| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thing has derailed on the first page.
There is no parley when the rules are just guidelines.
To sum up my post above with an actual reply to the thread's topic.
I choose to play wizards every time because they are better than Sorcerers in almost every way. From spell level access, to spells known, to the use of Metamagic, to flexible spell selection and beyond. The sole advantage of a Sorcerer is spontaneous casting, which is as much of a help as it is a hurt.
For that very reason, in my own campaigns I make several houserules to bring the sorcerer and wizard to par with one another, including putting them on the same spell level access track.
Delayed spellcasting significantly hurts most chances of me opting to play a sorcerer over a wizard and likewise, an oracle over a cleric. It's an unnecessary hindrance. The rest is manageable or at least a trade off.
At this point I think adding the arcane bloodline powers to the wizard would help with the perceived imbalance. (coupled with my house rule that all casters are spontaneous this should help the wizard see more use in my games.)*chokes*
Really? Between the two primary arcane casters it's the Wizard whose supposedly underpowered?
IMO? and the opinion of my players? yes. (Keep in mind this is coming from some one who prefers Wizards over Sorcerers any day)
Wizards, who get spell level access an entire level earlier than Sorcerers (aka for over a third of the game Sorcerers might as well be a level lower than wizards)
So far this is the only selling point for Wizards
Wizards, who know at least 4 spells of a given spell level by the time a Sorcerer can know one.
spells alone doth not a wizard make.
Wizards, who if specialized (and lets face it, who plays Universalist wizards?) have just as many spells per day of the highest spell level available, and only one fewer spells per day of every other level.
I play universalists. I do not think the benefits out weigh the limitations for specializing. (Although I do think the beneis for a Universalist need up graded a bit)
Wizards, who don't get screwed out of their move action by using metamagic. (I'll note I don't have a problem with casters needing to give up their move actions for metamagic, my problem is with spontaneous casters being the only casters affected by this rule)
This would be a bigger deal if I didnt have to waste regular feats to get a decent amount of Meta-magic
Wizards, who can learn a TON of spells from their list, given a little time and a comparatively trivial amount of gold.
As I pointed out earlier I do not consider this selling point as it relies too heavily on the GM for effect.
Wizards, who can run away from a problem and come back the next day with a whole new set of powers compared to the previous day.
Vancian Casting system... the less said the better.
Wizards, who can spend 15 minutes pulling any spell they know out of their ass- I mean spellbook- to deal with an unforseen challenge.
15 minutes they may not have.
Wizards, who get scribe scroll for free and can carry plenty of contingency spells to cover their asses in regards to spells they didn't want to prepare. (Do note, my friend, that Spellcraft is Int based and crafting scrolls requires knowing the spell, so even if the Sorcerer bought the feat he'd be pretty crappy at using it.)
That makes two selling points for Wizards so far.
Now, this isn't to say that Sorcerers don't have ANY advantages, but Schools and bonus feats every 5th level roughly even out with Bloodlines, leaving the Sorcerer with nothing but spontaneous casting to...
We will have to agree to disagree on this point I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards, who know at least 4 spells of a given spell level by the time a Sorcerer can know one.spells alone doth not a wizard make.
Just going to address this one point: spells "doth", in fact, make a Wizard. Suppose a hypothetical Sorc just hit 6th level, and is drooling over his new spells. Which should he choose? Fireball? Useless if the party hits demons, or other things with fire resistance/immunity. Dispel Magic. Not so great against a horde of barbarians. Apart from a small number out truly standout, versitile spells (such as Summon Monster #), Sorcs can have a hard time covering all of their bases, especially shortly after gaining new spell levels. I have not played a Sorc personally, but I DM for one, and it is a well established fact that versatility, in Pathfinder, is power. Wizards have versatility in spades. If uses/day we're what was important, Fighters would be on top, with their unlimited 2d6+9. A comparable 6th level Wizard knows four 3rd level spells, and can cast them as often as that Sorc (Seriously, never ever play a universalist), and could even have non-combat spell for off-days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play universalists. I do not think the benefits out weigh the limitations for specializing. (Although I do think the beneis for a Universalist need up graded a bit)
This says a lot. Preparing one spell from your forbidden school of each spell level is essentially breaking even with the benefits of specializing. And at level 9 a Wizard gets to pick one of their forbidden schools to unforbidden. And Specialist schools have amazingly powerful school powers.
There is almost no reason to play a Universalist.
Not to mention that because a Specialist can still scribe opposed spells into his spellbook, he can still Scribe those very same spells into scrolls with a small penalty to the spellcraft check, and whenever such an opposed school spell is needed just pop it out of the utility belt.I play universalists. I do not think the benefits out weigh the limitations for specializing. (Although I do think the beneis for a Universalist need up graded a bit)
This says a lot. Preparing one spell from your forbidden school of each spell level is essentially breaking even with the benefits of specializing. And at level 9 a Wizard gets to pick one of their forbidden schools to unforbidden. And Specialist schools have amazingly powerful school powers.
There is almost no reason to play a Universalist.
One of the nicest bits is that Divination is a valid forbidden school option now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I have a hard time giving up Divination. The ability to tap into the cosmos for answers is something I really value. And something I could never make room for in my limited spells known as a Sorcerer.
Scrolls and downtime friend. Chances are you tend to not need Divination spells when you're out on the grind.
Honestly I have a hard time giving up Divination. The ability to tap into the cosmos for answers is something I really value. And something I could never make room for in my limited spells known as a Sorcerer.
I usually don't mind losing Divination because the DM hardly ever lets me utilize it to its full potential.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
*cracks knuckles*
Alrighty, I'll try my hand at this.
*ahem*
As a die-hard Wizard player, whose first character was a wizard, and who has regularly been playing wizard for past many years, but have yet to play a sorcerer, know that I am obviously biased. With that said, I'll try to remain as objective as I can, while remaining true to the OP question of "remind me why wizards rule". Paraphrased, of course.
Alot of valid points have been made so far, and I'll echo them, since I find no reason to leave points out of my argument. Remember that everything that follows is just my opionion. However, if I choose to cite the rules, I will cite the rules. Not the "guidelines"... *shudder*. There's a topic for a rant, for another time.
1 - When making a wizard, you get the scribe scroll feat for free. As a class whose core mechanic, as well as its flavour, revolves around being prepared, this is a great bonus. It offers the option of having an infinite number of extra spells prepared, based on your own preference. It costs a certain amount of magical ressources worth X amount of GP, as well as take a bit of time, true. However the payoff is clearly there. You may be able to avoid several hard situations(and potentially deadly encounters) in your adventuring career, simply by having a scroll of comprehend languages ready for use.
2 - Wizards gain the mightiest spells faster than the sorcerer. This is an important point, and the first, clear thing the wizard holds over the sorcerer. The wizard can employ spells of a higher level, faster. That means more utility, more options, higher base output and higher save DCs. While a sorcerer can just as easily use a feat to get scribe scroll, this is a thing he cannot replicate.
3 - Wizards get the arcane bond. I actually don't like the bonded item, but that is mostly because I am so, very much, in love with the familiars in the game. Familiars are awesome! They are loyal friends, clever little buggers, make for excellent scouts and offer benefits just for chosing them. The sorcerer can get his own familiar, which is flippin' awesome, but it requires that he chose the arcane bloodline. While the arcane bloodline is widely regarded as the "best" bloodline, it still means you won't be taking one of the other bloodlines, and perhaps you had a character planned around that. So while a familiar is an option for sorcerers, I find that wizards getting them for free is just great. You can even improve it later on with a feat, that lets your familiar be even more awesome. My favorite familiar is the Imp. If I want to, I can give him a wand of fireball(or any other spell, but fireball in this example) and let him fly far away from combat and rain death down on my enemies. You can do the same with certain other familiars, Imp is just my favorite.
4 - Wizards are int-based, getting them more skill-points. This coupled with the fact that they have alot of int-based class skills, means they will be very skilled at alot of different things. This is a boon to any party. Better yet, if you chose the familiar, your familiar shares your skills, so lets say you're asked to do a knowledge check. You get 2 rolls at the same bonus. Again, there's the arcane sorcerer argument, but we've already addressed that.
5 - School specializations. How wonderful are school specializations?! They give you one extra spell per spell-level to cast. They give you special abilities, that range from "this is not so bad" to "holy s%~$ this is awesome" on the useful-o-graph, and every school has a subschool specialization, that make you able to tailor your specialization powers a bit more, and get access to some -really- cool abilities. Shift(Su), anyone?? Anyway, this is just a great benefit. I was a universalist caster back in my 3.x days, but that has changed. Specializations no longer make you unable to cast from your opposition school either, it just takes one more spell-slot. It is a really great feature. Wizards used to have ALL the options. Now they really do :)
6 - Bonus feats. Not gonna explain why this is awesome.
6.5 - Okay, I am. Bonus feats are not just awesome for being bonus feats you can use on metamagic or somesuch, but because they also offer access to Arcane Discoveries. And Arcane Discoveries are suger-coated awesome, wrapped in delicious win. Some of them are really useful, some of them are less so. What they have in common is that they can all find a place in the repetoir of certain wizards, and they pay for themselves with their amazing powers. My personal favorite is Feral Speech, since it means I can walk into a forest with a bag of breadcrumbs, a pound of chopped meat, and a handful of shiny pennies, and come out later the same day with spies and allies everywhere in said forest.
7 - Spell options. Having access to all the spells available to your class is amazing. Just ask any cleric, and they're limited by the selection of diety, and still find it awesome. Wizards have to put in work though, true. But in response to nay-sayers who say magic is hard to come by and GMs are scared of allowing spell-access and yadda yadda, let me just say that a class is designed with the default world in mind. A wizard will not be nearly as useful if the GM artificially contracts the amount of spells he can reasonably aquire, any more than a fighter will be useful in a game where weapons break on a roll of 5 or less, or a sorcerer can accidentally expend spells once per hour, with a roll of 25 or less on 1d100. The point is: arbitrary, nonsense GM rulings can screw over any class, in any game. If you play it as intended, the wizard does not have nearly as hard a time aquiring spells to fill his spellbooks, and if you play it like that, he is offered amazing versatility, and a vast, just massive amount of spells he can pick and chose from, when he prepares to do, whatever it is the group wants to do.
------------------------
A wizard is potentially an insanely powerful and dangerous opponent, and an exceedingly useful party member.
There is one more point to be made though. Most of us know the myth of sorceres having more spells to cast than the wizard is basically debunked, and that they have only the meekest amount of extra spells at certain levels. But the sorcerer -can- be more useful (if not more powerful) than the wizard based on the type of game the GM is running. A wizard shines when he can prepare. Wizards are among the most intelligent creatures on a given plane of existence, rocking their Int higher and higher, capable of plans, and plans within plans that baffle most creatures. Alot of their strength hinges on being prepared. If they are not prepared, they will, like most other classes, have a tougher time challenging whatever they face. Now keep in mind that an unprepared sorcerer can still have trouble facing the same challenges, but as opposed to the wizard, there is nothing he can do to change that position.
If the GM runs a game on rails, where there's a doomsday-clock ticking in the background, everything must be rushed, and many efforts are made to keep the coming challenges hidden from the party, then the Wizard will not be able to prepare well, and he must pick generally useful spells for each day, meaning he will effectively become a sorcerer with a few fewer spells to cast, and without the ability to spontaneously choose from the ones prepared, instead expending them upon casting. In this situation, we see the wizard at his worst. So if your GM is always running this kind of campaign, then you should probably not play a wizard, unless you want the challenge. In less rushed games, where the enemy does not have unexplainable scouting-preventing measures set up EVERYWHERE, and where the party can aquire gear of their volition, rather than only using what they find on ye-ole'-railway, a wizard will leave a sorcerer in the dust.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally found sorcerer survive better than wizard in early game mostly because I did good job tanking and killing at early. But after I no longer have to babysit them, sorcerer gone insanely powerful with their 4-5 fireball everyday and kill everything in two hits mostly. But at late game around level 15 and so on, wizard got so powerful. He will have enough resource to cast anything anytime. He can buff, summon, damage, crowd control, utility as well as killing. There are almost no stopping wizard unless we got trapped in a realm with no magic, then sorcerer will survive better since some of her power still works.
I would say, it's depends how much magic resource players will get. More magic resource, better for the wizard. Less resource, sorcerer survive better.
You people are literally arguing over an ever increasing situational issue
Create ANY class ANY way you want using the entire rule set and someone else can make something that beats it in some way...
Int is better than Cha SITUATIONALLY
Cha is better than Int SITUATIONALLY
Wizards are SITUATIONALLY better than sorcerers
Sorcerers are SITUATIONALLY better than wizards
My assassin can SITUATIONALLY OHK a CR 16 dragon with his finger
A hunter can SITUATIONALLY deal more damage than a barbarian
Rogues can SITUATIONALLY outmatch a fighter for damage
It is pointless to argue clas superiority when everyone has different play styles, GMs, houserules, and tactics
If I made a world with all enemies immune to electricity...your all lightning based sorcerer sucks...if my world has random anti magic fields any caster you play has the potential to be outright screwed
Stop arguing...this is no longer giving advice
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are a powerful option. Potentially stronger than a sorcerer at a given level.
Potentially.
The reasons I rarely play wizards are twofold. Bookkeeping and lack of spontaneous access to his spells.
Wizards are like Batman. Give them knowledge of what they're facing and time to prepare and they're nigh unstoppable. Drop them into the unknown, however, and they often times don't have the right tools for the job.
A sorcerer knows fewer spells, but with good selection and metamagic, he almost always has the answer to the problem at hand.
The wizard might have the right spell memorized, but probably only once. What if it fails, or the thing makes its save? The sorcerer can just keep trying.
I certainly see the appeal of wizards, they're just not for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ OP
You play in an environment that makes Wizards suck. Limiting the availability of Scrolls is not intendet in any way or form. Limiting it to the Point where the Wizard has 2 Spells per Level is the next closest thing to just telling your players: "Noone plays a Wizard in my Game!"
All your Arguments against the many advantages the Wizards have break down to a broken houserule you and your friends have that makes Wizards the bad theres no point in playing one. You asked for what the advantages of wizards are, and the folks around here told you a lot of advantages the wizard has in a common setting. With your houserule you are completely right, there is no point in playing a wizard over a sorcerer with 2 Spells per Level. For the normal gamesetting this is simply not true. In a normal setting all the listed advantages are actual advantages that wizards have.
And considering Arguments such as: Intelligence isn't better then Charisma
YES IT IS! Intelligence gives you more skillranks and a bonus on intelligence based skills. Charisma only gives you a bonus on charisma based skills and no skillranks. Intelligence gives you flatout MORE. Now there are cases where you want charisma (like when you want to be the party face) and in this case you are completely right, in this specific case charisma is the better casting stat. but in MOST cases intelligence is simply better.
And something on the universalist wizard: The only reason to play a universalist wizard is because you want to do it. From a mechanical point of view the universalist is strictly always worse then a specialist.
This threat has become a discussion about houserules. If you go by the rules Wizards have advantages, if you dont go by the rules, noone in this forum can help you unless you state the houserule in the discription of your initial problem
/rant
I would then retrain it at level 11 because I get it for free from the Arcane Bloodline.
Point of order -- you can't retrain spells at level 11 normally as a sorcerer because it isn't an even level.
That said as you later point out other options do exist.
Personally I find the two to be a draw -- wizards can easily have spontaneous spell casting if they like and sorcerers can find ways to have more spells known per day.
For me it all comes down to the player's style on which is better on a player by player basis.
On an overarching theoretical level I would say wizards come out ahead... but that is isn't so far ahead as to be a huge deal. After all neither the wizard or sorcerer are a cleric or oracle.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Don't make the assumption that your "experience" is typical.The same could be said for your stance.
35 years of gaming (on both sides of the gm screen) and discussions with other players from all walks of life (over that 35 years) says my experiences are the norm
My 30 years of gaming (on both sides of the GM screen) and discussions with other players from all walks of life (over that 30 years) says that your experiences are not the norm.
Anybody that thinks a sorcerer superior to a wizard is misinformed or willfully ignorant. Why not claim monks are better at combat than barbarians?
Pfft whatever dude . That spell isnt that good either btw and my wizard could take it at 5th whereas your sorc gets to ...wait...for it.
And something on the universalist wizard: The only reason to play a universalist wizard is because you want to do it. From a mechanical point of view the universalist is strictly always worse then a specialist.
If your character is built on crafting, there is something to be said for Arcanamirium Crafter Universalists. Possibly even better in a game with a lower level cap to allow you to grab all the feats you wanted.
Not sure it's quite on par with specializing, but it definitely feels more useful than straight Universalist.
Paragon Surge says hello to your particular brand of ignorance.
You surge with ancestral power, temporarily embodying all the strengths of both elvenkind and humankind simultaneously, and transforming into a paragon of both races, something greater than elf or human alone. Unlike with most polymorph effects, your basic form does not change, so you keep all extraordinary and supernatural abilities of your half-elven form as well as all of your gear. For the duration of the spell, you receive a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity and Intelligence and are treated as if you possessed any one feat for which you meet the prerequisites, chosen when you cast this spell.
What am I missing?
-Nearyn
Exactly.
What am I missing?
There's a feat that gives you an extra spell known.
That is accessible to wizards one level earlier so how does that make a sorcerer better?
You get to select any feat you want.Expanded Arcana is a feat which lets you add any spell of your highest level from your spell list to your spells known or two from lower levels.
Welcome to spontaneous access to your entire spell list for the low low price of a level 3 spell slot and a standard action. Oracles can do crazier things using Improved Eldritch heritage (Arcane).
To be fair prepared casters can get in on the act as well with Preferred Spell.
Yeah, I know about expanded Arcana, that's not why I'm asking. I'm asking what your point is? You cite a mediocre spell that is on over half the caster-classes spell-list, that has a minute/level duration and requires you to be a half-elf. (GMs handwaving this requirement will -not- be taken into consideration, seeing as how that is fiat territory). How does that change the fact that wizards mechanically offer more than the sorcerer, any more than it changes the fact that barbarians usually deal more dmg than monks? You called it ignorance. Back it up.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is accessible to wizards one level earlier so how does that make a sorcerer better?
Because it allows sorcerers to acces literally any spell for a short period of time.
HOWEVER, the spell is technically limited to half-elves. I personally dont allow it in my games.
As for the whole wizard thing, all the good points have been indicated. A fair amount of GMs have a hate-on for wizards, and dont allow them any chance of collecting their spells. In those cases, spontaneous is better, since this is a case of a GM eliminating the advantages of prepared classes.
I tend to allow easy acces for scrolls 1-3, hard for those above. I also allow downtime for "spell research".
If there is antything to learn from this thread, it's that there are different playstyles. I believe it's important to inform players of this BEFORE they choose a prepared caster, because otherwise it just creates unpleasantness for everyone.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this entire thread is silly. The OP asks, what make Wizards equal to Sorcerers and tons of people give options and he basically gets all hot and bothered about it and keeps saying that "this is not the case in my games or the people I have talked to"
Well the arguments in favor of the Wizard over the Sorcerer are all common place in every single game I have ever played..EVERY SINGLE ONE.
So the argument isn't really about the validity of comparing the classes in an objective manner as much as it is about which would be better for your home games as each class is written...well obviously you have determined that it is the sorcerer and further conversation on the matter is pointless. You have already determined that you have to add to the abilities to make the Wizard equal which I personally think makes them over powered but what do I know as I don't play in your games and don't understand the dynamic that has raised your concern.
I think that if you consider bonus feats and getting spells a level earlier as low selling points then you simply aren't of the same mind that others are and the argument serves no point. As I don’t believe I have ever heard of someone’s mind being changed by an online forum.
But if you are arguing that you have to home rule something to make it meet your standards then what is really being argued here.
I’m of the mind that the rogue is not a useless class and it all depends on build and play style….the VAST MAJORITY of people disagree and think me an idiot for being a rogue fan boy…it has yet to change my mind…this thread is the same except that the OP is all offended every time anyone brings something up…you have people quoting rules for crying out loud.
The main benefit the Wizard has over the sorcerer is that he can gain access to every spell on his list while the sorcerer is limited to a fixed list.
Main? Perhaps. Only? Hardly.
Paragon Surge removes that limitation for the Sorcerer allowing him access to the entire list which is supposed to be the main advantage of the Wizard.
So.... we're praising a spell that is mediocre, but progressively becomes more useful as you increase in level. We do this, because the spell in question lets us get access to one or two more spells than we usually have, for a maximum of 40 minutes per casting at level 20, provided we extend it, and that can be dispelled?
Yes you have to be a Half Elf or a Human with Racial Heritage.
Yes, yes you do.
Guess what they both offer, extra spells known as a FCB so you are likely to be picking one or the other in any event.
...sooooo, now we're back to the "ignorant" part.
-Nearyn
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to jump in and say:
A GM who severely limits a Wizard's access to additional spells for their spellbook is being a giant d-bag. It's one of the main draws of the class for crying out loud.
Additionally, if the same GM doesn't assign arbitrary limitations to his Divine casters in the same way, then not only is he being a giant d-bag, but he's being a hypocrite too. (Clerics and Druids get access to every single divine spell that is printed in existence... but Wizards' spellbooks are too much? Are ya f'kin kidding me?!)