Wizards vs Sorcerer

[Golden Ladybug]

I always think of the Wizard as a Scalpel and the Sorcerer as a Hammer.

The Wizard, when employed properly, can solve a problem expertly and with precision. But when put into a situation its not designed for (for example, you've prepped mostly enchantments, and you're facing Undead, for instance), it struggles to do its job properly.

The Sorcerer, while maybe not the best tool for the job, can probably do it...as long as you don't mind making a bit of a mess, and perhaps getting your license to practice medicine taken away

Which one is "better" is dependant on the circumstances, and the level of work you're willing to put into your character.

[danzibr]

Originally Posted by Golden Ladybug

I always think of the Wizard as a Scalpel and the Sorcerer as a Hammer.

The Wizard, when employed properly, can solve a problem expertly and with precision. But when put into a situation its not designed for (for example, you've prepped mostly enchantments, and you're facing Undead, for instance), it struggles to do its job properly.

The Sorcerer, while maybe not the best tool for the job, can probably do it...as long as you don't mind making a bit of a mess, and perhaps getting your license to practice medicine taken away

I like this analogy.

In an unoptimized group either with mop the floor with your opponents anyway.

Oh right, and keep in mind Sorcerers can be gimped pretty badly with poor spell choice while Wizards don't really have this issue. Because Sorcs have fewer spells known and spontaneous casting they're easier to play IMO.

[blazinghand]

Originally Posted by danzibr

I like this analogy.

In an unoptimized group either with mop the floor with your opponents anyway.

Oh right, and keep in mind Sorcerers can be gimped pretty badly with poor spell choice while Wizards don't really have this issue. Because Sorcs have fewer spells known and spontaneous casting they're easier to play IMO.

Sorcs I think of as "hard to set up, easy to play". Assuming you know a bit about how the game works and pick a few flexible spells in your list, you're set-- just pick the appropriate spell and cast when you're playing. With a wizard, if you accidentally scribe a bad spell or two into your spellbook, you can eventually learn to prepare that spell less-- though on any individual day, you're under more pressure since you need to prepare spells.

[Mystral]

Wizards can be just a big of a hammer as the sorcerer if they want to.

[Grim Reader]

One minor advantage for the Sorcerer: It is easier to play. If a newbie wants to play an arcanist, give them a Sorcerer and help them with spell selection. Actual play will be easier.

[Mystral]

If you really have a beginner, you should ask them what kind of mage they want to play. If they want to play something similiar to the warmage, beguiler or dread necromancer, just refer them to these classes. If they want to play something else, homebrew a similiar class.

That's my preferred kind of caster, anyway.

[Crake]

One thing that I haven't noticed mentioned: Sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters *and* all divine casters) can only renew their spells once ever 24 hours, a wizard simply needs 8 hours of quiet (easy with a ropetrick) and another 15-60 minutes of preparation time meaning that they actually get twice their spells per day, almost 3 times.

Edit: Nvm, re-reading the sorc passage, it seems they can do this as well.
Edit2: Nope I was right the first time, FAQ says wizards can, sorcs/bards cant.

[gkathellar]

It bears noting that there are a bevy of ways to simply ignore the Wizard's disadvantages entirely, although many are at an optimization level that makes people uncomfortable. But it does speak to the fact that wizards are, objectively, more powerful.

As people have said, if sorcerer works better in your game, it works better in your game. But wizards do have a greater variety of craziness to throw at XYZ problem, so in a larger sense, they're more powerful.

[Otodetu]

Me and my group just upped sorcerer casting up by one level, bang, fixed.
Now the sorcerer get teleport at the same time as the wizard.

[Flickerdart]

Originally Posted by Otodetu

Me and my group just upped sorcerer casting up by one level, bang, fixed.
Now the sorcerer get teleport at the same time as the wizard.

The speed of getting teleport (why teleport?) is only one of the Sorcerer's many disadvantages. Having a sharply limited arsenal and arbitrary penalties for using metamagic, as well as a crappy casting stat and lack of any class features whatsoever (at least wizards get bonus feats) also figure into the equation.

[dwlc2000]

ah, the question to life, Wizard or Sorcerer
If both are pure 20, Wizzy wins
at level 20 with wizards intell and specilization they can match, even sometimes exceed, spells per day for sorcs. Also wizards get bonus feats, and they get to apply metamagic without having to take a full round action. That means they can use quicken spell. IT BREAKS THE ACTION ECONOMY! also wizards by 20, know like ALL the spells in core. They're power is legendary. When wizards of the coast made 3.5 edition, they overestimated the power of spontaneous casting. In the end, Wizzy all the way

[eggs]

Originally Posted by dwlc2000

IT BREAKS THE ACTION ECONOMY!

With the Arcane Fusion spells and Arcane Spellsurge's interaction with Spontaneous casting's metamagic, this is the one thing the Sorcerer does better than pretty much anybody (psionics excluded).

[toapat]

while it wouldnt do anything long term, some sorc and Wizard Changes:

Sorc: Loose that stupid Metamagic Application.
Gain Wizard Bonus Feats
Gain Spell levels every Odd level
Autogrant Force of Personality at lvl 1
Loose Familiar

Wizard: Loose Bonus Feats
Gain new spell levels at SL*2 (lvl 1 gained at lvl 1)


Basically, ive never understood why Wizards get bonus feats, as well as spells, faster then Sorcerers. to quote a long lost OotS comic topic, "A wizard has to study long and hard for that degree, a Sorcerer gets it through Natural tallent."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Aharon

I take from that that you don't think taking 10 on this check is possible, as some of the spell's proponents do?`

No I don't. Taking 10 requires no threats or distractions, the possibility that the hostile mind your contacting might damage your mind for more than a month is plenty threatening and having to concentrate to maintain the spell and come up with questions or refer to a list you've already thought up sounds more than a little distracting.

The problem here is that the god knows more than the DM does. A solution would be to "postpone" the advice. For example, if the caster asks what the greatest danger will be that he faces the next day, the DM doesn't answer, but the god does. When the caster meets the opponent the DM deems the most dangerous, he tells the player what the god said, and the player may change around a few spell slots retroactively. It's not a perfect solution, but it makes the spell workable without using the rails.

That's one possible solution, but it seems rather ..... inelegant and doesn't mitigate the danger inherent in casting the spell at all. It also doesn't really get the game off the rails, it just hides them. If the DM declares that this is the encounter the god told you about and the next encounter turns out to be more threatening either because of poor decisions on the part of the DM or the player, the god was wrong even if the percentile dice said he was supposed to be right, this means that by declaring this encounter the most challenging of the day, the DM is tying his own hands for encounters for the rest of the day and there's simply no way he can counter poor decisions on your part.

This solution also does nothing to address the question of whether the god is just probably right, or if he's definitely right because fate is a thing.

Besides, in nearly every story you've ever heard about a diviner divining his own future it ends very badly and nearly every tradition that claims the ability of divination, IRL, agrees that trying to divine your own future is impossible or against the rules and inviting bad juju of some kind.

[GreenSerpent]

I believe the correct phrase is:

"The Wizard is God. The Sorceror is God's hot cousin."

(though I've just realised. Most Wizards don't put many ranks into Sense Motive - 4 at most for Mindbender, but Sorcerors often put ranks into Bluff. It's entirely possible for a Sorceror to convince a Wizard to give him his spellbook.)

[Flickerdart]

Originally Posted by GreenSerpent

I believe the correct phrase is:

"The Wizard is God. The Sorceror is God's hot cousin."

(though I've just realised. Most Wizards don't put many ranks into Sense Motive - 4 at most for Mindbender, but Sorcerors often put ranks into Bluff. It's entirely possible for a Sorceror to convince a Wizard to give him his spellbook.)

That's not what Bluff is for. Bluff is used to make someone believe something, not to make them do something. You could convince the wizard (for about 1 round) that they should hand over the book, but nothing requires him to actually do it, and it's quite possible that they can't even pull their book out in a single round.

[GreenSerpent]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

That's not what Bluff is for. Bluff is used to make someone believe something, not to make them do something. You could convince the wizard (for about 1 round) that they should hand over the book, but nothing requires him to actually do it, and it's quite possible that they can't even pull their book out in a single round.

Which is why in that round you make the wizard believe you're also a wizard who he's lending his spellbook to.

A Sorceror convincing a Wizard he's a Wizard. Hmmm. A Bard could pull it off better.

[Flickerdart]

Originally Posted by GreenSerpent

Which is why in that round you make the wizard believe you're also a wizard who he's lending his spellbook to.

A Sorceror convincing a Wizard he's a Wizard. Hmmm. A Bard could pull it off better.

Yes, because someone standing behind you saying "I'm an archmage, I'm an archmage, I'm an archmage" makes it more, not less, likely that you'll see through their ruse...
Why would the wizard want to lend his spellbook to the "wizard" anyway?

[olentu]

Originally Posted by GreenSerpent

Which is why in that round you make the wizard believe you're also a wizard who he's lending his spellbook to.

A Sorceror convincing a Wizard he's a Wizard. Hmmm. A Bard could pull it off better.

Who lends a primary spellbook?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by olentu

Who lends a primary spellbook?

With all the ways to get around a physical book, who carries an actuall book at all anymore?

Though I suppose choosing one of those alternates does make the use of a BBB kind of difficult.

[Blue Lantern]

Originally Posted by toapat

while it wouldnt do anything long term, some sorc and Wizard Changes:

Sorc: Loose that stupid Metamagic Application.
Gain Wizard Bonus Feats
Gain Spell levels every Odd level
Autogrant Force of Personality at lvl 1
Loose Familiar

Wizard: Loose Bonus Feats
Gain new spell levels at SL*2 (lvl 1 gained at lvl 1)


Basically, ive never understood why Wizards get bonus feats, as well as spells, faster then Sorcerers. to quote a long lost OotS comic topic, "A wizard has to study long and hard for that degree, a Sorcerer gets it through Natural tallent."

My best explanation is that whomever playtested the sorcerer (if they playtested it at all) didn't had a clue about what he was doing, and after that entered in the sacred cow territory. (Because, you know, woe the designer who dares admit a mistake /sarcasm)

Your solution might help a little (except for all those who would cry foul if you touch their poor little misunderstood wizad), but the only way to put them in the same boat would be to add an hard limit on how many spell a Wizard knows, I always thought that something like 3+INT - 2*Spell Level = # of spell known per level.

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by Blue Lantern

but the only way to put them in the same boat would be to add an hard limit on how many spell a Wizard knows, I always thought that something like 3+INT - 2*Spell Level = # of spell known per level.

How does that even follow, though? I mean, how would you fluff that? "Sorry, your spellbook won't hold any more of that level"? "Nope, you totally can't figure out any possible way to use pen, paper, and special inks to further expand your repertoire, which is actually sharply limited by your memory, despite being notionally contained outside it"? In any fix, it's important to avoid breaking fluff in bizarre ways just to satisfy balance concerns.

I'd also note that this specific formula prevents any wizard from learning 9ths until they have a bare minimum of 42 Int, even though they can cast them at 19 Int. Similarly, 8ths are available only at 38 Int and up; 7ths limited to the exclusive 34 Int club; and so forth. If the goal was stealth-nerfing high-level spells, I suppose you've succeeded, but unfortunately it's not as effective against certain high-op techniques, leading to uneven nerfing in precisely the wrong places. That is, you're basically putting up a "you must be this cheesy to learn ninth-level spells" sign.

(No, I am not a wizard fanboy; I simply haven't yet run across any fix that entirely satisfies me in balance, fluff, and ease of application — including avoiding unintended consequences.)

[Blue Lantern]

Originally Posted by tuggyne

How does that even follow, though? I mean, how would you fluff that? "Sorry, your spellbook won't hold any more of that level"? "Nope, you totally can't figure out any possible way to use pen, paper, and special inks to further expand your repertoire, which is actually sharply limited by your memory, despite being notionally contained outside it"? In any fix, it's important to avoid breaking fluff in bizarre ways just to satisfy balance concerns.

I'd also note that this specific formula prevents any wizard from learning 9ths until they have a bare minimum of 42 Int, even though they can cast them at 19 Int. Similarly, 8ths are available only at 38 Int and up; 7ths limited to the exclusive 34 Int club; and so forth. If the goal was stealth-nerfing high-level spells, I suppose you've succeeded, but unfortunately it's not as effective against certain high-op techniques, leading to uneven nerfing in precisely the wrong places. That is, you're basically putting up a "you must be this cheesy to learn ninth-level spells" sign.

For the second part, I was unclear, I meant the Int score not the bonus, That Way with a 19 Int you can learn 4 9th level spells.

For the first part, the fluff for adding a spell it must be understood, so it is not completely unreasonable to put a limit based on intelligence, it is not a perfect solution but especially considering the already present loopholes in those rules it could pass; besides there was a rule like that in 2° Ed.
This was also just an example that came out of my mind one day, I didn't had the chance to ever use it to test it's effect; my point being that I think the wizard (and other prepared spellcaster for that matter) should have a limit in the number of spells known.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Blue Lantern

For the second part, I was unclear, I meant the Int score not the bonus, That Way with a 19 Int you can learn 4 9th level spells.

For the first part, the fluff for adding a spell it must be understood, so it is not completely unreasonable to put a limit based on intelligence, it is not a perfect solution but especially considering the already present loopholes in those rules it could pass; besides there was a rule like that in 2° Ed.
This was also just an example that came out of my mind one day, I didn't had the chance to ever use it to test it's effect; my point being that I think the wizard (and other prepared spellcaster for that matter) should have a limit in the number of spells known.

The rather notable problem with that formula is that a typical 20th level wizard has an int score in the low to mid 30's. Let's just go with a human; 18 to start, 5 for level up, 5 inherent from a tome, and 6 for a headband makes 34. 34+3 makes 37 - 18 (for 9ths) makes 19 ninth level spells known. The sorcerer gets the same static 3.

It's a limit, but not a functional one. Even if you take away the 6 for the headband he's still got 4 times as many spells known as the sorcerer. Perhaps something more like 2 spells known in the book per spell-slot available at a given level, or the number of spell-slots +2 would work better?

This doesn't do anything to address the fluff issue of why there's a hard limit like that, but at least it's something.

Here's an idea. The book isn't your actual source of spells known. It's just your cheat sheet, and the spells really are in your head the whole time, you just need to refresh them by checking your cheat sheet. Maybe throw in a mechanic to the effect of being able to prep without the book, but it takes double the normal time or perhaps longer.

[Wonton]

Originally Posted by kardar233

Also, given time, a Wizard can solve any problem. The cost of scribing new spells in his spellbook is negligible compared to WBL (and he doesn't need WBL nearly as badly as other classes) so he can know every spell in the PHB and all the useful ones from other books.

I'd just like to say that I see this sentiment all the time, but as someone who actually played a Wizard 1-11 I completely disagree. The cost of scribing spells is significant - I usually found myself having to pick 4-5 new spells to scribe every level or so. Also keep in mind that not every campaign will have a "magical library of free spellbooks", or the downtime for copying all these spells.

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Here's a dirty little secret about the wiz/sorc comparison that almost always gets left out of these discussions.

While it's true that a wizard is objectively more capable than a sorcerer of the same level, it doesn't matter at all.

What matters is which one fits you and your group's playstyle better. All the advantages wizards have don't really mean much if what a sorcerer gets is enough for what your DM throws at you, and the primary advantage, strategic versatility, can be rendered moot or even become a major detriment if you don't know how to wield it properly.

THANK YOU. I see the idea of the Batman wizard all the time, and maybe it's just the campaigns I play in, but the DM usually either doesn't know what's coming up, or isn't willing to reveal it. I can think of only a handful of times when my Wizard actually had the opportunity to actually be forewarned of something and prepare a specific spell. And yes, I tried leaving slots open too, but usually when something comes up you need a specific spell NOW, not "oh give me 30 minutes to prepare these spells".

Once again, maybe my DM was just weird, but it's definitely true that you should consider the type of campaign you will play in before you blindly accept "Wizard > Sorcerer".

[Blue Lantern]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

The rather notable problem with that formula is that a typical 20th level wizard has an int score in the low to mid 30's. Let's just go with a human; 18 to start, 5 for level up, 5 inherent from a tome, and 6 for a headband makes 34. 34+3 makes 37 - 18 (for 9ths) makes 19 ninth level spells known. The sorcerer gets the same static 3.

It's a limit, but not a functional one. Even if you take away the 6 for the headband he's still got 4 times as many spells known as the sorcerer. Perhaps something more like 2 spells known in the book per spell-slot available at a given level, or the number of spell-slots +2 would work better?

There is not a perfect solution that does not involves completely rewriting the system I am afraid, but I like your idea.

About the math, most of my games are not optimized so I usually don't automatically assume a 18 starting stat and a +5 inherent bonus, and also I would not count the enhancement bonus, in most cases I would have around 20\24 Int by 20° level.

[Yuki Akuma]

I love how people always come into these threads and post what is essentially "Your Mileage May Vary", as if it's some sort of novel concept no one's ever thought of before.

Yes, a Sorcerer can be more suited for a specific game than a Wizard. So can a Fighter or a Monk. What's your point?

[Blue Lantern]

I guess it's because the game can play very differently in different groups and for those reason it is not easy do draw the line between theoretical and practical optimization; so there are people that speak from a merely mechanical point and other that prefer to speak from their game experience, and it's often like two different discussion.

[Otodetu]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

The speed of getting teleport (why teleport?) is only one of the Sorcerer's many disadvantages. Having a sharply limited arsenal and arbitrary penalties for using metamagic, as well as a crappy casting stat and lack of any class features whatsoever (at least wizards get bonus feats) also figure into the equation.

There is more work involved in playing a wizard, and anyone that have actually played a wizard can tell you that it not always plays out as you intend it too.

Based on this it is okay if a wizard is somewhat "better" than a sorcerer.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Blue Lantern

There is not a perfect solution that does not involves completely rewriting the system I am afraid, but I like your idea.

About the math, most of my games are not optimized so I usually don't automatically assume a 18 starting stat and a +5 inherent bonus, and also I would not count the enhancement bonus, in most cases I would have around 20\24 Int by 20° level.

I don't normally make those assumptions either, but I figured it'd be a good idea to play devil's advocate in this case. I don't think I've ever made a character who had any starting stat higher than 16 under a point buy, and I generally assume the tomes and manuals to be either a tool to help those players that rolled poorly on abilities or a goal for a high-level caster to work toward crafting.

Originally Posted by Yuki Akuma

I love how people always come into these threads and post what is essentially "Your Mileage May Vary", as if it's some sort of novel concept no one's ever thought of before.

Yes, a Sorcerer can be more suited for a specific game than a Wizard. So can a Fighter or a Monk. What's your point?

The point is that not everyone that sees these discussions is going to be an old hand that's been playing 3.5 or visiting internet forums relating to 3.5 for the last several years. If the fact that the wizard's apparent advantages can and more often than not do fail to be advantages, or even backfire, isn't repeated at least once in a while, newbs can be inadvertently suckered into picking the wrong class for their group/playstyle because it's objectively better when they're trying to apply it to an inherently subjective situation.

It's like telling someone who's looking for the tallest class to watch out for low branches or the fastest fly speed to watch his turn radius. When you're looking at wizard and sorcerer asking which is more powerful/versatile it's helpful for someone to point out the fact that the advantages can sometimes be null or disadvantageous.