PDA

View Full Version : 3E The Sorcerer vs Mage Question



Lynam III
2009-02-27, 03:44 PM
Greetings,

I have the following question: Why is there a general consensus on the theory that mages are necessarily superior than sorcerers in 3E? I do not want to create a debate or war, and I know the issue has been raised countless times and again. But when I think in the following manner, I fail to see the unchallangeble superiority of mages.

For unforeseeable circumstances, I claim sorcerers are better because they are able to choose freely from the spells in their arsenal. Say they have 5 fairly useful spells per level. In this scenario the mage will also have memorized arguably 5 useful spells per level, but they will not be able to convert their prepared spells as the sorcerer can. So in this scenario sorcerer is better than the mage

For foreseeable circumstances, the mage will be able to memorize the most useful spells available in his spellbook and maximize potential. However, to have these spells in his spellbook, the mage will first have to purchase the scroll of the spell. I claim, given the same financial constraints, the sorcerer can opt to buy the scrolls or wands of the spells required, albeit probably at a higher cost than the mage, proportional with the times the spell must be cast.

In general, I claim there are no perfectly foreseeable circumstances, so the situation is a mix of the both. In this case, given not so tough financial constraints, the sorcerer looks to be more verstile and efficient than the mage.

In the light of the abovementioned scenario, can someone explain me why mages are always regarded as superior to sorcerers on this board? Is it a fact, or just the result of some ex-post argumentation, like giving a wizard example that can beat some proposed opponent x, given full information that the character will be facing x?

Please try to briefly explain instead of throwing links around. I know it has been discussed before. I just want to be convinced by some sound arguments.

valadil
2009-02-27, 03:53 PM
Spell choice aside, the wizard has a few other advantages. They learn new levels of spell one level early. I don't care what your spell selection is as a sorcerer, if the wizard next to you has spells one level better, he's probably more powerful. They also get scribe scroll for free and a metamagic or item creation feat at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Finally, their primary stat is int, which in my book is better than charisma. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I'd rather play a talker than a nerd, but my characters are more effective when they get lots of skill points than lots of charisma bonuses.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-02-27, 03:55 PM
first it's a the D&D 3e PHB has a sorcerer and a wizard and no mage.

The reasons a wizard is usually considered more powerful are:
1 gains higher level spells 1 lever before the sorcerer
2 has more PRC options
3 can theoretically be prepared for anything

I'll leave the more advanced explanation to other posters.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-27, 03:55 PM
Several reasons. On prepared v. Spont: 1st level, both casters have 18 in their main stat. The Sorc has 4 1st level spells per day, the Wizard has 3. But the Wizard has multiple spells to choose from, while the Sorc is stuck with spamming the same one no matter the enemy. While the exact numbers will change, the basic concept holds true through the rest of the campaign.

The Wizard gets specialization, which means access to very nice ACFs. The Wizard gets free feats. The Wizard has a better casting stat, cheaper metamagic access, better use of metamagic rods, and spell access a level earlier. Not to mention the Wizard-only PrCs.

Dyllan
2009-02-27, 03:59 PM
Also, don't forget found spellbooks. If a wizard finds a spellbook, and has high enough of a spellcraft skill to take the 10 to prepare spells from it, he doesn't have to scribe any of those spells into his spellbook. That means, every time an enemy wizard is killed, there's the potential for a large collection of additional spell knowledge to be available to the wizard.

truemane
2009-02-27, 04:02 PM
Small point to add to ther truthiness of what has already been said:

Wizards get to make better and more frequent use of Metamagic feats. Sorcerors usually have to cast metamagic as a fullk-round action (which is poo).

BRC
2009-02-27, 04:09 PM
Well, you see,an adventuring day will probably have about 15 rounds of combat. Three encounters a day, each one lasting about 5 rounds, seems fairly reasonable. Which means that as the levels get up there, the fact that the sorceror can blow more things up every day meets with the fact that the sorcerer and wizard have the same number of things to blow up. Mind you, there are plenty of opporotunities for spellcasting outside of combat, but those tend to be singular, and combat is the most common situation. So, A sorceror, who only gets 1 chance, is going to primarily prepare for combat, as it's the most likely occurence. A wizard can prepare spells with alot more information at their disposal. For example, the party needs to do a little B&E, Followed by a littled H&R (hit and Run). The Wizard can prepare useful spells like Knock, Silence, Invisibility sphere, ect to help with the B&E part. And for the Hit and Run, the wizard preps Slow (For impeding the enemy), and a quickened Dimensional Door for getting away quickly.
The Sorceror, unless they expected the campaign to regularly need those spells during char creation, is much less likely to have all the above available.

Graymayre
2009-02-27, 04:11 PM
I don't understand the argument, everyone knows that a Truenamer is the superior caster. :smalltongue:

Lynam III
2009-02-27, 04:13 PM
Spell choice aside, the wizard has a few other advantages. They learn new levels of spell one level early. I don't care what your spell selection is as a sorcerer, if the wizard next to you has spells one level better, he's probably more powerful. They also get scribe scroll for free and a metamagic or item creation feat at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Finally, their primary stat is int, which in my book is better than charisma. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I'd rather play a talker than a nerd, but my characters are more effective when they get lots of skill points than lots of charisma bonuses.

-One level early: Very important indeed, a very valid argument.

-Free feats: Are they so critical to success in the big picture? Can someone tell me to what extent this may make a difference?

-Int as main stat: This is a very arguable case, so let's leave it aside for now.


first it's a the D&D 3e PHB has a sorcerer and a wizard and no mage.

The reasons a wizard is usually considered more powerful are:
1 gains higher level spells 1 lever before the sorcerer
2 has more PRC options
3 can theoretically be prepared for anything

I'll leave the more advanced explanation to other posters.

-More PRC options: Suppose I forbid all the PRCs.

-Can theoretically be prepared for anything: As in my though experiment above, I claim this is not an advantage, since possibility does not imply probability, and if the mage can be prepared, the sorcerer also can. Where mage can't be prepared, the sorcerer will be moreso prepared, or at least as prepared as the wizard.


Several reasons. On prepared v. Spont: 1st level, both casters have 18 in their main stat. The Sorc has 4 1st level spells per day, the Wizard has 3. But the Wizard has multiple spells to choose from, while the Sorc is stuck with spamming the same one no matter the enemy. While the exact numbers will change, the basic concept holds true through the rest of the campaign.

-1st level superiority: True. Now suppose this comparison is made at a high level (10+)


Also, don't forget found spellbooks. If a wizard finds a spellbook, and has high enough of a spellcraft skill to take the 10 to prepare spells from it, he doesn't have to scribe any of those spells into his spellbook. That means, every time an enemy wizard is killed, there's the potential for a large collection of additional spell knowledge to be available to the wizard.

-Spell books: This is a nice addition, but does that really make that much of a difference? It is a probability, but this is only an advantage if financial suppies are rather limited.

Tam_OConnor
2009-02-27, 04:15 PM
Generally speaking, sorcerers are (comparable) one trick ponies. They may be really good at control, or blasting, or enchantments, but not at all. The wizard may not necessarily be an expert in all of these situations, but they have the potential to be an expert.

To put it another way: the sorcerer decides every level if he wants to be a greataxe, a shiv or a spoon. The wizard can decide daily, given the right selection of spells.

As for the spell selection, even if the financial situation is dire, the wizard can take Collegiate Wizard (Complete Arcane, s. 181) and double the length of his spellbook (if the DM lets him, naturally). Moreover, the sorcer doesn't have 5 useful spells per level. Generally speaking, he's got one spell, a level later than the wizard. Sure, he can cast it four plus times per day, but what if his single spell isn't useful?

Then there's metamagic. The wizard can, the sorcerer has trouble. Taking a full round action to cast a spell is generally an invite to everyone on the battlefield: "Look at me! I'm casting a powerful spell!" Now, the sorcerer can take the familiar substitution in PHB2, Arcane Preparation (PGtF or CArc) or that one feat in Complete Mage for CL 12 and up. Where the wizard can do it without anything other than the metamagic feats.

That the wizard gets bonus feats doesn't exactly say anything in the sorcerer's favor. With just the PHB options: Spell Focus (Conjuration, Evocation) Congratulations, the DCs for spells the wizard get a level earlier are even higher. Extend Spell: never worry about your buff spells running out! (Okay, so that's an exaggeration) Heck, if you've got the time and inclination, the Item Creation feats can be useful.

Out of core: Arcane Thesis (enervation), Twin Spell, Split Ray, Empower Spell. Your 9th level enervations now deal (1d4+1d4+1d4+1d4)x1.5 negative levels. The sorcerer is casting energy drain for 2d4 negative levels.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to play a sorcerer. And satisfying when you can unleash giant blasty spell after giant blasty spell (direct damage has a thrill that battlefield control can't match). On the other hand, when all you've got is a fireball and the opponent is a red dragon...

One of the reasons that wizards always get the Batman advantage (foreknowledge) is that, well, Intelligence is their prime requisite. A first level wizard is probably smarter than anyone at the gaming table (no offense intended).

EDIT: Woo, super-ninja'd. Stupid low Initiative roll... Oh, what the heck, I'll add in feat info too.

valadil
2009-02-27, 04:20 PM
-Free feats: Are they so critical to success in the big picture? Can someone tell me to what extent this may make a difference?


Free feats are a huge deal. The problem with them is that very few wizards stay wizard for 20 levels. All will get scribe scroll and most will get the 5th level metamagic feat, but if you're not in a prestige class by 10, something is wrong.

For what it's worth I actually prefer sorcerers even if I think wizards are more powerful. Figuring out how to apply my spell list to a situation is more fun for me than divining what the situation will be and picking a spell list from all available sources.

Lynam III
2009-02-27, 04:34 PM
Generally speaking, sorcerers are (comparable) one trick ponies. They may be really good at control, or blasting, or enchantments, but not at all. The wizard may not necessarily be an expert in all of these situations, but they have the potential to be an expert.

To put it another way: the sorcerer decides every level if he wants to be a greataxe, a shiv or a spoon. The wizard can decide daily, given the right selection of spells.

I get your point. But how many roles are there available that a sorcerer cannot at least partially cover? If there are some unique situations, as I said, the sorcerer can buy some more equipment. This is a disadvantage, make no mistake, but given a usual campaign, is that going to make that much of a difference? That is to be evaluated.


As for the spell selection, even if the financial situation is dire, the wizard can take Collegiate Wizard (Complete Arcane, s. 181) and double the length of his spellbook (if the DM lets him, naturally). Moreover, the sorcer doesn't have 5 useful spells per level. Generally speaking, he's got one spell, a level later than the wizard. Sure, he can cast it four plus times per day, but what if his single spell isn't useful?

Getting spells later is a serious drawback indeed. But I was thinking of a rather high-level character. And arguably, after level 20 or so, the difference becomes smaller. So this disadvantage vanishes as level increases.


Then there's metamagic. The wizard can, the sorcerer has trouble. Taking a full round action to cast a spell is generally an invite to everyone on the battlefield: "Look at me! I'm casting a powerful spell!" Now, the sorcerer can take the familiar substitution in PHB2, Arcane Preparation (PGtF or CArc) or that one feat in Complete Mage for CL 12 and up. Where the wizard can do it without anything other than the metamagic feats.

This is a tactical advantage of the wizard, I see. But there are infinitely many tactical advantages of the sorcerer due to verstality, of which I will give some examples that come to my mind a bit later.



That the wizard gets bonus feats doesn't exactly say anything in the sorcerer's favor.


True



One of the reasons that wizards always get the Batman advantage (foreknowledge) is that, well, Intelligence is their prime requisite. A first level wizard is probably smarter than anyone at the gaming table (no offense intended).


I consider the player to be a rational and well-informed agent, so let's not make assumptions about the intelligence and the ability of divination of the player given the class he chooses.

Telonius
2009-02-27, 04:47 PM
Another superior quality of the Wizard: The use of Quicken Spell. Sorcerers can't use this option at all, unless the Metamagic Specialist variant is allowed. If you really need to end an encounter this round rather than next round, Wizard gets it done better.

As already mentioned, faster metamagic gives better mobility for the Wizard. For any spell that has a casting time of less than a full round, the Wizard will be able to move before casting the metamagic version of it. This option can be anywhere from merely useful to absolutely life-saving.

EDIT: Regarding spending money on scrolls...
The Wizard has to buy the scroll once, and he knows it (and can prepare it) forever, assuming no loss of spell book. If the Sorcerer wants to cast it more than once, he has to get another scroll.

Lynam III
2009-02-27, 04:55 PM
Well, you see,an adventuring day will probably have about 15 rounds of combat. Three encounters a day, each one lasting about 5 rounds, seems fairly reasonable. Which means that as the levels get up there, the fact that the sorceror can blow more things up every day meets with the fact that the sorcerer and wizard have the same number of things to blow up. Mind you, there are plenty of opporotunities for spellcasting outside of combat, but those tend to be singular, and combat is the most common situation. So, A sorceror, who only gets 1 chance, is going to primarily prepare for combat, as it's the most likely occurence. A wizard can prepare spells with alot more information at their disposal. For example, the party needs to do a little B&E, Followed by a littled H&R (hit and Run). The Wizard can prepare useful spells like Knock, Silence, Invisibility sphere, ect to help with the B&E part. And for the Hit and Run, the wizard preps Slow (For impeding the enemy), and a quickened Dimensional Door for getting away quickly.
The Sorceror, unless they expected the campaign to regularly need those spells during char creation, is much less likely to have all the above available.

This is really the sort of answer I was looking for: The capabilities of the two classes considered according to challanges faced. You are certainly right that given foreseeable events, the mage can be prepared to make most out of the situation by being able to prepare the right spells. But still, he doesn't know which spell to prepare how many times.

On the other hand, if the sorcerer was built with also such roles in mind, he could at least provide some of the spells needed for such jobs, and use them only if needed, which is a double advantage: 1) No excess spells are prepared 2) There are no shortage of a second or a third spell if needed

And lastly, you said the sorcerer would probably be more heavily prepared with usual combat in mind. This is true, but this also implies that there are more combat scenarios than other types of jobs. And if those types of jobs are known prior, the sorcerer can be as prepared as the mage, perhaps even more due to verstality, with the disadvantage of having to buy magical supplies.

Fan
2009-02-27, 05:07 PM
you, see thats the thing at 20th level the Wizard has access to something that allows him to see things that are GARUNTEED to happen with a DM who has his campign set up (IE. Which encounters they will face, and what challenges will meet them that day, and the next 3 at that level.) It's called Divination... It's a wonderful spell they have a entire school named after it, and then you tack on polymorph, and the Arcane Thesis, and other niceness that Wizard only allows (much lower metamagic with that one.), and bam you have someone who not only preforms every role in the party except for BSF (this is taken from Treantmonklvl20's Guide to Playing god.)... It's not that Sorc is BAD... It's that Wizard is the most powerful class in the game easily. They do everything better... It's just a wizard thing... Sorry.

Tam_OConnor
2009-02-27, 05:16 PM
Getting into the whole 'player verses character' intelligence discussion is all very fuzzy and DM based, so we may as well leave it alone. It does provide a very self-indulgent justification for Batman wizards, though.

Sure, the sorcerer can buy scrolls and wands to cover exotic situations. Problem is, the wizard can too. And he can also change his spell selection daily, in case item merchants aren't readily available. Getting into item discussions is ultimately useless, assuming the characters have equal wealth.

Say 20th level: sorcerer has three spells known. The wizard can have anywhere from zero (if they're really an idiot, or are only using metamagics) to a finite number limited by his wealth. The sorcerer might have crushing hand, shapechange and time stop. The wizard could have those, and gate, freedom and foresight. Conditional spells, long-lasting buffs...The sorcerer really shouldn't spend his spell slots known on long term buffs like false life. That's what wands and scrolls are for. But the wizard will (probably) be doing it at a higher caster level. I'll readily admit the gap does narrow, but there's still a gap.

...wait. After level twenty? Oooh, boy, epic level play is not a can of worms I want to deal with. After level twenty, the only measure of a spellcaster is the size of his Spellcraft modifier and whether he has Epic Spellcasting. At that point, differences between sorcerers, wizards and sublime chord bards disappear, melding into ALL CONSUMING ARCANE MIGHT!!!

Seriously, though, the problem with high level comparisons is that the options just become ridiculous. What kind of campaign is it? Dungeon crawling? Surviving the sun exploding? The kooky adventures of Farzle Macblaggleworth on the 67th level of the Abyss of Drawers? For some of these, versatility may not be as great an advantage as in theoretical arguments. In the last, you may only every need to cast meteor swarm, in order to drive off the galarping boogles of Wordsworth 14. And it would be glorious to be a sorcerer.

Speaking as someone who's played an epic sorcerer without Epic Spellcasting: it got infuriating sometimes. Case in point: spell resistance. Even with generous helpings of gouda, I couldn't break through a certain dragon's SR. So, I fell back on my sorcerous ways, time stopped and unleashed waaaaay too many sonic orb spells. I ran out of spells in that fight. I was a 25th level sorcerer and *I ran out of spells.* Stop, citizens of the forums, and consider that for a minute. .... If I had been a wizard, I would have run out much, much faster. I probably also wouldn't have even had all those orbs prepared.

But in any case, it comes down to this: Sorcerer or Wizard, you're ridiculously powerful. Sorcerers have to figure out how to make a round peg fit into a square hole (hint: blow it all up). Wizards have to anticipate the square hole, and if they don't, they're stuck in the same situation as the Sorcerer, only with less firepower.

BRC
2009-02-27, 05:32 PM
This is really the sort of answer I was looking for: The capabilities of the two classes considered according to challanges faced. You are certainly right that given foreseeable events, the mage can be prepared to make most out of the situation by being able to prepare the right spells. But still, he doesn't know which spell to prepare how many times.


On the other hand, if the sorcerer was built with also such roles in mind, he could at least provide some of the spells needed for such jobs, and use them only if needed, which is a double advantage: 1) No excess spells are prepared 2) There are no shortage of a second or a third spell if needed

And lastly, you said the sorcerer would probably be more heavily prepared with usual combat in mind. This is true, but this also implies that there are more combat scenarios than other types of jobs. And if those types of jobs are known prior, the sorcerer can be as prepared as the mage, perhaps even more due to verstality, with the disadvantage of having to buy magical supplies.
I believe I can best answer your questions like this. Generally, the more variety of challenges the campaign offers, the more advantage a wizard has over a sorceror.
For example, lets say there is a campaign, two of the players are Sam who likes to play a sorceror, and Will who likes to play a wizard.
If the DM says ahead of time "Alright, in this campaign you will be soliders trying to repel an invasion force, so expect lots of combat". Sam and Will select their spells with this in mind. However, because every adventure is the PC's defending a tower from evil things by killing said evil things, Will finds himself preparing the same spells every day, and though selection is limited, Sam has enough variety to pick a spell for every situation. A Spell for blasting, a spell for low will save, a spell against low fort save, mage armor, ect.

Or, if the DM says "Right, this campaign is all about politics, intruge, and espionage". Well, both Will and Sam will probably roll beguilers or bards, but let's say they stick with Wizard and Sorceror. You get a similar situation as above, Sam picks a few all-purpose enchantment and illusion spells that handle most situations the campaign throws at them. Invisibilty, Knock, Charm Person, ect. With Scorching Ray or somthing just in case of combat. Will ends up preparing the same spells, except he get's fewer of them, and isn't as good at improvising when situations arise. (Oops, Assasins just jumped through the window and are holding the duke hostage. Sam starts in with magic missle and Hold person. Will was expecting an infiltration, so he's got Knock, detect traps, invisibility...not much to help save the Duke).

However, If the DM says "Alright, in this campaign you are part of a rebellion trying to overthrow an evil king". Now Will has the advantage, there are countless situations the DM can throw at them, and from that description it's almost impossible to predict. One adventure has the party fighting some of the king's soliders in order to liberate some prisoners, another has them sneaking into a fortess to get proof that the tyrant is planning to invade a nearby nation in order to convince that nation to support the rebellion. Sam is now faced with a choice, specialize in handling a few of the many possible situations, and be near worthless in others, or try to generalize and be not very good at anything. Meanwhile Will can say "Alright, so we need to prove King Evildude is planning to invade the kingdom of Nearbye. Well, we know we need to break into this fortess so we can steal plans showing how they would move seige weapons into Nearbye, and letters from spies showing troop positions and fortress blueprints in nearbye. So I better prepare knock, invisibility, and suggestion." while Sam looks at his character sheet, says "I've got fireball" and has to spend his money on scrolls.

Lynam III
2009-02-27, 05:42 PM
Gathering all of the mentioned things, I came to the following conclusion:

Advantages of the wizard:

1-One level ahead at all times

2-Has access to a greater variety of spells especially at the lower levels (and when you are able to cast at a specific spell level)

3-Has free feats

4-Has intelligence as primary stat

5-Given prior knowledge of the situation, saves considerable financial resources

Edit: 6-Has the upper hand in a diverse campaign

Advantages of the sorcerer:

1-Better prepared for unforeseen situations:
a) If you know the spell, you have the spell
b) If you know you are going to have a likely but uncertain situation, you have the option not to cast the spell if not required and the ability to cast additional spells if required, which translates into: 1)saving more spells, 2)still having more spells if something goes awry (the creature just rolled an improbable saving throw)
c) You can use all your spell slots: every slot a similar mage cannot use, you are free to use as whatever you want from your narrower repertoire

2-More spells: If you have a very combat-heavy situation, you need every last spell you have (a long battle, dungeon crawling, siege, etc.)

3-Easier to get optimal benefit in a situation (hard to make miscalculations other than choosing a useless spell)

4-Has charisma as primary stat (wizards may save the world but you get the chicks/nice guys :P)

Edit: 5-Has the upper hand in a specialized campaign

Conclusion:

Wizards may be better than sorcerers, especially at lower levels. However:

-As level increases, the gap between the sorcerer and the wizard becomes smaller (pre-20 that is!)

-As unforeseen events increase, sorcerer is better suited

-As need for quantity instead of quality of spells increase, sorcerer is better suited

-As financial constraints get more relaxes (you have some rogue that is looking to invest in the party :P), the sorcerer can also do what the wizard can do at a lower opportunity cost in predictable scenarios.

My summary: Wizards may indeed be better than sorcerers in more predictable scenarios. But sorcerer may become a valid option if one or more of the above conclusions are realized. So the stylized fact that wizards are superior to sorcerers in all cases must be approached carefully. On average this might be true, but the choosing to be a wizard doesn't necessarily strictly dominate choosing to be a sorcerer.

Please comment if you think otherwise

Tam_OConnor
2009-02-27, 05:51 PM
Yep, that seems to sum things up pretty darn well.

Personally, as a DM, I give the sorcerer bonus feats at the same rate as wizards. Just encouragement to stay single-classed, I suppose. Because, as is, Sorcerers have absolutely no reason not to prestige class out. Well, technically, there's the familiar. Technically.

Also, I'd say that in the early levels, the extremely limited PC resources means that the sorcerer is more appreciated.

EDIT: VVV: Profit? That, citizen, is not profit. That is concentrated WIN. Cookie of total arcane power?

Ire
2009-02-27, 05:53 PM
Sorcerer + Mage of the Arcane Order = Profit.

magic9mushroom
2009-02-27, 06:07 PM
-Can theoretically be prepared for anything: As in my though experiment above, I claim this is not an advantage, since possibility does not imply probability, and if the mage can be prepared, the sorcerer also can. Where mage can't be prepared, the sorcerer will be moreso prepared, or at least as prepared as the wizard.

The problem is that Wizards tend to abuse Divination magic and become Batman; they can always have the right spells. A sorcerer can't, his spells are fixed. This doesn't apply in more complicated situations (like when your forging through a dungeon rather than teleporting to the end) because the situation can change.

Most people on this board over-emphasise the discrepancy, but there is one.

Keld Denar
2009-02-27, 06:30 PM
Its been said before in another thread, but I'll reiterate it here. I believe that choosing spells for a Sorcerer is actually HARDER than for a Wizard. Especially with a Boccob's Blessed Book, a Wizard is a spellcasting whore, he'll take any spell, any day, with no consideration to the past or the future. Once he's got it written down, he begins the careful process of selecting daily spells. Sorcerers need to be VERY picky about which spells they take. For spell levels above 3rd, you only get 3 spells known...ever. I can think of 7 different 4th level spells I'd take in a heartbeat, and cutting out 3 of them would be heart breaking. So you have to look where you replicate usefulness. Solid Fog is AMAZING, but can be junked when you trade up to Freezing Fog. Between Dim Door, Teleport, and Greater Teleport, you should only have 1, so you need to choose whether you want the garunteed accuracy, or whether you want to spend those 5th or 6th level spell slots on something else. Enervation is AMAZING, and there really isn't much like it at higher levels, so its one that would pretty much have to stay. See? Being a good Sorcerer is harder than people think.

In general, though, there will end up being a lot of similarity in their performance. A Sorcerer is gonna know a spell that targets each save, one that doesn't target a save, at least one that doesn't have SR, and a few for utility. A wizard is probably gonna memorize each day a couple spells for each save, a couple that don't have saves, and a few for utility. If the wizard is running low on spells that target for saves, he could switch to spells that target will saves (assuming a 2nd less weak weakness) or use spells that don't have saves or buffs that work against everything.

Personally, I like to play Focused Specialist (specifically Conjouration specialists). This gives you prepared casting with as many spells per day as a sorcerer. You have to give up 3 schools (generally Evocation, Enchantment, and Abjuration for me) and 3 spells on any given level HAVE to be Conjourations (not a problem, there are SOOOOO many good ones), which kinda gives me the best of both worlds. Slightly fewer spells known due to barred schools, slightly more spells per day, most of which are the ones I LOVE to spam, and the ability to learn some trivial spells in the event that you might need them, something a sorcerer lacks.

Oh, and bonus feats, if you have PrCs, are very important for qualifying for PrCs. Loremaster requires 4 feats, 1 of which you get for free from Wizard1. Archmage requires 3. Having 2 extra feats over a Sorcerer helps the wizard get into PrCs easier and faster. That, and the quicker access to higher level spells (Wiz qualifies for Archmage after 13, Sorc after 14).