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
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
3338 Posts

Posted - 05 Oct 2013 :  18:53:11  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There was a time when memorizing spells took a wizard 15 minutes per level of the spell...THAT was their weakness.

Sure, the Arch-Mage could show up in the village and destroy the place unleashing all hell and obliterating the King's Knights...

...but when the adventurers came calling the next day, the fella wasn't going to have his spells all ready to go again! That Meteor Swarm he cast the day before takes 2.25 hours to memorize alone!

One of the reasons I always get ticked when someone says "Wizards are too powerful at higher levels!" and then the game designer goes "NERF IT!" and then actually makes wizards more powerful by making it possible for them to memorize faster!

That was my problem with the transition from earlier editions to 3.munchkinism to start with.

In 1e or 2e a Sorcerer would for sure be a better class to play if you wanted your magic back quickly...but in 3.x the wizard just gets his power back far too quickly.

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

The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore

1582 Posts

Posted - 05 Oct 2013 :  20:11:54  Show Profile Send The Arcanamach a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think the time requirement for memorization was altered because most campaigns (at least, those that I played in) house ruled or ignored the memorization times.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Vancian/memorization rules. I prefer a spellpoint system or Con based casting (wherein a caster risks fatigue or exhaustion...but has the potential for infinite casting, albeit a difficult potential). If anyone has the Middle Earth CODA rules then you have an idea of what I'm talking about.

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 - 05 Oct 2013 :  20:34:07  Show Profile  Visit Dalor Darden's Homepage Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In 2e they had a good solid system for using spell points...it was good stuff actually.

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

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
6393 Posts

Posted - 05 Oct 2013 :  22:27:38  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ha, my longstanding variant houserule is a flat one hour per spell level for memorization. The flipside, however: a wizard can memorize spells over and over again all day, provided he's still "well-rested" ... he doesn't need to be fresh as the morning before breakfast and coffee (and really, who the hell ever is anyways?), he just can't be exhausted after a day filled with the exertions of combat and horseback riding and unusually difficult NPCs.

So yes, a fully-depleted archmage literally needs weeks of memorization to charge himself up to capacity. And yes, a 1st-level wizard can spend all day at practice hurling magic missiles at an unflattering doodle of his sadistic DM, casting and memorizing the same spell (or any spell) a dozen times or more in the same day.

This isn't at all canon or in the published rules. Just something which works very well at my gaming table, and which all the players have come to enjoy. A great way to help balance out the linear-fighter-quadratic-wizard inequality, and to encourage lowly magelings to cast spells rather than hoard them, and to limit rampant uber-magic overkill from the megamages. PCs play smarter when faced with competing needs, limitations, and the cost of measured force vs the cost of overwhelming overkill force.

Note that 2E offers a few magical constructs and trinkets which dramatically reduce spell memorization times (by half or more). These things can have a significant impact on the logistics of high-level adventuring.

[/Ayrik]

Edited by - Ayrik on 06 Oct 2013 00:23:35
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30283 Posts

Posted - 05 Oct 2013 :  22:44:14  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So for a sorcerer it's a waste of a feat to be able to cast more spells than he has available, but for wizards it is expected that they'll be able to cast more spells than are available? Talk about skewing the scenario to achieve a desired result...

The Wizard doesn't have to decide if taking the Scribe Scroll feat is worth it or not - they get it for free at first level. Of course it's skewed in the Wizard's favor, for that reason alone.


No, the skew was your assumption that a wizard would be fully loaded with scrolls, and a sorcerer wouldn't have any.

quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I further maintain it is bunk to assume that wizards do nothing but blast anything and everything, all day long. Need a door opened? Fireball! Can't get up to that ledge? Screw it, bring down the mountain and walk right in! Need to have someone do something for you? They'll be plenty willing after a lightning bolt or two!

I have never made this argument, and I haven't seen it in this entire thread. Is your past personal gaming experience catching up with you here? Do you need a moment to breathe?


That is actually the argument you're making, when you insist that there is no way a wizard would possibly run out of combat spells. If they aren't running out of combat spells, it's because they have no utility spells. And if they have no utility spells, then we have the examples above.

quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, because no player ever does something like go to a tavern for a drink, or tries to charm the local nobleman's daughter into the sack... No player ever just needs supplies, or to read the new spellbook he just found, or wants to use his crafting ability, or needs the local sage to help him interpret a mysterious coded document, or needs to consult with a temple to find out about something that happened in the area 400 years ago...

The strawman argument is that all DMs, everywhere, want nothing more than to kill their players, and will not let logic or player desires get in the way of what they want.


Then would you do me a quick favor and describe the prepared spell list of an "off-duty" Wizard? Is he/she just filling up all their daily slots with nothing but Tongues and Locate Object over and over again? I find that idea vastly more ridiculous than the idea that a mage will have at least a couple of spells suited to danger prepared.



I never said that a wizard wouldn't have at least a couple of offensive spells -- I've been arguing against the idea that wizards will always, no matter the situation, be fully loaded with every possible combat spell. I've been trying to make the case that wizards not expecting combat will memorize non-combat spells, or that wizards expecting to need a variety of spells will have some utility ones memorized.

In short, I am saying that wizards do not memorize combat spells to the exclusion of all other spells, and that it is thus entirely possible that a wizard will have less combat magic available than a sorcerer of identical level.

As I've said since the beginning of this thread, it all depends on the situation.

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

Neo2151
Learned Scribe

USA
109 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2013 :  01:53:18  Show Profile  Send Neo2151 an AOL message Send Neo2151 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I never said a Wizard would be fully loaded with scrolls while a Sorcerer would have none. I said it was more likely for the Wizard to have scrolls as creating them is a class ability and allows for utility spells to be stored in a way that doesn't eat up daily slots.

It's a common-sense thing, not a power-gaming thing.

I can keep my Dispel Magic, Fireball, Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, etc. spells prepared daily and keep spells like Remove Curse, Tongues, Teleport, etc. on scrolls for when I really need them. Because it's a class ability, and because it makes it much easier to avoid situations where I don't have good spells prepared.

"Come looking for me, and I will blast you to dust, and then lay waste to all your descendants, ancestors, and the realm you came from, every last tree and stone of it. Why? Well, it's what I usually do."

-Baerendra Riverhand on The Story of Spellfire

Edited by - Neo2151 on 06 Oct 2013 01:54:05
Go to Top of Page

Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
762 Posts

Posted - 13 Aug 2016 :  08:38:53  Show Profile Send Kiaransalyn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander

So guys what do you think? Which class is the more powerful?


D&D is often a balance between the mechanics (rules, etc) and the setting. Back in the day, when I was running a lot of games in Menzoberranzan, I had quite a decision when it came to sorcerers and Sorcere - would sorcerers be part of Sorcere?

After much thought I decided against including sorcerers in Sorcere, because the Matron Mothers rule Menzoberranzan and their individual houses, they want wizards because of their versatility. Wizards can adapt to any situation with preparation. Wizards learn new spells and certainly in a setting where being the best counts for so much what sort of future does a student of Sorcere have if she/he can't learn the spells they are being taught.

On one level, Sorcerers are living staffs/wands. They have a lot of charges and limited spells. Wizards are living books, they have less charges but a wider range. It's a nice balance.

To answer your question as to which class is more powerful, I chose Wizard, because the class has so much breadth.

Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness


Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3414 Posts

Posted - 13 Aug 2016 :  18:16:41  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
After delving more into mechanics of 3.5 I believe the Wizard's abilities and slightly increased spell-level give them the edge overall. If we're going to take in ALL the Official supplements that WotC put out for 3.5 then it just gets worse. Take, for example, the feat Spell Mastery. Now on it's surface it looks sort of bad. You get to memorize X spells from your spellbook without having your spellbook present. Most campaigns the Wizard will always be with this spellbook but there are times that they might not be. But then you look at Uncanny Forethought and instantly you're taking Spell Mastery 2 or maybe even 3 times. Why? Because Uncanny Forethought allows you to keep a number of Spell Slots open equal to your Intelligence Modifier and spontaneously cast spells from Spell Mastery in there OR you can instead cast ANY spell you know there as a full-round action with only a -2 to your Caster Level.

So even a Wizard can be spontaneous AND he has a way to overcome his Spellbook requirement. Then you add in bonus feats that you can use for Item Creation, Meta-Magic (which works with Uncanny Forethought), OR the Reserve feats from Complete Mage. Imagine a Wizard with both Acidic Splatter, Fiery Burst, or Storm Bolt! At-Will elemental damage that's a supernatural ability (works even in anti-magic fields). Then there's Metamagic School Focus that reduces the cost of Meta-Magic feats for spells of your preferred school.

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."

Edited by - Diffan on 13 Aug 2016 18:18:27
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous 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