Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Spiderman7789 03-10-06, 01:18 AM	Alright me and a fellow player have been having an argument as to which class is better, the wizard or the sorcerer. I for one believe that the wizard is far superior to the sorcerer. My friend seems to think otherwise. He believes that due to the sorcerer's number of spells per day that the class is a better offensive unit to the wizard. I personally feel that the wizard's versatility far outways the sorcerer's sheer number of spells per day. Im needing some help from the CO boards to help us see as to which of these two classes actually outshines the other.
Lokathor 03-10-06, 01:29 AM	You're both right, now let the argument die. Really though, each of the two classes fill a different kind of role even from a CO standpoint. Apples and Pears.
deathwishjoe 03-10-06, 04:48 AM	its apples and oranges. the wizard and sorcerer fill two different roles in a party. sure a sorcerer can cast more spells per day and that can translate into more damage. a wizard has more spells known and is very likley to have the spell needed to overcome a situation. he may not have it memorized for the day but he can certainly pull it out of his spell book in the morning. sorcerers can usually find ways of overcoming there weakness of few spells known but in order to come close to the wizards versatility they pay a heavy price when compared to what a wizard build could do if it tried to enhance its own strengths instead. a wizard can try to match the ammounts of spells per day the sorcerer has but then the sorcerer can try and enhance the damage it can do per spell and be better at damage dealing then a wizard. as far as other differences theres the sorcerer geting the ability to apply metamagic feats on the fly and the wizards ability to to gain free feats. I have to say though for many of my builds that extra feat at level 5 is sweetness but I'm a long time fan of the sorcerer. I more or less decide which class to take by wether or not I need that extra feat.
DDogwood 03-10-06, 11:01 AM	In addition to the above points, it also depends heavily on your campaign - in a game where the DM gives out lots of treasure, and/or where you can readily purchase magic scrolls, a Wizard will generally be more powerful. If you are playing a game where you don't have access to the spells you want or the cash to scribe them, then the Sorcerer will usually win out. A lot of it really boils down to personal preference. I prefer Sorcerers because I don't like the bookkeeping that goes along with being a Wizard (choosing spells each day, figuring out how much it costs to scribe a new spell, buying a new spellbook every time the old one fills up, etc.)
DairTarg 03-10-06, 11:09 AM	Well, I can only agree with previos mans. Sorcerer usually using in hack-n-slash moments in champaing. He is like cannon - no defence, great offence. Wizards, as that was said in PHB, are scientists and not practicers. They tend to learn and study, but not to use. IMHO it's the main difference between Sorcerers and Wizards. Wizards - gun-making-masters, Sorcerers - gun-using-masters.
Psifon 03-10-06, 11:46 AM	No no. Wizards are definately better than sorcerers. Everyone knows that.
Spiderman7789 03-10-06, 01:05 PM	thank u all for ur responses. I completely agree with the fact that the two classes are more or less balanced and im not a long time player of either one of them.
solbergb 03-10-06, 01:10 PM	This is not the right forum. Go to "Wizards Community Boards, Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons Fundimentals, Classes and Prestige classes" You will find many, many, many threads (I'm not kidding, there are about 50, and I am not inflating this at all) on this topic. A couple posters even make a hobby of tracking all the links. There's one right now on the very first page. Both can do the arcane caster role quite well. Both do it differently, despite a superficial similarity in the fact that they both have familiars and spell lists. If your question is actually "Is an arcanist that takes all blasting spells inferior to one who takes a broader spectrum of spells" the answer is "yes". (Sorcerer != all offense, in spite of what several posters have already said on this thread *sigh*)
ancalimohtar 03-10-06, 01:27 PM	Well, the apples/oranges point is true, as they do often serve different roles in the party. However, on the CO boards, it is the opinion of many, whether right or wrong, that the Wizard is better. Here are the Wiz's points: 1. The Wiz gets spells faster. A level 15 Wiz has 8th level spells, while his Sorc friend has to wait until level 16. Counter: The sorc has to wait an extra level, but when he gets them, he gets more of them per day. 2. The Wiz gets that nice feat at level 5 (and 10 if he intends on staying that long.) Counter: Okay, Wiz wins. 3. The Wiz can metamagic without increased casting time or spending a feat slot on Arcane Preparation. Counter: The Sorc can spontaneously metamagic. The Wiz can't decide, in the middle of combat, that his Acid Fog would be better if it were an Empowered Ice Storm, while the Sorc can. Move actions are overrated anyway. 4. The Wiz does not have an upper limit on the number of spells he knows. Counter: Depending on the DM and type of campaign, the realistic upper limit might be similar to the Sorc's anyway. And the Wiz only has versatility if you allow him 8 hours to prepare, which is often not present. You need the spell because you need it NOW. Otherwise you could figure out another way to solve the problem. 5. Some spells you only need to cast a couple times ever, or once a week or something. Wiz wins here. Counter: Sorc can cast these from scrolls bought with gold he didn't have to spend on a spellbook + ink. 6. Discovering new spells in new books or suddenly realizing the usefulness of a spell you never would have used last session means everything is still okay. Counter: Wiz wins. I mean, I don't know really. I've only ever played Wizard, but I suspect being a Sorc would be pretty sweet. You're always prepared for the situation, and you know the ins and outs of your spells really well because you always have to rely on the same ones to pull you out of hundreds of different situations. On the flip side, that lost feat and that slower progression are really annoying. As I see it, in some respects (e.g., #6 above) a beginner would prefer Wizard over Sorc. You don't have to pore over books to plan out everything in advance and you can still be optimized. But in knowing which spells to prepare depending on, say, the durations on your Shrink Item spells, or knowing which spells to metamagic with which metafeats, Wizard requires more dedication and planning to play well. It's really a difficult decision.
solbergb 03-10-06, 03:31 PM	Having played both wiz and sorc. They're the same role (Arcanist) They're about the same average power (sorc has less variance, wiz swings wildly up and down based on situation vs spells prepared at the time the encounter happens (prepared = morning minus spells cast plus pearled back+spells prepped later in the day with consumables on the side...but not any potential spells he *might* have later..spells right now)) What one likes and makes one powerful is totally different from what the other likes and makes powerful. The fact that the OP sorcerer argument rests on spells castable per day shows he doesn't understand sorcerers all that well (wizards gain power with extra high level slots but only a little on spells known...sorcs gain power with extra spells known, but only a little with extra slots) Go read the threads on the other boards. Really. I'm not kidding. Very eloquent people have hammered all the arguments of why one is better than the other. None of this has anything to do with CO. CO is "Optomize my blaster arcanist" (and then you can argue about the merits of wiz vs sorc vs warmage in this role) or "My party needs an arcane and they are A, B and C, what's best?" (might be a bard, actually). Or "My character is XXX, what should I do next to make it more YYY?" (And it might happen to be a wiz or sorc...nobody will tell you "dude, throw that sorc away and play a wizard"...they'll provide choices to choose from)
DDogwood 03-10-06, 04:22 PM	If your question is actually "Is an arcanist that takes all blasting spells inferior to one who takes a broader spectrum of spells" the answer is "yes". (Sorcerer != all offense, in spite of what several posters have already said on this thread *sigh*) Good point - Spiderman7789 actually mentioned that his friend though the Sorcerer is a "better offensive unit". In that strict sense, you should probably also take a look at the Warmage. The Warmage possibly has more pure offensive power than either the Wizard or the Sorcerer, but he is crippled in his total focus on offensive spells.
JosephKell 03-10-06, 06:12 PM	Versitility is a silly word that is thrown around way too much. The Wizard is versitile, but so is the Sorcerer. Wizards can have a very diverse spell book (and tend to at the loss of other magic items). Sorcerers can be very diverse with how they spend their spells per day. It is important to remember that a Wizard can leave slots unfilled in sets of a quarter. It takes 15 minutes to fill each quarter. So if you prep for 45 minutes in the morning and then leave a few spells open, the Wizard doesn't need Comprehend Languages and Tongues always at hand.
HCCommander 03-10-06, 06:19 PM	Here's another point for the wizard: INT is a much better attribute to have high than CHA. At least this is true for a Wizard 20 compared to a Sorcerer 20. If you're taking PRCs into account, the Sorcerer gains much more options, but the Wizard also gains a new point: He qualifies for most PRCs one level earlier and often easier. There's light at the end of the tunnel, however: The White Dragonspawn (and if you cheat at rolling dice, the White Dragonspawn Abomination Star Elf). At higher levels, the Sharn Mystic Theurge (who is a kind of Sorcerer among other things) also becomes very poweful. So in the end, each class is just as powerful as the DM allows it (because I would never allow a Dragonspawn or Sharn, but on the other hand not even an Incantatrix in a serious game), and it's his duty to keep the group balanced. Btw., that is why I'm not unhappy they revised Wildshape - that will make my job a bit easier in the future.
Lakom 03-10-06, 08:04 PM	IMHO they are equal, or sorcerer has a bit of an edge on their even levels, while the wizard is wastly superior on all the odd levels...hence overall I would have to go with wizard, since 50% of the time over his carrer he can cast spells of a higher level then sorcerer.
TonyStark 03-10-06, 08:27 PM	i have allways perferred a wiz to sorc. If only for the fact that they can take both a 5 lvl PC AND a 10 lvl PC. namely because most pc's need to cast lvl 3 spells (only a few need lvl 5 casters). by gaining 3rd lvl spells at 6th level, you are limited to leaving off the last level of a PC. I know i am speeking blasphemy on the CO board 'who takes a PC to the end?, arent they just there to dip into to become all powerful?'. Assuming you wanted to actuially complete one; or even worse-two; the wiz is the choice. as an example, im making a character now along this build, not all standard, but my DM started w/ dragon lance, so it is in..... 1-5 wizard 6-10 war mage from dragon lance age of mortals 11-20 incantatrix a build i CANT do if i was a sorc. This one difference may be the biggest thing i see between the two. this and at lvl 5 i do get a free feat above what a sorc has. also, the int i feel is better to work off of because of all the extra skill points.
earthbound 08-28-06, 02:35 PM	Hey all, this is spider-man's friend who says sorcerers are better! I know this thread is old ... but ... THEY ARE BETTER! From a damage dealing point of view, the sorcerer should out damage the wizard until the wizard starts using metamagic feats. That is my point. IMHO more damage early=better spellcaster!
FlimFlam 08-28-06, 02:46 PM	If this matters at all, I personally prefer Sorcerers over Wizards. It really depends on the build I have in mind, and what PrCs (if any) I plan on taking. But most times I prefer the Sorcerer because I am too lazy to keep track of all the spells I have in the spell book and it takes a LONG time (at least for me) to figure out what spells I want to take every day. I like to have a short simple list, this is what I know, this is how many times I can cast, and that's it. If I don't have the right spell for the job, oh well.
earthbound 08-28-06, 02:54 PM	Thanx for the support FlimFlam! It's nice to know I'm not the only one.
FlimFlam 08-28-06, 02:55 PM	Hey all, this is spider-man's friend who says sorcerers are better! I know this thread is old ... but ... THEY ARE BETTER! From a damage dealing point of view, the sorcerer should out damage the wizard until the wizard starts using metamagic feats. That is my point. IMHO more damage early=better spellcaster! How do you figure? At level 5 a Wizard can get fireball. That is 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius spread. That covers 40 squares. If there was a medium sized creature in each square, that is 200d6 worth of damage (max) or 100d6 damage (min, if everything saved). How much damage can a Sorcerer do at 5th level with just 1 spell?
PhaedrusXY 08-28-06, 02:57 PM	As already stated:This is not the right forum. Go to "Wizards Community Boards, Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons Fundimentals, Classes and Prestige classes" You will find many, many, many threads (I'm not kidding, there are about 50, and I am not inflating this at all) on this topic. A couple posters even make a hobby of tracking all the links. There's one right now on the very first page.Take this junk to the classes board.
FlimFlam 08-28-06, 02:57 PM	Thanx for the support FlimFlam! It's nice to know I'm not the only one. See my other post. It's not that I support what you are saying. It is that I have my own personal opinion on why I prefer to play one class over the other. And it isn't because of damage output.
earthbound 08-28-06, 03:04 PM	Sorry but I never said more damage w/ one spell. I was referring to the fact that (to use your example) @5th lvl a sor. has 16 spells/day,a wiz. has only 10(granted the wizard has scrolls as well, but let's stick to spell slots for simplicity) With both classes casting the same spell @ each level the extra fireball at the end for the wizard will be the only way for him to catch up.
Judging Eagle 08-28-06, 03:20 PM	Ok, so the sorcere can do more damage.... But, who can learn fireball and lighting bolt at lvl 5? Oh, wait, wizards do. So much for doing more damage 'earlier.' I guess that refutes and does away with your core argument. Unless you prefer to not hve to 'think too hard' about your spells to prepare each day. Really, a sorcerer is harder to optimise since you have to not only opt the build, but choose the best spell/level and know which ones to trade out for more effective ones as you level up. A wizard on the other hand can always just add more spells to their spellbook via scrolls and.. here's the kicker. They can write tons and tons of scrolls of spells that they'd desperately need but wouldn't use often. The main argument that wizards can't cast as often becomes pretty moot as soon as the Wizard begins to write extra scrolls of spells. With your most effective spells stored in scroll format you can instead prep the combat spells that you need in your daily spell slots. What sort of scrolls would the wizard write? Well, stuff that they wouldn't usually prepare every day; comprehend language, empowered rays of enfeeblement, searing light (instead of my usally prepared lighting bolts/call lightings) Bottle of Smoke (one, never prepares Bottle of Smoke, unless one has enough castings for all of their party members). Then again I play archivists, not wizards; however the premise is the same. A massive toolbox with every tool imaginable is more effective than a much smaller one (then again, Archivists get base 6 as their max spells/day so it's not like they're not broken; getting all Divine spells on the spell list makes them really, really even more versatile than wizards).
FlimFlam 08-28-06, 05:27 PM	Sorry but I never said more damage w/ one spell. I was referring to the fact that (to use your example) @5th lvl a sor. has 16 spells/day,a wiz. has only 10(granted the wizard has scrolls as well, but let's stick to spell slots for simplicity) With both classes casting the same spell @ each level the extra fireball at the end for the wizard will be the only way for him to catch up. No, you just said "more damage". Not only did I show how a Wizard can do more damage than a Sorcerer, I did it with just 1 spell. So add up all the damage a Sorcerer can do at level 5, and see if you can come close to 200d6 (100d6 if ALL save in the 40 foot area). And even if you could, I still have 9 more spells to use... The fact that a Sorcerer can cast 16 spells at level 5, and a Wizard can only cast 10, has nothing to do with damage potential. It just means the Sorcerer can cast more spells. No one is arguing that fact. Of course they can cast more spells. You are going to have to be more specific if you want to compare damage between a Sorcerer and a Wizard.
dominus_casuum 08-28-06, 05:41 PM	Who wins, sorcerer versus wizard? Easy. The druid.
duhtroll 08-28-06, 06:18 PM	Wizards are better. They have scrolls, which means they can have their entire spellbook available cheaply. All the time. Not just 20 spells like the sorcerer. Versatility rules. I really like the sorcerer and like playing them, but they really do pale with all of the good spells out there. Damage is only part of the game.
Crimson_Concerto 08-28-06, 06:21 PM	I have played both, and though I know Wizards are classiclly considered superior, I honestly notice next to no difference. The only reason I like sorcerers better is they're less annoying. I truly can't stand prepared casting, I found out, but that's just a personal thing.:yuck:
Crimson_Concerto 08-28-06, 06:23 PM	Wizards are better. They have scrolls, which means they can have their entire spellbook available cheaply. All the time. Not just 20 spells like the sorcerer. Versatility rules. I really like the sorcerer and like playing them, but they really do pale with all of the good spells out there. Damage is only part of the game. Um, you do of course realize Sorcerers can cast from scrolls, too, right? Also, as other peopel have noted, versatility is not a word to be used in this debate. Both classes are more versatile than the other in their own way. Though I do agree that damage is only part of the game.
duhtroll 08-28-06, 06:26 PM	Not cheaply, as I stated . . . Versatility IS power. Um, you do of course realize Sorcerers can cast from scrolls, too, right? Also, as other peopel have noted, versatility is not a word to be used in this debate. Both calsses are more versatile than the other in their own way. Though I do agree that damage is only part of the game.
Crimson_Concerto 08-28-06, 06:30 PM	Not cheaply, as I stated . . . Versatility IS power. A) Yes, cheaply... at the cost of XP. Some would argue that's more valuable than any gold. Of course, again, this goes back to personal preference. B) What did I just say abut that "V" word? :ahem:
duhtroll 08-28-06, 06:44 PM	Psst . . . (Versatility) :D Most of the campaigns I play in "end" at a pre-established level - losing XP just means you get to play longer. That's a bonus, IMO. A) Yes, cheaply... at the cost of XP. Some would argue that's more valuable than any gold. Of course, again, this goes back to personal preference. B) What did I just say abut that "V" word? :ahem:
Crimson_Concerto 08-28-06, 07:01 PM	Psst . . . (Versatility) :D Most of the campaigns I play in "end" at a pre-established level - losing XP just means you get to play longer. That's a bonus, IMO. Refer to the bolded part. :) Or it can mean that since few other people spend XP, you can end up levels behind during the campaign and when it ends. And I'm going to have to e-slap you if you try to say either class is more versatile again. ;)
duhtroll 08-28-06, 07:30 PM	adjustable able, accomplished, adaptable, adroit, all-around, all-purpose, ambidextrous, conversant, dexterous, elastic, facile, flexible, functional, gifted, handy, ingenuous, many-sided, mobile, multifaceted, plastic, pliable, protean, putty, ready, resourceful, skilled, skillful, talented, variable, varied alterable changeable, compliant, conformable, convertible, ductile, easy-going, malleable, modelable, modifiable, pliant, resilient, supple, switch hitting, tractable, versatile WOOT! Refer to the bolded part. :) Or it can mean that since few other people spend XP, you can end up levels behind during the campaign and when it ends. And I'm going to have to e-slap you if you try to say either class is more versatile again. ;)
Crimson_Concerto 08-28-06, 07:34 PM	adjustable able, accomplished, adaptable, adroit, all-around, all-purpose, ambidextrous, conversant, dexterous, elastic, facile, flexible, functional, gifted, handy, ingenuous, many-sided, mobile, multifaceted, plastic, pliable, protean, putty, ready, resourceful, skilled, skillful, talented, variable, varied alterable changeable, compliant, conformable, convertible, ductile, easy-going, malleable, modelable, modifiable, pliant, resilient, supple, switch hitting, tractable, versatile WOOT! Oddly enough, few of those are suitable synonyms.:rofl: Also, it was on that list, so *e-slaps you* If you don't see that versatility cannot be argued either way, I'm left to assume you have no idea what you're talking about and therefore have no business taking part in the debate.:rolleyes: :D
GDarius 08-28-06, 07:54 PM	Who wins, sorcerer versus wizard? Easy. The druid. Non-sequitur away! Wizards are better. They have scrolls, which means they can have their entire spellbook available cheaply. All the time. Not just 20 spells like the sorcerer. Versatility rules. I really like the sorcerer and like playing them, but they really do pale with all of the good spells out there. Damage is only part of the game. Not only is it just a part of the game, but I would argue that (if you have a dedicated, well built, melee character in your party), dealing damage with your spells is probably the least useful thing you could do as a spellcaster. I can tell you from experience that in the middle of a pitched combat, throwing a Haste on your allies, putting up a Wall of [insert material], or dispelling a choice target can very often be much more effective than any amount of damage you could sling with an equivalent level spell slot. The exception to this is the Incantatrix or Artificers that can usually apply metamagics for "free" to various spells. Damage starts getting useful if you can sling 64d6/round at level 12.
duhtroll 08-28-06, 08:17 PM	1) Uh, thesaurus.com disagrees. 2) I put it on the list purposefully :blocks e-slap: 3) Who's debating? I'm *telling* you how it is. :P Really, I played a sorcerer through 18 levels and found ways to do almost everything better with a wizard (short of a few situations where straight damage-dealing was concerned). Oddly enough, few of those are suitable synonyms.:rofl: Also, it was on that list, so *e-slaps you* If you don't see that versatility cannot be argued either way, I'm left to assume you have no idea what you're talking about and therefore have no business taking part in the debate.:rolleyes: :D
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 08-28-06, 09:08 PM	Well, who's better probably depends a decent amount with levels too. Levels 1-2 respectively the Sorc is Better. Level 3 the Wizard *might* be slightly better and at level 4, the sorceror is probably better. At level 5, I'd be inclined to say that the Wizard is better (fireball?, Fly?, Yay!). At level 6 I think that the Sorc is disadvantaged because the Wizard has probably already gone into a prestige class
PhaedrusXY 08-28-06, 09:13 PM	Refer to the bolded part. :) Or it can mean that since few other people spend XP, you can end up levels behind during the campaign and when it ends.The amounts of XP it costs to craft scrolls are piddly in the first place, and if you fall behind a level you get more XP until you catch up. God... why am I participating in this crap? HOW many of these sorc. vs. wizards threads do we need, again? I hate myself sometimes.... :banghead:
solbergb 08-28-06, 09:43 PM	Why was this ressurected? go to the Classes Forum. This doesn't belong here. For reasons already stated, when thread first appeared.
WizO_Autumn 08-28-06, 10:24 PM	The thread should've died in March. This thread does indeed belong on the Classes forum as it is not on topic for Character Optimization. Repost there, or join the threads currently debating this subject.