(3.5) Whats the point of the Core sorcerer?

[Ninja_Grand]

I mean look at him, He can cast spells with no preper but has less to use.

I see him as Flavor and Familiar. But a DM aporveal and a feat and he is a spontanus wizard!

So Whats the point?

[zoobob9]

Its the Flavor, and more spells a day. But mostly the flavor.

Read Start of Darkness. It explains why Sorcerers are superior (according to Xykon).

Also, if you're new to the game, its a whole lot easier to play than a wizard.

[Flickerdart]

He gets more spells than the Wizard. Before Focused Specialist, metamagic reducers, awesome Wizard-only prestige classes, before people knew what the hell "balance" was, this was considered a pretty good deal. The Sorcerer is also more noob-friendly, since it doesn't need a lot of book-keeping (and bad spell choices can be eventually switched out).

[Malachei]

Is this thread to provoke a huge discussion or do you really mean the question?

[Telonius]

I think the original design idea went something like this:

Sorcerers are for people who want to use magic more often, at the expense of versatility. They're the virtuosos who get stuff intuitively but can't explain why they do what they do theoretically. They're also for playing a caster if you want to play a charismatic character but don't want to be a Bard.

Not a bad idea, and they actually pretty much do just that. It takes more work to break the universe in two with a Sorcerer than with a Wizard, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[killem2]

They also are very good if you want specialized machine pew-pew-pew FIRE IN THE HOLE casters :P.

Otherwise.. yeah I still choose wizard.

[nedz]

I'm playing two Sorcerors at the moment, they work fine. I like the fact that I get to do lots of homework in designing the characters and choosing the spells, but I don't have to bother with running a spreadsheet up in the middle of a sesssion.
In one game I'm playing a Gnome Sorc-Illusionist, and another player is playing a Gnome Wizard-Illusionist; I more than hold my own. Basically he is BATMAN and I am GOD.
The other Sorc I'm playing is a gish - and that works fine too. He doesn't need a wide variety of spells to do his stuff.

To be frank, I've seen many players play wizards over the years who always take the same few spells all the time anyway. Poor play perhaps, but they may as well play a Sorc.

[Psyren]

Wizards are the finely-tuned watch. Sorcerers are the rubber mallet.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

If you want to play an arcane caster, without having to shuffle through twelve pages of character sheet information for his spell list, EVERY IN GAME DAY, to determine how he tells the laws of physics to sit down and shut up... play a Sorcerer.

All of the phenomonal, cosmic POWER... itty bitty spells known list. Makes logistics MUCH easier for the *player*.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wizards are the finely-tuned watch. Sorcerers are the rubber mallet.

Wizards are pens, sorcerers are swords.

Wizards wield spells like skilled warriors wield swords, and sorcerers are like berserkers with greataxes.

[Tyndmyr]

I mean look at him, He can cast spells with no preper but has less to use.

I see him as Flavor and Familiar. But a DM aporveal and a feat and he is a spontanus wizard!

So Whats the point?

He's the class you point at when you have a brand new player that wants to be a caster.

[Blisstake]

In Core, sorcerers are able to cast more spells per day, and don't have to restrict what spell schools they're able to choose from to get a higher amount per day. I also like to think that they are better with situational metamagic feats like Silent and Still spell.

It seems like the books produced after core have been steadily faovring the wizard, however.

[nedz]

...
It seems like the books produced after core have been steadily faovring the wizard, however.

To be fair SpC is pretty neutral - in intent at least.
And Sorcerors benefit more from PrCs provided the're full on arcane casters.

[Emperor Tippy]

Sorcerer has generally benefited more from non core sources. Lots of feats, PrC's, substitution levels have been made that focus on them. The problem is that them and wizards share pretty much the same spell list, and things like PrC's are just the icing on the cake; spells are where the power of both classes come from.

And the wizard can always know more spells. He also has more ways to really increase his available spell slots (spontaneous divination being the big one as it effectively gives you every spell slot that would have been spent on a divination).

[Malachei]

Since the Dragon books (Races of the Dragon, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon), Sorcerers have improved, getting a few Sorcerer-only spells etc. -- plus Rapid Metamagic from CM.

But there's really countless threads that have discussed this, plus handbooks and guides and even a current thread, right here.

Wizards are pens, sorcerers are swords.

Wizards wield spells like skilled warriors wield swords, and sorcerers are like berserkers with greataxes.

Does that make wizards swordwielding pens, and sorcerers axewielding swords?

[Flickerdart]

It's more like that Wizards are an army - with combined arms forces, secret operatives, scouts, tanks and artillery. Sorcerers are Rambo. The army can kill things as dead as Rambo can, but they have lots of resources that Rambo doesn't - and if it comes to that, they can negotiate for peace, too.

[The Witch-King]

He gets more spells than the Wizard. Before Focused Specialist, metamagic reducers, awesome Wizard-only prestige classes, before people knew what the hell "balance" was, this was considered a pretty good deal.

What do you mean by metamagic reducers and where can I find the rules on them? Thanks!

[Flickerdart]

What do you mean by metamagic reducers and where can I find the rules on them? Thanks!

There are a large number of feats and class features that reduce the cost of metamagic. They make metamagic good enough to use all the time, which shafts Sorcerers something fierce. They are scattered all over, but among the best-known are Incantatrix (prestige class, Player's Guide to Faerun), Arcane Thesis (feat, Player's Handbook 2) and Divine Metamagic (feat, Complete Divine).

[Chronos]

The disadvantage sorcerers have over wizards is that they're less flexible. But one of the advantages sorcerers have over wizards is that they're more flexible. They're just flexible on different scales.

For the simplest example of what I mean, let's compare a low-level wizard to a first-level sorcerer. Let's say that the the wizard has Grease, Color Spray, and Charm Person in his book, and prepares one of each. That's good flexibility: Some situations are good situations for each of those spells, and he can choose which one to use in each encounter.

But what if the party happens to have three encounters in a single day, where Color Spray would have been the best choice for each of them? The wizard ends up having to use suboptimal spells for two of them. By comparison, the sorcerer who knows those three spells can mix them up any way he chooses, on the fly.

Now, even a suboptimal arcane spell can still be pretty good. And at higher levels, when the wizard can learn more about what he's going to face beforehand, this effect is considerably mitigated. But it's still some advantage for the sorcerer.

Basically, if a wizard isn't prepared for any specific situation, then his spells prepared list for that day is going to look a lot like a sorcerer's spells known list, and the sorcerer has the advantage. It's only once the wizard can start preparing specifically that he gains the advantage.

[Flickerdart]

But what if the party happens to have three encounters in a single day, where Color Spray would have been the best choice for each of them? The wizard ends up having to use suboptimal spells for two of them. By comparison, the sorcerer who knows those three spells can mix them up any way he chooses, on the fly.

The problem is that the Sorcerer doesn't know three spells. He knows two, while the Wizard knows seven, at the start of the game - and by the time the Sorcerer knows three, the Wizard knows at least thirteen.

[Chronos]

Yes, the wizard knows a lot of spells, in the sense of having them in his book, but he can only have a few available at once. And at low level, you're not going to have the foresight to be able to pick out the perfect ones, so you'll just have to prepare the few that are most broadly useful, and hardly ever end up using all those others collecting dust in your book. About the only exceptions are the spells that you use exclusively outside of encounters, like Identify: The wizard does have an edge over the sorcerer, there.

[AmberVael]

The point of a sorcerer is to be a spellcaster, typically one who has innate talents rather than one who has studied and learned their magic. The point is to provide an alternative magical chassis that is not necessarily the book worm lorekeeper caster, and to serve as an additional option to those using the D&D 3.5 core book.

And honestly, if you look at it, it seems that it succeeded far better than it may have even been intended to, never mind that there are other more powerful classes.

[Godskook]

There are a large number of feats and class features that reduce the cost of metamagic. They make metamagic good enough to use all the time, which shafts Sorcerers something fierce. They are scattered all over, but among the best-known are Incantatrix (prestige class, Player's Guide to Faerun), Arcane Thesis (feat, Player's Handbook 2) and Divine Metamagic (feat, Complete Divine).

Metamagic and Reducers in splat 3.5 are fairly base class neutral. Sorcerer actually has a few more tricks up his sleeves in those departments, considering that Practical Metamagic was intended to be used by Sorcerers and not Wizards(doesn't really stop the wizards, but meh) and (Greater) Arcane Fusion is sorc-only.

To note, while Cindy was a wizard, the Mailman was a Sorcerer.

[Vowtz]

Yes, the wizard knows a lot of spells, in the sense of having them in his book, but he can only have a few available at once. And at low level, you're not going to have the foresight to be able to pick out the perfect ones, so you'll just have to prepare the few that are most broadly useful, and hardly ever end up using all those others collecting dust in your book. About the only exceptions are the spells that you use exclusively outside of encounters, like Identify: The wizard does have an edge over the sorcerer, there.

Or he could decide his next encounter spells on the course of the day.

From Player's Handbook, page 178:

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of
these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the
preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances
permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard
can fill these unused spell slots.

For the simplest example of what I mean, let's compare a low-level wizard to a first-level sorcerer.

In the same example, if the party get into a golden secret door that can be opened with the code that's written in an ancient language, it's more likely that the wizard have Comprehend Languages at his disposal.

In the first level the real difference is versatility, but as levels go the fact that a wizad has access to more powerful spells and one level earlier gives him the edge over the poor sorcerer.

[chadmeister]

Or he could decide his next encounter spells on the course of the day.

Which is still only useful if he can predict what will be needed in the next encounter in time to take a brief break before the encounter starts. And leaving open slots further reduces his flexibility (and if need be, his maximum spell output) in early encounters.

There are many reasons why the wizard's requirement to prepare his spells might not be as big a disadvantage as it seems at first glance, but there is still an element of short-term flexibility in the sorcerer.

[Neopolis]

Basically? Wizards are Batman, Sorcerers are MacGyver.

Wizards can overcome anything if they have enough time to prepare, but when they're caught off-guard they might suffer.
Sorcerers are given some tools and they have to figure out how to apply them to the task at hand.

[killem2]

Basically? Wizards are Batman, Sorcerers are MacGyver.

Wizards can overcome anything if they have enough time to prepare, but when they're caught off-guard they might suffer.
Sorcerers are given some tools and they have to figure out how to apply them to the task at hand.

Macgyer has an answer for everything, you sure about that analogy?

[nedz]

The disadvantage sorcerers have over wizards is that they're less flexible. But one of the advantages sorcerers have over wizards is that they're more flexible. They're just flexible on different scales.

Basically sorceror has tactical flexibility whilst wizard has strategic (actually operational) flexibility.

Macgyer has an answer for everything, you sure about that analogy?

You just need to have flexible spells, which is quite hard but possible. There are several lines of spells which come to mind, but I'm sure there are others:
Silent Image (et al), Alter Self (et al), Shadow Conjuration (et al), Limited Wish (et al)

[Geigan]

Basically? Wizards are Batman, Sorcerers are MacGyver.

Wizards can overcome anything if they have enough time to prepare, but when they're caught off-guard they might suffer.
Sorcerers are given some tools and they have to figure out how to apply them to the task at hand.

Wizards are pens, sorcerers are swords.

Wizards wield spells like skilled warriors wield swords, and sorcerers are like berserkers with greataxes.

Wizards are the finely-tuned watch. Sorcerers are the rubber mallet.

It's more like that Wizards are an army - with combined arms forces, secret operatives, scouts, tanks and artillery. Sorcerers are Rambo. The army can kill things as dead as Rambo can, but they have lots of resources that Rambo doesn't - and if it comes to that, they can negotiate for peace, too.

Is it metaphor Friday around here? Cause now I feel inspired to make silly metaphors.

-A sorcerer is like a burger. A wizard is like the whole combo meal with fries and a drink. Sure the combo meal tastes better but it costs more, and you might not be hungry enough for the whole thing.

-Using the 2 is like the difference between launching missiles at your opponent and launching nukes at your opponent. They'll both typically cause lots of death either way, but the nuke is going to get a bigger backlash if used to its full destructive potential(from the DM).

-A wizard is like a smart phone whereas a sorcerer is a regular phone. Sure one has many more features, but the smart phone is more expensive and they both let you call people. And with some of those Sorcerer only things you can get your phone to be almost smart.

-A sorcerer's potential is a masters degree, and the Wizard potential is a PhD. One gets you paid more but the other will do just fine most of the time as well as being less difficult to achieve. Not to mention getting you less snide remarks about overachieving(powergamer).

Sorcerer vs Wizard XKCD style

Spoiler

Show

Wizards are C and Sorcerers are Python
Admittedly I know not nearly enough about coding to judge if that's right, but it sounded right.

Ok I'm done being silly. We now return to your regularly scheduled serious discussion.

[dextercorvia]

The problem is that the Sorcerer doesn't know three spells. He knows two, while the Wizard knows seven, at the start of the game - and by the time the Sorcerer knows three, the Wizard knows at least thirteen.

Apprentice (Spellcaster) says hi. Every Sorcerer should take this feat. An extra spell known, the ability to swap a spell at every level, UMD as an in class skill (it always should have been), and an extra Knowledge skill in case you need it for a PrC. Of course, it really comes into its own when you combine it with Mother Cyst and a Bloodline feat, for a total of 20 spells of your choosing added to your spells known.

It still isn't a Wizard, but it does help the first level argument.