| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 29 Sep 2013 : 16:59:21
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! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thraskir Skimper |
Posted - 14 Jun 2018 : 01:21:01
Wizard, Sorcerers are more likely to have only utility or lesser spells vs the right spell for the right occasion. Wizards have Wands, Rods and Staves for utility and Scrolls. A Sorcerer with a wand of one of their spells is now even more redundant. Plus Wizards are able to make new spells one off or rare spells. A Sorcerer just can't do that.
Add in Spell Tattoo's and your Wizard is laughing. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Jun 2018 : 21:32:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I agree that the wizard has more potential power, but to me, that's balanced by the fact that a wizard has to be prepared for the scenario. Sure, wizards can do that trick of casting spells directly from their spellbooks, but that's slower and requires them to deliberately leave slots open -- and even with the greater amount of available spells, I'm doubting most wizards would leave more than a handful of spell slots open.
So while sorcerers don't have all of the power of wizards, their on-the-spot versatility is a huge benefit.
That's why I maintain that neither is more powerful: all the feats and prepped spells in the world aren't going to do crap if they're useless in a particular scenario. Raw power can certainly carry the day if applied correctly, but always having the right spell handy is just as handy.
If we're judging the two classes based on just the options provided in the Player's Handbook, then I completely agree with you. Wizard's requirement to be prepared vs. the sorcerers greater spells/day but less variety is a good balance point.
If we're expanding it to all official options from 3.5, then the Wizard pulls away as certain feats make it less likely the Wizard needs to rely on recon and the selection of "correct" spells for the day. And think of it, a Wizard with Uncanny Forethought (Exemplars of Evil) he can keep a number of spell slots open equal to his Intelligence modifier and cast any spell he has memorized via Spell Mastery as a Standard Action OR any spell in his entire book as a Full-Round action. That's pretty potent. Add in Alacritous Cogitation (Complete Mage) he gets another open slot he can cast whatever he wants (standard action) that he knows. So for a 10th level Wizard with an Int 22 (+6) he can keep 7 slots open from 1st through 5th. Talk about Utility Belt!!
Honestly, this is one of the reasons why I still prefer 4th Edition. Both the Wizard and Sorcerer are mechanically different and strive for different concepts yet are both equal and have a good reason for both being in the same party.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I can't speak on the topic of warlocks; the class has never appealed to me (the whole pact thing is not my gig). Ditto for any other flavors of arcane casters.
I hear ya, the 3.5 Warlock is very....meh...to me in terms of flavor and mechanics. I actually prefer the Dragonfire Adept more, which is just a Dragon-flavored Warlock with a cool Breath Weapon effect instead of Eldritch Blast. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Jun 2018 : 19:06:49
I agree that the wizard has more potential power, but to me, that's balanced by the fact that a wizard has to be prepared for the scenario. Sure, wizards can do that trick of casting spells directly from their spellbooks, but that's slower and requires them to deliberately leave slots open -- and even with the greater amount of available spells, I'm doubting most wizards would leave more than a handful of spell slots open.
So while sorcerers don't have all of the power of wizards, their on-the-spot versatility is a huge benefit.
That's why I maintain that neither is more powerful: all the feats and prepped spells in the world aren't going to do crap if they're useless in a particular scenario. Raw power can certainly carry the day if applied correctly, but always having the right spell handy is just as handy.
I can't speak on the topic of warlocks; the class has never appealed to me (the whole pact thing is not my gig). Ditto for any other flavors of arcane casters. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Jun 2018 : 18:16:15
quote:
Originally posted by Balmar Foghaven
I wonder how people here at Candlekeep feel about warlocks (from Complete Arcane, if I'm not mistaken). I understand general consensus regarding the class is a large resounding "meh" on most forums, as people tend to not enjoy playing one-trick ponies, especially when their one trick - Eldritch Blast - doesn't scale quite well.
I'm of course talking about 3.5 warlocks, as the 5e warlock actually has surprisingly good damage output with Eldritch Blasts.
Edit: I'm sure there are threads about this somewhere already, but I'm typing this at work and feeling a bit lazy ATM. 
I've seen a plenty of Warlocks from 3.5 and, on the whole, they're sorely under powered and their "at-will" continuous spells are fun but well below average level. We did a one-shot game where it was Gestalt (two classes mashed together) and I had a Warforged Warlock//Fighter (aka Iron Man) and I had fun until the character was destroyed, which wasn't long into the game.
The thing with Warlocks is that Eldritch Blast invocations aren't all that great or very specific in application and this is especially true at later stages of the game. We had a 16th level campaign and the DM threw a darned Balor against us. The Warlock hit it with EB after EB to which the demon just laughed as it's SR just deflected it completely.
The Warlock in later editions (4th and 5th) would get a much needed boost in terms of both flavor and mechanics. Tying the class to Pacts and then spawning arch-types (Hexblade being one) from the class was an awesome idea and really helped flesh out some different character concepts. Not to mention they made it a good damage dealer vs. whatever the focus was in 3E.
I'm sure I answered the OP's question up thread somewhere but having gained further knowledge of 3.5 I'd have to say hands down the Wizard is more Powerful. Here's a few reasons why:
• Versatility. Seriously the Wizard is un-matched in terms of capabilities for any situations. One might think that the Wizard would need some precognition of events to come to plan....but nope. A good wizard has, on hand, spells and items that make overcoming any situations easy. This comes in to play with two things: Feats (scribe scroll) and Items (preferably scrolls).
Lets look at a 2nd level Enchanter for 3.5 - they start with 4 cantrips and 2 spells per day + 1 enchantment spell. Most likely they're sporting an Intelligence of 15 (assuming point buy) for another 1st level spell. So it looks like this: 4/4 with DC 12 + spell level. At 2nd level they'll most likely have a few (4 or so) scrolls to add to their repertoire for a total of 8 1st level spells in any given day. That's pretty darn crazy and should be well equipped to take on multiple encounters - especially with AoE spells that can win the encounter with one casting.
As for other feats, one called Uncanny Forethought allows wizards to cast spells from their spellbook as a full-round action so long as they have an open spell slot of that level or higher. This is also in conjunction with Reserve Feats (minor spell-like abilities for general use) and other item creation feats.
• Power. Very few classes have the magical firepower of Arcane classes and while the Sorcerer and Wizard share the same list, a Wizard's extra feats that he can spend on Metamagic ones frees up character feats for things like Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, etc. Not to mention things like Contingency Spells. True, the Sorcerer can fire off more Lightning Bolts in a day but the Wizard probably isn't going to need to. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 13 Jun 2018 : 05:51:51
Neither - the obvious answer is Illusionists |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 18 May 2018 : 12:28:24
I'm fairly sure that Unearthed Arcana had a spell point system. It's in the online SRD. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 18 May 2018 : 09:04:40
Also, there's middle ground - memorizing casters without spellbook.
At least, Maztican artisans:
quote:
[...] Maztican magic-workers gain the use of
spells. These are awarded magically
and automatically. When cast, they
can be remastered through
meditation and contemplation. The
time to relearn a spell is one hour
per level of the spell, plus the
casting time (which, in many cases,
is significant).
- Maztica (TSR#1066)
Also, the dragons are another point in the middle: they can use the usual wizard magic without spellbook and with V component only.
quote:
Originally posted by Balmar Foghaven
I wonder how people here at Candlekeep feel about warlocks (from Complete Arcane, if I'm not mistaken).
quote:
I understand general consensus regarding the class is a large resounding "meh" on most forums, as people tend to not enjoy playing one-trick ponies, especially when their one trick - Eldritch Blast - doesn't scale quite well.
quote:
I'm of course talking about 3.5 warlocks, as the 5e warlock actually has surprisingly good damage output with Eldritch Blasts.
So the only problem is that it's not twinky enough? 
It was not used anywhere because it was obviously made for MUD style H&S, and the pretense it had something to do with RPG was tied to a very strange niche, so it just doesn't fit almost anywhere without stretched and obvious shoehorning.
So the real problem is "it's useless for anything except boring munchkinism, and it's not good for boring munchkinism".
The only thing that was going for it in the first place is that for some reason a few True Grognards start breathing heavily at seeing the word "eldritchshffft", and the opportunistic newbies seem to think using it makes them sound "smart" and "Tru" and "grognard-like" (remember 3.0 unpatching trying to rebuild from pre-AD&D2 materials?..)
If it wasn't made specifically for projectile vomiting damage points in the first place, it could be made into something that actually can be given to a character. At very least with elemental variants, etc.
Granted, versatility makes things easier to screw up, but one-trick "magic missile hurler" classes are downright stupid and deserve ridicule, and the classes like warlock are next door from them.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
In 2e they had a good solid system for using spell points...it was good stuff actually.
Well... there was a spell point system in Netheril, there was one in Player’s Option: Spells & Magic (again, compatible with channellers), and several (including hybrids) in Great Wizard Netbook.
But which one was "good solid"?  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 May 2018 : 21:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's setting up the scenario to favor the wizard, again, though: he knows exactly what to prepare for.
That's been my argument. If he knows what to prepare for, the wizard is better. If he's not properly prepared, though, it goes to the sorcerer. It remains purely situational.
Not...really? I mean, the sorcerer's spells known are fixed. If there's a spontaneous attack of enraged fire elementals, or if a red dragon shows up, the sorcerer with fireball, scorching ray and meteor swarm is going to have problems unless he has a rod of searing spell.
And the wizard who didn't prep anything to protect against fire isn't going to be any better off.
You keep arguing that the wizard is better overall, solely because he's properly prepared. That's tilting the scenario into the wizard's favor.
A wizard who isn't prepared is not going to do any better than a sorcerer. It all comes down to the situation. It's X vs. Y, all over again. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 06 May 2018 : 02:57:58
Honestly I find Sorcerers more fun to play then Wizards, smoother experience.
Also edition plays a huge deal in this.
In 3x Sorcerer's advantage over Wizard was spontanious casting, and the Wizard's advantage over Sorcerers was getting free metamagic feats as they level.
In 5e it's the Sorcerer who gets metamagic and the Wizard has a spontaneous form of Vancian magic.
But the Sorcerer also has spell points, yet the Wizard has Ritual Casting (but the Sorcerer can get that with a feat and apply metamagic to those spells).
Also Sorcerer don't really feel like the same class as each other, a Conjurer, a Bladesinger, Evoker, Abjurer, Necromancer, Diviner, Warmage, Illusionist, Enchanter,Transmuted, all feel like Wizards, but with a twist and a focus.
But 5e Sorcerers doesn't even feel like the same species as each other, they don't feel connected to each other like Wizards do as a Discipline. Wizard is an occupation and discipline and a body of knowledge.
Sorcerers on the other hand are almost a change in species, instead of a job.
You have Shadow Sorcerers who feel like a mix of 3e inhuman Shadowcasters (Class) and 4e Shades (species).
Divine Souls feel almost more like clerics then Sorcerers and poach the best Sorcerer and Cleric Spells and who then laugh at 3e Mystic Theurges as amuetuers, they also get spectral wings at will. They will like Demigods.
Then you have the 10 flavours of Dragon Sorcerer, who grow scales, wings, speaks Draconic and can eventually use something akin to Dragon Awe.
Then there are Storm Sorcerers kings of weather magic, thunder/lightning spells, and wingless flying.
And last not least Wild Magic Sorcerers who use a whole page for a wild magic table alone.
So I have to give it to Sorcerers in 5e, but it's close. In some ways to harder to compair them in 5e then in 3e.
|
| LordofBones |
Posted - 05 May 2018 : 12:30:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's setting up the scenario to favor the wizard, again, though: he knows exactly what to prepare for.
That's been my argument. If he knows what to prepare for, the wizard is better. If he's not properly prepared, though, it goes to the sorcerer. It remains purely situational.
Not...really? I mean, the sorcerer's spells known are fixed. If there's a spontaneous attack of enraged fire elementals, or if a red dragon shows up, the sorcerer with fireball, scorching ray and meteor swarm is going to have problems unless he has a rod of searing spell.
EDIT: Uncanny Forethought also makes things worse for the poor sorcerer. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 May 2018 : 11:17:18
That's setting up the scenario to favor the wizard, again, though: he knows exactly what to prepare for.
That's been my argument. If he knows what to prepare for, the wizard is better. If he's not properly prepared, though, it goes to the sorcerer. It remains purely situational. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 05 May 2018 : 04:30:55
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Sure, a sorcerer specialized in combat can be the equal of any combat wizard, but that same sorcerer is buggered the next day when he needs to be a utility caster the next day while the wizard can just prepare his next day's spells cheerfully.
I'm a little confused by this... How would someone who could pick any spell he knew, at any time, be at a disadvantage when he needs a particular type of spell?
Sure, wizards can prepare more spells, and a properly-prepared wizard will always dominate a sorcerer in the same situation, the sorcerer's strength is their versatility -- the lack of a need for specific preparations.
So this theoretical "the next day" scenario only favors the wizard if he needs a larger number of utility spells. A sorcerer would not be buggered, because regardless of preparations or the prior day's events, he can still use any utility spells he knows.
Assuming he knows any. Charisma affects his spells per day, not his spells known. A sorcerer with 50 Cha is still going to have the same three 9th level spells, a wizard with 50 Int can cast 7 different 9th level spells, 8 if specialized, 10 if Focused Specialist.
Yes, a sorcerer can cast more often, but he can't tailor his spell selection. If the party's going to raid the Elemental Plane of Fire, the wizard can just prepare orb of ice, wall of ice, cone of cold, shivering touch and so on. If the party's going to raid an archmage's laboratory, the wizard can stock up on assay SR, mord's disjunction, reaving dispel, greater dispel magic, no-save-no-SR spells and so on.
Feats like Uncanny Forethought also muddy the waters. Not to mention runestaves. |
| Balmar Foghaven |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 19:02:33
I mentioned the Archmage PrC earlier, and though it does indeed also apply to wizards - probably more often, in fact - there is just something about having the ability to change the elemental damage type of your 6 fireballs/day on the fly... |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 18:58:22
Being able to recast a debuff or damage spell that didn't have much effect due to succesfull saves is one thing I love about sorcerers in D&D combat. A wizards selected spells need to stick, and usually debuffs have only one chance to work. Fail and the wizard needs to reasses his strategy. Fail and the sorcerer casts the threat anew.
On a battlefield a war-sorcerer has a tactical advantage over a war wizard (i.e. he has the means to defeat his foes in the moment), but a good war wizard has the strategic edge (i.e. more easily discovers the way how to the defeat the foe).
Edit: To answer Balmar:
Never seen a warlock in play, but seen some theory crafted glaivelocks (Melee debuffing warlock with quickened Eldritch Glaive invocation) I might have wanted to give a try.
I loved Erik de Bie's depiction of a deviously powerful hellfire warlock in Depths of Madness, who loved to tease the wizard that his very strong hellfire would outlast his attempts at arcane blasting. Hellfire for daaaaaaayyyyyyyyss. |
| Balmar Foghaven |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 18:56:29
I wonder how people here at Candlekeep feel about warlocks (from Complete Arcane, if I'm not mistaken). I understand general consensus regarding the class is a large resounding "meh" on most forums, as people tend to not enjoy playing one-trick ponies, especially when their one trick - Eldritch Blast - doesn't scale quite well.
I'm of course talking about 3.5 warlocks, as the 5e warlock actually has surprisingly good damage output with Eldritch Blasts.
Edit: I'm sure there are threads about this somewhere already, but I'm typing this at work and feeling a bit lazy ATM. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 18:30:46
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?
Or build the free casting class after Channeller from AD&D 2+ (PO:S&M).
It's Con & Wis based (which makes more sense than "cuteness is magic" thing).
Spells consume spell-points (which recover fairly easily) and inflict fatigue (which stacks with itself and normal fatigue/encumbrance). Can learn and cast spells above "major caster" level limit, but this costs more fatigue: +1 level Severe fatigue (has problems with walking straight), +2 levels Mortal fatigue (collapses and save-or-die), on the upside 1-2 levels below common maximum is moderate/light fatigue, with minimal penalties and recovered in a few rounds. Fatigue is removed with rest and saving throws, but they come less often if heavily fatigued, thus tbis allows more spells, but not as often.
Also, there was another approach to free casting in d20 Thieves' World (Green Ronin version).
Magic use is split to "spell casting" (fast, but more limited and prone to failure in low mana conditions) and ritual casting (slow, but potentially much more powerful, just not for combat). Different classes have different skills at either: primary casters are Priest (leans more toward ritual), Mage (more toward spellcasting) and Witch (in between); secondary are Godsworn (ritual only, priest spells) and Initiate (spellcasting only, mage and witch spells). Weirder traditions are done via prestige classes. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 18:12:54
My gun mage was a sorcerer... Assuming he had time before battle, he'd cast fly and improved invisibility on himself before combat, and cat's grace and mage armor if time permitted.
In combat, he'd cast a spell and/or shoot his pistol, then fly over to a new spot, and repeat the process.
He went from routinely getting stomped on during combat (at lower levels) to going several levels without getting hit at all.
Those spells gave my guy a huge advantage in combat.
And as I've said before, there is something delightful about putting a vampiric touch spell into a bullet and then shooting someone with it. I didn't do that oft, once he stopped getting hit in combat, but I loved it every time I had a reason to do it.  |
| Balmar Foghaven |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 17:51:47
Meh, if I needed a given utility spell that I did not use regularly (i.e. Knock, etc.) I bought a wand or scroll. And my sorcerer did not only prepare "blasting" spells, only picked the best ones for each levels, filled out the rest with crowd control or defense (Stoneskin, for example), and basically was almost as prepared for any situation as a wizard could be IMO. Fighters? Archers? Easy. Defensive spells/ crowd control. Casters? Improved + Reactive counterspelling. Don't even get me started on the Archmage PRC... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 17:39:01
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Sure, a sorcerer specialized in combat can be the equal of any combat wizard, but that same sorcerer is buggered the next day when he needs to be a utility caster the next day while the wizard can just prepare his next day's spells cheerfully.
I'm a little confused by this... How would someone who could pick any spell he knew, at any time, be at a disadvantage when he needs a particular type of spell?
Sure, wizards can prepare more spells, and a properly-prepared wizard will always dominate a sorcerer in the same situation, the sorcerer's strength is their versatility -- the lack of a need for specific preparations.
So this theoretical "the next day" scenario only favors the wizard if he needs a larger number of utility spells. A sorcerer would not be buggered, because regardless of preparations or the prior day's events, he can still use any utility spells he knows. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 16:09:29
In the long run, wizards have more versatility. Sure, a sorcerer specialized in combat can be the equal of any combat wizard, but that same sorcerer is buggered the next day when he needs to be a utility caster the next day while the wizard can just prepare his next day's spells cheerfully.
Caster damage scales horribly in epic, so unless the sorcerer is optimized for pure damage, he's in trouble. The wizard can just prepare an allotment of save-or-suck, summon bigger fish, buffs and debuffs, but that poor sorcerer is going to have problems if he's a pure damage caster and the other guy has a ring of energy immunity, or has shapeshifted into an adamantine golem. |
| Balmar Foghaven |
Posted - 03 May 2018 : 15:03:10
It looks like nobody's posted here in a while, but I'll add my two cents: I agree with Wooly that it's highly situation - dependent on which class will shine. With that said, I played a 3.5 sorcerer with both the improved counterspell and reactive counterspell feats, (and eventually took automatic quicken spell in the epic levels) he quite literally crushed all competition from any other casters. So I hope you'll forgive me for not believing that a wizard will always defeat a sorcerer if he prepared better. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Aug 2016 : 18:16:41
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. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 13 Aug 2016 : 08:38:53
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. |
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 01:53:18
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. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 22:44:14
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. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 22:27:38
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. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 20:34:07
In 2e they had a good solid system for using spell points...it was good stuff actually. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 20:11:54
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. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 18:53:11
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. |
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 18:07:40
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.
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?
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. |
|
|
