Dispel Magic on some myths in the following comparison.
The first is that the Sorcerer gains more spell power per day: as the following shows, he gains more spells - by a whisker - but roughly equal levels of spell power. This is true even at even levels, when the classes are at their closest.
I also want to show that while the Sorcerer bloodlines are full of traps for the unwary, the Wizard schools offer some extremely powerful and relevant abilities - often less showy yet more useful than their Sorcerous equivalents.
So, Wizard and Sorcerer, with school and bloodline. I'm going with two of the more powerful suites: Divination for the Wizard, and Red Draconic for the Sorcerer. The latter gives plenty of blastery punch, some defense, Perception as the blood skill, and good feats.
** Level 1 **
16 casting stat for both. Our Diviner can cast 4 first-level spells each day: 1 base, plus 1 stat, plus 1 school, plus 1 bonded item (which is a ring). As an absolute minimum, he knows 6 first-level spells.
He has a useful bonus feat, one which is core to playing a Wizard to the hilt; Scribe Scroll. With this in mind he picks some spells which he will memorise each day, and some which are crucial when specifically required - Mount, say, and Floating Disc. He scribes copies of these. So please note: already the Wizard has access to all his spells via a free class feat. The Sorcerer can take the same feat, but it costs him and is much less useful, since he can already cast more spells than he knows. Scribe Scroll plays to the Wizard's strengths, not the Sorcerer's.
Lastly, the Diviner gets his school abilities. He always acts in the surprise round. He gets +1 Initiative. The Initiative plus will go up later, and he'll get some gravy, but he already has a superb ability here, one that any spellcaster would desire.
Now the Draconic Sorcerer. Just like the Diviner, he can cast 4 first-level spells each day. He only knows 2, though, no more than a Bard.
He does have Use Magic Device, which is an advance over 3.5, and worth mentioning.
His red dragon bloodline gives him a typical rattlebag of ablities at this point. He gets +1/die fire damage, and claws. The claws are a trap, of course. However you build this fellow, he should never be using those claws. All they represent is flavour. The fire damage sounds good...but taken together, these things are not a fraction as useful to a spellcaster as the ability to always act in a surprise round.
At this level, the Wizard is well ahead.
** Level 6 **
19 casting stats (+1 from levelling, +2 from items)
The Diviner has 5 first, 5 second, and 5 third level spells per day. The Sorcer has 6 first, 6 second and 4 third. Pretty close, in spells per day - the Sorcerer wins by one. But the Wizard has better quality spells - and the casters have equal spell levels. Count 'em up. In terms of raw spell power per day, the Wizard draws in the precise area where the Sorcerer is supposed to excel, even at an even level. At odd levels hereabouts he draws ahead.
The Diviner knows - as a minimum - 8 first, 4 second and 4 third level spells. The Sorcerer knows 5 first, 3 second and 1 third. A Bard knows more second level spells than a Sorcerer: that's how limited the Sorcerer is. By this point, too, a RAI campaign will have seen the adventurers come across numerous scrolls, and perhaps a spellbook, all of which the Wizard has copied; but even at minimum, the Wizard is well ahead.
The Wizard also has a second class feat, which is optimally spent on Craft Wondrous Item. He has crafted himself a Headband+2 (if he hasn't found one already) and two Handy Haversacks (for 2k), which are filled with scrolls of everything he knows, retrievable as move actions. In other words, he can cast anything he knows, and in a 'nova' situation, he is far more powerful than the Sorcerer (who, again, can scribe if he wants to waste a feat, but lacks the spell variety to make it count).
The Sorcerer now has, courtesy of his bloodline, magic claws. He also has resist 5 fire and +1 natural armour. The claws were a trap at the outset and still are. The resist and armour are peripherally useful. None of it compares meaningfully to always acting in the surprise round. The Diviner also has +3 Initiative from his school, now. He almost certainly takes Improved Initiative, too. With a decent Dexterity, he's approaching +10 Initiative already. Not only does he act in the surprise rounds, but he tends to act first. For a spellcaster, that can be decisive.
** Level 10 **
The Wizard now has a casting stat of 24, courtesy of crafting a Headband+6. Most DMs won't willingly give up that kind of loot yet, so the Sorcerer has a Headband+4, and a stat of 22. That's the power of crafting for ya.
The Wizard casts 7 first, 7 second, 6 third, 5 fourth and 5 fifth level spells each day. The Sorcerer casts 8 first, 8 second, 7 third, 6 fourth and 4 fifth. That's three extra spells for the Sorcerer! And the Sorcerer even has more spell levels - 89 to 84. Sorcerer wins in raw spell power at the even level...but perhaps by surprisingly little. It's close, and at odd levels the balance inverts. So in terms of spell power per day the Sorcerer is just ahead at even levels, the Wizard at odd.
The Wizard has now crafted his Headband+6 (for 18k, of a level-allowed 62k). He's also made Winged Boots (8k), and reforged his Bond-Ring. He might make that Invisibility (10k), Minor Spell Storing (9k) or go for the potent cheap option of Counterspells (2k) and cast Dispel Magic into it. He has scrolls of everything, and the two handy haversacks are probably augmented by a Portable Hole (10k). Let's express this another way: due to free class feats, the Wizard now has a second source of power - magic item creation. Not only is he the best spellcaster in the game, but he's the class best placed to use the item lists (particularly the wondrous item list) like a second spell list. In the hands of a novice DM, he's now a real handful.
So what about the much-vaunted Bloodline abilities? Are they making up the imbalance? The Sorcerer now has a breath weapon - 10d6, save for half, once per day. His claws are now magnificant: they do 1d6 damage. He has +2 natural armour, resist 10 fire, and still has +1/die with fire spells. He also gets a bonus feat, which is nice - he could take Quicken Spell, or Improved Initiative.
The Diviner always acts in the surprise round, and he gets +5 Initiative. That's phenomenal. Everything the bloodline gives pales beside that. The potency of acting first and fast is so useful to a spellcaster that nothing offered on any of the bloodlines compares to it.
**
I wouldn't be surprised if a numerical error or two has crept in here somewhere, but you get the gist. The Wizard is ahead not just because he knows more spells, but because he casts about the same per day and - most importantly - he can craft scrolls and items that exploit his wide knowledge. The bloodlines look pretty, but they don't make up for this fundamenetal advantage - and some of the schools are more potent than any of the bloodlines. Divination isn't the only one. Illusion offers, at 8th, 8 rounds of Greater Invisibility, with swift activation, split up as desired; this is better than Quickened Greater Invisibility, an 8th level spell.
A final note: the Sorcerer could take the Arcane bloodline, instead of something blastery, and so gain a Bond-Ring of his own. This gives him an extra spell of his highest level. I think this is the most powerful Sorcerous bloodline, but the bonded item isn't nearly as powerful for a Sorcerer as it is for a Wizard. Just as with Scribe Scroll, the Sorcerer can already cast all the spells he knows, so the Bond Ring offers nothing new. For the Wizard, it's of great advantage. Not that he needs great advantages...
**
What a wonderfully entertaining thread!
I guess my only contribution to this thread would be this:
Pathfinder offered some new ability options to both wizards and sorcerers, but lets not forget that all these abilities are minor. A mage gets his power from his spells.
The Sorcerer getting higher level spells one level later is certainly a factor, as is the Wizard having less castings overall, but these aren't the deciding factor when it comes to Wizard vs. Sorcerer in terms of gameplay power.
The spellcasting mechanic hasn't changed. It's spontaneity vs. versatility. This is a long held debate, which is better, being able to cast a small list of spells spontaneously, or being able to cast a long list of spells, but requiring pre-preparation.
There is no official victor to this debate, but usually the weight of opinion falls in favor of the Wizard.
The biggest factor in Pathfinder is the addition of bonus spells known to the Sorcerer. This takes the largest weakness that the Sorcerer has in comparison to the Wizard, and pads it.
Does that shift the balance? In my opinion it doesn't enough to make Sorcerers the more powerful caster overall, but it does make it closer than ever before.
In regards to bloodline powers vs. specialist powers - that's all small potatoes, and nothing next to the power of base spellcasting.
Mirror Mirror - sounds a fun campaign.
Old arguments - ah yes. Well, you know, those are often the best.
* Craft-monkey: well, that's not my assumption. Item creation is hardwired into the Wizard class from 1st level. The choice of other bonus feats is thin, and the item creation feats are very powerful. It's not the *only* way to play a Wizard, by any means, but I would say it's the most optimal.
In Pathfinder all this becomes even simpler. The DC is negligable, there's no XP cost, and it takes an investment of one free class feat for the abovementioned Diviner to create his scrolls, haversacks, headbands, ring and portable hole. He's designed to play this way.
* Downtime:
"Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for creating items" (PSRD). Unless you're running a spell-less campaign, any item crafter will be crafting as he adventures. You can houserule this, but that is meaningless in online discussion. During his watch, during lunch (I'm semi-quoting) and in other odd moments, the crafter can make 2 hours progress (250gp of base price) on an item each adventuring day. If there are multiple crafters in the party - and there are more likely to be in Pathfinder, with Master Craftsman - they can take turns.
Downtime? That's just extra.
Cost? Okay, think of it this way: via creation, the Wizard is choosing his entire magical wardrobe. In your campaign, it sounds to me as if the Sorcerer isn't, yes? So, how large an advantage is it to have a Headband+2 at 4th, a +4 at 7th, a +6 at 10th? Choice is power.
* Bonded Item:
I have seen people put forward arguments for the familiar. Even the best (the mephit with a longbow) doesn't match the dual powers of the bonded item. +1 spell of the highest level castable is good. Make that spell anything in the spellbook is excellent. Add a feat-free ability to enchant, and...well, imagine a magic ring that does this. How much would it cost?
A bow-wielding, wand-wielding mephit is fun, for sure: but an extra any-level, any-page spell plus Counterspells or Spell Storing is much more powerful, and hardly vulnerable.
A ring, by the way, is probably the way to go. A sword is far too obtrusive.
* Access beyond base spells:
Check my post above. Or the books. Even with no additional spell access, the Wizard is far ahead of the Sorcerer is this regard. And as you say yourself, found spells are an assumed part of the rules.
What shouldn't be assumed is that this means the Wizard has to find the spellbook of his nemesis. All he needs are scrolls. An enemy spellbook should be a rarity, but a campaign with no scrolls as treasure - that's a rare one indeed.
* Access to right spells:
Scrolls, and the bond-ring, mean the Wizard can cast any spell in his spellbook at any time. There's no way around that, really. Even if you refuse him any found scrolls, he still knows many more spells than a Sorcerer. In a standard magic campaign, he knows screeds of them.
I'm not saying any of this is right or balanced, by the way - I'm just pointing out how it is. A Wizard played optimally - which means incorporating item creation - is a scary dude indeed.