quote:

---

Versatility and ambition mostly. Being able to switch between spells in combat such as the mage lord is able to offsets the weakness of fewer spells per day of the wizard class.

---

quote:

---

That's why I've loved sorcerers since they came out -- they've got that tactical flexibility that wizards lack. Any time a wizard can prep for the situation he's going to face, a wizard will beat a sorcerer, hands down. But going in unprepared -- sorcerer, all the way. Knowing the best spell is useless if you can't cast it when you need to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

quote:

---

That's why I've loved sorcerers since they came out -- they've got that tactical flexibility that wizards lack. Any time a wizard can prep for the situation he's going to face, a wizard will beat a sorcerer, hands down. But going in unprepared -- sorcerer, all the way. Knowing the best spell is useless if you can't cast it when you need to.

---

I hear you there. Yeah, if you get an equal level wizard and sorcerer running across one another for a fight, that versatility is extremely powerful. Did you always play straight sorcerer, or did you mix and match with some other PrC's, archtypes, or something else?

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

Whew! That sounds savage getting spells delivered through bullets! Damn. Bad enough getting shot, to then have a lightning bolt go off too. haha

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

Ahhh, gotcha. That makes sense. I've never used firearms in my D&D games, so I just figured you could add in any spell you like to it. That's still pretty awesome though that you can add Shocking Grasp in on it.

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

Ahh, that's cool. Out of curiosity. Did you feel that firearms broke the game, or were just underwhelming (on the other side of the spectrum there)?

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

Ahhh. I see. I just looked that up. It looks pretty cool. I had way too much D&D in my mind thinking about that, but after a little bit of a review, I see that the Steampunk aspect appears to round it nicely. All d6 I noticed. Is it like GURPS with all skill based?

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I am not convinced "best" should equate to combat prowess. Spontaneous casters of course have the advantage in spur-of-the-moment decision making situations, assuming their spell repertoire has a spell for the situation. Sorcerors work better in niche roles than wizards, all else being equal. Wizards are the Swiss Army knives of adventuring parties.

---

quote:

---

I am not convinced "best" should equate to combat prowess. Spontaneous casters of course have the advantage in spur-of-the-moment decision making situations, assuming their spell repertoire has a spell for the situation. Sorcerors work better in niche roles than wizards, all else being equal. Wizards are the Swiss Army knives of adventuring parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

I will say, as it appeared you were arguing for, that if an equal level diviner and sorcerer got into an instant fight, I think that sorcerer would likely clean up, unless that diviner could escape first. Though, after that, that sorcerer would be screwed with that diviner wanting some healthy revenge.

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I am not convinced "best" should equate to combat prowess. Spontaneous casters of course have the advantage in spur-of-the-moment decision making situations, assuming their spell repertoire has a spell for the situation. Sorcerors work better in niche roles than wizards, all else being equal. Wizards are the Swiss Army knives of adventuring parties.

The spontaneous divination ACF for wizards frankly raises my eyebrows in terms of wizard flexibility. (On a side note powergamers should know I unconditionally banned Locate City Bomb in my campaigns. The attempt alone to cast the spell would sorely annoy Savras.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LordofBones

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I am not convinced "best" should equate to combat prowess. Spontaneous casters of course have the advantage in spur-of-the-moment decision making situations, assuming their spell repertoire has a spell for the situation. Sorcerors work better in niche roles than wizards, all else being equal. Wizards are the Swiss Army knives of adventuring parties.

The spontaneous divination ACF for wizards frankly raises my eyebrows in terms of wizard flexibility. (On a side note powergamers should know I unconditionally banned Locate City Bomb in my campaigns. The attempt alone to cast the spell would sorely annoy Savras.)

---

Would he be annoyed, or would he be intrigued that a mortal had so creatively reinterpreted the rules of divinatory magic.

Then the next thing anyone knows, Savras's next duel with Azuth goes a wee bit differently...

Mystra: "Kyah! Az...Azuth-kun!"
Velsharoon: "Sasuga, Savras-dono."
Savras: "XDXDXDXD...now, I think I'm going to have a nice chat with Sylune..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I am not convinced "best" should equate to combat prowess. Spontaneous casters of course have the advantage in spur-of-the-moment decision making situations, assuming their spell repertoire has a spell for the situation. Sorcerors work better in niche roles than wizards, all else being equal. Wizards are the Swiss Army knives of adventuring parties.

---

I'd argue that it's sorcerers that are the Swiss Army knives -- if they know a spell, it's always handy. The wizard who loaded up on combat spells, expecting a big fight, is going to be useless when he needs a utility spell he didn't memorize today.

Granted, sorcerers have less spells, so a wizard is more likely to know the most useful spell for a given situation -- but the tradeoff is that the wizard has to be prepared for that situation, and/or that it only happens once.

Wizards dominate when they can properly prepare -- but sorcerers are always prepared, though to a lesser extent. The wizard has a larger toolbox, but he may not have the right tool handy -- the sorcerer has a smaller toolbox, but all of his tools are always readily at hand.

Actually, wizards remind me of Batman. Batman fans will go on and on, at length, about how he can beat anyone at all, given time to prepare. And whether or not that's true, it doesn't change the fact that other supers always have their full suite of powers handy, and that an unprepared Batman will be in trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I am good with your description of the trade-off between the "toolbox size" versus available on "demand".

Definitely yes about wizards being the party Batman. The wizard is the problem solver, detective and the one who fills in the gaps left by the other party members. Wizards really should NOT be stockpiling on just combat spells. That is what warmages and to a lesser extent warlocks and sorcerors are for. If a wizard must blast, that is what wands are for. Otherwise, wizards in combat do better as battlefield controllers than in direct damage roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I am good with your description of the trade-off between the "toolbox size" versus available on "demand".

Definitely yes about wizards being the party Batman. The wizard is the problem solver, detective and the one who fills in the gaps left by the other party members. Wizards really should NOT be stockpiling on just combat spells. That is what warmages and to a lesser extent warlocks and sorcerors are for. If a wizard must blast, that is what wands are for. Otherwise, wizards in combat do better as battlefield controllers than in direct damage roles.

---

Actually had an argument here with someone who insisted that there was no possible circumstance in which a wizard shouldn't be fully loaded with combat spells. In his hidden tower in the middle of nowhere, crafting magic items and/or doing research? Combat spells. Hanging out with his lady? Combat spells. And so on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually had an argument here with someone who insisted that there was no possible circumstance in which a wizard shouldn't be fully loaded with combat spells. In his hidden tower in the middle of nowhere, crafting magic items and/or doing research? Combat spells. Hanging out with his lady? Combat spells. And so on...

---