I'm totally not seeing it and u won't convince me that they are but I'm curious to know why everyone think wizards are god status and sorcerers are crappy? I think sorcerers are amazing. Ill take more spells per day and spontaneous casting over a wizard anyday. Is it because u get a spell level 1 level before spontaneous casters so people use them to multiclass a level earlier?
Someone please explain this to me. Where is the sorcerer love y'all?
(Not a wiz v sor thread. Any sor love is appreciated though. Please keep it nice.)
I'm totally not seeing it and u won't convince me that they are but I'm curious to know why everyone think wizards are god status and sorcerers are crappy?
It's about the ability to always have the right spell for the job, no matter what the job.
Sorcerers have an extremely limited selection of spells known. Wizards can include any number of spells in their spellbook with a very reasonable gold expenditure.Being able to respond effectively to absolutely anything on nine hours' notice is what makes wizards so effective.
But 9 times out of 10 u don't know what the next days gonna bring. How is picking spells an advantage if u only guess what's gonna come up or there's a mass battle bout to go down? And why is the sorcerer viewed as not good in anyway shape or form? They may be looked at as second hand casters when compared to the wizard but I think IMO that's far from true. Why the negativity towards sorcerers?
|
But 9 times out of 10 u don't know what the next days gonna bring. How is picking spells an advantage if u only guess what's gonna come up or there's a mass battle bout to go down? And why is the sorcerer viewed as not good in anyway shape or form? They may be looked at as second hand casters when compared to the wizard but I think IMO that's far from true. Why the negativity towards sorcerers?
Bad DMs who telegraph fights and let Wizards prep for each one. Also sorcerers get their spells a level later.
But I agree with you, in my experience in real game play Wizards can run out of useful spells quick, while Sorcerers can keep grinding.
|
The party faces a Problem.
Wizard: OK guys, I'll teleport us all away and then I'll prep the right spells and tomorrow we will be all right !
Sorcerer: OK guys, I'll ... ... can anybody borrow me some money for scrolls ? And no, we have to walk out the normal way, I took Buzzoble's Buoyant Bomb instead of Teleport as my 5th level spell.
That's how it goes. The Wizard can customize his spell loadout based on the situation, the Sorcerer is stuck with his spells known, and unless he is VERY careful with selecting them, he might end up the creek and without a paddle.
Bad DMs who telegraph fights and let Wizards prep for each one.
And good DMs whose games involve sustained characters, researchable plot elements, and more than just throwing random encounters at a party. In other words, situations where research makes sense or characters have the options to pick their battles.
ture but when a person chooses to play a sorcerer, he is playing the class understanding that his spell list makes or breaks his character. Also, I've never had that happen anytime I've played a sorcerer. If u personally saw that then whoever was playing the sor was dumb. Also, unless the wizards got enough teleports for the party, y'all are walking out too. But I still don't see why the sorcerer is put down so much. Having a spell lvl one level earlier isn't that good, unless ur multiclassing and u can get the prestige class a level earlier. Does no one like spontaneous casting?
Again, I'm not putting wizards down, I prefer sorcerers in all ways anyways. This is to be informative. Thanks for all the good answers so far. Keep them coming.
|
|
Bad DMs who telegraph fights and let Wizards prep for each one.And good DMs whose games involve sustained characters, researchable plot elements, and more than just throwing random encounters at a party. In other words, situations where research makes sense or characters have the options to pick their battles.
To a degree.
If something is attacking the village, you don't get to say "Can we do this tomorrow when I've memorized the right spells?
If there are time constraints, such as a rescue or any kind of impending doom, then taking a day off to pick spells...
Also, if I let you go off to pick spells, as a DM you should be changing the tactics as well, because now you also had a day to plan.
Based on what people post on here, DM's let characters run away and come back to the same scenario a day later, prepped and ready. This is why people think casters are overpowered. If you come in knowing exactly what you are fighting and can leave after a single battle, of course casters will be overpowered.
Now if you are grinding it out through a time constrained scenario, when that wizard runs out of useful spells the game gets a lot more balanced.
|
|
Teleport brings additionally 1 person per 3 CLs, so a level 9 Wizard can grab the whole 4-man party along with one spell.
Sorcerers are fun, nice, and great for people who don't enjoy the whole shuffling around the spell books aspect.
But for pure versatility, the Wizards leaves spontaneous casters behind. Also, if you do the math, a Wizard isn't that far behind Sorc in amount of spells cast-able daily, so the gap is even wider.
How does this "god" status wizard fair in dungeon crawls? I'm getting ready to run a game where most of the "dungeons" although that's not what they are, the players will be in there for only one day. If the wizard prepared his spells the night before and didn't know he was going into a dungeon the next day since the players didn't know, how does he get through all the fights if he runs out of spells to use? Doesn't seem godlike to me. Someone please help me with this cause I don't understand.
Oh and please keep in mind, to the teleport spell post, I haven't played in a pathfinder game yet. We r all old 3.5 players but I'm running the first game and due to my failed past campaigns I'm focusing on gm aspects and not player aspects since the players are all experienced as am I. I'm not sure how they changed a lot of the spells and such, I just know they are better than before. Sorry. I should have clarified this earlier
How does this "god" status wizard fair in dungeon crawls? I'm getting ready to run a game where most of the "dungeons" although that's not what they are, the players will be in there for only one day. If the wizard prepared his spells the night before and didn't know he was going into a dungeon the next day since the players didn't know, how does he get through all the fights if he runs out of spells to use? Doesn't seem godlike to me. Someone please help me with this cause I don't understand.
People are going to prep spells for what they expect, you're right. This is an adventurer, however. He's going to have spells to help him survive in case of a fight or two; his 1st level spells for the day won't likely consist of unseen servant, floating disc, and such; he'll likely have some magic missiles, shield, and other combat magics. Same with higher levels.
Also, people are predictable. A wizard's player can get a feel for what the GM likes to do and learn to choose their spells based on that idea. Lots of undead? Well, don't use most spells with Fort saves or mind-affecting magic. Lots of wilderness exploration? Time to break out some tiny huts, some scrying, and overland flight. God wizards function because a) the best spells to use are fairly well-known or easily researchable, and b) GMs can be predictable, as well as c) they've got access to the best spell list and often can attain access to the entire spell list of the class with the largest spell list. Among other things.
|
|
Well, there's the whole 15-minute adventuring day problem with Wizards.
Party enters a dungeon, not knowing anything about it beforehand (let's optimistically assume that no divinations were cast before and Knowledge rolls were really crap).
Rogue: I'll scout ahead and see what kind of opposition we're up against !
5 mintes later
Rogue: Undead !
Wizard: Right, i'll go nova in the first room or two, after that we pull out via teleport/plane shift/whateverelse, i'll swap out spells and we're back here tomorrow morning. Sounds like a plan ?
Repeat ad nauseam, and the dungeon is cleared.
Sorcerer players should know that they need to balance their spell list as well, and although they can't get all utility spells, they still can have a balanced spell list for everything or to be able to get through any situation they can't solve with skills and roleplaying, so I don't see that as a disadvantage (I've personally done this before btw.) Also, isn't the 15 min spell swap a feat now and it 1 spell to be swapped per 15 min?
|
|
Sorcerer players should know that they need to balance their spell list as well, and although they can't get all utility spells, they still can have a balanced spell list for everything or to be able to get through any situation they can't solve with skills and roleplaying, so I don't see that as a disadvantage (I've personally done this before btw.) Also, isn't the 15 min spell swap a feat now and it 1 spell to be swapped per 15 min?
There's no such feat. The "15-min adventuring day" refers to a party blowing up their resources (caster spells, mostly) in a quarter or so and then teleporting out to wait until the next day when spells are replenished. In such scenario, the Wizard wins because he can customize his spells to match any scenario.
Also, the Teleport could bring the entire party along in 3.5, so Pathfinder doesn't change anything with the spell as such.
Very nice post Major Tom. We just hired a Major Tom in our Sundered Skies game to train a militia for our war against the elves.
Didn't they have a mass teleport spell in 3.5 that let u teleport multiple people, and teleport was just 1? Idk its been so long since I played 3.anything so I'm anxious to get into my Pathfinder campaign in Jan.
I think there is a feat for changing 1 spell for another and it takes 15 min per spell. I think its in the Genius Guide to Feats of Spellcasting but I'm not sure. I don't have my computer right now to look it up, but I remember seeing such an option.
|
|
Teleport brings additionally 1 person per 3 CLs, so a level 9 Wizard can grab the whole 4-man party along with one spell.
Sorcerers are fun, nice, and great for people who don't enjoy the whole shuffling around the spell books aspect.
But for pure versatility, the Wizards leaves spontaneous casters behind. Also, if you do the math, a Wizard isn't that far behind Sorc in amount of spells cast-able daily, so the gap is even wider.
I agree with most of what you said. However the last part is the part I think gets overlooked if you don't play sorcerers (or play with sorcerers) regularly.
If the sorcerer finds a spell that is working in a specific encounter, they can cast that spell over and over again.
If a wizard finds one, he probably only memorized it once.
I think the two are very well balanced. The Wizard can be the most powerful character in the game, if things fall right and he has the right spells memorized. Or he can be hosed because his utility spells aren't doing anything but taking up slots in this encounter.
The sorcerer is a spell level behind at times, and has a more limited list, but can cast those spells over and over again. Generally they will have a spell that works for any given encounter, and having the ability to keep casting the same spell makes a big difference.
Being able to cast any spell you know as long as you have a slot available is a huge helper. Not saying Sorcerer is better, just saying like any class it's situational, and on the whole I think pretty well balanced.
A wizard can opt to prepare a portion of his spells later on, as long as he spends at least 15 minutes to prepare, so the idea of new information changing the wizard strategy doesn't necessarily end the day. I did this frequently the last time I played a wizard when I didn't have enough information about what was going to be encountered that day.
The sheer versatility of wizards make up the total margin of their power gap, even if for some that gap isn't very large if it's even there.
I don't think sorcerers are crappy, but I think sorcerers should utilize scrolls as much as wizards do to compensate for their limited spells known, especially if they're the main arcanist for the party.
+1 to what ciretose just said.
I think players pick wizards due to their spell progression and repicking of spells and they can see why anyone would play a sorcerer, therefore, sorcerer = second hand caster, wizards = god! Except I've played both and find that they are both balanced but sorcerer fits my play style better and simply, they have more style. I believe if I know a spell, I should be able to cast it as much as I want while knowing the other spells too.
Also I remember seeing a post a LONG time ago about people thinking that the wizard was underpowered and didn't get that many new things added to it and people were saying they were no longer balanced with the new classes, yet people still consider them gods. Do people really think that? And if so, why? U say they are gods yet u want more power? Just ask paizo to make a class that gets all the benefits of every class and no negatives and they always succeed since we r gonna break the game with that mindset. Just asking. Please don't take that as negative.
I'm seriously playing a sorcerer for the first time currently; I've played wizard a lot. I'm having fun with the sorcerer for what it is, but I don't think there's any question that wizard is stronger:
1) Getting spells a level earlier is tremendous. This is truest at level 3, when the wizard's unloading 2nd level spells and the sorcerer not only is stuck with 1st level spells but can't even unload "great at super low levels but quickly obsolete" spells like sleep or cause fear yet.
2) Compounding #1 is only getting one spell known of your new spell level. Being able to cast a variety of spells can be pretty big -- a level 5 wizard can fly around and throw a couple lightning bolts (to pick one example... please no evocation is terrible threadjacks). A sorcerer can't do that until at least level 7.
3) Generally, Int is a more useful stat to have high than Chr.
4) Spells being balanced better in Pathfinder is, oddly, a detriment to the sorcerer. In 3.5, I could play a sorcerer and pick Solid Fog and be pretty sure that was a good enough hammer that it's okay that everything had to look like a nail. In PF it's a little harder to choose the evergreen spells.
5) A good wizard player can usually pretty well anticipate what he might need on a given day and pick spells accordingly; a sorcerer is stuck with his choices, not only for the day for at a minimum for a few levels.
6) Magic items tend to skew more to the prepared casters; for example, there isn't a sorcerer's closest pearl of power equivalent in PF core.
7) Wizard's free scribe scroll feat makes it easier/cheaper for them to build up a scroll collection to cover the odd situation that they didn't anticipate and didn't prepare for that day. Even if a sorcerer were to pick scribe scroll, they could only make scrolls of the spells they have ready every day, which defeats the point.
All that being said...
With either kind of character, it's rare for me to run actually dry of spells; I'm more likely to have run out of exactly what I'd want for a given situation. From that perspective, the sorcerer can be a lot more fun to play because if a situation comes up where a spell would be useful, I'll just cast it. As a wizard, I'm much more likely to greedily conserve each and every one of my spells for the moment it will have the greatest impact. If a fight seems pretty well in hand, I'm not going to cast magic missile as a wizard to get it over a little quicker -- I might need that five minutes later for a dread wraith or something. As a sorcerer I'm probably just going to unload on it.
Bloodlines are also really cool -- I just wish the bloodline spells came a level earlier as the equivalent does for the Oracle. As-is it's possible to be blocked off from a spell you want to pick as your first spell of a level because you're going to get it 'free' a level later.
|
|
I guess as I see it, if you're going to play a wizard you have to plan tactically (i.e., what spells do I pick today?), and if you're going to play a sorcerer you have to plan strategically (i.e., what spells do I pick for my entire career?). You have to have at least a solid functional concept pretty-much from first level with a sorcerer, where a wizard gives you a bit more ability to reinvent yourself as a spellcaster if need be (up to a point; you obviously can't change feats and school choice).
Oh, and +1 to Major_Tom. Sorcerers and wizards can synergize really well.
+1 to what ciretose just said.
I think players pick wizards due to their spell progression and repicking of spells and they can see why anyone would play a sorcerer, therefore, sorcerer = second hand caster, wizards = god! Except I've played both and find that they are both balanced but sorcerer fits my play style better and simply, they have more style. I believe if I know a spell, I should be able to cast it as much as I want while knowing the other spells too.
Also I remember seeing a post a LONG time ago about people thinking that the wizard was underpowered and didn't get that many new things added to it and people were saying they were no longer balanced with the new classes, yet people still consider them gods. Do people really think that? And if so, why? U say they are gods yet u want more power? Just ask paizo to make a class that gets all the benefits of every class and no negatives and they always succeed since we r gonna break the game with that mindset. Just asking. Please don't take that as negative.
Certainly you should play what fits you best.
I don't recall anyone claiming the wizard was underpowered (less powerful than the beta, maybe). If somebody said that during 3.5, they'd get laughed at.
As far wizards being gods... well, just know that having the right spell at the right time is glorious for arcane casters, and by design, wizards have the potential for more opportunities for glorious results. Note that it is potential, nothing more.
Not long ago I played a witch going through Crypt of the Everflame.
We faced an incorporeal undead, and nobody had magic weapons. I did, however, have chill touch. The thing panicked for 5 rounds and we made our escape. Later, there was a large wooden construct. I set fire to it with burning hands and made short work of what would otherwise be a much tougher encounter. Two fights, two spells, and the witch dominated both encounters.
Oh, and wizards have faster metamagic.
|
The party faces a Problem.
Wizard: OK guys, I'll teleport us all away and then I'll prep the right spells and tomorrow we will be all right !
Sorcerer: OK guys, I'll ... ... can anybody borrow me some money for scrolls ? And no, we have to walk out the normal way, I took Buzzoble's Buoyant Bomb instead of Teleport as my 5th level spell.
That's how it goes. The Wizard can customize his spell loadout based on the situation, the Sorcerer is stuck with his spells known, and unless he is VERY careful with selecting them, he might end up the creek and without a paddle.
Nearly always, when you have to spell out a specific condition that Option A handles x times better, there's an equally specific condition that Option B handles x times better.
Not saying you're wrong or anything. Its a valid condition... once the party is of a level that the Wizard can cast teleport well enough to take the whole party with him... and teleport works... and the enemy won't adapt in the party's absence... and time isn't a factor... etc.
I'm equally interested in getting the answer the OP is seeking, too. Like the OP, I don't see it. But, I should make clear that, IMO, other than casting arcane spells, I really don't see Wizards and Sorcerers as variations of one another. To me, its no less valid to compare Wizards and Paladins. Its apples and oranges (which I only use for tradition's sake... IMO, the ability to make caramel apples proves that apples are superior!).
+1 to what John Woodford said. That's exactly my take on things. U have to set urself up for success, especailly as a sorcerer. Maybe most wizard players who only play wizards don't understand that. Idk. Good job on keeping everything nice and informative. Keep the feedback coming. Id love to hear more.
Also, I haven't seen much play with witch but I think they are very cool. Are their spells the same as wizards and instead of school specialization and metamagic they gets hexes? No one has shown any interest in playing a witch, and I won't b able to play one for a long time. I have too many character ideas and not enough games to play them in.
And how about the Oracle. I LOVE the concept. What are peoples opinions on them?
+1 to u roccojr.
And his post goes back to what someone said earlier. Teleporting away is good and all but then u expect the fight to be the exact same the next day when realistically (and I'm big on realism in games) the fight may have changed, tactics are now different, and the things are ready for u the next time around.
Something else I wondered. How do people feel about ranger and paladin and the like spells where u cap out at 4th level? Are there a lot of spells that affect enemies not through an attack? Do people have problems with these spells almost never working due to that they are only getting up to a 4 to their save for their spells?
For me the big difference comes on day 2 of every adventure. So basically if you are sticking to a 3-4 encounter day but adventures/campaign arcs last multiple days wizards/prepared casters are powered down on day 1 and gods on day 2-end of current arc.
In my experience basically adventures and arcs have themes. The big bad has a certain kind of minion, or is in a specific kind of terrain, etc. The wizard is so-so on the first day of the adventure, but assuming it takes some time to get through it he will have a chance to rest and re-focus. Certainly most published adventures have some predictable themes in them, with lots of hints as to what's coming (which makes for good story telling).
Now if you are going through a 'random' dungeon crawl the sorceror is without question better because there is nothing to anticipate, it is random. But certainly most adventurepaths/published adventures have a level of predictability that lets the wizard get a good idea on what kind of spells to prep on the second day of the adventure if not before.
But certainly most adventurepaths/published adventures have a level of predictability that lets the wizard get a good idea on what kind of spells to prep on the second day of the adventure if not before.
I'd add that it's to some degree possible for the sorcerer to lose out on anticipating enemies too.
For example, if you had no idea what you would be facing when building your level 1 character, I think it would be more than reasonable for one of your two level 1 spells as a sorcerer to be color spray or sleep. I would probably go so far as to say that in a purely mechanical sense, you've made a mistake if you didn't pick one of those two spells at level 1.
Picking one of those spells is not a stupid move, and yet, you're then really stuck if your first level or two turn out to be full of undead, vermin, dragons, constructs, etc. (I wouldn't say this is typical, but it's happened to me more than once.) The wizard in that situation can change his load out in a day whereas the sorcerer needs to hope that his second spell is applicable.
I don't think the sorcerer is a bad class at all, but I feel like (even in its upgrade PF form) the designers didn't quite give it enough.
To go on of what dire mongoose said, I always try to pick utility spells as a sorcere and balance that with the number of combat spells. Also, I try to take an energy substitution feat, as well as stagger the combat spells that have different energy damages as well as try to take a few spells that give will saves to use against fort and ref save characters, rex save spells to use against fort and will save character, etc, and ranged touch attack spells. The only time I might turn my back on a spell is to take a different spell that is more flavorfull to the characters personality. U have to set urself up for anything that will come along and no matter how many spells u may have/cast per day, IMO u need to try to solve every problem with skills and roleplay before resorting to ur spells.
But certainly most adventurepaths/published adventures have a level of predictability that lets the wizard get a good idea on what kind of spells to prep on the second day of the adventure if not before.I'd add that it's to some degree possible for the sorcerer to lose out on anticipating enemies too.
For example, if you had no idea what you would be facing when building your level 1 character, I think it would be more than reasonable for one of your two level 1 spells as a sorcerer to be color spray or sleep. I would probably go so far as to say that in a purely mechanical sense, you've made a mistake if you didn't pick one of those two spells at level 1.
Picking one of those spells is not a stupid move, and yet, you're then really stuck if your first level or two turn out to be full of undead, vermin, dragons, constructs, etc. (I wouldn't say this is typical, but it's happened to me more than once.) The wizard in that situation can change his load out in a day whereas the sorcerer needs to hope that his second spell is applicable.
I don't think the sorcerer is a bad class at all, but I feel like (even in its upgrade PF form) the designers didn't quite give it enough.
Well I think as a sorceror because of that possibility it means you dont pick spells that are even a little circumstancial untill you have multiple spells for that level. So sleep and color spray dont come first. Magic missile does, or maybe grease. A sorceror has to pick spells that are always useful and therefore has less issues with the unexpected then a wizard does.
That and once he has a few levels under his belt, if he has say, sleep, magic missile and ray of enfeeblment, he can switch between them freely as appropriate. For instance, a first level wizard and first level sorceror are both in a party planning to infultrate a noble's manor. They dont want to kill anyone (for various plot reasons) so the party prepares non-lethal methods to deal with guards and such. The wizard prepares 2 sleep spells for that day. The sorceror has 2 spells known of first level, magic missile and color spray. The get into the manor and it turns out the noble is an evil necromancer and all his guards are shambling zombies. The wizard cant use his spells, but the sorc can choose to cast magic missile over and over, instead of sleep.
But had the wizard been right in his prep (and particularly at higher levels) he would have been far better able to deal with the situation then the sorceror. That is the power of the wizard after all, anticipation and preparation.
so from what we have discussed, the wizard is best when you get a chance to prepare and the sorcerer on the fly with more general spell casting (like general spells and in fly and scorching ray and such) and for prolonged activities such as dungeon crawls. but i am still wondering why people consider the wizard "godlike," because from what i have taken in, both classes are good, and both outshine the other in certain situations, just as the paladin and cleric do in certain cases, but thats not selling me on the godlike status.
Sorcerers are crappy?!? Since when? They are still TOP tier. Course without a good bit of system mastery, you can make one VERY crappy...but I don't think that counts.
+345 to this lol
|
I've never played in an ongoing campaign (as opposed to a bunch of one-shot adventures) that proceeded at such a sluggish pace that a wizard would have the time/opportunity to research enough spells to fill up his spellbook with as many spells as people on this forum seem to assume is the default for a wizard.
"Hey guys, the bad guy has a item we need to retrieve at the Big Dungeon of Badness!"
"Can we wait a couple of months before leaving? I want to spend all the party's money so that I can complete my collection of 1st level spells."
I played a very successful and very powerful sorcerer back in the 3.5 days and believe me, people did not want to trifle with him. I based him on having most of his spells being nearly fire based. I also mixed some electricity spells in there as well. He was absolutely nasty. I've never seen so many fireballs tossed in a single combat by a wizard. GO SORCERERS!!!
But 9 times out of 10 u don't know what the next days gonna bring. How is picking spells an advantage if u only guess what's gonna come up or there's a mass battle bout to go down? And why is the sorcerer viewed as not good in anyway shape or form? They may be looked at as second hand casters when compared to the wizard but I think IMO that's far from true. Why the negativity towards sorcerers?
There is no negativity towards sorcerers. I love them, but I also know wizards are better. Gather information/diplomacy and divination spells can help you know which spells to pick. Even when you don't know there are spells that are generally useful. You can also leave spell slots open so you can find out what you need and then prep, and that only takes 15 minutes. The individual's playstyle is also a factor. I like to get as much info as I can, but before that sorcs were better for me since I had to deal with less book keeping.
ture but when a person chooses to play a sorcerer, he is playing the class understanding that his spell list makes or breaks his character. Also, I've never had that happen anytime I've played a sorcerer. If u personally saw that then whoever was playing the sor was dumb. Also, unless the wizards got enough teleports for the party, y'all are walking out too. But I still don't see why the sorcerer is put down so much. Having a spell lvl one level earlier isn't that good, unless ur multiclassing and u can get the prestige class a level earlier. Does no one like spontaneous casting?
You only need one teleport for the entire party. You only need to be a level 9 wizard to bring 3 buddies along.
|
|
But 9 times out of 10 u don't know what the next days gonna bring. How is picking spells an advantage if u only guess what's gonna come up or there's a mass battle bout to go down? And why is the sorcerer viewed as not good in anyway shape or form? They may be looked at as second hand casters when compared to the wizard but I think IMO that's far from true. Why the negativity towards sorcerers?There is no negativity towards sorcerers. I love them, but I also know wizards are better. Gather information/diplomacy and divination spells can help you know which spells to pick. Even when you don't know there are spells that are generally useful. You can also leave spell slots open so you can find out what you need and then prep, and that only takes 15 minutes. The individual's playstyle is also a factor. I like to get as much info as I can, but before that sorcs were better for me since I had to deal with less book keeping.
I would say it's no more than 50/50 you know what you are going to be encountering in any single encounter in well run game.
15 Minutes is an eternity in combat. I agree that you can sometimes get a lot of info ahead of time, but you can also be misdirected, or need to use a spell (particularly a combat spell) multiple times.
If I know what I'm up against, give me a wizard any day off the week who can bring the specific tools for this specific job. But if the job changes or we predicted needs wrong...
If I'm not sure what the issue is, give me a sorcerer who almost always has something that will work that he can use over and over again.
General practitioner vs Specialist. Both useful, one is more glamorous.
We have a high level campaign with a Wizard we lovingly refer to as "All win or all fail". In some combats, he absolutely dominates whatever we are fighting. Other times he looks at his spell list and shrugs.
|
My problem is the direct comparison of wizard vs. sorcerer moreso than other classes. In 3.5, a sorcerer was clearly just a spontaneous wizard. There was next to nothing to separate their role. However, in PF, I view them as distinct classes, just like a rogue is not a fighter with stealth, a sorcerer is not a wizard with spontaneous spells (unless you play them that way). The "role" of the PC defines their usefulness more than their "roll." Although, having played a couple sorcerers, I feel you need to decide what role you want since you don't have the spell selection that a wizard does. But that applies same as other spellcasting classes (paladin, bard, etc) with reduced/restricted spell casting. One sorcerer was a blaster. While not as effective as a fighter in dealing huge damage to a single target, he focused on doing a little less damage, but against numerous targets. My other sorcerer was a utility/buff sorcerer. And if you ask the two tanks he played with, the seemingly unlimited Enlarge Person, Haste, Bull's Str, and Fly ensured he was a center piece of the PC party.
I've never played in an ongoing campaign (as opposed to a bunch of one-shot adventures) that proceeded at such a sluggish pace that a wizard would have the time/opportunity to research enough spells to fill up his spellbook with as many spells as people on this forum seem to assume is the default for a wizard.
"Hey guys, the bad guy has a item we need to retrieve at the Big Dungeon of Badness!"
"Can we wait a couple of months before leaving? I want to spend all the party's money so that I can complete my collection of 1st level spells."
So your campaigns end in a few weeks time? Without downtime, and holding to the 3-4 encounters per day system, on fast xp you are level 20 in like a month, in medium maybe 2 months and slow maybe 6 on the outside? I find campaigns that DONT have months between adventure arcs make little to no sense in terms of character progression or what a human being (or other such creature) could rationally accomplish.
In any on going campaign that is more then one adventure, there HAS to be weeks and months between adventures in order to have the players actually age at all. Else you have a party of level 20 18 year olds, which in terms of believability is sorely lacking.
At least in my group it's
"Hey we just defeated evil lord so and so, back to our home city. Now that we have some time off, the fighter is going to open a combat school, the bard is going into politics, the rogue is well lightening purses and the wizard is doing research, scribing scrolls and all in all being a bookworm."
Then some significant time later
"Hey guys, the bad guy has a item we need to retrieve at the Big Dungeon of Badness!"
Wizard:"Sure let me go get my well filled spellbook and bag of scrolls"
I would say it's no more than 50/50 you know what you are going to be encountering in any single encounter in well run game.
15 Minutes is an eternity in combat. I agree that you can sometimes get a lot of info ahead of time, but you can also be misdirected, or need to use a spell (particularly a combat spell) multiple times.
If I know what I'm up against, give me a wizard any day off the week who can bring the specific tools for this specific job. But if the job changes or we predicted needs wrong...
If I'm not sure what the issue is, give me a sorcerer who almost always has something that will work that he can use over and over again.
General practitioner vs Specialist. Both useful, one is more glamorous.
We have a high level campaign with a Wizard we lovingly refer to as "All win or all fail". In some combats, he absolutely dominates whatever we are fighting. Other times he looks at his spell list and shrugs.
Any decent wizard will have spells that are generally useful and hopefully a few scrolls. Most situation don't require "win" spells. They just require a spell that helps the party so having a spell that works is not really an issue.
I am not saying prep a spell in combat. You get to the target location, and find out more things, then you prep the unused slots.If the wizard has the wrong spells, then that is a player issue, not a class issue, and the same player would probably not do well with a sorcerer either since they can't even fix the mistake of having the wrong spell.
but we still havent established how and why people consider wizards gods. not too long ago someone had written up a guide similar to Treantmonk's guide on the sorcerer (apparently Treantmonk didnt consider sorcerers good enough to make their own guide; apparently people only play wizards) and right in the title of the guide it said "the almost complete guide to god's (referring to the wizard) little sister" or something like that. how does having the ability to prepare spells make one a god? please explain. again, not negative. thanks again everyone for keeping this thread clean and nice. this is a clarification/experience sharing discussion.
how does having the ability to prepare spells make one a god? please explain.
From Treantmonk's referenced wizard guide:
More importantly, when I talk about a "god" Wizard, I'm talking about style not power. (like writing that will get me out of trouble.)
What god comes down and finishes off all his mortal enemies personally? No, instead he provides his followers the tools required to do it themselves.
The Greek heroes are all pretty much examples of this principle. That is the role of the wizard in the party. He doesn't win the combat, he instead provides the
tools for the rest of the party to win, by "controlling reality". AKA: a god.
So basically he's saying that the wizard isn't concerned with actually doing damage so much as battlefield control / enemy malediction such that the rest of the party can't help but win.
Which, actually, is a very viable sorcerer tactic too, although I would say slightly less so in PF than in 3.5.
thank you very much dire mongoose. that was very clarifying information. i would like to know about other people who refer to wizards as gods. and why hasnt Treantmonk written a guide for sorcerers then?