Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Wizards vs Sorcerers
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore

Denmark
1071 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  16:59:21  Show Profile Send Nicolai Withander a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Poll Question:
So guys what do you think? Which class is the more powerful? I know this has been asked before, but I wanted to know how you feel.

Thank you!

Choices:

Wizards
Sorcerers

(Anonymous Vote)

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
29893 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  17:06:01  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't think either class is more powerful.

Sorcerers have the advantage of on-the-spot versatility; they don't have to worry about prepping the wrong spells, and they'll never get caught in a combat situation with only a utility spell available.

Wizards, on the other hand, have more spells. They do have to prepare themselves, but if a wizard is properly prepared for the situation he's in, he's going to outperform the sorcerer simply by having more spells.

So it comes down to the same thing all X vs Y debates come down to: what's the scenario? Scenario A would give a strong advantage to one, Scenario B would give a slight advantage to the other, etc.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore

Denmark
1071 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  17:06:57  Show Profile Send Nicolai Withander a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I personally believe, that an umlimited spell list, and bonus meta-magic feats and familiar will be able to destroy more campaing worlds than sorcerers. In a dual its more 50/50, though!
Go to Top of Page

SirUrza
Master of Realmslore

USA
1280 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  17:49:42  Show Profile  Send SirUrza an AOL message  Send SirUrza an ICQ Message Send SirUrza a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If the Wizards has time to prepare properly, the Wizard is more powerful. All the "utility" goes away and the Wizard can select spells to counter and defeat the Sorcerer.

In a random encounter, the Sorcerer will likely defeat the Wizard since the Wizard will likely have utility spells on hand.

"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy.
Go to Top of Page

Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe

USA
323 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  18:41:16  Show Profile Send Drustan Dwnhaedan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have to agree with Wooly and SirUrza on this one; it really depends on the situation. Of course, I've run into my fair share of players who are hardcore fans of either class who believe one superior to the other, regardless of what arguments are brought to the discussion. And those guys have still been more rational than some of the 'Which is better, class X or class Y?' arguments I've seen, especially ones about paladins and samurai. The last time I tried to restore a modicum of sanity to such a discussion(by suggesting that it really depends on one's point of view, the individual characters' abilities and natures, and the situation the character in question find's himself/herself in) resulted in being threatened with violence by both parties concerned (and those particular gamers being banned from the group and the store we were gaming at). Sorry, started rambling and went off topic again.
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  18:47:21  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wizard, hands down.

Wizards may layer contingency magic on their self which a Sorcerer really can't do because this would take up his limited spell slots.

Wizards can learn so many spells, as to never be able to be predicted; meanwhile sorcerers are pretty much known for what they can do...and thus easily countered.

Wizards are able to create a vast array of magical items, while sorcerers (if lucky) may learn a trick or two...thus giving the wizard a vast arsenal of "blasting" capability that the sorcerer must rely on innate abilities for.

A wizard can bring to the fight vast legions of summoned creatures if he must; while if a sorcerer (if capable of doing so) will typically not be able to have such a vast array to pull on but will be limited to a summoning or two.

I could go on and on...but sorcerers were invented in the game to make "Blasting Away" seem cool; but it is a tired trick for me.

Visit my Blog Page to find things for YOUR Forgotten Realms!
Go to Top of Page

Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore

Denmark
1071 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  19:42:42  Show Profile Send Nicolai Withander a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Wizard, hands down.

Wizards may layer contingency magic on their self which a Sorcerer really can't do because this would take up his limited spell slots.

Wizards can learn so many spells, as to never be able to be predicted; meanwhile sorcerers are pretty much known for what they can do...and thus easily countered.

Wizards are able to create a vast array of magical items, while sorcerers (if lucky) may learn a trick or two...thus giving the wizard a vast arsenal of "blasting" capability that the sorcerer must rely on innate abilities for.

A wizard can bring to the fight vast legions of summoned creatures if he must; while if a sorcerer (if capable of doing so) will typically not be able to have such a vast array to pull on but will be limited to a summoning or two.

I could go on and on...but sorcerers were invented in the game to make "Blasting Away" seem cool; but it is a tired trick for me.



Totally agree!
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1807 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  19:55:17  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I say it's situational as well. There is a lot to be said for variety, but there are times when variety doesn't really come into play... like duels, as Nicolai says. At 20th level, even if I were a wizard who knew every spell out there, I still wouldn't want to tangle with a sorcerer whose spell list includes dimension door, disintegrate, flesh to stone, finger of death, time stop, and wish. He can cast each of them 6 times and statistically I will fail a save before I can kill him. It's true that a well-prepared 20th level wizard is not to be trifled with either.

Both become ludicrously weak, however, as the confrontation continues beyond their limited roster of offensive spells. I'm looking forward to seeing how the 5e revamp works out. I think the tiny number of spell slots is going to be an ever-increasing problem as the mage levels up, but scaling at-will cantrips at least tries to address the problem of running out of offensive spells.
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  20:14:36  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
With a trick I call "Spell Chaining" a wizard can unleash his arsenal in what seems to be nearly an instant...level and entire city and be gone.

I don't think a sorcerer is a viable option for "stat vs. stat" against a wizard outside of a computer game such as D&D Online. At the table, where all options are open and there are only the restrictions of spells...a wizard can be the most devastating foe you can imagine.

I've tried options with Sorcerers...but they just don't have the same flexible options.

Visit my Blog Page to find things for YOUR Forgotten Realms!
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
29893 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  21:53:55  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Wizard, hands down.

Wizards may layer contingency magic on their self which a Sorcerer really can't do because this would take up his limited spell slots.

Wizards can learn so many spells, as to never be able to be predicted; meanwhile sorcerers are pretty much known for what they can do...and thus easily countered.

Wizards are able to create a vast array of magical items, while sorcerers (if lucky) may learn a trick or two...thus giving the wizard a vast arsenal of "blasting" capability that the sorcerer must rely on innate abilities for.

A wizard can bring to the fight vast legions of summoned creatures if he must; while if a sorcerer (if capable of doing so) will typically not be able to have such a vast array to pull on but will be limited to a summoning or two.

I could go on and on...but sorcerers were invented in the game to make "Blasting Away" seem cool; but it is a tired trick for me.



You're setting the scenario up to favor the wizard. A wizard who wasn't prepared for combat would be screwed against a sorcerer.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore

Denmark
1071 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  22:26:28  Show Profile Send Nicolai Withander a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think we can safely asume, that 75% is based on circumstances. If we take a generel campaign or quest, and not just battles, or we take the course of level 5-15 I believe the wizard will be the betther choice in who has the highest chance of surviving. Im not saying that sorceres are in any way bad, but just think wizards are better most of the time.
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 29 Sep 2013 :  22:28:15  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Wizard, hands down.

Wizards may layer contingency magic on their self which a Sorcerer really can't do because this would take up his limited spell slots.

Wizards can learn so many spells, as to never be able to be predicted; meanwhile sorcerers are pretty much known for what they can do...and thus easily countered.

Wizards are able to create a vast array of magical items, while sorcerers (if lucky) may learn a trick or two...thus giving the wizard a vast arsenal of "blasting" capability that the sorcerer must rely on innate abilities for.

A wizard can bring to the fight vast legions of summoned creatures if he must; while if a sorcerer (if capable of doing so) will typically not be able to have such a vast array to pull on but will be limited to a summoning or two.

I could go on and on...but sorcerers were invented in the game to make "Blasting Away" seem cool; but it is a tired trick for me.



You're setting the scenario up to favor the wizard. A wizard who wasn't prepared for combat would be screwed against a sorcerer.



Nope, not setting anything up Wooly...just stating that a lifetime of learning magic without limit is totally more powerful than a lifetime of magic simply having a limited amount of magic.

Everyone thinks that sorcerers have a lot of firepower, and that is true...but does anyone think that a real magical duel would last more than a few rounds?

I mean, even a wizard prepared for just a "normal day" will still have layers of magic about their person that a Sorcerer just won't have.

A battle between two magical foes is usually over very quickly...especially if one doesn't have the same level of protection (such as layered warding spells, contingencies, etc.).

Anyone can win a battle by chance...but statistically speaking, a Sorcerer simply doesn't have the same might as a wizard.

I would gladly take the challenge of anyone pointing out a sorcerer that is more powerful than the most powerful wizard...then on the other hand, compare how many powerful wizards exist compared to the most powerful sorcerers.

Visit my Blog Page to find things for YOUR Forgotten Realms!
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
29893 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  00:05:41  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Wizard, hands down.

Wizards may layer contingency magic on their self which a Sorcerer really can't do because this would take up his limited spell slots.

Wizards can learn so many spells, as to never be able to be predicted; meanwhile sorcerers are pretty much known for what they can do...and thus easily countered.

Wizards are able to create a vast array of magical items, while sorcerers (if lucky) may learn a trick or two...thus giving the wizard a vast arsenal of "blasting" capability that the sorcerer must rely on innate abilities for.

A wizard can bring to the fight vast legions of summoned creatures if he must; while if a sorcerer (if capable of doing so) will typically not be able to have such a vast array to pull on but will be limited to a summoning or two.

I could go on and on...but sorcerers were invented in the game to make "Blasting Away" seem cool; but it is a tired trick for me.



You're setting the scenario up to favor the wizard. A wizard who wasn't prepared for combat would be screwed against a sorcerer.



Nope, not setting anything up Wooly...just stating that a lifetime of learning magic without limit is totally more powerful than a lifetime of magic simply having a limited amount of magic.


And a lifetime of magic without limit doesn't count for anything if the wizard in question doesn't prep enough offensive spells.

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Everyone thinks that sorcerers have a lot of firepower, and that is true...but does anyone think that a real magical duel would last more than a few rounds?


Nope, because most wizards won't have enough offensive spells memorized to go more than a few rounds. Unless specifically planning for combat, most wizards are going to have a mix of utility and offensive magic memorized.

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

I mean, even a wizard prepared for just a "normal day" will still have layers of magic about their person that a Sorcerer just won't have.


That depends on the wizard and what their normal day is. A wizard who spends much of his time at home, and/or doing research, is not going to be loading up on fireballs.

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

A battle between two magical foes is usually over very quickly...especially if one doesn't have the same level of protection (such as layered warding spells, contingencies, etc.).


This again presupposes that one or both of them is prepared for battle.

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Anyone can win a battle by chance...but statistically speaking, a Sorcerer simply doesn't have the same might as a wizard.


Statistically speaking, a sorcerer doesn't have as many spells as a wizard. That does not necessarily mean might, since a wizard with all utility spells is pretty useless in combat.

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

I would gladly take the challenge of anyone pointing out a sorcerer that is more powerful than the most powerful wizard...then on the other hand, compare how many powerful wizards exist compared to the most powerful sorcerers.



I never said one was more powerful than the other -- I said it was situational.

And the number of powerful wizards compared to number of powerful sorcerers isn't really a valid comparison, since the latter wasn't introduced until 3E.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 30 Sep 2013 00:06:47
Go to Top of Page

Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe

USA
323 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  00:08:36  Show Profile Send Drustan Dwnhaedan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Now that Dalor mentions it, I can't think of any sorcerers in FR that are actually powerful. But based on Dalor's argument (and also what several members of my group argue) it seems to me that, with how powerful wizard's are, there's no reason to actually have any other spellcasting classes.

Some people may argue that cleric's can be powerful if built right, but to me that's a bunch of *bleep*. The powers of clerics, and all other divine spellcasters for that matter, are tied directly to their gods, and as far as I'm concerned that means they have no actual power at all (at least, none beyond what their god provides them with). This may seem odd coming from someone who always plays a cleric, but when you take into consideration the facts that I hate the class (I know I said in another thread I had become fond of divine spellcasters, but I realize now I've only been kidding myself so that I could be different from the rest of my group), my DM's unfounded belief in a cleric's usefulness (probably because his parents wanted him to become a minister), and the fact that my DM insists that someone play a cleric (I'm beginning to understand why the rest of my current group only play wizards and, more rarely, rogues) it really isn't that strange.

Gah!This is why I hate discussions like this! (And now I'm going to have to completely rework my character. Again.)

Edited by - Drustan Dwnhaedan on 30 Sep 2013 00:10:42
Go to Top of Page

Firestorm
Senior Scribe

Canada
793 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  01:26:40  Show Profile Send Firestorm a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan

Now that Dalor mentions it, I can't think of any sorcerers in FR that are actually powerful. But based on Dalor's argument (and also what several members of my group argue) it seems to me that, with how powerful wizard's are, there's no reason to actually have any other spellcasting classes.

Some people may argue that cleric's can be powerful if built right, but to me that's a bunch of *bleep*. The powers of clerics, and all other divine spellcasters for that matter, are tied directly to their gods, and as far as I'm concerned that means they have no actual power at all (at least, none beyond what their god provides them with). This may seem odd coming from someone who always plays a cleric, but when you take into consideration the facts that I hate the class (I know I said in another thread I had become fond of divine spellcasters, but I realize now I've only been kidding myself so that I could be different from the rest of my group), my DM's unfounded belief in a cleric's usefulness (probably because his parents wanted him to become a minister), and the fact that my DM insists that someone play a cleric (I'm beginning to understand why the rest of my current group only play wizards and, more rarely, rogues) it really isn't that strange.

Gah!This is why I hate discussions like this! (And now I'm going to have to completely rework my character. Again.)


heh. Well, the simbul was a godawful powerful Sorceress. but she also had levels in Wizard, albeit not as many.
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  02:02:36  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The Simbul was a wizard...they ret-conned her into a sorcerer to push the class in the Realms.

Visit my Blog Page to find things for YOUR Forgotten Realms!
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
5348 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  02:07:10  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sorcerers definitely wouldn't survive long at the upper levels. Their wizard counterparts will use their magics to research the enemy. They'll get a general idea of what they're facing. They'll prepare appropriately and the sorcerer will die. That's assuming the sorcerer has some kind of person mad at him and hires a wizard to get rid of him (or he crosses a wizard and the wizard to return the favor... or simply a wizard wants some swag and knows the sorcerer has it). Will this be true in all cases? No, of course not. But, it would be a definite trend. We want to think of our adventuring wizards as noble, but face it... they kill people and take their things.... they just need an excuse OR an alibi.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  03:49:00  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

The Simbul was a wizard...they ret-conned her into a sorcerer to push the class in the Realms.
If you mean in 3rd Edition, remember that the 3E Realms wasn't about retcons, it was about viewing the setting through a different set of rules.

It's my understanding that the Simbul was given sorcerer levels in 3E because that better fit her natural talent and style of casting.

Note this idea of mixing at matching classes to better portray characters wasn't limited to her, either. Drizzt is another example of an NPC revised and better written/portrayed under the new (at the time) rules set.

That the Simbul was initially portrayed by the rules prior to 3rd Edition D&D as a wizard was because there wasn't sufficient arcane spellcasting class rules at the time to emulate a sorcerer style character.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  04:39:09  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

The Simbul was a wizard...they ret-conned her into a sorcerer to push the class in the Realms.
If you mean in 3rd Edition, remember that the 3E Realms wasn't about retcons, it was about viewing the setting through a different set of rules.

It's my understanding that the Simbul was given sorcerer levels in 3E because that better fit her natural talent and style of casting.

Note this idea of mixing at matching classes to better portray characters wasn't limited to her, either. Drizzt is another example of an NPC revised and better written/portrayed under the new (at the time) rules set.

That the Simbul was initially portrayed by the rules prior to 3rd Edition D&D as a wizard was because there wasn't sufficient arcane spellcasting class rules at the time to emulate a sorcerer style character.



I can see it that way...I truly can; but a different set of rules is still a retcon to me when she goes from having certain abilities to then having different abilities.

I will still stand by my statement that wizards are greater than sorcerers.

Visit my Blog Page to find things for YOUR Forgotten Realms!
Go to Top of Page

The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore

1582 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  05:52:35  Show Profile Send The Arcanamach a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
With a trick I call "Spell Chaining" a wizard can unleash his arsenal in what seems to be nearly an instant...level and entire city and be gone.


Can you explain this, in detail, please? PM me if you prefer.

As for the debate, my opinion...except in cases where a wizard is ill-prepared, the sorcerer will lose in a toe-to-toe fight vs. a wizard. That assumes that the sorcerer doesn't get the jump on the wizard and manage to slay him very quickly (the element of surprise and all of that).

Unlike some other posters...I think the sorcerer is a viable class (though I think the build is a bit more important in their case). They are 'flavorful' (which I like), they just require a bit more work than the wizard to make them strong enough to hold their own when facing danger alone. Otherwise, they work just fine in a group against most foes.

I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one.
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  06:22:10  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I will gladly share it with everyone equally.

I will write it out for 1-3e; but I don't know if it would work with 4e as I haven't tooled around with those rules enough.

Will share soon...

Visit my Blog Page to find things for YOUR Forgotten Realms!
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3334 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  08:38:48  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
For 3e, its the wizard but only by a hair and because the sorcerer was hastily built and thrown in so that 1/3 of the PHB wasn't dedicated to one class and so that there was an alternate spellcasting system to Vancian. Gove the Sorcerer bonus feats @ 1st level and again at every 5th level and it starts to swing the sorcerer's direction.

My wife had a VERY effective Transmuter-based Sorcerer who's go-to was turning enemies to glass (Dhulark's glasstrike I believe). For sorcerers, the key is to pick the best spells at the current level and retrain spells that become useless at later levels. For example, sleep is an extreamly potent spell up to about 3rd-4th level but after that, it loses it's uses unlike spells such as Glitterdust, Fly, or Black Tenticles. And where they lose on versatility they can easily make up by buying Scrolls, potions, and Wands. Then add in feats that remove the meta-magic penalty (Rapid Meta-magic, Complete Mage I believe) and you have any spell you know can be quickly cast willy-nilly. And not to mention ways of adding diversity to your spells known list via Prestige Classes like Rainbow Servant (complete divine).

In 4E, Wizards and Sorcerers have different design goals but the Wizard has more versatility and can do a better job of performing other roles well. A "striker" Wizard isnt hard to accomplish and can often fill both roles well if build properly.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Gyor
Master of Realmslore

1037 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  11:36:24  Show Profile Send Gyor a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It depends on the edition. 4e had Sorcerors that had AEDU magic and Sorcerors who were very different with Encounter and At-Will spells only. 3e had spell slots. 5e gave us a brief look at spell points system. So which sorceror are we talking about?
Go to Top of Page

Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore

Denmark
1071 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  12:01:49  Show Profile Send Nicolai Withander a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I was thinking 3.5!
Go to Top of Page

_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe

Germany
542 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  12:31:57  Show Profile Send _Jarlaxle_ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
People may want to look up the mailman as a powerfull sorcerer build.
Also there are ways for sorcerers to icrease their known spells too.

I agree with Wooly, it depends on the scenario and scenarios like this
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Sorcerers definitely wouldn't survive long at the upper levels. Their wizard counterparts will use their magics to research the enemy. They'll get a general idea of what they're facing. They'll prepare appropriately and the sorcerer will die. That's assuming the sorcerer has some kind of person mad at him and hires a wizard to get rid of him (or he crosses a wizard and the wizard to return the favor... or simply a wizard wants some swag and knows the sorcerer has it).

just put the sorcerer at a big disadvantage to begin with.
Go to Top of Page

Kyrel
Learned Scribe

150 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2013 :  15:49:13  Show Profile  Visit Kyrel's Homepage Send Kyrel a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Personally I'm going to go Wizard as well as the majority here. As pointed out, it is increadibly situational dependent, as well as being dependent upon which spells the parties have access to or not. On the whole, however, I'll have to grant it to the Wizard due to the increased versatility that comes with the potentially greater range of spells to choose from. The limited number of spells available to a Sorcerer has always been a significant hindrence to me, and has consistently kept me from playing one. Though I do like the greater flexibility when it comes to casting and applying metamagic.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000