Conundrum |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh boy I bet you just opened a can of worms with this one.even if this is a legitimate question I expect this is going to turn into a long drawn out and annoying debate with 6-8 names in mind that will go round and round in the most minute detail and possibly derail this whole thing.I think wizards are the best as they have access to the entire wizard sorc spell list, to me what good is casting spells on the fly when you only know a handful for each given level. A wizard accomplishes much the same thing by mass producing scrolls ofmany different spells and he does this starting at level 1 with no feat investment. Also, as an Arcane spellcaster it seems to me that knowledge skills add to versatility so unless you make an intelligence based sage blood sorc the wizard is going to be better with spellcraft, crafting and any knowledge based skill as these are all intelligence based. I personally think the sorceror is the lazymans path to power and is incomplete and stunted compared to the faster spell progression and greater spell selection of the wizard.
Ashiel |
Is it like 3.5 where the wizard is a god or is it more balanced between wizard and sorceror?
Wizard > Sorcerer. But it's not as bad for the sorcerer as it used to be. Also, sorcerers get way more mileage out of becoming undead than wizards do, so sorcerers make pretty awesome liches (Charisma is usually a dumpstat for wizards, but is treated as Con for undead, so undead sorcerers tend to have surprisingly good Hp and Fortitude saves).
Conundrum |
zauriel56 wrote:Is it like 3.5 where the wizard is a god or is it more balanced between wizard and sorceror?Wizard > Sorcerer. But it's not as bad for the sorcerer as it used to be. Also, sorcerers get way more mileage out of becoming undead than wizards do, so sorcerers make pretty awesome liches (Charisma is usually a dumpstat for wizards, but is treated as Con for undead, so undead sorcerers tend to have surprisingly good Hp and Fortitude saves).
I like that and it makes me want to try it. My memory might be failing me but in dnd3.5 didnt undead also have a d12 hd?imaagine being a lich sorc with a d12 hd and about a +10 cha modifier! so much for a squishy caster. "hey you barbarian! come on over here I intend to show you something YOU'RE not going to LIKE VERY MUCH!"
A Snooty Gnome |
ossian666 wrote:Witch>AllHaha, gender confusion issues aside, I peeked at the witch in the Apg, looked at their list of spells and hexes and i really don't see what all the fuss is about.
They need hexes to compete. The wizard remains the greatest arcanist of all. NONE can compare!
A wizard will pwn a witch every time.
Ashiel |
Ashiel wrote:I like that and it makes me want to try it. My memory might be failing me but in dnd3.5 didnt undead also have a d12 hd?imaagine being a lich sorc with a d12 hd and about a +10 cha modifier! so much for a squishy caster. "hey you barbarian! come on over here I intend to show you something YOU'RE not going to LIKE VERY MUCH!"zauriel56 wrote:Is it like 3.5 where the wizard is a god or is it more balanced between wizard and sorceror?Wizard > Sorcerer. But it's not as bad for the sorcerer as it used to be. Also, sorcerers get way more mileage out of becoming undead than wizards do, so sorcerers make pretty awesome liches (Charisma is usually a dumpstat for wizards, but is treated as Con for undead, so undead sorcerers tend to have surprisingly good Hp and Fortitude saves).
Well undead in Pathfinder have a 3/4 BAB and d8 HD (instead of 1/2 BAB and d12 HD), and HD from class levels aren't changed (so a 20th level lich sorcerer has 20d6 HD), but the Charisma is a nice boon.
In fact, Paladin-Liches are surprisingly awesome. Paladins are very Charisma-centric in Pathfinder, and becoming a lich (such as a good lich from D&D such as Arch-lich or Baelnorn) or a normal evil lich (if you're an anti-Paladin) is not only do-able, but it's pretty cool (you get a touch attack, some very nice damage reduction, immortality, and Charisma to HP and Fortitude saves).
ShadowcatX |
Honestly, a witch's spell list is a little worse than a wizards and in exchange they get amazing abilities to use all day long when they aren't casting. It's a pretty fair trade off, all things considered, still very tier 1. Anything that lets a witch add spells to their class list (Samsaran alternate racial ability) is very nice, perhaps more so than for a wizard.
As to wizard vs. sorcerer, wizard's still stronger much of the time, due to gaining spells a level earlier, but sorcerers (and especially human sorcerers) have done a lot to catch up, including gaining class features and gaining spells known here and there.
cartmanbeck RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
ossian666 wrote:Witch>AllHaha, gender confusion issues aside, I peeked at the witch in the Apg, looked at their list of spells and hexes and i really don't see what all the fuss is about.
The reason the hexes are so awesome is you can use them every round, and on every enemy, no running out of slots and such. Some of them can't be used on the same enemy more than once in 24 hours, but that's fine, usually you're fighting more than one. Seriously, witches can be completely amazing. They're VERY good at taking enemies out of the fight completely with just one hex.
Abandoned Arts RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Regarding witch vs. wizard:
Wizards get the better spell list by far. Witches get the better class features by far. Hello, slumber hex. Goodbye, encounter.
If you do go wizard (and your GM allows 3pp stuff) check out my top-notch, $0.99 wizard PDF.
Alternately, skip wizard, sorcerer, and witch altogether and play an alchemist. It might not beat the wizard or the witch in the "PC-on-PC" arena, but I'll be damned if it doesn't mince monsters better than either class. At least in the early and mid-game.
Or, if you're old enough to remember what a CoDzilla is, take the oracle for a spin...
Charlie Bell RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 |
cartmanbeck RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
Regarding witch vs. wizard:
Wizards get the better spell list by far. Witches get the better class features by far. Hello, slumber hex. Goodbye, encounter.
If you do go wizard (and your GM allows 3pp stuff) check out my top-notch, $0.99 wizard PDF.
Alternately, skip wizard, sorcerer, and witch altogether and play an alchemist. It might not beat the wizard or the witch in the "PC-on-PC" arena, but I'll be damned if it doesn't mince monsters better than either class. At least in the early and mid-game.
Or, if you're old enough to remember what a CoDzilla is, take the oracle for a spin...
I keep seeing that... what's the CoDzilla reference referring to???
cartmanbeck RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
StreamOfTheSky |
I'm gonna disagree with those saying the gap was closed. I'm going to say it widened. People are probably only looking at 3E core. In the splat books, sorcerer got a TON of powerful, often-times broken, love. There were a whole lot of sorcerer only spells to do things like: instantly negate any attack or non-area spell; AoE uncapped d6's force damage that also dazes spell; numerous spells that existed solely to nova multiple lower level spells out in a single standard action.
And dear gods, was there a lot of "add charisma to X" stuff! Oh, and a feat to spend two spell slots of X level to get another casting of one at level X+1.
If you're not using 3E stuff (seems ot be the case most of the time for PF), then I assure you, wizard has actually gotten MORE powerful compared to sorcerer.
Let's also not forget that PF killed a lot of the super-versatile, super-powerful spells of 3E. Most notably the polymorph ones. While this affects both, the sorcerer, with his severely limited spells known, benefitted much more from the existence of potent, multi-use spells, and removing them thus hurts him more. Wizard can afford to have a golf bag of specialty spells. Sorceror cannot.
Benly |
I'm gonna disagree with those saying the gap was closed. I'm going to say it widened. People are probably only looking at 3E core. In the splat books, sorcerer got a TON of powerful, often-times broken, love. There were a whole lot of sorcerer only spells to do things like: instantly negate any attack or non-area spell; AoE uncapped d6's force damage that also dazes spell; numerous spells that existed solely to nova multiple lower level spells out in a single standard action.
And dear gods, was there a lot of "add charisma to X" stuff! Oh, and a feat to spend two spell slots of X level to get another casting of one at level X+1.If you're not using 3E stuff (seems ot be the case most of the time for PF), then I assure you, wizard has actually gotten MORE powerful compared to sorcerer.
Let's also not forget that PF killed a lot of the super-versatile, super-powerful spells of 3E. Most notably the polymorph ones. While this affects both, the sorcerer, with his severely limited spells known, benefitted much more from the existence of potent, multi-use spells, and removing them thus hurts him more. Wizard can afford to have a golf bag of specialty spells. Sorceror cannot.
Wings of Flurry and Wings of Cover were, nice but what about the 3 CL you lose from not taking Greater Rite and Loredrake? :)
Jokes aside, losing all the super-powerful ill-thought-out options from 3.5 hurts the wizard more than the sorcerer in another sense, since the wizard could have all of the spells his shrivelled wizardly heart desired. The wizard is probably better-equipped to absorb the loss because he didn't need those spells, but he lost more power in total during the transition. Sort of like how you can take 100 dollars from a poor man and 10,000 dollars from a rich man and still be taxing the poor man more harshly.
Adamantine Dragon |
While you could make a valid case that a witch > wizard in many ways, you really can't sell that a witch is a better arcane spellcaster than a wizard.
If you are purely talking about arcane spellcasting only, then I would pick wizard. Sorcerers can cast more spells, but they are too limited in their choices. Plus wizards get higher level spells earlier.
Now, the real question is if a wizard is a better spellcaster than a cleric, oracle or druid.
I'd probably put it cleric > oracle > wizard > druid.
But druids make up the difference in power with their own special abilities.
Ashiel |
While you could make a valid case that a witch > wizard in many ways, you really can't sell that a witch is a better arcane spellcaster than a wizard.
If you are purely talking about arcane spellcasting only, then I would pick wizard. Sorcerers can cast more spells, but they are too limited in their choices. Plus wizards get higher level spells earlier.
Now, the real question is if a wizard is a better spellcaster than a cleric, oracle or druid.
I'd probably put it cleric > oracle > wizard > druid.
But druids make up the difference in power with their own special abilities.
Wizards still come out on top, I think; but they might have to begin flexing their cheese muscles. For example, they have simulacrum, planar binding, charm monster (combos stupidly well with planar binding), and so forth. Wizards can do some very powerful things if they want to.
Simplicity, practicality, general purpose? Clerics, definitely.
Want to turn the sun into ice and breath new life into a dying universe? We have a class for that too.
Adamantine Dragon |
Adamantine Dragon wrote:While you could make a valid case that a witch > wizard in many ways, you really can't sell that a witch is a better arcane spellcaster than a wizard.
If you are purely talking about arcane spellcasting only, then I would pick wizard. Sorcerers can cast more spells, but they are too limited in their choices. Plus wizards get higher level spells earlier.
Now, the real question is if a wizard is a better spellcaster than a cleric, oracle or druid.
I'd probably put it cleric > oracle > wizard > druid.
But druids make up the difference in power with their own special abilities.
Wizards still come out on top, I think; but they might have to begin flexing their cheese muscles. For example, they have simulacrum, planar binding, charm monster (combos stupidly well with planar binding), and so forth. Wizards can do some very powerful things if they want to.
Simplicity, practicality, general purpose? Clerics, definitely.
Want to turn the sun into ice and breath new life into a dying universe? We have a class for that too.
Heh, I don't disagree with that, but I'll stick with my ranking. But it's not linear. It's more like:
cleric | oracle > wizard >>> druid
Druids got nerfed more in the move from 3.5 to PF. They are still a great class to play, and in the top "tier", but they aren't really the same as cleric, oracle or wizard.
The reason I put cleric and oracle above wizard is versatility. Not that wizards aren't versatile, but clerics and oracles are just a bit more, especially at lower levels.
However, any of them can break the game if a player really wants to.
A highly regarded expert |
However, any of them can break the game if a player really wants to.
And here we meet the crux of the biscuit.
What flies in your game doesn't in mine, and vice-versa. The higher you get, the more powerful your casters get, even if they're not optimized for it.
One spell can trivialize an otherwise epic encounter. Get used to it, or cap the game at a level you're able to handle.
ciretose |
So to optimize the wizard should I Scribe Scrolls on days I don't use them in order to have "extra" spells prepared?
Sure, as long as you keep track of when, including your caster level at the time you scribed the scroll and include all those costs in WBL if you aren't starting at first level.
And you may want to pick up a handy haversack (so you can find the scroll when you need it) and make sure you are far away, since you will be giving up your move action prior to castings.
Oh and avoid fire spells and readied actions.
Scrolls are great. And if you don't hand wave all the issues with using them they are pretty balanced as well.
spalding |
What's uncanny forethought?
It was a 3.5 feat that allowed you to spontaneously trade out and cast a prepared spell for any spell of the same level from your spell book as a full round action. If you had the spell mastery feat and the spell was one of your spells mastered then you could trade it out and cast it as a standard action.
ciretose |
Umbral Reaver wrote:What's uncanny forethought?It was a 3.5 feat that allowed you to spontaneously trade out and cast a prepared spell for any spell of the same level from your spell book as a full round action. If you had the spell mastery feat and the spell was one of your spells mastered then you could trade it out and cast it as a standard action.
Sometimes I forget how broken 3.5 got at the end.
StreamOfTheSky |
Some books more than others. Exemplars of Evil was one of the most broken books ever created. That's the way things tend to work. When the material is intended more for the monsters/NPCs/DM, people stop caring about balance. Even when PCs can utilize those rules, too (though being NPC-only doesn't absolve something from being broken; a wizard that can spont-cast his whole spell list is broken no matter what).
Also, I found the feat, if anyone wants to see.
http://dndtools.eu/feats/exemplars-of-evil--64/uncanny-forethought--3009/
Adamantine Dragon |
So to optimize the wizard should I Scribe Scrolls on days I don't use them in order to have "extra" spells prepared?
My best wizard character is a magic item creation specialist. He makes potions, scrolls, wondrous items and wands. He wears bandoliers to make it easy to grab them and has quickdraw as a feat.
He's pretty versatile...
spalding |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Xexyz wrote:I love sorcerers too, and it annoys me that wizards keep getting toys that allow them to compensate or bypass their weaknesses while sorcerers don't.Sorcerer's don't?
Guess we must've misread the half-elf spell in Advanced Race Guide and the human favored class bonus.
Not nearly to the same extreme as say the amulet of magecraft, greater spell specialization, spell binder, et al.
STR Ranger |
Personally I'd like to See Wizards vs Sorc to be an.excercise of Range vs power, rather than the current argument of Range vs endurance.
If magic comes naturally to Sorcerers they should be a level ahead in casting.with a smaller range. Or maybe have them progress on the same chart but give sorc a +2 to dc they can add to a spell they cast a number of times a day. Thier CHA mod would work.
Kinda like Psion vs Wilder.
As it stands, Wiz>Sorc>Witch
8 Red Wizards |
Ashiel wrote:I like that and it makes me want to try it. My memory might be failing me but in dnd3.5 didnt undead also have a d12 hd?imaagine being a lich sorc with a d12 hd and about a +10 cha modifier! so much for a squishy caster. "hey you barbarian! come on over here I intend to show you something YOU'RE not going to LIKE VERY MUCH!"zauriel56 wrote:Is it like 3.5 where the wizard is a god or is it more balanced between wizard and sorceror?Wizard > Sorcerer. But it's not as bad for the sorcerer as it used to be. Also, sorcerers get way more mileage out of becoming undead than wizards do, so sorcerers make pretty awesome liches (Charisma is usually a dumpstat for wizards, but is treated as Con for undead, so undead sorcerers tend to have surprisingly good Hp and Fortitude saves).
Undead get d8 HD nice, but that's still an upgrade for sorcerers and the other low HD caster classes
Ashiel |
Conundrum wrote:Undead get d8 HD nice, but that's still an upgrade for sorcerers and the other low HD caster classesAshiel wrote:I like that and it makes me want to try it. My memory might be failing me but in dnd3.5 didnt undead also have a d12 hd?imaagine being a lich sorc with a d12 hd and about a +10 cha modifier! so much for a squishy caster. "hey you barbarian! come on over here I intend to show you something YOU'RE not going to LIKE VERY MUCH!"zauriel56 wrote:Is it like 3.5 where the wizard is a god or is it more balanced between wizard and sorceror?Wizard > Sorcerer. But it's not as bad for the sorcerer as it used to be. Also, sorcerers get way more mileage out of becoming undead than wizards do, so sorcerers make pretty awesome liches (Charisma is usually a dumpstat for wizards, but is treated as Con for undead, so undead sorcerers tend to have surprisingly good Hp and Fortitude saves).
Yeah but undead like liches don't change all their previous class-related HD to d8s, only their racial HD. For example, in 3.x, if a wizard became a Lich, then all his d4 HD became d12 HD, but he had nothing similar to a Con modifier (this meant his effective "Con" was +4 due to the d4 to d12 change in average Hp. However in Pathfinder undead have a pseudo-Con modifier, so they leave HD alone.
A 20th level Lich Wizard with an 18 Charisma has 20d6+80 HP and a +10 Fortitude.
A 20th level Lich Sorcerer with a 30 Charisma has 20d6+200 HP and a +16 Fortitude.
Point for sorcerer this day. :3
Professor Q |
Wizard.
Here's a fun example of why it could be the case:
A level 20 divination specialist gets a +14 to initiative minimum with improved initiative.
Since he's likely to go first, he spends that action casting Time Stop.
After that it's over depending on what he decides to do.
Take that Sorcerer Lich!