Sorcerers vs Wizards


Classes

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The glaring power difference is that a universal wizard can get drain arcane focus once a day per spell level you can cast. Drain Arcane focus is not limited to specific spell slots, so you can cast wish 10 times with it not including the original cast. Then there is focus conservation at 8 level that combos off this so you could technically cast wish and then an 8th level spell, totaling 20 free high level castings for casting one 10th and 8th level spell. The comboing gets a lot crazier when you bring 7th level spells and lower into the mix.

Sorcere gets wellspring spell at 20th level at the cost of not getting 2 10th level spell slots and get unlimited castings of any spell below 5th level once a minute. It also has to have no duration further limiting usefulness. It is pretty clear wizard hands down wins in this area.

I think it would work out better if wellspring of power was an automatic class ability at level one and has no level restrictions, but retaims the once a minute use. This alone would also make divine bloodline viable when compared to clerics.


Xirrion wrote:

And my post goes completely over his head.

Thats what they should be its the baseline for what the classes should be like in 2.0. Can we agree on that?

It wasn't at all clear - since you phrased it as "need to be clearly explained in terms of what they do" - which made me think you thought the problem was the explanation, not what they did.

Not sure I can agree. That's much like what they were in PF1, I think - with the differences mostly in other rules changes - rituals, using items,
etc. That may not need to be the direction to go here.

A lot of the problem between the two is that the wizard gets abilities that cover a lot of his weaknesses, while the sorcerers feats and other choices are pretty lackluster.

Maybe keep the basic progression, but buff the bloodline abilities and class feats? Maybe let the sorcerer heighten spells without penalty, just by using a higher slot?

And think more about how the non-arcane bloodlines work. They seem to be really lacking - generally weaker spell lists without the benefits their primary classes get along with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isiah.AT wrote:

The glaring power difference is that a universal wizard can get drain arcane focus once a day per spell level you can cast. Drain Arcane focus is not limited to specific spell slots, so you can cast wish 10 times with it not including the original cast. Then there is focus conservation at 8 level that combos off this so you could technically cast wish and then an 8th level spell, totaling 20 free high level castings for casting one 10th and 8th level spell. The comboing gets a lot crazier when you bring 7th level spells and lower into the mix.

Sorcere gets wellspring spell at 20th level at the cost of not getting 2 10th level spell slots and get unlimited castings of any spell below 5th level once a minute. It also has to have no duration further limiting usefulness. It is pretty clear wizard hands down wins in this area.

I think it would work out better if wellspring of power was an automatic class ability at level one and has no level restrictions, but retaims the once a minute use. This alone would also make divine bloodline viable when compared to clerics.

That’s not how that works. That’s not how any of this works.

Sovereign Court

Xirrion wrote:

And my post goes completely over his head.

Thats what they should be its the baseline for what the classes should be like in 2.0. Can we agree on that?

Well I don't agree that sorcerer shouldn't be able to craft magic items nor make rituals... But I do agree that each class should have an identity.


Just wanted people to know that Sorcerers get metmagic feats that wizards get, but can apply them to spell lists that wizards don't cast. Big example of this being Counterspell with divine spells = counterspelling enemy healing spells. And since Sorcerers don't prepare spells, they don't lose the spell in the process, just the slot, and therefore can do so multiple times. This allows a divine sorcerer to heal lock an enemy caster.

Sovereign Court

FoxofShadows wrote:
Just wanted people to know that Sorcerers get metmagic feats that wizards get, but can apply them to spell lists that wizards don't cast. Big example of this being Counterspell with divine spells = counterspelling enemy healing spells. And since Sorcerers don't prepare spells, they don't lose the spell in the process, just the slot, and therefore can do so multiple times. This allows a divine sorcerer to heal lock an enemy caster.

Except that in order to do that, the sorcerer has to

1) spell heightened the right spell, since if you try to dispel with a lower spell slot you'll have a real hard time.
2) the cleric has channel energy. It means that clerics have 3+Cha casting of heal at the highest power level, which is probably more than the total number of spell slots that the sorcerer has. This means that the sorcerer shouldn't use his highest spell slots just in case he can dispel something.,and even then the cost of dispelling a cleric's heal spell is higher for the sorcerer than the cost of losing an heal spell for the cleric.

It must also be noted that most of the metamagic feats the sorcerer is getting works well for the arcana spell list, but it doesn't work necessarily well for other spell list as analyzed here for the occult sorcerer.

Anyway, this thread is about sorcerer VS wizard, so the point that sorcerer can have a tradition other than arcana is kind of out of place. If you want to compare sorcerers of a tradition other than arcane, you should compare them to the main spellcaster of that tradition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hm, I haven't even looked at how item crafting is now for Sorcerers.

And Paizo has already announced that the "signature skills from bloodlines are also trained" thing was an editing mistake, like most people already suspected.

About the only advantage I can see for the Sorcerer over the Wizard at this point is that maybe they can just take uncommon and rare spells, where the Wizard needs to go "pretty please, let me kiss your feet" to his GM. But that is absolutely unclear from the rules text, it could well be that Paizo truly intends for those spells only to be available through GM approval, even for classes which just learn spells from nothing as they level up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In our playtest, nobody really wanted to play Sorcerer over Wizard or Cleric, So we made three change : Remove the limitation on Spontaneous Heightening, Sorcerer can Heightened each spells they know normally. They must choose a Power Source depending on their bloodline, but they have access to spell from each spell list to choose from. They have the same number of Class Feats as the wizard.

Bloodline Power are already heightened, sorcerer have their spell know as well as the spells form their bloodline. More skills and martial ability (even if weak), With theses change I think Sorcerer are stronger, but I dont mind currently as I usually only have multiclass arcane caster in my game anyway, so good chance the player who will chose to play Sorcerer will choose something like Fighter as multiclass archetype...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Spontaneous Heightening should apply to all the Sorcerer's spells, and be their stick. Sorcerer's should be ably to heighten any spell they know when they want to, when they want to, so long as they have the spell slots to do it. No fiddling with what level you know a spell or selecting two special spells for the day, you simply need to know the spell. It can cost Spell Points if its felt it would be too powerful, but the ability to spontaneously heighten should be a major draw of the class.

You know fireball and want to cast it at 6th level. Done.

Prepared Casters have various advantages from flexibility, more spells to choose from at the start of the day to customize what they need, and dditional spell slots or slotless casting (Cleric's can can Heal with spell points, etc.). They can prepare for any situation if they have a bit of time and know how.

As a spontaneous caster, you don't have those benefits or luxuries. You're stuck with what you know. However, the compromise should be that you can use what you know in ways other classes simply cant.

Prepared should be flexible preparations. Spontaneous should be flexible casting. Why pick the Spell-Jock? Because they are a true prodigy, and posses a connection to magic that no amount of learning or dedication can emulate.

As a sorcerer I played in 5e said to taunt a warlock he defeated - "Lesser beings like you make pacts with great being like me."

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo's Response: But "analysis paralysis!"

Not a good answer, honestly, because there is even more AnaPara since you need to scour the lists for spells that heighten, then agonize over picking a leveled up spell or a level appropriate spell. Lv3 Magic Missile or Fireball? That choice, multiplied by every spell you know.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Paizo's Response: But "analysis paralysis!"

The funny fact about that is that bard can have up to 5 spell with spontaneous heightening thanks to 2 feats.

And I do have to say that these feats shouldn't exist since they are so good that they will probably be feat tax. I understand the designers who are afraid to give unlimited spontaneous heightening, but if they are afraid of complexity, they should add more spontaneous heightening as spontaneous casters level up.

Maybe start at two, the go up to 3 at 6th level, 4 at 12th and 5 at 18th.

Magnuskn wrote:
About the only advantage I can see for the Sorcerer over the Wizard at this point is that maybe they can just take uncommon and rare spells, where the Wizard needs to go "pretty please, let me kiss your feet" to his GM.

Sorcerers don't have automatic access to uncommon and rare spell. They must learn them with the arcana skill and then spend a week of retraining to retrain a known spell into the new spell, or select it as a new spell on level up. That makes sorcerers a lot worse than wizard when they learn uncommon or rarer spell.


Xenocrat wrote:
Isiah.AT wrote:

The glaring power difference is that a universal wizard can get drain arcane focus once a day per spell level you can cast. Drain Arcane focus is not limited to specific spell slots, so you can cast wish 10 times with it not including the original cast. Then there is focus conservation at 8 level that combos off this so you could technically cast wish and then an 8th level spell, totaling 20 free high level castings for casting one 10th and 8th level spell. The comboing gets a lot crazier when you bring 7th level spells and lower into the mix.

Sorcere gets wellspring spell at 20th level at the cost of not getting 2 10th level spell slots and get unlimited castings of any spell below 5th level once a minute. It also has to have no duration further limiting usefulness. It is pretty clear wizard hands down wins in this area.

I think it would work out better if wellspring of power was an automatic class ability at level one and has no level restrictions, but retaims the once a minute use. This alone would also make divine bloodline viable when compared to clerics.

That’s not how that works. That’s not how any of this works.

Drain Arcane Focus

"You expend the magical power stored in your arcane focus. This gives you the ability to cast one spell you prepared today and previously cast, without spending a spell slot. You must still complete the required spellcasting actions and meet the spell’s other requirements"

Universal Wizard
"You can choose not to specialize in an arcane school and to instead become a universalist wizard. If you do, you can use Drain Arcane Focus once each day per each spell level you can cast, instead of only once per day. You also gain an extra wizard class feat."

Focus Conservation
"Add a Somatic Casting action to the casting. You gain an extra use of Drain Arcane Focus that you can use to cast a spell with a level at least 2 levels lower than the triggering spell. You must use this extra use of Drain Arcane Focus before the end of your next turn, or you lose it."

First off you need to state a reason, otherwise you contribute nothing and have no argument.

Wish is 3 actions to cast so it does not work with focus conservation as I originally thougt. However you can create a long chain of free spells using focus conservation. You are casting the spell when you use drain arcane focus which neets the trigger for focus conservation if you add the somatic component.

Yes, you are right it is per spell level, meaning once for 1st, once for 2nd and so on. I simply read it wrong as I am sure many will, the whole point of the beta ;).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SnarkyChymist wrote:

Spontaneous Heightening should apply to all the Sorcerer's spells, and be their stick. Sorcerer's should be ably to heighten any spell they know when they want to, when they want to, so long as they have the spell slots to do it. No fiddling with what level you know a spell or selecting two special spells for the day, you simply need to know the spell. It can cost Spell Points if its felt it would be too powerful, but the ability to spontaneously heighten should be a major draw of the class.

You know fireball and want to cast it at 6th level. Done.

Prepared Casters have various advantages from flexibility, more spells to choose from at the start of the day to customize what they need, and dditional spell slots or slotless casting (Cleric's can can Heal with spell points, etc.). They can prepare for any situation if they have a bit of time and know how.

As a spontaneous caster, you don't have those benefits or luxuries. You're stuck with what you know. However, the compromise should be that you can use what you know in ways other classes simply cant.

Prepared should be flexible preparations. Spontaneous should be flexible casting. Why pick the Spell-Jock? Because they are a true prodigy, and posses a connection to magic that no amount of learning or dedication can emulate.

As a sorcerer I played in 5e said to taunt a warlock he defeated - "Lesser beings like you make pacts with great being like me."

I honestly think you make a really good point. Wizards get the quick preperation feat, which gives them far more flexibility. It is really difficuly to interupt 10 min rest, without unreasonbly singling out and picking on the player with that feat. There is nothing less fun than a GM punishing a player for legal pkay style that is not game breaking.

The point is strong that sorcerer should spontaneously heighten any spell they know. That way the bloodlines stack up better to their traditons spell casting counterpart. This is particularly glaring when stacking divine sorcerer against cleric. No one really accepts decision paralysis as being good reasoning for the way they heighten spells as is.

I don't agree that they should have the same number of class feats as Wizard because they get eshew materials feat for free. It makes sense that they would have this and would be super weird if they didn't. It does however make sense that they should get 2 additiinal class feats from what they have now along with their first level bloodline powers, just as the other casters are done in similae fashion. Further sorcerer should have the option of buying their advanced and greater powers with class feats.

There are two feats that only affect spells with no duration that should affect all spells, such as Wellspring Power and Widen spell.

Despite my previous comments, after doing some more readimg, these tweaks would go a long way to putting sorcerer where it needs to be.


magnuskn wrote:

Hm, I haven't even looked at how item crafting is now for Sorcerers.

And Paizo has already announced that the "signature skills from bloodlines are also trained" thing was an editing mistake, like most people already suspected.

About the only advantage I can see for the Sorcerer over the Wizard at this point is that maybe they can just take uncommon and rare spells, where the Wizard needs to go "pretty please, let me kiss your feet" to his GM. But that is absolutely unclear from the rules text, it could well be that Paizo truly intends for those spells only to be available through GM approval, even for classes which just learn spells from nothing as they level up.

A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

Sorc with 10 int, even after the errata, has like 1 less trained skill compared to wiz. So, they are more or less equal on that front.
But sorc gets more RP, and each RP= 1 more spell "known/prepared" due to how staffs work now.

Again, paper wise, wizard is far ahead. But on our playtest, our 13 level sorc, with 3 dedicated staffs, had an amazing array of spells that he could cast at any moment.

Tldr :don't forget staffs and RP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


Again, paper wise, wizard is far ahead. But on our playtest, our 13 level sorc, with 3 dedicated staffs, had an amazing array of spells that he could cast at any moment.

Tldr :don't forget staffs and RP.

Well, I have to bring bad news. You can only invest in a single staff. On top of that... to cast a spell from a staff, you must have the spell on your spell list and be able to use the spellcasting actions listed in the spell’s entry.


shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).


John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).

A wizard can. But a sorc doesn't need more than 10int.

So those 6 points are going to con, wis and dex, bringing it higher than wiz that goes to 16 Cha.


Asuet wrote:
shroudb wrote:


Again, paper wise, wizard is far ahead. But on our playtest, our 13 level sorc, with 3 dedicated staffs, had an amazing array of spells that he could cast at any moment.

Tldr :don't forget staffs and RP.

Well, I have to bring bad news. You can only invest in a single staff. On top of that... to cast a spell from a staff, you must have the spell on your spell list and be able to use the spellcasting actions listed in the spell’s entry.

We were wrong about allowing him 3 (although he can have a secondary set and change them daily) ,but the spell list (arcane/divine/occult /primal) is =/= spells known.

Basically he gains full knowledge of all spells in the staff for the cost of 1RP per cast.

At average that's 3-6 more than a wizard.

Meanwhile, wizard gets almost nothing out of his extra Int due to sorc having much higher starting skills (well, he gains 1 language...)


shroudb wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).

A wizard can. But a sorc doesn't need more than 10int.

So those 6 points are going to con, wis and dex, bringing it higher than wiz that goes to 16 Cha.

I agree, but, why does a wizard need inteligence now?

Why does anyone need intelligence now?

2e is the dump intelligence nerf the wizard (and sorceror) edition


Aadgarvven wrote:
shroudb wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).

A wizard can. But a sorc doesn't need more than 10int.

So those 6 points are going to con, wis and dex, bringing it higher than wiz that goes to 16 Cha.

I agree, but, why does a wizard need inteligence now?

Why does anyone need intelligence now?

2e is the dump intelligence nerf the wizard (and sorceror) edition

A Wizard needs int for his class dc which is his spell dc. A sorc, doesn't. And his cha provides at least a usable bonus (more casts out of a staff)


magnuskn wrote:


About the only advantage I can see for the Sorcerer over the Wizard at this point is that maybe they can just take uncommon and rare spells, where the Wizard needs to go "pretty please, let me kiss your feet" to his GM. But that is absolutely unclear from the rules text, it could well be that Paizo truly intends for those spells only to be available through GM approval, even for classes which just learn spells from nothing as they level up.

It's pretty clear from the "Learn a X Spell" use of Arcana/Nature/Religion/Occultism that you have to spend time, money, and make a check just to have access to uncommon/rare spells.

Quote:
Success You expend the materials and learn the spell. If you have a spellbook, the spell is added to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it’s added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.

Even Clerics have to learn uncommon spells to have them available for preparation - your god can't give it to you until you learn it from a scroll or someone who already knows how.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Well that's just bass ackwards isn't it?

"Hey, Sarenrae, can I get that rare sun-based spell today?"

"No."

"Why? You made it!"

"You need to buy its trading card first."


shroudb wrote:
Aadgarvven wrote:
shroudb wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
A big advantage of Sorc, is that atm Cha >>> Int

As I mentioned in another thread that is specifically about spontaneous heightening: Wizards can have 16 CHA if they really want to. So the sorcerer bonus can be as little as +1 at 1st level, +0 at 5th level, +1 at 10th level, +0 at 15th level and +1 at 20th level.

Also before you bring up multiclassing for extra spell slots: Wizards can do the same thing (and are in fact more rewarded for the investment).

A wizard can. But a sorc doesn't need more than 10int.

So those 6 points are going to con, wis and dex, bringing it higher than wiz that goes to 16 Cha.

I agree, but, why does a wizard need inteligence now?

Why does anyone need intelligence now?

2e is the dump intelligence nerf the wizard (and sorceror) edition

A Wizard needs int for his class dc which is his spell dc. A sorc, doesn't. And his cha provides at least a usable bonus (more casts out of a staff)

I know, I was just exaggerating, but anyway.

Intelligence now doesn't get you more spells, it adds to 3 skills (one not signature for the wizard).
Sincerely, compare un 18 INT wizard with a 10 INT wizard, and now do it again in Pathfinder 1e.

I am not joking when I say that if I ever play a wizard in 2e, INT will not be the highest attribute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkorin wrote:
Sorcerers don't have automatic access to uncommon and rare spell. They must learn them with the arcana skill and then spend a week of retraining to retrain a known spell into the new spell, or select it as a new spell on level up. That makes sorcerers a lot worse than wizard when they learn uncommon or rarer spell.

Urk. Again. Could you point me to the page of that rule, since you apparently found it and I overlooked it? :)

*edit* Nevermind, Xenocrat pointed it out.

Sorcerer clearly needs another development pass or two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another problem Sorcerers have (Bards have this problem too, actually) is that their primary casting stat doesn't match with the stat that's used for the spellcasting skill. If you want to learn an uncommon spell it's an intelligence-based check for arcane or occult, or wisdom-based check for primal or divine. There is no retry on learning spells and the DC is pretty high, so Assurance is basically a feat tax on all spellcasters who want to have the option of learning them, but since Sorcerer and Bards don't have their primary stat in the right place they need to be one proficiency grade ahead of Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to be able to learn those spells.

Sovereign Court

Dasrak wrote:
There is no retry on learning spells and the DC is pretty high, so Assurance is basically a feat tax on all spellcasters who want to have the option of learning them, but since Sorcerer and Bards don't have their primary stat in the right place they need to be one proficiency grade ahead of Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to be able to learn those spells.

I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics and Druids all benefit from Assurance the same way.

Assurance wrote:
You can forgo rolling a skill check for your chosen skill to instead receive a result of 10 (do not apply any of your bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).

I do agree with you that Bards and Sorcerers have a lower bonus to learn spells than Wizards, Clerics and Druids, but if you go the assurance way, everyone is the same since you do not apply the stat modifier.


Darkorin wrote:
I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics and Druids all benefit from Assurance the same way.

Let's use the example of a 10th level Wizard trying to learn a 5th level uncommon spell. The DC is 25. With the take 10 bonus of assurance and +5 from intelligence, he only needs to be trained in arcana to succeed on the check. However a Sorcerer won't have 20 intelligence, he's unlikely to have more than 14. So he needs to be expert (which improves Assurance to take 15) in order to succeed on this same check. At most levels the Sorcerer requires one higher level of proficiency than the Wizard to succeed on this check.

Sovereign Court

Dasrak wrote:
Darkorin wrote:
I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics and Druids all benefit from Assurance the same way.
Let's use the example of a 10th level Wizard trying to learn a 5th level uncommon spell. The DC is 25. With the take 10 bonus of assurance and +5 from intelligence, he only needs to be trained in arcana to succeed on the check. However a Sorcerer won't have 20 intelligence, he's unlikely to have more than 14. So he needs to be expert (which improves Assurance to take 15) in order to succeed on this same check. At most levels the Sorcerer requires one higher level of proficiency than the Wizard to succeed on this check.

Read the assurance feat again:

Assurance wrote:
You can forgo rolling a skill check for your chosen skill to instead receive a result of 10 (do not apply any of your bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).

In your example you add the +5 from Intelligence, but the feat asks you to NOT apply ANY bonuses, penalties or modifiers.

The result is a flat 10, both for the sorcerer and for the wizard.


Yeah, assurance is a terrible feat unless you plan to attempt low DC checks with bad modifiers and hefty penalties. It definitely won't solve your problems with learning spells.


ok, this was mostly thrashed out in the sorcerer blog thread.

The complaints seem to boil down to the following:

1)Flexibility
2)Number of spells

so, 1)flexibility: A wizard can take 10 min. to learn any spell he knows, beating the poor sorcerer hands down, right?
Wrong. A sorcerer doesn't need 10 min, he can already cast any spell he knows. That's what spontaneous casting means.
Ah, but...a wizard knows so many more spells!
So? for a wizard, knowing a spell does not mean he has it prepared. He is limited to what he has prepared...and what he can get in 10 min.

I can't see any encounter waiting 10 min while a wizard learns the perfect spell, so both wizard and sorcerer rely on what they have available, which really favors the sorcerer. Sure, given time the wizard can rejig his spells, but time is not always available.

Then too, my arcane sorcerer can have access (if he so chooses) to the complete list of heal spells (or e.g. cure spells). Can a wizard do that?
But how?, I hear you say. Easy. Sorcerers can pick up the Arcane Evolution Feat at 4th level. That means they can add a spell from a scroll to their repertoire. Any spell. It doesn't even speify it has to be an arcane spell.
So, If I have a scroll of Heal1 (which is cheap), and get trick magic item so as to be able to cast it, I can add it to my repertoire for the day.
Now, spontaneous heightening says I can pick a spell I know - such as heal1, and heighten it to know all the heal spells. I'd like to see a wizard do that.

2) Number of spells. Granted universalist wizard is an exceptional case, but outside of that there isn't too much difference between sorcerer and wizard. At higher levels, chances are you won't use all your spell slots anyway, so I can't see it making a huge difference.


Darkorin wrote:
Read the assurance feat again:

I had to read that several times to believe it. Wow, that is bad. The odds of actually rolling low than that are incredibly low, so the only use of the feat is to avoid the "auto-fail on a natural 1" rule (which IMO is a stupid rule; if your skill bonus is 19 points higher than the DC, the task is trivial for you and you shouldn't have to roll for it, but I digress)


Dasrak wrote:
There is no retry on learning spells and the DC is pretty high,

Take a look at the Magical Shorthand feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey Guys,

I am yet to try out the Sorcerer to have a real comparison to the Universalist Wizard I playtested, but I do intend to.

From the discussions here and for a few other threads I have seen and from my own opinions as to some of the differences I'd like to put below.

Note this is how I personally view it so understandably I am not saying I am 'right' and that the way other people view it is 'wrong'.

I always considered Sorcerers to be your big combat casters, the innate power to just be a walking nuke in combat for whatever combat situation arises, in this example the Spontaneous casting over prepared casting is essential, your spells are limited but geared to really using exactly the type of combat (control, damage, energy or otherwise) with a mix of a few utility spells in there for good measure (normally the utility has some use in combat as well though, like fly or invisibility)

So when compared to the wizards Quick Preparation feat where they take 10 mins, it's really to only have one of their listed spells for an out of combat situation. This is quite powerful yes but to me the Wizard is all about study and utility. So in my mind the feat really equivalent to saying 'Sorcerers as spontaneous casters are useless with this feat'. That said the feat is powerful, almost a must have at level 4 for Wizards (almost).

As for the heightening? I definitely agree that Sorcerers should just get Heightening as a thing that is really their schtick, To me any spell they know at a low level that has the ability to Heighten should be available to a Sorcerer if they just spend the spell slot. No need to relearn at a higher level or to only have a limited number of heightens per day (I am not fully across the rules here for Heightening, but in general I think that's how it should work) this then allows the Sorc to still be that big Nuke package but give access to some more spells to round out either the combat or add a little utility in, but it's a big advantage over prepared casters and gives them that very definite identity. This also ties in with them having a large amount of skills, even if the amount of skill points are the same in the end thanks to the Wizard's high In they tend to (usually, not always) spend them in knowledge, lore or crafting skills, whereas the Sorc can be a bit more liberal with Social or Physical skills.

I actually think the less spells per day is ok since they supplement with more Cha for resonance anyway. potentially they need some feats around boosting resonance but I don't really know if that is actually needed. People have varying opinions on this that the Sorc should have a lot more magic than a Wizard but I think that is going to come down with how you think the class should be, and personally I think that is less the identity than the combat spellcasting.

Anyway long post, again just my opinion there. I am intending to playtest a few things and see how they compare.


Asuet wrote:
Take a look at the Magical Shorthand feat.

That... doesn't really help all that much. The 1/week limit on retry isn't a whole lot more frequent than once-per-level (less frequent in many campaigns, actually). The primary effect of this feat appears to be reducing the amount of time it takes you to learn the spell, which isn't worth a feat when you're only learning uncommon spells. Wizards, on the other hand, should greatly appreciate this as a way to quickly fill their spellbook with low-level common spells.


Dasrak wrote:
Asuet wrote:
Take a look at the Magical Shorthand feat.
That... doesn't really help all that much. The 1/week limit on retry isn't a whole lot more frequent than once-per-level (less frequent in many campaigns, actually). The primary effect of this feat appears to be reducing the amount of time it takes you to learn the spell, which isn't worth a feat when you're only learning uncommon spells. Wizards, on the other hand, should greatly appreciate this as a way to quickly fill their spellbook with low-level common spells.

Well ok. I never played in campaigns where I leveled frequently every week. For me that is the reason to take the feat. That feat basically makes sure that I can learn the spell I want in the downtime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gavmania wrote:
I can't see any encounter waiting 10 min while a wizard learns the perfect spell, so both wizard and sorcerer rely on what they have available, which really favors the sorcerer. Sure, given time the wizard can rejig his spells, but time is not always available.

Then you probably never have played an adventure path, because most encounters areas do not have active patrols or people who immediately storm out of their rooms when they hear combat elsewhere.

Also, things like chasms or doors which do not open (which are the things where Quick Preparation is super useful) don't normally attack players.

Gavmania wrote:

Then too, my arcane sorcerer can have access (if he so chooses) to the complete list of heal spells (or e.g. cure spells). Can a wizard do that?

But how?, I hear you say. Easy. Sorcerers can pick up the Arcane Evolution Feat at 4th level. That means they can add a spell from a scroll to their repertoire. Any spell. It doesn't even speify it has to be an arcane spell.
So, If I have a scroll of Heal1 (which is cheap), and get trick magic item so as to be able to cast it, I can add it to my repertoire for the day.
Now, spontaneous heightening says I can pick a spell I know - such as heal1, and heighten it to know all the heal spells. I'd like to see a wizard do that.

That is actually an excellent point and a definite plus for the Sorcerer.

Sovereign Court

magnuskn wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

Then too, my arcane sorcerer can have access (if he so chooses) to the complete list of heal spells (or e.g. cure spells). Can a wizard do that?

But how?, I hear you say. Easy. Sorcerers can pick up the Arcane Evolution Feat at 4th level. That means they can add a spell from a scroll to their repertoire. Any spell. It doesn't even speify it has to be an arcane spell.
So, If I have a scroll of Heal1 (which is cheap), and get trick magic item so as to be able to cast it, I can add it to my repertoire for the day.
Now, spontaneous heightening says I can pick a spell I know - such as heal1, and heighten it to know all the heal spells. I'd like to see a wizard do that.
That is actually an excellent point and a definite plus for the Sorcerer.

That is really twisting the rules... The feats has a prerequisite that you have an arcane bloodline, and takes for granted that you will use the feat to take Arcana spells. If you go this way, you might as well say that "Cantrip expansion" allows you to have two more cantrips of any spell list as a wizard/cleric/bard/sorcerer! After all, it doesn't say that the cantrip you are learning must be from your arcane tradition...

Edit: The feat is named Arcane Evolution not Spell flexibility or something like that.


Darkorin wrote:

That is really twisting the rules... The feats has a prerequisite that you have an arcane bloodline, and takes for granted that you will use the feat to take Arcana spells. If you go this way, you might as well say that "Cantrip expansion" allows you to have two more cantrips of any spell list as a wizard/cleric/bard/sorcerer! After all, it doesn't say that the cantrip you are learning must be from your arcane tradition...

Edit: The feat is named Arcane Evolution not Spell flexibility or something like that.

The Cantrip one does say "from your spell list" and your spell list is determined by your bloodline, so I don't think you can pick from other spell lists.

Shadow Lodge

It's not twisting rules, but intent. Just like how PF1’s Arcane Strike feat only cared about caster level, not Arcane caster level.


thejeff wrote:
Darkorin wrote:

That is really twisting the rules... The feats has a prerequisite that you have an arcane bloodline, and takes for granted that you will use the feat to take Arcana spells. If you go this way, you might as well say that "Cantrip expansion" allows you to have two more cantrips of any spell list as a wizard/cleric/bard/sorcerer! After all, it doesn't say that the cantrip you are learning must be from your arcane tradition...

Edit: The feat is named Arcane Evolution not Spell flexibility or something like that.

The Cantrip one does say "from your spell list" and your spell list is determined by your bloodline, so I don't think you can pick from other spell lists.

Right, even if you can add a non-list spell to your repertoire via Arcane Evolution so that you know it, you're still limited to casting spells off your actual spell list, so it's pointless.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The Cantrip one does say "from your spell list" and your spell list is determined by your bloodline, so I don't think you can pick from other spell lists.

The one for sorcerer does, not the one for cleric/bard/wizard/druid, which would mean that they could learn any cantrip if we apply the same nonsense logic.

Please remember that the designers are always trying to cut a few word here and there in order, it is normal that sometime they take a few shortcuts but I think we can accept that and understand the intent behind each feats.

And Arcane Evolution intent is to bring some flexibility to the sorcerer arcane's spell known, not to learn any spell from any list.


Warning: Wall of text incoming.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that general sentiment is that the wizard is much better than the sorcerer. IMHO it's the other way around - the sorcerer is a much better caster than the wizard.

Let's compare a specialist wizard that starts at level 1 with 18 Int / 10 Cha and ends at level 20 with 24 Int / 16 Cha, with an arcane sorcerer that starts with 10 Int / 18 Cha and ends with 16 Int / 24 Cha:

- Skills: Wizard has 1 more trained skill, but sorcerer has many more signature skills. The poor wizard doesn't even have enough signature skills to get 3 legendary skills at level 20, unless you count Lore. Advantage: sorcerer.

- Resonance: Sorcerer has 4 more resonance points. Advantage: sorcerer.

- Number of feats: Wizard has 2 more class feats, but sorcerers get bloodline powers for free. It's kind of like sorcerers are forced to spend their 6th and 10th level feats on bloodline powers. I could see this going either way (the imperial bloodline powers are pretty good, for example), but the flexibility of wizards probably wins out. Advantage: wizard.

- Number of spells: Wizard gets one extra highest level spell from Drain Arcane Focus. This is especially powerful at level 1~2 (with only 1st level spells) and level 20 (with an extra 10th level spell), and at those levels the wizard is clearly more powerful than the sorcerer. Advantage: wizard. Note this advantage does not exist for universalists.

- Prepared vs spontaneous casting: Ah, the age old debate. This probably depends on playstyle, but for me personally I think spontaneous is very much superior in 2e.

In 1e, the wizard might be able to prepare 6 different spells per level in their slots, while a sorcerer may know 4 different spells per level. Not so in 2e; the wizard can prepare 4 different spells per level, while the sorcerer still knows 4 spells per level. With spontaneous heightening, the sorcerer actually has more options at any given moment than the wizard. This isn't even taking into consideration that the wizard has fewer options as the adventuring day goes on (more spells cast), while the sorcerer doesn't. Prepared casting is very much less flexible than spontaneous casting in unanticipated circumstances.

In anticipated circumstances, prepared casting is a lot more flexible, of course (and see Quick Preparation later). But here the wizard is instead limited by the vastly increased cost of learning spells. Learning a highest level spell typically costs about 20% of a character's liquid wealth from an adventuring level, before spell access costs and reduced/increased costs from critical success/failure are taken into account. So by spending 40% of their liquid wealth, a wizard might know 4~8 spells of their highest level. Gone are the days where a wizard had enough money to fill multiple spellbooks. Certainly the repertoire of spells a wizard can choose from isn't nearly as large as before.

Oh, have I mentioned that it's pretty difficult to learn high level spells now?

I think spontaneous spellcasting is vastly superior, but again it depends on playstyle.

- Wealth: Sorcerer doesn't spend 40% of liquid wealth just looking for spells, and may actually have downtime to do other stuff. Advantage: sorcerer.
Also, I'm guessing with access costs, learning a spell costs roughly as much as buying a scroll. A sorcerer can therefore take their extra wealth and load up on scrolls. Might as well use their extra resonance on something!

- Heightened mechanics: Wizards essentially know heightened versions of a spell for free, which is a pretty big deal because spells are expensive to learn. Heightened spells really helps with their spell lists. Then again, without playing at high levels I don't know how often you'd want to prepare heightened spells.

I'd argue spontaneous heighten for sorcerers is even better, though. It also gives them more extra spells known for free, and has a pretty good combo going on with Dispel Magic. I'd say advantage goes to sorcerer on this one.

- Uncommon/rare spells: It seems like wizards have an advantage on this (higher Int, and don't have to wait until leveling / retraining to learn), but imperial sorcerers get the uncommon spell Teleport. I'd say Advantage: imperial sorcerer, otherwise Advantage: wizard.

Now to the feats:
- Counterspell: Vastly better for the sorcerer than the wizard. The wizard can counter fewer spells as the adventuring day goes on, while the sorcerer can still counter just as many spells. Pair with Reflect spell for greater effect.
- Dangerous sorcery: Name aside, I don't understand why wizards don't get this feat.
- Arcane Evolution: Gives the sorcerer quite a bit of utility of prepared spellcasting.
- Empowering Focus: 1/day nova for the wizard, save it for the boss.
- Quick Preparation: This incredible feat would be the reason a pure caster may choose to play a wizard. It really depends on the GM and the party though. If the party usually goes into a dungeon with few buffs and the enemies tend to wait in their rooms until aggro'd, this feat is amazing. If the party usually has a bunch of buffs that last fewer than 10 minutes and the GM gives the enemy some organizational abilities, this feat is much less useful.
- Swift dispel: Easy way to cast Dispel Magic with just one action for the sorcerer. Why is Dispel Magic so good for the sorcerer?
- Overwhelming Spell / Overwhelming Energy: 8th level feat for sorcerers, 12th level feat for wizards.

Finally, sorcerers have better weapon proficiency for some reason.

In conclusion, for a pure caster I think the sorcerer is way better, given how much prepared spellcasting seems to have been nerfed. I may play a wizard if I wanted to multiclass, since they are more flexible with feats; or if my group is such that Quick Preparation is super exploitable. Otherwise I'd stick with the sorcerer.


Avir wrote:
If the party usually has a bunch of buffs that last fewer than 10 minutes

Buffs essentially don't exist for the arcane spell list (I haven't analyzed non-arcane spell lists yet). All buffs last for 1 minute, 10 minutes or 1 day.

10 minutes are the PF1e equivalent of 1 minute/level buffs. 1 minute are the PF1e equivalent of 1 round/level buffs and 1 day is the equivalent of 1 hour/level (but better). No-one expects to stop to swap out spells when minute per level or round per level buffs are running. But if you're group needs to carefully move from encounter to encounter or if combats aren't in close proximity to each other then those buffs are only going to last for 1 combat. At best you'll get 3 combats (and that's when in rampaging mode).

In every other situation the cost for swapping out spells is non-existent. So yes, it does depend on playstyle. But unlike PF1e where pre-combat buffs were common, PF2e buffs are going to essentially be "per encounter" abilities.

Furthermore the Gamemastering advice essentially says that if you let players have out of combat buffs running then the PCs will be overpowered. Instead the Gamemastering advice recommends GMs screw over players when it comes to out of combat buffs and ensure they don't last for more than a combat or 2 and that they don't have more than 1 or 2 buffs going pre-combat.

Given all of the above, worrying about buffs running is essentially dead in PF2e. You either have them for the whole day or you don't have them for most fights unless you cast them after initiative is rolled.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

Buffs essentially don't exist for the arcane spell list (I haven't analyzed non-arcane spell lists yet). All buffs last for 1 minute, 10 minutes or 1 day.

10 minutes are the PF1e equivalent of 1 minute/level buffs. 1 minute are the PF1e equivalent of 1 round/level buffs and 1 day is the equivalent of 1 hour/level (but better).

May I just say that I love this change, regardless of what it does to wizard/sorcerer comparison.

It's exactly the right kind of fix to the standard 3.x caster problems. It's a nice little buff for low level casters, where they're often still weak and some of those early spell just didn't last long enough to even be worth casting. And it's a nerf for higher level casters, keeping them from getting so much more use out of the low level spells.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Avir wrote:
If the party usually has a bunch of buffs that last fewer than 10 minutes

Buffs essentially don't exist for the arcane spell list (I haven't analyzed non-arcane spell lists yet). All buffs last for 1 minute, 10 minutes or 1 day.

10 minutes are the PF1e equivalent of 1 minute/level buffs. 1 minute are the PF1e equivalent of 1 round/level buffs and 1 day is the equivalent of 1 hour/level (but better). No-one expects to stop to swap out spells when minute per level or round per level buffs are running. But if you're group needs to carefully move from encounter to encounter or if combats aren't in close proximity to each other then those buffs are only going to last for 1 combat. At best you'll get 3 combats (and that's when in rampaging mode).

Point taken - prebuffing is less of an issue in PF2, but losing a running 10-minute or 1-hour buff is still pretty bad. See below for quote from rulebook.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

In every other situation the cost for swapping out spells is non-existent. So yes, it does depend on playstyle.

Buffs aside, the cost would be possibly losing valuable time in a dangerous place. If you need to sneak somewhere, taking 10 minutes off could make you detected. Or perhaps when you were looking at your spellbook, the enemies were calling for reinforcements to surround you. This is what typically what happens in my group, similar to the gamemastering advice you mention below against prebuffing - enemies aren't stupid and just let you sit around for 10 minutes. Maybe your group is different.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Furthermore the Gamemastering advice essentially says that if you let players have out of combat buffs running then the PCs will be overpowered. Instead the Gamemastering advice recommends GMs screw over players when it comes to out of combat buffs and ensure they don't last for more than a combat or 2 and that they don't have more than 1 or 2 buffs going pre-combat.

The rulebook cautions against prebuffing, but not against running buffs. See the following:

Playtest Rulebook p.330 wrote:

Be more generous with spells lasting 10 minutes or more. A 10-minute spell lasts for one encounter, and possibly one more if the locations are fairly close together. A 1-hour spell usually lasts for several encounters. These also depend on how much time the characters spend on other things between encounters.

So yes, running buffs are still a thing, depending on the situation. I'm not sure where you'd get 1-hour spells (haven't looked into spells that much), but there are quite a few alchemical items that last that long, so it could be common if you have an alchemist.


with how paizo designs adventures and encounters, taking a 10-minute break at a challenge or even midway through a dungeon isn't really an issue at all--as magnuskn points out: they dont generally have patrols (rather they prefer sudden ambushes as you advance), and many challenges that a utility spell trivializes aren't actively harmful (chasms, cliffs, most puzzles).

as for time limits: if you're in a situation that has such a tight time limit that you cant take a 10-minut break, you're certainly not in a dungeon, or doing anything at involves any amount of travel (which iirc you can take a break while traveling if you've got a cart--though i'm not sure on whether simple riding would allow it as well (usually stuff like that requires a ride check or a concentration check))

the only two mildly strict time limit adventures that come to mind for me is that sick town one (you've got like, two ingame weeks to find a cure or everyone dies, which STILL has room for regular 10-minute breaks) and the frankenstein trial iirc.


thejeff wrote:

May I just say that I love this change, regardless of what it does to wizard/sorcerer comparison.

It's exactly the right kind of fix to the standard 3.x caster problems.

I say this with no sarcasm or snideness: Have you ever played D&D 4th edition? Because this was exact sort of solution they applied by making buffs have a duration of "until the end of the encounter". Suffice it to say, I was not satisfied with the solution when compared with PF1e.

However it does limit the impact spellcasters have on the party and help make sure non-casters are "powerful enough" by having almost no buffs exist in the game (again, haven't analysed the non-arcane list).

Avir wrote:
losing a running 10-minute or 1-hour buff is still pretty bad. See below for quote from rulebook.

You don't swap out spells during the PF2e version of minute per level buffs. So yes, if you were to swap out a spell that would be a meaningful cost. Typically the prepared caster will simply do without until the buff has expired. Can you give me some examples of hour long buffs? I haven't encountered them yet so I'd be interested in seeing what they do.

Avir wrote:
Buffs aside, the cost would be possibly losing valuable time in a dangerous place. If you need to sneak somewhere, taking 10 minutes off could make you detected. Or perhaps when you were looking at your spellbook, the enemies were calling for reinforcements to surround you.

Sure. And the cleric having to take 10 minutes out to cast a ritual because someone was blinded will have equally risks. Furthermore doing any activity which takes 10 minutes will also have similar risks. Finally if the enemy are aware of the PCs why didn't they aid the first group and overwhelm the PCs while 1 messenger was sent for reinforcements?

Avir wrote:
This is what typically what happens in my group

I can't say this has been my experience in playing and GMing Paizo AP's.

Avir wrote:
enemies aren't stupid and just let you sit around for 10 minutes. Maybe your group is different.

As I said, if enemies are aware of the PC's they will typically seek to overwhelm them rather then let the PCs fight a small group, stop to heal up with charges from a wand of cure light wounds which can take a few minutes at higher level and then rush them once they're fully healed. Nor have I seen Paizo AP's written in such a way where enemies are aware of the PC's and then stupidly allow them to sit around and heal up with wand charges before engaging in them. But your group might be different.

Avir wrote:
So yes, running buffs are still a thing, depending on the situation. I'm not sure where you'd get 1-hour spells (haven't looked into spells that much), but there are quite a few alchemical items that last that long, so it could be common if you have an alchemist.

Read the text you quoted. 10 minute buffs will last 1 maybe 2 fights if the PCs are lucky. I just looked up the spells that last 1 hour. They're not really significant buffs. But sure. If your group has buffs running then you'll be impacted on your ability to swap out spells. If your group only engages in 4 fights within 1 hour per day this is going to be a significant cost. In every other scenario the impact of taking 10 minutes is going to be minimal.

Again, if your group has a different playstyle from that which is encouraged and enabled by the Paizo AP's then this is going to be a significantly higher or lower cost. But as someone whose primarily played AP modules along with a whole host of PFS scenarios, this cost is going to be far less then you seem to think it will be and PF2e is going to reduce the cost even further then it would have been in PF1e.


AndIMustMask wrote:
the only two mildly strict time limit adventures that come to mind for me is that sick town one (you've got like, two ingame weeks to find a cure or everyone dies, which STILL has room for regular 10-minute breaks) and the frankenstein trial iirc.

The frankenstein trial one was designed to allow for continuances so that the PCs could go gather evidence as needed (I also think it was at a level where pulling an all-nighter and then being topped with a lesser restoration was a completely valid tactic). Furthermore, it certainly allowed plenty of 10 minute breaks to swap out spells.


1 hour buffs are things like Darkvision that level the playing field, they don’t give a big advantage. Heroism is 10 minutes, but only on the bard and cleric lists and redundant with a bard. Stoneskin is 20 minutes but loses a minute every time you’re hit. Pretty much everything else is 1 minute.


Xenocrat wrote:
1 hour buffs are things like Darkvision that level the playing field, they don’t give a big advantage.

I can tell you right now that my group does not bother wasting resources on spells like darkvision. That's not going to suddenly change in PF2e.

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Sorcerers vs Wizards All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.