1. A wizard can potently learn every spell instead of being limited to a set number of spell determined by level.
2. Wizards use INT as a casting stat so that means they get a lot more skill, and have a lot higher roll on a lot of important skills.
3. Wizards get access to spells one level earlier than a sorcerer
1: sound in theory. Unfortunately not in practical application. It has been my experience that GMs are deathly afraid of wizards gaining spells beyond what the charts/class level ups allow.
A wizard can learn spells from scrolls. A GM would have to never give scrolls out.
Hahaha!
What am I missing?
which I clarified as being about your "ignorance" comment here:
You called it ignorance. Back it up
and repeated here:
...sooooo, now we're back to the "ignorant" part.
... you're not gonna answer, are you?
-Nearyn
Not laughing at you cyrad the post before you tickled me in its goodness.
Dont feel bad Andreww several of us dont understand what you are saying.
At this point I am not sure what it is that you are actually trying to say.
Then I'm afraid I do not possess the patience to pursue this conversation with you, further. Good day.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play universalists.
You lost all credibility right there, bud.
I love how the "Wizards suck when compared to Sorcerers" crowd are using house rules and anecdotal evidence to back up their claims. Look at the RAW and compare them. They both have advantages and weaknesses. I'd put Wizards over Sorcerers for the early access to spells and larger variety of spells. Yknow, what everyone else said.......
If you want to argue using house rules or personal experience, House Rules forums is >>>>>that way
The points i would make in favor of wizards have already been made. I will leave it to you to make redundant comments and call it contributing. Andreww.
I didnt start the thread but ok...
What am I missing?
It seems to me that a sorcerer who can cast Overland Flight in the morning, Teleport in the evening, and some other level 5 spell inbetween is significantly more versatile than one who can only cast one level 5 spell over and over. Do you disagree, or just think wizards can do things that are even better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What am I missing?It seems to me that a sorcerer who can cast Overland Flight in the morning, Teleport in the evening, and some other level 5 spell inbetween is significantly more versatile than one who can only cast one level 5 spell over and over. Do you disagree, or just think wizards can do things that are even better?
The comment was supposed to challenge the position that the existence of that spell, somehow made Daenar ignorant.
Just in case you still want your question answered, here you go :)
A sorcerer with the ability you describe(I assume your example is a level 10 sorcerer) is indeed more versatile than other sorcerers of the same level, who did not have the good fortune to be human or half-elf and develop that spell as their powers grew. I do not dispute that having that spell make sorcerers more versatile than if they did not.
Do I believe a level 10 wizard can do things that are better than what you described? Yes.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers are just plain fun.
Sorcerers are just plain fun.
I desperately want to get one in play, but I have a conjurer I want to play first.
I actually got my inspiration for said sorceress from your ice-sorceress.
-Nearyn
Apparently a wizards potential to be the greatest arcane caster is such a threat to some groups that certain gms feel the need to ruthlessly supress their abilities so as the diligent wizard player doesnt outshine the sorcerer. My gm hates wizards but loved the one i made that went to level 34 who, short of fiat or deific intervention, was completely unstoppable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM makes a game such that the sorcerer knows more spells than the wizard he is a terrible GM. Wizards are built around the idea of having a potentially unlimited number of spells they can know. Imposing a limitation beyond gold to purchase scrolls or use another wizards spell book is downright mean. If this is the case it is no wonder the sorcerer looks better.
Now, don't think I'm saying that a wizard should have completely unrestricted access to all spells, but he should be able to get most of them with little effort provided he has the gold to pay for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers are better off when waking up naked in a cell, should you find that occurring often.
Ok I will buy that point, it has crossed my mind before tbh. Definitely situational but also valid if you like to expect the worst come what may.
Sorcerers are better off when waking up naked in a cell, should you find that occurring often.
This may just be ingrained negativity, but my experience has shown that GMs who do that on a regular basis, will have you wake up with an anti-magic collar on, that will take off your head in a splitsecond, unless you find the Mini-McGuffin to open it.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I will buy that point, it has crossed my mind before tbh. Definitely situational but also valid if you like to expect the worst come what may.
Though that, perhaps, says something. If it never crossed your mind, then that means that situation, where the sorcerer is better than the wizard, isn't particularly common.
As for myself, I still hold that it's hard to argue that the wizard isn't better than the Sorcerer, but the sorcerer is a hell of a lot more fun than the wizard, both to play, and sitting at the same table with. Spontaneous casting allows a sorcerer to not suffer as heavily when things don't go according to plan. True, a sorcerer is less likely to have the right answer for a problem, but they're more likely to have a reasonable answer, when denied prep time. Moreover a sorcerer can do pretty much anything a wizard can do, but it can't do everything a wizard can do, so it's less likely to be a pain for everyone at the table at higher levels.
What i draw from all this is, while wizards are mechanically superior sorcerers are more fun. For many people sure. I can even see why given certain preferences and desired level of real world time investment. For me its still more fun to play wizards , superior mechanical functionaside. Being the most potentially powerful pc is just an added bonus.
IMHO:
Bloodlines > schools
Sorcerers are better for blasting. They expend little effort at it to be very competent. This makes blasting a good secondary role and very useful for when blasting is needed.
Spont meta-magic > prepared meta magic
Wizards don't even want meta magic outside of quicken spell(which they will use a rod for). Sorcerers want it because it helps them make the best use of their spontaneous casting.
Spont casting = prepared casting
Once you take into consideration the delayed casting progression and less spells known of spont.
Moment of Prescience does not make the wizard equal to a sorcerer for planar binding.
For a wizard this trick may kick in around 15, as opposed to the sorcerer who was binding at 11. The amount of campaign length between those levels is staggering and far more than the difference between 9 and 5.
Furthermore, needing an 8th level spell to bind a small fire elemental reliably is embarrassing and costly in terms of resources, putting severe limits on what you can do with planar binding.
Sorcerer get a 15 minute prep time, as opposed to an hour. Meaning a Sorcerer can start off the day with two planar bindings if she so chooses in the same time it takes prepared casters to prep their spells.
As for myself, I still hold that it's hard to argue that the wizard isn't better than the Sorcerer, but the sorcerer is a hell of a lot more fun than the wizard, both to play, and sitting at the same table with.I agree that Spontaneous Casting is a more fun/less labor casting mechanic, but I can't agree with the bolded section. Every time I play a Sorcerer at the same table as a Wizard I spend half the game glaring daggers at the Wizard next to me with higher level spell access, and the other half glaring spears at them when I finally get that next higher spell level... but I only get a single spell known at that level, whereas they have 4 spells known at that level for free, probably 6-8 by this point. And then there were those times I used a metamagic but couldn't move, only to get pounced, whereas the Wizard used his metamagicked spell and moved out of the charge lanes.
On the other hand... I have zero memories of getting 'Sorcerer envy' as a Wizard. Faster spell access, more spells available, and actually keeping tactical movement when using metamagic spells. To be honest... I usually pity the sorcerer sharing the table with a Wizard.
I think you misunderstand my point (or perhaps I misunderstand yours). My point is that the fact that Sorcerers aren't nearly as powerful and/or versatile as wizards is a good thing, when you're considering a sorcerer replacing a wizard, not the two at the same table.
Essentially, I've found it's very rarely fun to be the guy who can do everything, and do it better than everyone else. And it's rarely fun to be at the same table as that guy. With a sorcerer, you get Wizard spells, without having to be that guy, and instead have a narrower niche, but one that you don't have to worry about being perfectly prepared or not, and that is what makes the class more fun than a wizard.
Hehe funny pov but sounds accurate.
That was for kyrt btw.
Moment of Prescience does not make the wizard equal to a sorcerer for planar binding.
Marthkus! Damn you! Don't bait me into this kind of discussion xD Oh well, here we go.
No, moment of prescience does not make the wizard equal to the sorcerer for planar binding. It makes them better. If the sorcerer was to use moment of prescience he, in turn, would then be better than the wizard. Also a moment of prescience scroll is a small investment to make if the payoff is a strong planar binding.
You could argue that the sorcerer simply makes a better binder, which is partially true if you boil the act of binding an outsider down to the simple act of casting the spell and making the rolls involved.
However, binding outsiders, ANY outsider, is so mindbogglingly easy it does not matter that a sorcerer is better at it, because wizards can become good enough at it to auto-succeed on even the most ridiculous requests. The only thing that stops wizards from getting planar-bound slaves forever and beyond, is where the GM draws the line on what is, and what is not so unacceptable, that it cannot pass, no matter what. And when you reach that point, it does not matter if you're a sorcerer. The request is still unacceptable under any circumstance.
So if a wizard can easily succeed on any binding, of damn near any outsider up to the point of unacceptable requests, the fact that the sorc is charisma based becomes moot.
-Nearyn
Do not get me wrong. I love Wizards. They have always been my go to class when I play.
But after looking at the reasons I tend to choose a Wizard coupled with the questions of my friend; I have to look at the two classes again and wonder just how viable and sustainable the classes really are.
1: Any class ability that is governed by GM whim is not a good draw point for a class.
2: Claiming Spell, Feat, or School X makes Class Y equal to or greater than Class Z? Too situational, also not a good draw point. What if my concept does not include taking those? Does that mean I have to abandon my concept?
In order for the class to be viable it needs to be able to support more than one or two "optimal" builds.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order for the class to be viable it needs to be able to support more than one or two "optimal" builds.
Please. They are both full casting classes with access to ninth level spells. It doesn't get any more viable than than. If one tier 1 class is slightly more powerful than another it doesn't mean that the weaker god isn't viable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Damian Magecraft:
Everything is governed by GM whim. If the GM drops a monster in front of your group, it is his whim that decides whether or not it is a Bugbear, or an advanced half-dragon bugbear fighter 20, mythic champion 10.
If you assume the GM employs the encounters the way the book describes as "appropriate", then why is it wrong to assume that the GM treats item availability as the book describes as "appropriate"?
We're not gonna consider schools? Okay, so I assume we don't consider bloodlines as well? Well that makes it easy! Then wizard is infinitely superior to sorcs, instead of it being a duel of builds. If we're not gonna consider feats, that means we don't consider Expanded Arcana?
You're starting a thread about why would you take A over B. If you then add that certain builds or feat trees cannot be included in the considerations, because maybe you don't want to play that build, then the only valid answer is "because A is more fun for me". Then it becomes a battle of what people prefer to play A skill-monkey with prep-casting, or a spont-caster, meaning you could have just started a poll on which class people find most fun. You asked why you would play a wizard over a sorcerer, and people have commented and told you why. Some people have provided viewpoints from the opposite side of the fence, but if you've read through the posts made thus far, you SHOULD know why some people belive the wizard is the stronger option.
-Nearyn
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO:
Bloodlines > schoolsSorcerers are better for blasting. They expend little effort at it to be very competent. This makes blasting a good secondary role and very useful for when blasting is needed.
Spont meta-magic > prepared meta magic
Wizards don't even want meta magic outside of quicken spell(which they will use a rod for). Sorcerers want it because it helps them make the best use of their spontaneous casting.Spont casting = prepared casting
Once you take into consideration the delayed casting progression and less spells known of spont.Moment of Prescience does not make the wizard equal to a sorcerer for planar binding.
For a wizard this trick may kick in around 15, as opposed to the sorcerer who was binding at 11. The amount of campaign length between those levels is staggering and far more than the difference between 9 and 5.
Furthermore, needing an 8th level spell to bind a small fire elemental reliably is embarrassing and costly in terms of resources, putting severe limits on what you can do with planar binding.Sorcerer get a 15 minute prep time, as opposed to an hour. Meaning a Sorcerer can start off the day with two planar bindings if she so chooses in the same time it takes prepared casters to prep their spells.
Wizards get a more powerful version of binding as a feat equivalent. The power of True Name is dubiously high, to the point where I'm not sure if any GM would allow its full might, but RAW I would say it's more powerful than any sorcerer equivalent option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers are better off when waking up naked in a cell, should you find that occurring often.
My sorcerer has woken up bound, gagged, AND naked in a dark cell somewhere deep beneath the dessert.
She escaped, tracked down those who imprisoned her, took their memories and identities from them, and now uses them as unwitting pawns in her schemes.
Sorcerers are better off when waking up naked in a cell, should you find that occurring often.This may just be ingrained negativity, but my experience has shown that GMs who do that on a regular basis, will have you wake up with an anti-magic collar on, that will take off your head in a splitsecond, unless you find the Mini-McGuffin to open it.
-Nearyn
Well, that's just the GM being a douchebag isn't it? Especially when you consider that there are no such devices/fields anywhere in the game and that it is all fiat--the ultimate tool of lazy GMs everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: Any class ability that is governed by GM whim is not a good draw point for a class.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic. I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Of course a monk is going to be better than a fighter if your GM only allows Unarmed Strikes for some god awful reason.
2: Claiming Spell, Feat, or School X makes Class Y equal to or greater than Class Z? Too situational, also not a good draw point. What if my concept does not include taking those? Does that mean I have to abandon my concept?
Huh? You just said "You can't compare each classes unique abilities with each other to see if one is better than the other." Uh, yes you can. That's pretty much the entire concept of discussion.
In order for the class to be viable it needs to be able to support more than one or two "optimal" builds.
Every class in the game is "viable". Hell, Sword and Board Fighters are "viable" but hardly "optimal". You can play the game and have fun just fine with a sub-optimal build.
At this point I think you are either just arguing to argue, or trolling.
You: Why should I play a Wizard?
Internet: Because, reasons.
You: Nope!
Moment of Prescience does not make the wizard equal to a sorcerer for planar binding.
Marthkus! Damn you! Don't bait me into this kind of discussion xD Oh well, here we go.
No, moment of prescience does not make the wizard equal to the sorcerer for planar binding. It makes them better. If the sorcerer was to use moment of prescience he, in turn, would then be better than the wizard. Also a moment of prescience scroll is a small investment to make if the payoff is a strong planar binding.
You could argue that the sorcerer simply makes a better binder, which is partially true if you boil the act of binding an outsider down to the simple act of casting the spell and making the rolls involved.
However, binding outsiders, ANY outsider, is so mindbogglingly easy it does not matter that a sorcerer is better at it, because wizards can become good enough at it to auto-succeed on even the most ridiculous requests. The only thing that stops wizards from getting planar-bound slaves forever and beyond, is where the GM draws the line on what is, and what is not so unacceptable, that it cannot pass, no matter what. And when you reach that point, it does not matter if you're a sorcerer. The request is still unacceptable under any circumstance.
So if a wizard can easily succeed on any binding, of damn near any outsider up to the point of unacceptable requests, the fact that the sorc is charisma based becomes moot.
A large factor in planar binding is not getting the cosmos to hate you.
Charisma helps in two ways
1. Get outsiders to like you or at least like the deals you are offering.
2. Bluff/disguise yourself such that the bound outsider doesn't hate "you" only what you appear to be.
Planar binding requires far more than one cha check to be useful. The cha check DC to escape is still 15+1/2CL+cha. To many outsiders that is child's play with the dump-cha wizard, and severely limits what a wizard can safely call. (FYI this check can be once per day. That includes right after you summon the outsider and before you can make the oppose cha check to bind it into a contract)
1: Any class ability that is governed by GM whim is not a good draw point for a class.
How the hell are wizards governed by GM whim? Scrolls are cheap, scrolls are items, items can be stolen. if the GM for whatever reason doesn't like the wizard the party can simply disregard every single plotline the GM trys to make and instead set on an adventure to get the wizard his spells. It's really easy once you are level 9 and have access to teleport and it's still no big deal without. if the party sets out to travel to a wizard academy and is determined, the only way you can really stop them is by murdering the entire party
if the wizard wants his spells there is nothing the GM can do about it aside from stopping to be a GM. Bullying your players will only get you one of 2 things: they will make all the preparation you take into the session be null and void OR they will stop playing with you as a GM.
@Damian Magecraft:
Everything is governed by GM whim. If the GM drops a monster in front of your group, it is his whim that decides whether or not it is a Bugbear, or an advanced half-dragon bugbear fighter 20, mythic champion 10.
If you assume the GM employs the encounters the way the book describes as "appropriate", then why is it wrong to assume that the GM treats item availability as the book describes as "appropriate"?
Because availability of XYZ has always been the simplest, fastest, and most commonly used means of character control of the GM.
We're not gonna consider schools? Okay, so I assume we don't consider bloodlines as well? Well that makes it easy! Then wizard is infinitely superior to sorcs, instead of it being a duel of builds. If we're not gonna consider feats, that means we don't consider Expanded Arcana
Except... A Bloodline is a mandatory feature and Schools are an optional one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard can learn spells from scrolls. A GM would have to never give scrolls out.1. A wizard can potently learn every spell instead of being limited to a set number of spell determined by level.
2. Wizards use INT as a casting stat so that means they get a lot more skill, and have a lot higher roll on a lot of important skills.
3. Wizards get access to spells one level earlier than a sorcerer
1: sound in theory. Unfortunately not in practical application. It has been my experience that GMs are deathly afraid of wizards gaining spells beyond what the charts/class level ups allow.
Never give scrolls out, and never use a wizard as an enemy of the party (unless killing the wizard causes the destruction of his spellbook).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do not get me wrong. I love Wizards. They have always been my go to class when I play.
But after looking at the reasons I tend to choose a Wizard coupled with the questions of my friend; I have to look at the two classes again and wonder just how viable and sustainable the classes really are.1: Any class ability that is governed by GM whim is not a good draw point for a class.
2: Claiming Spell, Feat, or School X makes Class Y equal to or greater than Class Z? Too situational, also not a good draw point. What if my concept does not include taking those? Does that mean I have to abandon my concept?In order for the class to be viable it needs to be able to support more than one or two "optimal" builds.
1. GM governs all abilities. I assume you mean abilities dependent on the world setting and NPC behaviors. Regardless, wizards have more spells than sorcerers and they get those spells quicker too. A world without scrolls, NPC wizards, spellbooks, and such is very unique. Even with all that their are guidelines for how much money a wizard should spend to research additional spells or make new ones. There are even feats that boost the effectiveness of custom made spells. So it doesn't matter the world setting, you still have to house rule that wizards can't do spell research for a wizard to have less spells than a sorcerer.
2. Sort'of agree, particular splat-book cheese is not good for comparison, but choosing general class features is. For example, Specialist vs Universalist. The existence of the Universal school does not mean you should compare that kind of wizard's spell-slots to a sorcerer. It is far more apt to compare a the Specialist slots to that of a sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except... A Bloodline is a mandatory feature and Schools are an optional one.
?
Schools are not optional. You must pick one, even if that one is universalist.Notice how no one is talking about the Destined Bloodline. You yourself are only comparing Universalist wizards to arcane bloodline sorcerers.
A large factor in binding is not getting the cosmos to hate you.
I agree.
Charisma helps in two ways
1. Get outsiders to like you or at least like the deals you are offering.
2. Bluff/disguise yourself such that the bound outsider doesn't hate "you" only what you appear to be.
Getting the outsider to like me can be done in many different ways. It always helps to know what kind of creature you are calling. Oh what's that? Why hello Knowledge(planes) +6 billion, no I have not forgotten you :]
Getting the outsider to like the deal is a matter of taste. If you want it to be happy about the deal, then it doesnt matter if you have high or low charisma. A bad deal will still leave the creature feeling boned(unless you bluff it, you monster! :C). If you just want the deal to be accepted, no matter how bad it is, a wizard can auto-succeed with a modicum of preparation(Except in one out of 20 cases. but that goes for sorcs as well).
And not getting recognized for who you are is -really- easy for a full-caster. Even if the creature has true seeing. Charisma only factors in here, if your lack of preparation MAKE it factor in.
Planar binding requires far more than one cha check to be useful. The cha check DC to escape is still 15+1/2CL+cha. To many outsiders that is child's play with the dump-cha wizard,
You assume wizards dump charisma? I don't agree, but okay, let's assume they do. The check is by no means child's play for most creatures if (sing it with me folks) 'the wizard has made his preparations'. Assume a standard planar binding with a level 11, 8-charisma wizard on the casting end. The wizard makes a warding diagram (+5 to the DC of the outsiders charisma check), casts eagle's splendor on himself, turning his -1 cha mod into a +1 cha mod, and then proceeds to call the creature. The creature now has to beat a DC 26 charisma check. Child's play you say? I know of only a few 12HD (or less) creatures that can beat that DC even half the time. This, of course, assumes I half-ass my preparations and don't get a cha-boosting item for my calling purposes.
and severely limits what a wizard can safely call.
Nay I say to you! Nay! A properly prepared wizard can safely call almost any outsider in the game. The only thing the wizard needs to fear is the same thing the sorcerer needs to fear. Backlash from creatures associated with the called creature. And, as we know, that is GM territory, and no class in the game is safe from the GMs wrath.
-Nearyn
EDIT: Massive edit to the charisma check part. Copied my calculations from a notepad doc with a level 20 wizard. My bad. Fixed it now.
Because availability of XYZ has always been the simplest, fastest, and most commonly used means of character control of the GM.@Damian Magecraft:
Everything is governed by GM whim. If the GM drops a monster in front of your group, it is his whim that decides whether or not it is a Bugbear, or an advanced half-dragon bugbear fighter 20, mythic champion 10.
If you assume the GM employs the encounters the way the book describes as "appropriate", then why is it wrong to assume that the GM treats item availability as the book describes as "appropriate"?
And you really know, you have a good GM, if one member of the party is severly more resticed then the rest
We're not gonna consider schools? Okay, so I assume we don't consider bloodlines as well? Well that makes it easy! Then wizard is infinitely superior to sorcs, instead of it being a duel of builds. If we're not gonna consider feats, that means we don't consider Expanded ArcanaExcept... A Bloodline is a mandatory feature and Schools are an optional one.
except... schools are not optional, you have to choose one, universalist is a school
@Nearyn : totally agree with you.
Also remember that stat check (as the charisma check to escape for example) doesn't auto win on a natural "20" and doesn't auto fail on a natural "1".
And the wizard is more likely to also have Magic circle against the appropriate alignment (each is a separate spell) and Dimensional anchor.
Combining the 3 spells makes it impossible to escape the spell assuming the creature fail the will save.
Then you can use your other spells (or knowledge) to learn what would please the creature, earning you as much as +6 to your opposed charisma check. The sorcerer is likely to not have those spells nor enough knowledge, except a few exceptions.