| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are both powerful enough that it boils down to personal taste.
The wizard requires more book keeping, but he can have a spell for almost any situation if he knows what is coming. If he has fast study he fill empty spell slots in one minutes instead of 15. Wizards will also be good with knowledges due to their high intelligence.
The sorcerer has to be very careful when choosing spells known, but a well made sorcerer can still have something for almost any occasion, and he is not limited to preparing 2 fireballs a day. If he has slots he has fireball, or any other spell he can cast. The ability to apply metamagic on the fly is not bad either.
In the end it depends on what you want to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer does not prepare spells in slots. That pretty much seals the deal for me.
(Same reason oracle can completely replace clerics for what I care.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have nice hats. What more do you want?
I like wizard better myself actually. Familiar and getting spells one level earlier. Flexibility in case I didn't like my first spell selection. I think its really about what you want to do and how to go about it rather than sorcerer vs wizard.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 1st and 2nd ed, the Intelligence stat governed the maximum number of wizard spells known for each spell level. I despised having to choose my spells in advance each day, so frequently played wizards with such a low Int that spells known equalled spells per day, just so I could memorise one each of each spell known, and I wouldn't have to put any thought into it.
In play, deciding which spells to prepare takes time out of the game. If you want to think through the possible situations and make solid choices, you suddenly look up and see the other players tapping their fingers with impatience. If you decide quickly then your choice may be unsound.
As soon as the sorcerer made its debut in 3.0, I never looked back! I can make the hard choices outside play, at character creation or as I level up. I never have to stop the game to decide which spells to prepare, my slots just come back. : )
This is a very personal opinion, though. I usually play warrior-types. : )
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard: if you want to play a character who studies hard, is obsessed with gathering knowledge from all corners, who carries around tomes of arcane knowledge, and who always wants to know new things.
Sorcerer: if you want to play a character who is a charismatic channeller of the arcane, who has a natural connection to magic that he may not even understand himself, who grows in power as the arcane within him gradually infuses through his being.
I suppose there are game mechanical differences too in terms of how effective you are in various situations. However, since this is a roleplaying game, you might want to consider the in-world natures of the characters :)
Wiz = flexibility "a spell for every situaition" if you choose wisely.
Sorc = more castings of less spells of a lower level = blaster
My personel choice is wiz but do what you like.
Sorcerer does not prepare spells in slots. That pretty much seals the deal for me.
(Same reason oracle can completely replace clerics for what I care.)
Same here. Wizards aren't quite as bad as clerics or druids on that (being limited to their spellbook instead of having access to every spell on the list), but it's still a pain in the butt to me. Also, the idea of having a limited number of spells you cast a lot fits my image of how magic should work than 'fire and forget'.
It's some kind of fad to say something about Schrodinger's wizard.
But the thing about the wizard is he is entirely capable of dictating when and if he fights.
That is not true. When he is adventuring he is normally on a quest as a PC so he can't just wait forever.
As an NPC he can try to just pop smoke if the adventure's catch him off guard but he might lose a lot of time he put into trying to _____. That may make him risk fighting to the death, even if he does have teleport type spells.
Schrodinger's wizard exist.
If the wizard didn't have something prepared he can prepare it the next day(provided he has the means to learn/cast the spell.). The Sorcerer who didn't know it however won't. Schrödinger's fighter doesn't have the right feat, Schrodinger's rogue didn't have the right skill specialized, and Schrodinger's whatever didn't have the right magic item.
Schrodinger is a busy guy putting all these things in boxes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing since 1st ed (around 35 years) and almost never have the opportunity to call 'Time out' during a combat to come back the next day!
Adventures aren't like that! During adventures stuff happens and you deal with it! It's not like you can 'save game' before each encounter and try it again tomorrow with different spells prepared!
Was just commenting about how the schrodinger gig is a bit over used. Schrodinger's wizard isn't much different than his sorcerer. Human favored class bonus for spontaneous casters is amazing, can't deny that.
Was just commenting about how the schrodinger gig is a bit over used. Schrodinger's wizard isn't much different than his sorcerer. Human favored class bonus for spontaneous casters is amazing, can't deny that.
It is only overused at certain times. When you always have the perfect spell, it is a good call, or when you have a spell that is not commonly prepared it is a good call.
It does not just apply to wizards, but any other class that just has the right feat at the right time, as an example.
Besides the Human/Half-Elf Favored Class bonus (bonus Spells Known), there really are quite a few means to get more Spells Known now, which really shores up the main limitation of Sorcerors - enough so that even Cross-Blooded can be a decent build for a full class Sorceror and non-Cross Blooded are certainly doing fine if they are. Pages/Rings of Spell Knowledge are great, Vest of Mnemonic Enhancement (or something) is interesting and will make Wizards jealous of how Sorcerors can use scrolls :-), and the old stand by (which I rarely see mentioned here) Extra Arcana Feat can be very viable as well. At the lowest levels you aren't really going to have those (Extra Arcana could work, but later on you will probably wish you didn't blow a Feat for a 1st level spell known), but IMHO Sorcerors really do just fine at very low levels, compared to Wizards.
Definitely check out the Tattooed Sorceror Archetype, it gives EVERY Bloodline a Familiar and some spell tattoos which amount to bonus prepared spell slots, along with some Caster Level boosts. It may mean giving up a Bloodline ability you really were in love with, but on the whole it's a very solid Archetype.
he most painful thing about Sorcerors for me is probably the lack of skill ranks, which I usually balance by having a 'decent' INT score (12-14), but Wizards are definitely nice in that department (even outside of Knowledge skills, just the # of ranks is huge).
Mostly it is just a flavor issue of what I want for the character, if the flavor matches Wizard I go with that, if it's a broader take on arcane caster flavor, I usually go with Sorceror (ignoring other casting classes for argument's sake).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both are great classes, but there are definitely circumstances where one or the other will shine. I'd say your GM is the biggest determinant of which is better, though they're close enough that personal preference should carry the day.
I'd say these are the strongest factors:
Odd levels (except 1) - The wizard is better at odd levels; being one spell level ahead is a pretty decisive advantage. Not enough to totally eclipse the sorcerer, but enough to clearly be his better. This is especially egregious at level 3, where a specialist wizard has significantly more spell slots (forget about the level of said slots...) than an equivalent sorcerer.
Passive versus Proactive GM - your GM's style is going to have a big impact on the value of prepared versus spontaneous casting. A passive GM is one that tends to let the players decide when and how to approach a challenge. The extreme end of this is the 10-minute adventuring day, where the party can just return to safety and rest whenever they like. However, less extreme variants of this behavior are common and the wizard flourishes here.
On the other hand, you have the proactive GM. This is the kind of GM tends to have antagonists that take action against the party, and often decide when and where and how a conflict will occur. At the extreme end is a GM who applies "scry-and-die" against the party. Even with Fast Study (a must have feat for wizards with this kind of GM) the Sorcerer is going to have a big advantage over wizards when you're on the defensive a lot and literally no chance to prepare for combat.
Spellbook and Component Pouch - a lot of GM's treat this as fluff or at very most a gold tax. Others regard it as a strategic liability of the wizard, and free game for any intelligent adversary. Needless to say, your GM's opinion on this will have a huge impact on the sorcerer vs wizard comparison.
Spellbook and Component Pouch - a lot of GM's treat this as fluff or at very most a gold tax. Others regard it as a strategic liability of the wizard, and free game for any intelligent adversary. Needless to say, your GM's opinion on this will have a huge impact on the sorcerer vs wizard comparison.
It may also have an impact on whether your playing with him or not.
For me, getting higher level spells a level early makes all the difference. A Sorcerer can pump out more lower level spells, but for the higher stuff he or she is always playing catch up every other level.
The extra skill points and high knowledges helps too.
It's a LOT closer with the human sorcerers favored class bonus though. I wouldn't say it's OP (since it has to be a spell level lower than your max,) but it's easily the best favored class bonus I know of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may also have an impact on whether your playing with him or not.
It's something for the GM to be forthright about before the game, but not something to walk from the table over. There are lots of ways to deal with a lost spellbook; it's part of the game, and just because a lot of GM's choose to gloss over it doesn't mean you should rage-quit because your GM enforces it.
I have only seen only "lost spellbook" situation that was not contrived or GM Fiat. I think that is what makes players upset.
To be clear, I'm not talking about GM fiat. Singling out the wizard in that way is just a dick move. I'm talking about a legitimate "APL-appropriate opponent uses skills/abilities to take/destroy the wizard's spellbook/components" sort of situation. Not something you'd expect of a non-intelligent antagonist, but something to be prepared for with an intelligent one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may also have an impact on whether your playing with him or not.It's something for the GM to be forthright about before the game, but not something to walk from the table over. There are lots of ways to deal with a lost spellbook; it's part of the game, and just because a lot of GM's choose to gloss over it doesn't mean you should rage-quit because your GM enforces it.
When a GM goes after your spell book, he's not playing intelligently, he's just being a jerk. People aren't a crybaby if you take away all their class features. Its almost never fun, and its a decision the GM made to screw the player over. Blaming the player or stating the GM was upfront misses the point of the statement. If a GM is going to be that kind of GM, then it also is a moment that may determine if you even want to play with him.
It may also have an impact on whether your playing with him or not.It's something for the GM to be forthright about before the game, but not something to walk from the table over. There are lots of ways to deal with a lost spellbook; it's part of the game, and just because a lot of GM's choose to gloss over it doesn't mean you should rage-quit because your GM enforces it.
Well said, but note that this is an internet forum. It's where all the players (with free time from not being in the games they rage quit after the GM wouldn't give them World of DnD/PFcraft) go to rant. ;)
To the OP...
Do you like to micromanage for perfection? You'll like a Wizard.
Also, you'll be RPing someone who's very smart.
Do you like to call your shots on the fly? You'll like a Sorc.
Also, you'll be RPing someone who's very charismatic.
Both are tier 1 classes (esp since Paragon Surge for Sorc) if you play in an optimizing group, with multiple ways to approach that status so you can mesh in any group.
Both have lots of RP flavor and history in fantasy if you play to tell a story.
Both can fall in many shades of both and in between those.
Their is very little power difference, there is a different feel to playing them, figure that out and it's your answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a GM goes after your spell book, he's not playing intelligently, he's just being a jerk. People aren't a crybaby if you take away all their class features.
I'm sorry, I completely disagree. There are lots of ways to deal with the loss of a spellbook (component pouch is easy; they cost next to nothing so you can carry spares) and it doesn't disable your class features by a longshot. You can:
1) use wands and scrolls
2) any class features offered by your specialization
3) carry a second spellbook
4) buy or capture another wizard's spellbook (it has a penalty, but it's usable)
5) use the spell mastery feat (you know, the feat whose sole purpose is to deal with this sort of situation)
6) use spells to protect your spellbook ahead of time and prevent this from happening in the first place.
And on top of this, you don't actually suffer any penalty at all until the next time you prepare spells. So you've got plenty of time to take actions to mitigate the situation.
Again, I'm not talking about GM-fiat. I'm talking about APL-appropriate opponents using their skills within the rule to take/destroy that spellbook. That's easier said than done, seeing a spellbook should never leave the wizard's person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A rules-legal d**k move is still a d**k move.
|
|
When a GM goes after your spell book, he's not playing intelligently, he's just being a jerk. People aren't a crybaby if you take away all their class features. Its almost never fun, and its a decision the GM made to screw the player over. Blaming the player or stating the GM was upfront misses the point of the statement. If a GM is going to be that kind of GM, then it also is a moment that may determine if you even want to play with him.It may also have an impact on whether your playing with him or not.It's something for the GM to be forthright about before the game, but not something to walk from the table over. There are lots of ways to deal with a lost spellbook; it's part of the game, and just because a lot of GM's choose to gloss over it doesn't mean you should rage-quit because your GM enforces it.
Although it is certainly possible for a DM to be a dick, spellbook loss=/=dick!
If a warrior is deprived of his weapons he's just as nerfed! More so, since the wizard is only nerfed tomorrow, while the warrior is nerfed straight away!
I was once tempted to make a monk1/sorcerer? Due to the DM being fond of taking all our stuff. I didn't like that about him, but he didn't pick on any player or any class in particular.
He was very much an equal opportunity dick. : )
He was very much an equal opportunity dick. : )
Still not cool in my book. The point was sometimes if the DM is willing to go out of his way to kill your witches familiar, or your burn your spell book, it has a heavy weight on whether some people will play with him. I'm not playing in a game where the GM is willing to do that. "Playing intelligently" is not a good excuse for that behavior. Thread was about Sorcerers vs wizards.
To be clear, I'm not talking about GM fiat. Singling out the wizard in that way is just a dick move. I'm talking about a legitimate "APL-appropriate opponent uses skills/abilities to take/destroy the wizard's spellbook/components" sort of situation. Not something you'd expect of a non-intelligent antagonist, but something to be prepared for with an intelligent one.
How does the spellbook get singled out? The spell component pouch I can understand.
|
|
He was very much an equal opportunity dick. : )Still not cool in my book. The point was sometimes if the DM is willing to go out of his way to kill your witches familiar, or your burn your spell book, it has a heavy weight on whether some people will play with him. I'm not playing in a game where the GM is willing to do that. "Playing intelligently" is not a good excuse for that behavior. Thread was about Sorcerers vs wizards.
Yes, and one thing to consider is that the spellbook is a potential weakness for a wizard but not for a sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So i have been thinking about trying out a arcane casting class but cant figure out which on to try so i just want to hear opinions and pros and cons.
Thanks
The biggest myth is that Wizards have more versatility. Sure they do. IF they have access to just the right spell they need already and IF they have a means of knowing exactly what they'll need, when they'll need it and how often.
I've played a Wizard or two that I've enjoyed, but for the most part my Sorcerer characters have been far more effective and far more fun to play.
How does the spellbook get singled out? The spell component pouch I can understand.
Suppose the antagonist is a thief boss, and he knows the party is after him. Many of his best men were apprehended by the wizard, so he sends some of his pickpockets out to "acquire" the spellbook.
This sort of underhandedness is something I would account for when determining what kind of CR-target to aim for with these antagonists. So probably the BBEG with his bodyguards will be a CR = APL encounter, under the presumption that he will have been undermining and weakening the party along the way.
It would also be presumed that the wealth reward for having taken down a thief guild would probably be well-above WBL guidelines, so even if the party doesn't get everything back they should still net out ahead.
Or here's a simpler case: the party is defeated in combat (let's presume a fair APL-appropriate encounter) and the victors loot everything worth more than 500 GP, but they don't execute those that have stabilized. The surviving party can then recover. This leaves the wizard without his spellbook, even if the fighter might still have his spare non-magical weapon.
GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.
When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
How does the spellbook get singled out? The spell component pouch I can understand.Suppose the antagonist is a thief boss, and he knows the party is after him. Many of his best men were apprehended by the wizard, so he sends some of his pickpockets out to "acquire" the spellbook.
This sort of underhandedness is something I would account for when determining what kind of CR-target to aim for with these antagonists. So probably the BBEG with his bodyguards will be a CR = APL encounter, under the presumption that he will have been undermining and weakening the party along the way.
It would also be presumed that the wealth reward for having taken down a thief guild would probably be well-above WBL guidelines, so even if the party doesn't get everything back they should still net out ahead.
Or here's a simpler case: the party is defeated in combat (let's presume a fair APL-appropriate encounter) and the victors loot everything worth more than 500 GP, but they don't execute those that have stabilized. The surviving party can then recover. This leaves the wizard without his spellbook, even if the fighter might still have his spare non-magical weapon.
How is the spellbook acquired without GM Fiat? <---That is what I was asking in the last post.
Also if the party is defeated the GM is dumbing the bad guys down by not killing the PC's. He knows they will want the spellbook and their equipment back, and they won't allow the NPC's to live. Allowing them(PC's) to live is not a smart move, and is just another form of GM Fiat.
It is almost always easier to kill the party than to get that spellbook.
Now some will say wait until they are sleep, but that assumes they are in different rooms(if they are in an inn), and the NPC's somehow know when they are sleeping.
So once again how are the NPC's reasonably getting that spellbook?
|
|
GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.When you get coup de graced in your sleep, do you not cry foul?
I can't! My throat has been cut. : )
Intelligent opponents should act intelligently. People, both PCs and NPCs, encounter problems and find solutions.
If your problem is Superman, one solution is Kryptonite.
If your problem is a wizard, one solution is to deprive him of his spellbook.
If you're playing DC Heroes, do you take your bat and ball home if Luthor pulls out some Kryptonite?
It is possible for a DM to be a dick about it, but saying that, of all things, a spellbook is somehow immune from threat or I'm taking my bat and ball home, who's the dick now?
Yeah the spellbook can be lost or destroyed by circumstantial means, but to target it is something I have never seen explained well.
GMs are tasked with playing villains. Villains make d**k moves. Ask everyone who ever pulled kryptonite on Superman. Yet somehow, he always seems to come out on top. Seems like a God (people who play wizards still call themselves God, right?) could figure out a better solution to the problem than crying foul.
Actually to be fair the person playing the wizard is not calling himself God. The God-wizard is just a way to play the character, and the person controlling the character does not likely have an equal intelligence.
IMO the two have completely different play styles. People talk about Schrodinger's wizard, and they aren't necessarily wrong.
More times than not, your ideal optimal wizard will have a much different role to play than your ideal sorcerer. Wizards, being prepared casters, require a lot more investment of time and study to actually play, as well as time and study in game. They require a lot more skill to actually achieve the ultimate versatility that they are known for. Myself, I find the wizard to often take on the role of 'skill monkey' and 'utility guy' in parties that need one. They contribute so much more out of combat (compared to the sorcerer) that this part of the wizard's role is s huge deciding factor in choosing to roll one over a sorcerer. Empty Spell slots for utility spells out of combat, and moderate use of battlefield control in combat is where the best wizard builds are at, when you compare the two classes.
Sorcerers on the other hand, are a lot better at blasting and focusing on combat. Players whose table's styles of gameplay revolve solely around combat will find sorcerers to be far superior to tables where dungeon crawling and time spent on the road are given a lot of time. More spells per day with less options on them basically means most of the sorcerer builds will lean towards specialization on their specific most powerful spells, and that leads to them being leagues ahead of optimal wizards in combat due to the combination of both more resources (spells from having both higher spells per day and not being in a scenario where you use them out of combat essentially doubles your combat spells) and higher levels of specialization and optimization. The lack of need to prepare in advance also strips away a layer of complexity for the class making it easier on the player to just pick up the sheet and play.
Now, without insulting anyone's skill or play style, I think it can be fairly stated that a sorcerer is a much easier class to play. Whenever I have newer players coming into the game who want to start to learn how to play casters, I always start them off with a sorcerer. The simplicity also leads to a more linear, combat focused build, for a more linear, combat focused game. Even seasoned players who have 20+ years of experience will tell you that in combat a sorcerer will often outlast (and usually win) over a wizard most of the time. That said, games where you need to be able to contribute out of combat, with spells that help with dungeon crawling, travelling, making sure you have a safe place to set up camp, etc. you may find the wizard to be far superior because of the options.
I would say, that sorcerers are for the simpler minded, straight forward players who like to play casually, where wizards are better for the more intense players who engage in more complex kinds of games. Not that either style is better or worse than the other, but they are just different, and depending on which style of game you are getting into, or how you want to play your character, either one is a better choice than the other.
The two classes are both versitile indifferent ways. The wizards incressed spells known is mainly useful with scribe scroll. You can always have the spell u need. Sorcerers have wonderful versitility with meta magic. Somethng i rarely use with prepareded spellcasters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, if you knew you were up against a wizard, is not his spellbook and/or familiar something you would target?
Especially if you could sell the former off for a lot of money?
It IS intelligent play. Wizards just don't like acknowledging they've got a weakness. Wizard without spellbook is like fighter without weapon, but they never cry foul if the fighter is disarmed.
-----------
On Wiz vs sorc:
A wizard should be your introduction to the arcane casting classes. Why? So you can sample casting all those different spells, and not be penalized for making bad choices.
By simply changing your load out, you can feel what it's like to be a summoner, an AoE dmg machine, a party buffer, a divining snooper, a master of illusions, a mind-slaving enchanter, or a battlefield controller.
Once you know the spells, you can throw out the spells you don't want to have and focus on the ones you do, and go sorceror and enjoy the ability to spam the ones that best fit the situations. Instead of having to confer with a spellbook, you get Pages of SPell Knowledge or scrolls for the special situations.
Sorceror is relatively unforgiving of poor spell choices unless you've a compliant DM. So, play wizard, get all the spells, and try out some different play styles. After you know the spells, then you're ready for a sorc.
==Aelryinth
To be honest, if you knew you were up against a wizard, is not his spellbook and/or familiar something you would target?
Especially if you could sell the former off for a lot of money?
It IS intelligent play. Wizards just don't like acknowledging they've got a weakness. Wizard without spellbook is like fighter without weapon, but they never cry foul if the fighter is disarmed.
-----------
On Wiz vs sorc:A wizard should be your introduction to the arcane casting classes. Why? So you can sample casting all those different spells, and not be penalized for making bad choices.
By simply changing your load out, you can feel what it's like to be a summoner, an AoE dmg machine, a party buffer, a divining snooper, a master of illusions, a mind-slaving enchanter, or a battlefield controller.
Once you know the spells, you can throw out the spells you don't want to have and focus on the ones you do, and go sorceror and enjoy the ability to spam the ones that best fit the situations. Instead of having to confer with a spellbook, you get Pages of SPell Knowledge or scrolls for the special situations.
Sorceror is relatively unforgiving of poor spell choices unless you've a compliant DM. So, play wizard, get all the spells, and try out some different play styles. After you know the spells, then you're ready for a sorc.
==Aelryinth
Wizards are not clerics, they don't get all of the options for free. A compliant DM is required of any new player, but tackling the entire dimension of the game that is spell preparation and all the resource management involved in keeping track of all the pages of your spellbook, as well as coming up with defenses for it, it just makes them so much more difficult for newer players to grasp. Especially considering the fact that newer players tend to burn through spells faster, and giving them more spells to do that with makes a sorcerer a lot easier.
I can't agree with your sentiment about starting new players off with wizards at all. I am 100% in disagreement with you on this one.
Wizard : Many more options and more flexibility gained from having so many more spells in the spell book. Additionally, the Wizard has many, many more skills. (2+ Int, which I assume is 19+)
Sorcerer: Many more spells per day, and never need to prepare spells in advance. You know far less, but never have to worry about what to pick. Far fewer skills, but far better at Diplomacy, the second most important skill in PFS.
My thoughts: If you love a handful of spells available at each level, and don't want to have to slog through dozens if not hundreds of other alternative options, go Sorcerer.
If you want to play a Half-Elf and your GM will allow Paragon Surge, go Sorcerer.