Depends on what you mean by powerful; Bard and Sorcerer are pretty different classes, so any sort of direct comparison is kind of hard to pull off.
One thing I would say is that unless you play a bard archetype that trades away their performances for something else, a lot of the bard's power comes from working with the rest of the party. Inspire Courage gets much scarier when you're buffing several physical fighters with it. It's one of the reasons bards are at their best with a larger party; more people for them to buff.
Bard's also lend themselves to Gish-type builds, whereas the Sorcerer is a pure caster, so a lot's going to depend on which you want to play.
I agree with what have been said, but in the end, if I had to answer without knowing anything else, I'd say sorcerer from level 4 onward.
Define "powerful."
If you want spammy blasty power and arcane magic with a few nifty class abilities, but don't want to engage in weapon combat very often, play a sorcerer.
If you prefer buffing to blasting and want to be more capable of weapon combat, and you also are especially interested in being a skillmonkey, bard is the way to go.
It's basically about focus on spells versus versatility.
|
Short work day encounter model = Sorcerers will win. They can use there most powerful spells. With out needing to worry about them running out of them.
Long work day encounter model = Bards will win. They have so many ways to affect the out come of fights. There is little to no chance of them every running out past level 5.
There are many more factors to add in as well. A large party of all casters. The bard with the magician archetype will be very lacking. At the same time a party of all casters with a bard magician is much more powerful. So it really depending on each character and there party members.
For a solo game for one character. The bard will preform better then a sorcerer. For a few reasons. First they can heal them selfs with wands with out UMD. Second they can do range and melee combat with out limited time per day casting. Third they can cover a much broader range of skills. This will come up more in solo play then most people think.
Define "powerful".
"Full of power."
Sorceror.
Bard might be a little better till up to level 4 if both players (bard and sorc player) aren't experienced optimizers.
Short work day encounter model = Sorcerers will win. They can use there most powerful spells. With out needing to worry about them running out of them.
Long work day encounter model = Bards will win. They have so many ways to affect the out come of fights. There is little to no chance of them every running out past level 5.
Only if the sorcerer is spamming spells...
Sorcerer no contest.
You can make a bad ass bard if you do it right. May I refer u to http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5loz?Character-build-concepts-Give-us-your
In actual play, I like bard until level 14 or so, then sorceror.
When you're sitting around theorizing, sorcerors can look better than they are.
Sorcerers are specialized whereas Bards are more of a jack-of-all-trades. A large part of it depends on your group - if you already have plenty of damage dealers for instance, a character capable of keeping those teammates alive through heal spells, having them hit harder and more often, being able to serve as the party's 'face' AND being able to enchant your way out of things you can't DPR your way out of - that character would be much more 'powerful' than another guy just piling on.
On the other hand, if your group is lacking a particular specialized area, like ranged or AoE damage, the the sorcerer would definitely shine more.
I concur that in the late game - 14th or higher - Sorcerers begin to take over simply because they have access to much more potent spells.
Have the thread cycle turned to the which class is more powerful phase already? How that time is running...
And if one class is more powerful, does it start out more powerful, or is there a turning point ? (ex, sorcerer becomes more powerful than bard at level 3)
That's about as fair a questions as "What's better, a wizard or a fighter?"
The classes do different things. Direct comparison by some arbitrary definition of "power" is going to be useless in determining what's best for you
That's about as fair a questions as "What's better, a wizard or a fighter?"
Wizard... Duh. At least make these hard. :P
By powerful I'm going to think he mean the power of greyskull and call Heman the winner
A sorceror who focused all spells on damage will have an incredibly tough time at my table. Not all gaming tables are the same. I would base what you play on the type of game your group runs and what might be the most useful there.
9th level spells
|
A sorceror who focused all spells on damage will have an incredibly tough time at my table. Not all gaming tables are the same. I would base what you play on the type of game your group runs and what might be the most useful there.
Why on earth would a Sorcerer focus all spells on damage? That would be silly, and so I'm really not sure what point you're making.
I'm reminded a little of Treantmonk's butt blade argument...
The arguement is about who is more powerful. I find alot of players equate that with damage. Apparently you understand the point I was making. Powerful doesn't always mean the most damage output. Yes, it is silly. But this is what WoW hath wrought when it comes to tabletop characters and their usefulness. I think it's what other posters meant when they say "Define "Powerful".
A fully-optimized sorcerer is going to outperform a fully-optimized bard, every time. That said, at "typical" table, both are going to be fine if the person playing them knows their role.
Bards tend to get a bad rep because nobody knows what they're supposed to do, so people play them poorly. You're playing a secondary fighter who can cast spells when necessary, not a secondary spellcaster who can fight when necessary.
In actual play, I like bard until level 14 or so, then sorceror.
When you're sitting around theorizing, sorcerors can look better than they are.
Pretty much this.
Don't know why people think "Bard until 4", though. 4th is a great level for bards! And at 7th level? A Bard's just gotten his new toys, can lay down Inspire Courage +2 and Good Hope in a single round or flatten his foes with a Slow spell. No 7th level sorcerer can turn the tide of battle quite like this (and can't even make the most of the bard's +4 to everything). Every class has a level or two when they get a game changing feat or class feature and get a leg up on their party members. At these levels, the sorcerer is the least powerful class.
However, high level is, and always will be, when the pure caster classes really shine. A sorcerer at level 10 is an entirely different beast to one at level 1, or indeed level 4.
But neither class is "more powerful", really. The bard may be more bloated, perhaps, but either class is only as powerful as you build them.
The arguement is about who is more powerful. I find alot of players equate that with damage. Apparently you understand the point I was making. Powerful doesn't always mean the most damage output. Yes, it is silly. But this is what WoW hath wrought when it comes to tabletop characters and their usefulness. I think it's what other posters meant when they say "Define "Powerful".
Am I the only person that remembers that hack-and-slash RPG players and characters actually existed before MMORPGS??
Ok, Sorcerer is more powerful than Bard, because he can get create demiplane spells and create own worlds... Does that fulfill your definition of more powerful?
|
The arguement is about who is more powerful. I find alot of players equate that with damage. Apparently you understand the point I was making. Powerful doesn't always mean the most damage output. Yes, it is silly. But this is what WoW hath wrought when it comes to tabletop characters and their usefulness. I think it's what other posters meant when they say "Define "Powerful".Am I the only person that remembers that hack-and-slash RPG players and characters actually existed before MMORPGS??
I do. Though now I notice more. There is a standard amongst them, that was not so before. Some expect all other to play this way, or assume they are over-roleplaying Divas. I bounce from group to group, and often it's the younger crowd who have most of their social life exist online that play to such an extreme. I personally cannot play without being there in person. I have played with all types, from drug dealers to servicemen, to lawyers, and the more socially frustrated of them seem to lean this way. This is of course, not always true, but my experience has shown me, this is more often than not.
I suppose I just have a very strange array of social circles I interact with. The common association with hack-n-slash is MMORPGS, and that's amongst many different groups.It's just the way it is now.
said some stuff that reads: If you enjoy roll-play instead of role-play you're socially inept
Nice. Stay classy.
|
|
said some stuff that reads: If you enjoy roll-play instead of role-play you're socially ineptNice. Stay classy.
Your reading your own interpretation. An online social life, is still a social life. I just noticed those that are more focused online socially tend to play in this manner. At least in my experience.
Don't misquote me and be a jerk-ass, a class jerk-ass mind you.
The arguement is about who is more powerful. I find alot of players equate that with damage. Apparently you understand the point I was making. Powerful doesn't always mean the most damage output. Yes, it is silly. But this is what WoW hath wrought when it comes to tabletop characters and their usefulness. I think it's what other posters meant when they say "Define "Powerful".Am I the only person that remembers that hack-and-slash RPG players and characters actually existed before MMORPGS??
Nah, I remember too. *brofist*
Am I the only person that remembers that hack-and-slash RPG players and characters actually existed before MMORPGS??
*Finds hearing MyTThor hard over trying to roll 18s on all the physical stats to get my Baldur's gate 2 fighter up and running. Looks to a guide*
"There's a cheat for that? That's a time saver!"
:P
Am I the only person that remembers that hack-and-slash RPG players and characters actually existed before MMORPGS??
*Finds hearing MyTThor hard over trying to roll 18s on all the physical stats to get my Baldur's gate 2 fighter up and running. Looks to a guide*
"There's a cheat for that? That's a time saver!"
:P
*casts enlarge person* -> *super brofist*
EDIT: Incidentally, in BG II, having a high natural Str is pretty "meh". Dexterity is usually more desirable, since it increases your AC. Anyone can wear some gauntlets of ogre strength or more likely a belt of giant strength to take you over 18/00 anyway; and spells like Strength of One or Strength get you to 18/50 or 18/75, IIRC.
I had a cleric/mage once that basically revolved around plowing enemies with undead. I'd animate dead via cleric levels, cast strength of one to give all of them an 18/50 Strength, cast haste to turn them into pikmin, and then throw them at my enemies while casting stinking cloud. Skeletons are immune to stinking cloud, and enemies just get pounded into mush. Summon Monsters and elementals were pretty cool too. ^-^
EDIT 2: In fact, Elves and Dwarves tend to make the better fighters, since elves can hit 19 Dexterity which gives them some pretty awesome AC and missile modifiers, and dwarves can hit 19 Constitution, which gives them natural regeneration (meaning anytime you rest, march overland, or whatever, you're almost assured to recover all your HP), and dwarfs, halflings, and gnomes all get a bonus to all saving throws equal to 1/3 their Constitution (so 18+ Con means dwarfs have +5 to all saving throws in addition to their normal resistances).
Dual-classing is awesome, but my god dwarfs, halflings, elves, and gnomes are freakin' beastly. I've made entire parties of "short folk" (dwarfs, halfings, and gnomes) with good Constitution scores and it's amazing how resilient they are to some of the nastiest things you encounter. While most guides recommend some off the wall strategies for fighting creatures that charm and dominate (such as sirens), I've had a dwarf tank (such as cleric or fighter) charge into a pile of sirens and just eat their charms for breakfast before cutting them down with his axe or hammer. :3
The arguement is about who is more powerful. I find alot of players equate that with damage. Apparently you understand the point I was making. Powerful doesn't always mean the most damage output. Yes, it is silly. But this is what WoW hath wrought when it comes to tabletop characters and their usefulness. I think it's what other posters meant when they say "Define "Powerful".Am I the only person that remembers that hack-and-slash RPG players and characters actually existed before MMORPGS??
I do.
Sorcerers have the higher potential, but are easier to accidentally ruin forever. :)
A fully-optimized sorcerer is going to outperform a fully-optimized bard, every time. That said, at "typical" table, both are going to be fine if the person playing them knows their role.
Bards tend to get a bad rep because nobody knows what they're supposed to do, so people play them poorly. You're playing a secondary fighter who can cast spells when necessary, not a secondary spellcaster who can fight when necessary.
Right. But the "rounds" limitation on bardic abilities was a un-nessesary nerf, which really hurt. I play mine purely as a face and party buffer, only using her scarf to flank. However, if you need a high Diplomacy, none can beat a bard.
OTOH, Sorc didn't get nerfed at all, altho certainly some spells did.
If they re-do PF, they have to fix that Bard nerf. Maybe convert rounds into minutes.
When you get right down to it...
Any Class that can cast Wish> Any class that cannot.
Clerics and whatever deity they follow would would like a word with you about a spell called Miracle.