With INT as his main stat he also has a lot of skill ranks and this can be very useful also; they have all knowledge skills as class skills. The odds that a wizard will know which spell to use in a given circumstance is much higher that a sorcerer; the sorcerer is probably only getting 2 or 3 skill ranks per level and after spellcraft, knowledge (arcana), and UMD he probably won't know very much.
But knowing what to use and being able to access and use it are two different things. Unless you have party members that can give you the opportunities you need to do the latter, having the former does you little good. Sorcerers don't worry about having the perfect tool, they simply learn to work with the tools they do have in a wide variety of circumstances.
EDIT: Elminster is a really good example here. He knew a lot, but tended to require other people to act to create the opportunities he needed to actually implement his plans and schemes.
My group is divided. Some (myself included) think prepared casters tend to be stronger. Others think the opposite.
When prepared casters take advantage of item creation feats, the advantage is theirs, I think. The ability to craft scrolls and wands of less-used spells is invaluable to a prepared caster. If Wizards didn't get Scribe Scroll for free at first level, everyone would take it anyway (at least in my group). You memorize the spells that are versatile enough to almost always be useful (Glitterdust, Fireball, and Summon Monster are all popular), and scroll up the rest. Lower level spells that you end up casting a lot (Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, Invisibility, and Grease all come to mind), you make wands of.
If a Prepared caster of any kind does not take advantage of being able write a scroll of less useful but situationally good spells, or make a wand if it's pretty useful a good bit of the time, but you don't want to memorize it a lot, they are hurting themselves. The whole point of being prepared is to be ready when you are prepared - with wands and scrolls, you can cover just about everything. Maybe you don't memorize Cone of Cold because it's not your cup of tea. But when those Fire Elements are in a nice neat cone just waiting for you to blast them, you'll be glad you have the scroll.
While a Sorcerer can also just pick up a scroll, he always has to buy his (unless he intends to forget a spell later, but I've never heard of people doing that), since he can't make it without the spell itself. Half price really kicks in once you start to scribe the high level stuff.
Don't misunderstand - Sorcerers are great. I like them a ton. I just think that Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand are two of the keys to a successful prepared caster. And spontaneous casters simply cannot get the same mileage out of them a prepared caster can.
|
TheRedArmy, I repeat, read the Versatile Spontaneity feat that will become available as soon as Pathfinder Player Companion: Pathfinder Society Primer will become available (i.e. today or tomorrow for me and other guys with a subscription to the Player Companions line).
It remove most of the problems you depicted.
I need to make a wand of XY? As long as I have a spell slot 1 level higher that what I want to place into the wand I am ok.
Same thing for the scrolls.
I need to make a wand/scroll of a spell of my highest level? I need to spend a bit more money:
5.000 gp for a Mnemonic Vestment and the money for 1 copy of the scroll. Done that I have all I need to make any scroll or wand
Mnemonic VestmentPrice 5,000 gp; Aura strong transmutation; CL 17th; Weight 1 lb.
The surface of this delicate-looking blue silk robe is adorned with tiny embossed runes across its entire surface. If the wearer is a spontaneous caster, once per day she may use a spell slot to cast a spell from a written source (such as a scroll or spellbook) as if she knew that spell. The spell must be on her spell list, the same spell level or lower than the expended spell slot, and the same type of spell (arcane or divine) as the spell slot expended. The caster must also understand the written source (such as using Decipher Script or read magic) and be carrying it. Activating the robe is not an action, but casting the spell otherwise works as normal, including casting time, providing components or foci, and so on. Using a mnemonic vestment's properties does not consume the written source.
Side note: a 1st or 2nd edition spellcaster was capable to memorize a higher number of spells than a 3+ ed spellcaster, even including the bonus spells from a high characteristic.
That is the reason of the 3+ edition spellcaster reliance on external devices to cast spells.
... When you have the time, party, and DM to fully investigate and prepare, the wizard wins every time, but ; their party members get impatient, the DM can't/won't give out appropriate information effectively, the party is simply too busy to slow down that much, encounter details limit prep time, etc...
The indicated portion is where most of the differences in opinion are coming from. You are extending your experience / playstyle across everyone. It is simply not true that it is a rare event for everyone.
The groups I have played with have been just slightly over half do in fact mostly have situations/groups/GM's/scenarios where the wizard usually/often has the time and information to prepare. The other people I talk to at the game shop and PFS events tend to be pretty evenly split. By what I read on these boards I would guess about 2/3 have the opportunity.
My current home group does not. Spontaneous caster rule in this group, with this GM, and in this AP. The group before that was exactly the opposite.
Don't misunderstand - Sorcerers are great. I like them a ton. I just think that Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand are two of the keys to a successful prepared caster. And spontaneous casters simply cannot get the same mileage out of them a prepared caster can.
Crafting in general is part of the wizards having time, and I never questioned that part. However, a lot of people when talking about the wizard seem to assume that having that kind of time and money is an automatic given when it's not. Campaigns where players can get those things are definitely for friendly to the wizard, but with all of the other options being available, it's going to be harder to find a campaign that has that since a lot of players and DMs have gotten used to, and prefer, not having to deal with what can be hassles if not handled properly. It's not necessarily hard to find a way to take advantage of the crafting feats, but it can't be an automatic assumption either.
Versatile Spontaneity
You made a good name for yourself in the Pathfinder Society in part because you knew how to prepare for the challenges before you, even if your natural magical abilities lend themselves less to preparation and more to spontaneity.
Prerequisites: Int 13 or Wis 13 (see Special), ability to spontaneously cast 2nd-level spells.
Benefit: When you regain spell slots at the start of the day, you may opt to prepare one spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell’s level. To do so, you must have access to the selected spell on a scroll or in a spellbook, and the spell must be on your spell list (even if it is not one of your spells known). This process takes 10 minutes per spell level of the selected spell. You can cast the selected spell a single time, expending the spell slot as though it were a known spell being cast by you. Preparing a spell in this manner expends a scroll but not a spellbook. A spell prepared in this way is considered its actual level rather than the level of the spell slot expended. You can apply metamagic feats to the spell as normal, as long as the spell’s actual level plus the increases from metamagic feats is 1 level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. For example, a 12th-level sorcerer with this feat, a scroll of fireball, and the Empower Spell metamagic feat could prepare an empowered fireball spell in her 6th-level spell slot.
Special: If you spontaneously cast arcane spells, you must have an Intelligence score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you spontaneously cast divine spells, you must have a Wisdom score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you have both arcane and divine spellcasting classes, you can use this feat to prepare a spell using a given class’s spell slot as long as you meet the associated ability score prerequisite.
No offense, but this feat looks like a horrible option for a sorc. So at the start of the day, you can take ONE spell from a spellbook or scroll (the scroll is used up) and place it in a spell SLOT one higher than it should be, and you can cast it ONCE. Top it off with you NEED to have an INT higher than typical for a sorc, and I just don't see the draw to this feat.
Don't misunderstand - Sorcerers are great. I like them a ton. I just think that Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand are two of the keys to a successful prepared caster. And spontaneous casters simply cannot get the same mileage out of them a prepared caster can.Crafting in general is part of the wizards having time, and I never questioned that part. However, a lot of people when talking about the wizard seem to assume that having that kind of time and money is an automatic given when it's not. Campaigns where players can get those things are definitely for friendly to the wizard, but with all of the other options being available, it's going to be harder to find a campaign that has that since a lot of players and DMs have gotten used to, and prefer, not having to deal with what can be hassles if not handled properly. It's not necessarily hard to find a way to take advantage of the crafting feats, but it can't be an automatic assumption either.
I've said in previous threads, that if you're in a guns-a-blazing campaign where time is the enemy and preparation is limited, I'd pick a sorc every time.
But their's no denying the power of a well prepared wizard.
I'm going to just add in that if you have the money, a Ring of Spell Knowledge and a bunch of scrolls effectively makes a sorcerer more versatile than a wizard at low to mid levels. Just make a DC 20 spellcraft check to make any 4th level or lower spell you see into a 'spell known' for as long as you need it. The scroll is not consumed in this process.
At higher levels, a sorcerer can use a Mnemonic Vestment to effectively cast a single spell of any level once per day (if he has the scroll). There are also Pages of Spell Knowledge to basically permanently add any one spell to your spell list.
So yea, with some money spent on the right items a sorcerer can become more versatile than a wizard. While a wizard can get any spell if he has 8 hours, a sorcerer with these items can have the spell *right now*.
Of course, I know there are also some items that can give wizards spontaneous casting ability, but they tend to be focused on a single spell school at a time unless I am mistaken.
... When you have the time, party, and DM to fully investigate and prepare, the wizard wins every time, but ; their party members get impatient, the DM can't/won't give out appropriate information effectively, the party is simply too busy to slow down that much, encounter details limit prep time, etc...The indicated portion is where most of the differences in opinion are coming from. You are extending your experience / playstyle across everyone. It is simply not true that it is a rare event for everyone.
The groups I have played with have been just slightly over half do in fact mostly have situations/groups/GM's/scenarios where the wizard usually/often has the time and information to prepare. The other people I talk to at the game shop and PFS events tend to be pretty evenly split. By what I read on these boards I would guess about 2/3 have the opportunity.
My current home group does not. Spontaneous caster rule in this group, with this GM, and in this AP. The group before that was exactly the opposite.
That variance is precisely why a lot of people prefer the sorcerer and/or spontaneous casters in general. The opportunities and resources wizards require may not be ultra rare, but they are something that the an individual player has little direct control over, which means a lot of extra potential work on the part of the player to make those opportunities possible when they don't automatically present themselves. Spontaneous casters may not have the raw potential, but getting full use out of their abilities in a wider range of groups and even within the course of a campaign is simply easier.
I will freely admit that I tend to prefer spontaneous casters. My past experiences aside, I have always despised having to be a mobile christmas tree on any character, and tend to dislike over reliance on consumables in particular. I tend to try to minimize both effects as much as possible, and that means that playing a wizard is problematic.
In the end, both approaches have about the same potential power and versatility. Wizards have the greater potential to shape the overall strategy and trajectory of the campaign as a whole, but are more limited in their impact on individual encounters that they lack access to the "perfect" spell. Also, their pursuit of limiting that particular weakness can use a lot of resources that they may or may not have, leaving them even more dependent on making sure that they do in fact have access to the "perfect" spell at all times. Sorcerers give up a lot of that greater overall versatility, but gain a lot more versatility in how to use the spells and magic items they do get, making them much better in actual encounters overall. They may never have the most powerful or the most effective spell, but it's a lot easier to pull a Macgyver when you actually take the time to learn the full capabilities of the spells you do have and can always access.
The biggest mistake people make when playing either is trying to play each of them like the other. Too many would be wizards try for the situational versatility that sorcerers have innately, and too many sorcerers try to achieve the kind of power and spell versatility that wizards have innately. Both tendencies waste a lot of the resources and potential available in both classes.
Both the wizard and the sorcerer have to choose which spells they can cast.
The Sorcerer gets to do so once. The Wizard gets to choose once a day. Which is more versatile?
The biggest mistake people make when playing either is trying to play each of them like the other. Too many would be wizards try for the situational versatility that sorcerers have innately, and too many sorcerers try to achieve the kind of power and spell versatility that wizards have innately. Both tendencies waste a lot of the resources and potential available in both classes.
I disagree with this completely. The best thing you can do as a wizard or sorc is to begin eliminating it's inherent weaknesses.
More spells known for a sorc is always a net plus.
Semi-spontaneity for a wizard is also a bonus.
My wizard has preferred spell (dragons breath) and rocks the spellbinder archetype (Got the familiar back with eldritch heritage) He's perhaps the best spell-caster I've ever made. The right amount of spontaneity while losing none of his wizard versatility.
I'll be picking up some annihilation spectacles soon enough for even more spontaneity.
Both the wizard and the sorcerer have to choose which spells they can cast.
The Sorcerer gets to do so once. The Wizard gets to choose once a day. Which is more versatile?
That's only part of the picture. The other part is that wizards are firmly locked in once they make their choices for the day. Need an extra fireball? Too bad, you've already used your pearl of power. Sorcerers, while limited in their base selection, have considerably more freedom in how they use what they have. Metamagic can be applied on the fly, they don't have to designate how many uses of each spell they have prepared, and they have more uses per day overall. The question is not who is more versatile, but which type of versatility is more useful in any given campaign? In any given campaign, do you really need the kind of versatility that a wizard can offer or is a sorcerer going to be better because they can deal with surprises a lot easier? Trying to look solely at any one aspect isn't fair to either class.
The biggest mistake people make when playing either is trying to play each of them like the other. Too many would be wizards try for the situational versatility that sorcerers have innately, and too many sorcerers try to achieve the kind of power and spell versatility that wizards have innately. Both tendencies waste a lot of the resources and potential available in both classes.I disagree with this completely. The best thing you can do as a wizard or sorc is to begin eliminating it's inherent weaknesses.
More spells known for a sorc is always a net plus.
Semi-spontaneity for a wizard is also a bonus.
My wizard has preferred spell (dragons breath) and rocks the spellbinder archetype (Got the familiar back with eldritch heritage) He's perhaps the best spell-caster I've ever made. The right amount of spontaneity while losing none of his wizard versatility.
I'll be picking up some annihilation spectacles soon enough for even more spontaneity.
To a point, but it can be carried so far that you actually end up emphasizing the weakness rather than diminishing it. You certainly need to account for the weakness, and figure out how to deal with it, but being obsessed with removing it completely can make one blind to the strengths of the class chosen. Sometimes its simply best to accept the weakness and focus on bolstering the strengths. The idea that one must have the full strengths of both is just plain insane to me, as the costs usually aren't the limited benefits.
To a point, but it can be carried so far that you actually end up emphasizing the weakness rather than diminishing it. You certainly need to account for the weakness, and figure out how to deal with it, but being obsessed with removing it completely can make one blind to the strengths of the class chosen. Sometimes its simply best to accept the weakness and focus on bolstering the strengths. The idea that one must have the full strengths of both is just plain insane to me, as the costs usually aren't the limited benefits.
Now that I can agree with. I imagine a Spellbinder Universilist with an amulet of magecraft, annihilation spectacles, and every feat possible as a preferred spell.
That would be overkill :)
I think I found the right balance. The only spells I've ever needed to spam during combat are damage spells, which makes dragons breath the perfect versatile choice.
Buffs and repeatable utility spells are perfect options for the spellbinder archetype. I'll always have a mirror image every combat. I'll always be able to teleport / fly / dispel magic if I need to.
Rare utility spells are perfect for scrolls as they always have.
Memorize mostly buffs / field control spells as those generally never go to waste.
And finally, leave a slot or two open per level for those times you encounter something truly odd or your scout tells whats ahead. "Give me a few minutes guys, I got just the thing for that".
You can increase versatility using many means. Fast Study? Your not feat starved as a wizard anyway. Rings of Wizardry double slots so you can always have a good selection of spells.
Wizards know more spells and can have enough slots to accommodate them.
So basically, with enough money and investment the sorcerer and wizard can get each others strength as well as their own? Color me unsurprised.
It gets a bit more bizarre/funny than that if you give them enough money. The sorcerer and wizard basically switch roles as one buys enough Page of Spell Knowledge and the other buys Pearls of Power.
Of course, in most games they'll probably only be able to buy a lot of the low level versions of these items, but the effect is still amusing.
|
|
o offense, but this feat looks like a horrible option for a sorc. So at the start of the day, you can take ONE spell from a spellbook or scroll (the scroll is used up) and place it in a spell SLOT one higher than it should be, and you can cast it ONCE. Top it off with you NEED to have an INT higher than typical for a sorc, and I just don't see the draw to this feat.Versatile Spontaneity
You made a good name for yourself in the Pathfinder Society in part because you knew how to prepare for the challenges before you, even if your natural magical abilities lend themselves less to preparation and more to spontaneity.
Prerequisites: Int 13 or Wis 13 (see Special), ability to spontaneously cast 2nd-level spells.
Benefit: When you regain spell slots at the start of the day, you may opt to prepare one spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell’s level. To do so, you must have access to the selected spell on a scroll or in a spellbook, and the spell must be on your spell list (even if it is not one of your spells known). This process takes 10 minutes per spell level of the selected spell. You can cast the selected spell a single time, expending the spell slot as though it were a known spell being cast by you. Preparing a spell in this manner expends a scroll but not a spellbook. A spell prepared in this way is considered its actual level rather than the level of the spell slot expended. You can apply metamagic feats to the spell as normal, as long as the spell’s actual level plus the increases from metamagic feats is 1 level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. For example, a 12th-level sorcerer with this feat, a scroll of fireball, and the Empower Spell metamagic feat could prepare an empowered fireball spell in her 6th-level spell slot.
Special: If you spontaneously cast arcane spells, you must have an Intelligence score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you spontaneously cast divine spells, you must have a Wisdom score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you have both arcane and divine spellcasting classes, you can use this feat to prepare a spell using a given class’s spell slot as long as you meet the associated ability score prerequisite.
You read it as "one spell/day", I read it a s 21 spell/slot expended".
Probably it will be the next hot debate what the the meaning of "you may opt to prepare one spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell’s level".For the other part of your reply, I find amusing that people say "the wizard versatility is great" then when a feat offer the same veratily to a sorcerer they say "that the feat is weak".
Intelligence has no uses and adding +2 intelligence to your headband of charisma has a terrible price, sure.
I was actually interested in the Versatile Spontaneity feat until I found out that it consumes scrolls you use for it. That makes it almost useless for PFS because sorcerers can't get spellbooks there.
Well, maybe with some luck the new PFS book that's coming out will solve that issue.
That's only part of the picture. The other part is that wizards are firmly locked in once they make their choices for the day. Need an extra fireball? Too bad, you've already used your pearl of power. Sorcerers, while limited in their base selection, have considerably more freedom in how they use what they have. Metamagic can be applied on the fly, they don't have to designate how many uses of each spell they have prepared, and they have more uses per day overall. The question is not who is more versatile, but which type of versatility is more useful in any given campaign? In any given campaign, do you really need the kind of versatility that a wizard can offer or is a sorcerer going to be better because they can deal with surprises a lot easier? Trying to look solely at any one aspect isn't fair to either class.Both the wizard and the sorcerer have to choose which spells they can cast.
The Sorcerer gets to do so once. The Wizard gets to choose once a day. Which is more versatile?
Oh yes, we can elaborate.
Spells Per Day are not about selection, since everyone gets roughly equal access to scrolls and wands (barring crafting, where wizards have a clear edge).
Repeat: Spells Per Day are not about selection. They're about Caster Level and Save DC.
Selection is something you can compensate for with GP. Now, you can't always do that, but let's not pretend that scrolls and wands have no place in this comparison.
You read it as "one spell/day", I read it a s 21 spell/slot expended".
Probably it will be the next hot debate what the the meaning of "you may opt to prepare one spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell’s level".
For the other part of your reply, I find amusing that the people that say "the wizard versatility is great" is the same people that say "a feat that give versatility to a sorcerer is weak".
Intelligence has no uses and adding +2 intelligence to your headband of charisma has a terrible price, sure.
Well, lets assume they meant "you may opt to prepare A spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot" instead of what they actually said which was "one" spell.
With that reading, it's better, but still rather limited. The time restriction is what kills it for me. A typical Wizard will waste an hour in the morning on spells (less if he spends a feat).
So usually there is an hour of downtime in which people can do whatever while the wizard does his thing.
With this feat and a generous reading, It's not like you can swap out an infinite number of spells. You will eventually hit a time crunch. Are you going to waste 4 hours swapping out 4 6th level spells? Not Likely. I see this being a decent option for lower level spell swapping, but you generally have enough of them known for it not to matter, and you can make up the rest of it with scrolls.
I also dislike that it eats up your scrolls. And, getting hold of a wizards spell book may not be an easy task.
Feats come at a premium to sorcs and I'm not sure I would spend it on this one, even with the generous reading.
|
|
I also dislike that it eats up your scrolls. And, getting hold of a wizards spell book may not be an easy task.
Really? From where a wizard get most of the spells he know?
So wizard get all of them from friendly guys that allow them to copy their spells for a few gp and scrolls?Those spellbook the PC sell after having copied the spell that interest them are waste paper?
In my experience getting a spellbook isn't rare at all.
In PFS it can be different, but in any home game spellbooks are something you find.
The time required to memorize the spell can be a problem, but it is not so different from the wizard asking for “15 minutes so I memorize the spell to overcome this obstacle.” and “another 15 minutes, so I will fill up another slot to overcome this other obstacle.”
It you have the time for one tactic you have the time for the other.
And then to resolve the problem you can borrow a line from the people enchanting while traveling: buy a ring of sustenance. Now the sorcerer has 6 hours to prepare his spells while the other guys sleep.
Even with your reading the feat resolve the problem of lacking the spells for enchanting wands or scrolls, removing one of the advantages of a wizard.
Another problem with Versatile Spontaneity that I just thought of is that it essentially puts your spell access three levels behind that of a Wizard. -1 because you are a sorcerer, and -2 due to the increased spell slot. That's kind of painful...
In my experience getting a spellbook isn't rare at all.
My experiences are the opposite, because wizards are complicated to run. Add in any other opponents in the fight, and the GM can easily get overwhelmed.
I'd estimate 95% of the arcane-spellcaster-bad-guys I've encountered since the debut of 3e are sorcerers.
In my experience getting a spellbook isn't rare at all.
In PFS it can be different, but in any home game spellbooks are something you find.
Hmpf.. I've had the opposite experience, I guess it depends on the campaign. All my spells were scrolls first, and the one enemy wizard we encountered died in lava and the book burned up. He read me the spell list anyway, and they were all spells I had already, and had I been a sorc, I would have had those spells too. Very generic list.
I don't play PFS so I can't comment. So, if you're able to get a hold of a custom spellbook that's terrific, and the best option for the feat.
The time required to memorize the spell can be a problem, but it is not so different from the wizard asking for “15 minutes so I memorize the spell to overcome this obstacle.” and “another 15 minutes, so I will fill up another slot to overcome this other obstacle.”
It you have the time for one tactic you have the time for the other.And then to resolve the problem you can borrow a line from the people enchanting while traveling: buy a ring of sustenance. Now the sorcerer has 6 hours to prepare his spells while the other guys sleep.
I forgot about the ring of sust. That would give some extra time to prep. and may even make it worth it provided we go with the more generous reading.
One advantage the wizard has is he does not need to make his choice right away like the sorc will with this feat. A sorc has to use the feat the moment he gets his slots back, or the opportunity to swap is lost... A Wizard can wait until he encounters the problem that needs solving.
Even with your reading the feat resolve the problem of lacking the spells for enchanting wands or scrolls, removing one of the advantages of a wizard.
This is the best use for the feat IMO.
That's only part of the picture. The other part is that wizards are firmly locked in once they make their choices for the day. Need an extra fireball? Too bad, you've already used your pearl of power. Sorcerers, while limited in their base selection, have considerably more freedom in how they use what they have. Metamagic can be applied on the fly, they don't have to designate how many uses of each spell they have prepared, and they have more uses per day overall. The question is not who is more versatile, but which type of versatility is more useful in any given campaign? In any given campaign, do you really need the kind of versatility that a wizard can offer or is a sorcerer going to be better because they can deal with surprises a lot easier? Trying to look solely at any one aspect isn't fair to either class.Both the wizard and the sorcerer have to choose which spells they can cast.
The Sorcerer gets to do so once. The Wizard gets to choose once a day. Which is more versatile?
I agree with what your saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else wish that the sorcerer and wizard had different spell lists, if only to stop this endless debate?
To the OP: For my play style, I prefer sorcerers. Also, my DM loves low-magic, low-money campaigns, so constantly scribing scrolls (or even finding spellbooks to copy) is difficult, making the sorcerer a superior choice for this particular DM.
However, one thing wizards have, which no one has yet mentioned, is the ability to bond with an object, instead of a familiar. I like this option, and it gives wizards some of the flexibility of a sorcerer, maybe more flexibility, depending on the size of your spellbook.
Selection is something you can compensate for with GP. Now, you can't always do that, but let's not pretend that scrolls and wands have no place in this comparison.
Reliable access to scrolls and wands are too heavily tied to individual campaigns to be of more than limited value for comparison. Even wizards who automatically get the necessary feats don't necessarily get the necessary time and gp. Wizards do have an edge in this department, but it's one easily blunted by crafting unfriendly campaigns and/or DMs. And games where crafting as a whole is fully utilized tend to see stronger characters all around, not just stronger wizards, so whatever advantage they gain there is not as large in practice as it is on paper. After a certain point, when crafting is actually used, it doesn't really matter who is making it or for how much. If the wizard can afford to make it himself, he could generally also afford the full market value if he had to, and one more scroll after you already have 10 has much less impact than when its your second scroll. Magic items are similar; the first two or three have a big impact, but generally after that, only the two or three most powerful are really used to define overall capability. In the end, the wizard's edge in crafting, even when allowed to fully function, is one of diminishing returns. The faster you craft, the faster you reach a point where new magic items simply don't have the kind of impact that changes the game. It's still useful, but not nearly as big as some people make it out to be. A sorcerer can in the end usually keep up with the wizard if they really want to; it takes more gp, but once you are able to buy multiple magic items, money is rarely much of a barrier by itself.
Does anyone else wish that the sorcerer and wizard had different spell lists, if only to stop this endless debate?
My preference would be to see them use completely different systems. Have the prepared casters keep the traditional lists, and refine spell points or the words of power to use with spontaneous casters. The words of power do a much better job effectively supporting the kind of flavor that is typically used for spontaneous casters while the vancian system works well to back up the flavor of the prepared casters.
However, one thing wizards have, which no one has yet mentioned, is the ability to bond with an object, instead of a familiar. I like this option, and it gives wizards some of the flexibility of a sorcerer, maybe more flexibility, depending on the size of your spellbook.
It also give the wizard yet another achilles heel, something the class really doesn't need. It's a price worth paying for many, but it is still a big price.
However, one thing wizards have, which no one has yet mentioned, is the ability to bond with an object, instead of a familiar. I like this option, and it gives wizards some of the flexibility of a sorcerer, maybe more flexibility, depending on the size of your spellbook.It also give the wizard yet another achilles heel, something the class really doesn't need. It's a price worth paying for many, but it is still a big price.
Hmmmm...
I actually feel familiars are a bigger achillies heel. Useful, yes. Especially those that fly and/or talk. But then, so is an item that let's you spontaneously cast. Unfortunately, familiars are much more visible, and vulnerable targets than items, and require much more effort to ensure their safety.
But that may be a topic for another thread.
|
|
Does anyone else wish that the sorcerer and wizard had different spell lists, if only to stop this endless debate?
Like the summoner? No thanks. (I mean a highly personalized set of spells, not 6 levels of spellcasting)
Personally i feel that the modifies that were made to the summoner spell list, downgrading the level of plenty of spells are terrible. I would fear the repetition of that mistake.Sure, the witch spell list is ok, but what would you remove and add to the sorcerer spell list while still keeping it viable? And what powers would be added/removed to compensate for the changes?
However, one thing wizards have, which no one has yet mentioned, is the ability to bond with an object, instead of a familiar. I like this option, and it gives wizards some of the flexibility of a sorcerer, maybe more flexibility, depending on the size of your spellbook.It also give the wizard yet another achilles heel, something the class really doesn't need. It's a price worth paying for many, but it is still a big price.Hmmmm...
I actually feel familiars are a bigger achillies heel. Useful, yes. Especially those that fly and/or talk. But then, so is an item that let's you spontaneously cast. Unfortunately, familiars are much more visible, and vulnerable targets than items, and require much more effort to ensure their safety.
But that may be a topic for another thread.
Most people wouldn't actually notice or care if their familiar died; the bonuses are nice, but not that great. Losing the bonded object not only causes the wizard to lose access to its abilities, but makes any casting significantly harder until they recover it or make a new one.
The idea that a sorcerer is more flexible because they can cast more of the same spell rings false to me. The argument seems to be, "Well, what if you need three of those and you only prepared two and already used your pearl of power?"
Okay, so my wizard had exactly the right spell three times, but now he doesn't for the forth time. So the sorcerer is better if a certain spell is needed more than two or three times in a row and they happen to have that spell.
Also, the sorcerer can usually make do with the spells he has, coming up with creative uses for his spells, but apparently if a wizard does not have just the perfect spell he is not able to be creative with the spells he has. I just don't get it.
Not having Fireball is probably a bad example. In combat it would be rare for the wizard to not have something to do. He might have to make due with a Lightning Bolt or a Haste or a Stinking Cloud, but he can help.
Maybe the party has to get over a chasm. The sorcerer casts fly on everyone (using probably at least 4 3rd level spell slots) and everyone gets across. Yay!
The wizard only has one or two castings. What does he do? Does he have Wall of Ice? Cause he can make a bridge and everyone can walk across (one 4th level spell). Or a 5th level Summon Monster can get 1d4+1 dire bats to carry people. Or some combination of Fly, Summon Monster and maybe Spider climb or whatever.
On the other hand if you come across a solid wall the wizard can spend 15 minutes and whip out a Passwall. If the sorcerer has that on a scroll (and he might, it's a good one for scrolls), he's good. Otherwise he is going to have to settle on trying to blast his way through or maybe helping the fighter hack through.
Sorcerers are still good. They can be very powerful. And in the right circumstances they can be even more useful than a wizard, but I think the wizard holds the edge most of the time.
Sorcerers are still good. They can be very powerful. And in the right circumstances they can be even more useful than a wizard, but I think the wizard holds the edge most of the time.
If you try to play sorcerers like wizards always wanting to have that perfect spell, the wizard will win. If you play sorcerers like Mcgyver, improvising and thinking on their feet, they come into their own strength, and no wizard can touch them in that arena. Wizards require time, and even 15 minutes or 1 minute is not always available; that is where the sorcerer can really do well. He may not have the best solution, but its a solution, and it's one that is already available. In the passwall example, you assume they have 15 minutes; what if the party is being pursued and/or the wizard has already had to use all of his available slots for the day? Assuming neither has the necessary scroll, the sorcerer can adapt immediately while the wizard is praying that the rest of the party can buy him time or is simply staring the wall wishing he had more spells. Likewise in many social situations, the wizard simply cannot break free from the scene long enough to fill the slot. In both cases, having more spells per day, and having the freedom of deciding which one to cast at the time of casting is heavily in the sorcerer's favor. Potential is nice, but it is still only potential until you can successfully access it.
Before sorcerers, it was simply assumed that the party would cover for the wizard so that he could get that time; with wizards being the only arcane caster, there was little choice. Now, with other options commonly available, it's not an automatic that the party and DM are going to supply the wizard the time, nor is it automatic that the arcane caster is going to be a wizard. Your entire position relies on the sorcerer trying to use the spells in the same way a wizard does, and that's always going to lead to the wizard having an edge. The sorcerer's strength is that they can take the same spells, and use them in often completely different ways; this doesn't make them stronger than the wizard, just different, and when approached in this manner, not weaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you try to play sorcerers like wizards always wanting to have that perfect spell, the wizard will win. If you play sorcerers like Mcgyver, improvising and thinking on their feet, they come into their own strength, and no wizard can touch them in that arena.
Both sorcerers and wizards will have a limited number of spells available to him. But you are saying that the sorcerer can improvise with his spells to make them work and the wizard can not. I disagree.
Wizards require time, and even 15 minutes or 1 minute is not always available; that is where the sorcerer can really do well. He may not have the best solution, but its a solution, and it's one that is already available. In the passwall example, you assume they have 15 minutes; what if the party is being pursued and/or the wizard has already had to use all of his available slots for the day? Assuming neither has the necessary scroll, the sorcerer can adapt immediately while the wizard is praying that the rest of the party can buy him time or is simply staring the wall wishing he had more spells.
Sorry, no. If there is no time then both the wizard and sorcerer are in the same boat. Neither of them will have the right spell to get through the wall. You are assuming that if the wizard can't spend 15 minutes to get his Passwall, then he can't do anything. That is simply not true. He probably has many more spells that he can improvise with, just like the sorcerer would have to do. The difference is that if there is time the wizard can make use of it and the sorcerer can not. Now if the wizard has used all his slots, then odds are a sorcerer would have used all his slots as well. Sorcerers really don't have that many more spells than a wizard. But if he didn't and he had one spell left that would actually work, then that would be one of those circumstances where a sorcerer would perform better.
Likewise in many social situations, the wizard simply cannot break free from the scene long enough to fill the slot. In both cases, having more spells per day, and having the freedom of deciding which one to cast at the time of casting is heavily in the sorcerer's favor. Potential is nice, but it is still only potential until you can successfully access it.
In a social situation the wizard would most likely have prepared a lot of social spells in advance. He wouldn't need to break away. Now if they all of a sudden came into a social situation in the middle of a dungeon, then yes, the fact that the sorcerer as a Charm Person on his list that he can spontaneously cast might be handy. But if a Tongues spell is needed there is a better chance that the wizard will have one available. If there is even a chance that they could get whatever creatures to wait till he can get it prepared it is better than nothing. Of course the sorcerer can leverage the fact that he can cast Fireball over and over for some aggressive diplomacy.
Before sorcerers, it was simply assumed that the party would cover for the wizard so that he could get that time; with wizards being the only arcane caster, there was little choice. Now, with other options commonly available, it's not an automatic that the party and DM are going to supply the wizard the time, nor is it automatic that the arcane caster is going to be a wizard. Your entire position relies on the sorcerer trying to use the spells in the same way a wizard does, and that's always going to lead to the wizard having an edge. The sorcerer's strength is that they can take the same spells, and use them in often completely different ways; this doesn't make them stronger than the wizard, just different, and when approached in this manner, not weaker.
Please explain how a sorcerer can use any spell any differently than a wizard can. He can apply metamagic on the fly, which is nice for blast spells and such, but it really doesn't help utility.
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned having a standard list for his wizard. That's a good idea, but every wizard should have several. If you are in the wilderness that's one list. If you are in town, that's another. A different list for in dungeons and a list for going to social events. Each list has open slots and I will sometimes swap out spells for others that I think will be needed. But if I'm not sure, I go with the default list for the environment.
When playing a wizard I end up with easily half a dozen lists that I can pull out at the beginning of the day and say "Here's what I have prepared". I do this so that the rest of the players don't have to wait while I decide what spells my wizard will prepare. It is just common courtesy.
A sorcerer has one list. And he is going to use that list for every environment because he has no other choice.
I'm not going to try to argue with you; it's obvious that you simply don't get the differences. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses, and which one is going to be better is going to depend largely on the party and campaign. It's like the old tv show MASH. Both Hawkeye and Winchester were very good surgeons, but in very different ways. In a field hospital, Hawkeye had the advantage because the style of surgery done there was better suited to him; that doesn't make Winchester bad, just a bit out of place, and having to work harder to fit into the place he found himself. The sorcerer/wizard debate is very similar; you can make either one work, but one is always going to fit individual circumstances better than the other; you can still bring the other, but it will be more work and effort required. In the end, neither has any edge overall; they are too evenly matched on paper to really say that one is better than the other.
Fair enough. I agree the sorcerer has his place, and there are situation where a sorcerer would be better able to adapt. Our disagreement is just a matter of degrees.
Oh, and I enjoyed the MASH reference. Although some of the younger crowd may be scratching their heads.
MASH references are the best. Winchester was such a step up from Burns. I'm only 24, by the way. Love MASH.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to use the toolbox vs multi-tool analogy, since I never watched much MASH.
A sorc is a lot like those fancy electric multi tools. Provided the job requires one of those tools, it makes the job a ton easier. The problem comes when you meet a job not designed for the tool. You can improvise and still get the job done, but it wasn't optimal.
The Wizard is a lot like a toolbox. Sure, the tools are manual and it may be easier to do with an electric multi-tool, but you can still get the job done provided you packed the right tools for the job. The problem comes when you don't know what job you need to prepare for. You can improvise and still get the job done, but it wasn't optimal.
Me, I prefer the toolbox over the multi-tool. I'll toss in an electric drill (preferred spell: dragons breath) into the toolbox to make the jobs that require a drill a bit easier to complete, and Sorcs will bring some hand tools with them just in case. But, for me, I prefer the toolbox wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When PF first came out the Wizard held an undeniable edge. These days, I think the balance of power has swung pretty hard in the other direction, especially as you move into higher levels.
The fact of the matter is that pretty much every book has increased sorcerer power. From favorite class options, to cross-blooded, to the sage wildblooded archtype the reality is that the options for a sorcerer have expanded dramatically, at a level the wizard can't really approach. Whether blasting, generalizing, enchanting, summoning, or going for utility, you can find pretty powerful tools in the sorcerer tool box that the wizard lacks. That isn't to say there haven't been powerful wizard additions (the Void school jumps out in particular), but it is to say that generally speaking the class and race options have favored the sorcerer, both form a specialization and a generalization perspective.
That's before you average in items that more or less allow a sorcerer to play wizard. From the ring of spell knowledge, to pages of spell knowledge, to the mnemonic vestment, sorcerer's have gained a wide range of ability that allow them to play at being wizards - they can even carry a spellbook if they desire. The mnemonic vestment in particular basically frees up a sorcerer to learn only spells that are likely to be used heavily, with the option to cast nitch things like planar binding, magic circles, and so forth other ways as needed. Some toys have gone the other way, for instance allowing a wizard to convert slots into a given spell via feat, or allowing a wizard to spontaenously cast a single spell, but 1 free spell of that nature for a wizard is much less useful than 1 or more free spells off their list for a sorcerer every single day.
Add onto that the fact that a sorcerer gets access to his bloodline abilities 4 levels early via robes of arcane heritage and... well it's really hard to argue for the wizard in most cases. An 12th level sorcerer interested in summoning is dropping 3 monsters off his highest level list with each summon monster he casts, a nuking sorcerer is adding +2 damage to each die of damage, and an enchanter is jacking up his DCs by up to 5 points at level 20 (even before things like the arcane bloodline, for another free +2).
And again, let me say that if you want to play a generalist arcanist, sorcerer is the way to go. The ability to spontaneously cast spells known off a huge list offers a profound freedom to always have the right spell on hand (and the freedom to cast it as freely as you want, with no worry about needing it later). A human sorcerer has a truly ridiculous number of spells known at the higher levels, allowing them to easily cover almost every major base that might regularly come up - and with things like the mnemonic vestment and others (as noted earlier) they can cover any bases they're missing with ease. They do so without expending the ridiculous fortunes that wizards do on spellbooks, protecting spellbooks, and trying to gain access to spells (which at higher levels becomes increasingly challenging).
So, yeah. Spontaneous casting is, at the moment, significantly better than prepared.
