| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 16:59:21
|
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!
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 17:06:01
|
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
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 17:06:57
|
| 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! |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 17:49:42
|
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. |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 18:41:16
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 18:47:21
|
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 19:42:42
|
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! |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 19:55:17
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 20:14:36
|
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 21:53:55
|
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
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 22:26:28
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 22:28:15
|
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 00:05:41
|
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
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 30 Sep 2013 00:06:47 |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 00:08:36
|
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 |
|
|
|
Firestorm
Senior Scribe
Canada
826 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 01:26:40
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 02:02:36
|
| The Simbul was a wizard...they ret-conned her into a sorcerer to push the class in the Realms. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 02:07:10
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 03:49:00
|
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). |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 04:39:09
|
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 05:52:35
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 06:22:10
|
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... |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 08:38:48
|
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. |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 11:36:24
|
| 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? |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 12:01:49
|
I was thinking 3.5!
|
|
|
|
_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe
Germany
584 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 12:31:57
|
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. |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2013 : 15:49:13
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2013 : 00:14:41
|
| Ok so this debate has me wondering how to make the sorcerer more viable? Has anyone created a 'new' sorcerer class? I mean, rather than come up with a good build within the rules, has anyone actually retooled the class to make it stronger so as to compete with the wizard class? |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2013 : 04:21:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Ok so this debate has me wondering how to make the sorcerer more viable? Has anyone created a 'new' sorcerer class? I mean, rather than come up with a good build within the rules, has anyone actually retooled the class to make it stronger so as to compete with the wizard class?
There's nothing you need to do to make it more viable. If you want more spells, play a wizard -- just be aware you have to plan what you're going to do at the start of each day, and that you could make one mistake and render yourself useless. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2013 : 04:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Ok so this debate has me wondering how to make the sorcerer more viable? Has anyone created a 'new' sorcerer class? I mean, rather than come up with a good build within the rules, has anyone actually retooled the class to make it stronger so as to compete with the wizard class?
Sure, use the Pathfinder version which has LOTS more options as one goes through character levels. And since PF is 3.75Ed. It's almost a perfect transition (plus it's content is free online). Barring PF material, I allowed Eschew Materials as a 1st level bonus feat and then they gained either a Bloodline Feat (complete arcane, complete mage, dragon magic supplements) or a metamagic feat at the same progression as the Wizard. Seemed to balance out the sorcerer getting fewer spells and being a level behind in the casting progression. |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2013 : 08:22:51
|
If one would allow 3rd party material, there is a class in quintessential sorcerer, that is called Primordial Sorcerer. Its kind of insane. Also a couple of feats are worth mentioning.
Absorb Spell
Meta-magic Craddle
Again makes the sorcerer a lot more crazy than it is by core! |
|
|
|
_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe
Germany
584 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2013 : 11:24:37
|
A point where the wizard has a great advantage over a sorcerer is skillpoints though, due to his high int he gets a lot of them, while the sorcerer only gets few.
Which of the two classes is better for someone also depends on the playstile I guess, because sometimes when I read such discussion threads I get the impression many people play in way where the party is allways rested before the next encounter which gives the wizard a huge advantage because he can set his spells up accordingly.
If you play more in way where multiple encounters can happen before the party gets any chance to rest the in combat flexibility of the sorcerer gets far more valuable.
PS: I never played a Pen&Paper session myself so this are only some assumptions by an "outsider" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Wizards vs Sorcerers
