The Sorcerer

[Troile]

The sorcerer was one of my favourite new things in 3e...but it is so underpowered.

I'm curious as to why it wasn't 'upgraded' with 3.5e like the ranger, monk and bard.

Maybe it is because people like the style of the class so much.

What is the consensus? underpowered? I certainly think so. She only gets 1 extra spell per spell level more than the wizard (she can't specialize...) Having all the schools at her disposal doesn't do much because of the limited spell selection.

I think being able to spontaneously choose your spells certianly makes up for the limited selection.

The slower spell progression is fitting for the class...but there is nothing to make up for it.

In other game systems, particularly video games there are usually 4 basic types of characters....fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Then there are sub classes that combine traits of the 2 classes...D+D goes one step further of course by really fleshing out those half and half classes and making them unique...ie the paladin isn't just a fighter/cleric. The correlation remains though...I could see the paladin as being 80% fighter 20% cleric or along those lines.

The sorcerer to me is a fighter/wizard.

The whole concept is that she has inate magical power so she doesn't have to study for it...learn how to wield it yes...but it comes from strength of character (ie charisma) and experience alone would boost self confidence and inner strength.

The sorcerer is often described as having to fend for herself as she is often ostracized by her community...or has to keep her powers hidden and must do the same hard work as everyone else.

There tends to be a strong spirit though (no self respecting sorcerer is going to have 10 charisma) and obviously isn't destined for an ordinary life.

Sorcerers are geared towards combat...the spell selection/# per day just screams combat...and the general style of the character screams enchantment/illusion/combat...and a combination of those things.

The sorcerer can be the perfect daring heroine...esp with her high charisma.

I find myself liking the Sorcerer class very much...but its so underpowered!

I think it needs a bump in combat ability. She already has a lot going against her...combat specific characters need to be heavy in the physical stats and she already needs to have a high charisma...Also she has trouble wearing too much armour as it makes her spell casting useless.

Currently the sorcerer is a dreadful combat class...Very few weapon proficiencies don't make sense to me...obviously I think things need to be tweaked.

I'm moving at the end of the month so all my books are in boxes so I won't go into specifics but that is what I feel the class needs.

Personally I could use 1 less spell a day for some combat worthy abilities.
Other opttions...

Set it up like a rogue/wizard...though I think the bard covers that niche well...it could be a wizard/rogue as it were...concentrating mostly on the spell area and having a little bit of rogue but I don't think that is very unique.

Another option is to leave it well alone and convert the spell slots into spell points. It would require a huge amount of work figuring it all out but it makes a lot of sense...and then the sorcerer would be extremely powerful...able to make proficient use of all her spells everyday. I kind of like the thought of this option actually...but only psionics use a spell point system...and I hate psionics though that is another story.

Thoughts about the sorcerer?

[Snake]

This isn't the first time I've heard this argument and I really can't say persosonally if I think it she a sorcerer is underpowered or not. But in defense of here:

Sorcerers get to cast more spells per day in defense of the Wizard knowing more spells.

Sorcerers get familiars which really come in handy later depending on what type of creature it is.

Sorcerers do not have to prepare spells every day like Wizards do because their magic is internal.

And a cool one is that Sorcerers, in my opinion, have better prestige classes, unfortunetly the only one that comes to mind, since I don't have my books with me right now, is Dragon Disciple. They become fighters that can cast spells pretty much at a certain point.

[Malus Black]

And a cool one is that Sorcerers, in my opinion, have better prestige classes, unfortunetly the only one that comes to mind, since I don't have my books with me right now, is Dragon Disciple. They become fighters that can cast spells pretty much at a certain point.

They do? Where? I can't remember seeing any good PrCs designed for Sorcerers, although there might be some in some splat book or another which I don't have. Care to enlighten me? And I'm afraid the Dragon Disciple is mainly meant for characters who take one or two levels of Sorcerer, focusing mainly on melee classes, as the Dragon Disciple is a terrible primary caster.

Anyway, I would say that, yes, the Sorcerer is a little underpowered. Not much, and it's great for stuff like themed spellcasters etc. as opposed to the all-round versatility of the Wizard. If I were to make any changes to the class, it might be to give them Eschew Materials as a free feat or give them some unique abilities, perhaps tied to their bloodline. Sadly, it appears that WotC has determined that default Sorcerers are all descended from dragons, what with the dragon bloodline feats, or whatever they're called, in Complete Arcane.

[Troile]

Sorcerers get 1 extra spell per day per spell level...but they get less spell levels than wizards. So really they don't...

It is true they don't have to prepare spells...but they have an awful repetoire of spells to begin with so it balances out.

Wizards get familiars too.

A sorcerer in short is a crappy wizard. Not only do you not have the skill points to get your spell skills up but they just don't have the spell progression.

A sorcerer needs something else to make it more than just a watered down wizard.

Yes the background stuff is nice...but that is a reason to play a class not an excuse for having it weaker than everything else.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

Personally, for what it is worth. I have played many wizards over the years (as wizard is my favourite character class) and I have to admit that I am willing to play more than one sorcerer. I like the class as it is with the spell casting and spell choice, etc. However, for my games I have increased the number of skill ranks at each level to 4 + Int modifier. That was the only change I saw that the class needed for when I DM.

Anyway, I must like the Sorcerer class for me to play one in the Galen Saga, a blind one at that

[Ivana_Boritsi]

I can't disagree more. I think that the Sorcerer is a very, very powerful class in its own right. Pretty much because of the spontaneous casting. I've noticed that when the Socerer has something like spider climb everyone in the entire party might as well have spider climb.

Our Sorcerer is basically why we were able to survive Castle Ravenloft. To quote my DM at the time: "Er, you cast another fireball? How many of those things do you have?" Answer: "Alot more, baby! Alot more!"

Here's another example of how our Sorcerer as saved our butts in the past. We were fighting a mounted Cavalier nightmare who kept making Spirited Charges against our fighter. With the reach of the lance, this put a serious hurting on him.

So, the Sorcerer cast blindness on the Cavalier.The DM rolled the die on the table and shrugged. "Not a bad idea. But he made his save." The Sorcerer shrugged back. "No prob. I cast it again." The Cavalier failed on the second time around. The DM gritted his teeth and grinned maliciously. "Ah, but his horse is battle trained. The horse can continue to guide him around, so...." The sorcerer shrugged again. "I'll cast blindness on the horse, too." We got up and cheered.

There are alot of people who believe that the sorcerer is underpowered, because they don't really know how to play one. If you pick the right spells, they can be a holy terror in my experience. A sorcerer with polymorph self can change shape often. Very often. A sorcerer with invisibility can afford to put that spell on a number of people. Usually the wizard only carries one or two invisibility spells.

And here's the clincher - if your sorcerer knows a few good charm spells, they can fire them off until their target eventuallly fails. In 3rd Edition, few creatures have bulletproof saving throws.

[Troile]

Nice to see some disagreement.

Those are good arguements.

I wouldn't propose drastically changing the class...I think it needs some minor tweaks though...

Like more weapon proficiencies, 4+ skill points...etc.

Yes the sorcerer can be a terror magically...the wizard is just MORE. The wizard has a better spell progression...and the spell system works on a geometric scale...level 3 spells pale in comparison to level 4 spells etc.

Personally I would find it very interesting to play a sorcerer...the combination of being the most charismatic character and the best spellcaster is neat IMO.

The depth of this character is really neat...Matched square to square with a Wizard a sorcerer will always come up magically short though...

That is guarenteed.

Not only do wizards have better spells and more to choose from...but they have skills and feats out you wazoo. (wizards have 2+ for skills but with the intelligence it doesn't matter)

Getting that 3rd level spell at 5th level instead of 6th level makes a huge difference.

Those examples are good...and indeed every class should have something it can do better than the others...personally as a wizard player the pure diversity the wizard has in its spells is staggering. Clerics are for brute spells...wizards can do anything and everything. Sorcerers fill a unique niche...but it still doesn't make them close to the wizard's power level. Having to choose your spells ahead of time requires good judgement sure...but having more powerful ones and a much better selection in lieu of it is better.

Of course this disparity in power is needed. The wizard should be the undisputed best caster...but the sorcerer needs something more still...

Not having to train to get his magic I don't know where his training goes...what does a sorcerer train for...2+ skill points and proficiency with the short spear?

I think I would like to see that part of the class played up a lot more.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

I think that the old generalizations sum it up best:

Wizards are better when you are prepared
Sorcerers are better at the spur of the moment

Wizards allow for a better range of spells, and can bring into play things such as metamagic feats or their mastery of item creation feats. A wizard who is prepared for a confrontation can have nearly limitless scrolls and potions, and might even have a wand or two handy.
However, when caught in a rush situation, the wizard has few of these resources available. The wizard may have a huge repetoir, but they are hobbled by their inflexability.
The key is preparation. Wizards needs to scry, to send in rogue scouts, and just generally think ahead.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, are weak when all is said and done. But, they have excellent flexability, second only to the psions. Ivana really said it all - once a sorcerer gets some good spells they can cast them again and again. Metamagic feats can be used on the fly, and they can even sac a high level slot for a low level spell should the need come up.
From the rules-lawyer perspective, they are weaker, but in the heat of an adventure, a sorcerer remains an excellent choice. The only real constraint is the all to limited spells known category.
The key here is picking spells to compliment the party. Know what your party needs and what it can do without - then pick those spells to remember. If the party lacks artillery, get magic missile and fireball. if the party lacks stealth, get invisibility. And so on....

[Troile]

I don't think it is that cut and dry.

Sorcerer's aren't necessarily better on the fly.

A wizard with 10 spells for 10 different occaisions can handle things much better than a sorcerer with spells for 4 different occaisions...

Beside the point that the sorcerer can't even cast as high level spells as the wizard can (sometimes...)

Wizards can be much better in a surprise situation than a sorcerer...They have that knack to have just what you need to be able to get out...while a sorcerer can hurl 10 fireballs sure maybe that isn't the answer.

[ex-ebonfold]

Personally Ive seen a lot of arcane casters come and go and on average sorcerors definately survive longer.

I don't think it is that cut and dry.
Sorcerer's aren't necessarily better on the fly.
A wizard with 10 spells for 10 different occaisions can handle things much better than a sorcerer with spells for 4 different occaisions...
Beside the point that the sorcerer can't even cast as high level spells as the wizard can (sometimes...)

This arguement is just as flawed as the one your arguing against. Yes this wisard has 10 different spells ready (well no actually the ratio in spells per day isnt close to 10-4), but in this case in any given situation he only has 1 useful spell ready, so it had better be able to help everyone (unlikely at all but the highest of levels). This sorceror can cast 4 helpful spells, so is much more of a team player. This wizard might be able to deal with more situations than this sorceror, but he will be much less effective at dealing with them than this sorceror will.
In fairness you can cover useful spells for any problem in significantly less than 10 spells. There are very few situations a sorceror can't deal with that a wizard of even level can (excluding the factor of required spell level such as dispel magic)

I was quite surprised to see this thread appear at all. The idea of a sorceror being weaker than the other classes makes no sense at all to me personally. Yes he gets spells slower than a wizard, but spontaneous casting does make up for that loss and then some (so much so that they had to give wizards bonus feats to balance it out). Its like saying paladins are underpowered because they get less spells than clerics, or fighters are underpowered because they get less hit points than barbarians.

But personal bias aside I don't think its a good idea to seriously increase a sorcerors weapon ability. 4 skill points wont break a game, but giving good weapon access to a primary arcane caster could. If you really wanted you could give him a better Fort save to represent the magic flowing through his very blood fortifying him but I don't think its necessary.

I think the real difference in viewpoint here is the statement of 4 basic classes + combinations, a belief I don't quite agree with you on (especially the sorceror= wizard + fighter), after all

4 classes + 6 possible permutations of two classes = 10 classes not the 11 from the PHB.

Personally I see the sorceror as just following a different paradigm (see mage the ascension) from the wizard. What they do is fundamentally the same thing (magic) but they approach it from vastly different angles, giving each their own strong points and weaknesses. Sorcerors give magic more range than just the simple Hermetic traditions embodied in the wizard. Its a class that gives you more options on campaign flavour not a way to bring a caster into melee.
just my 2 cents.[/b]

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I would like to put my 2 bits in on the 10 spells against 4 ratio. The wizard may be able to cast 10 spells, but that is 1 each of thsoe spells unless he/she has scrolls, wands and so on handy. The sorcerer will not have to spend long hours preparing his/her spells and may cast them on the fly. He/She will be able to pick a spell from thsoe they know and cast it time and again until the spells per day alottment has been filled.

As for the Blindness spell against the cavalier, I trick was always to target the mount first, their saves were poorer and once the horse has been rendered useless, the enemy would have to dismount and engage on foot.

It's like one of my other favourite tricks with the spell Grease. Grease the enemy, not the floor, grease their weapons, their feet, their hands (if they require touch attacks), they become useless. Also, my other tactic with using a group of goblins to bring down tough adventuring parties nearly always included a low level wizard or two with grease prepared.

I guess you can tell I like the spell Grease, it's my fave and VERY broken when I use it

The Grease trick does require multiple castings, so a wizard would be spending alot of space preparing multiple castings of the spell, while the sorcerer would just fire them off one after another without worry.

Also, the wizard thing with being able to cast higher level spells quicker, I never use that many higher level spells playing wizards. In fact I think one wizard of mine during his 3 years I played him only cast about 4 or 5 spells higher than level 4. He just liked fireballs, magic missiles and lightning bolts.

Aaahhhh... now that takes me back to when that wizard summoned a Shambling Mound to help him, he cast all his lightning bolts on the thing to make it tougher. He then ran off very quickly before it got killed (the rest of the party had already ran off, but he was trapped and they couldn't reach him at the time, the cowards).

[Troile]

I picked the number out of my head...the number doesn't matter...but it is the point of usefulness.

A wizard will be able to cover a lot more situations than a sorcerer. I think the arguement is backwards. A sorcerer can cover standard situations well...but a wizard has the ability to get out of pretty much any situation.

Maybe people don't use wizards like I do...who knows.

I do know that if you use the wizard as a fireball slinger then you are probably better off with the sorcerer.

I just know that I've had some problems and wanted to know what others thought...I'm not trying to say that I'm right and others are wrong...its just a message board and these kinds of arguements happen.

For the record adding 2 extra skill points to a class is a pretty big deal. Adding to the weapon selection really wouldn't be too much...though adding saves is even more drastic.

I do think the sorcerer needs something...maybe it is just the 4+ skill per level that would do it...I really think there should be something that shows he isn't spending all his time casting spells.

I don't have the lists with me...but maybe 4+ per level and adding one or 2 skills to the class skills...that could do it for me.

I think the real difference in viewpoint here is the statement of 4 basic classes + combinations, a belief I don't quite agree with you on (especially the sorceror= wizard + fighter), after all

4 classes + 6 possible permutations of two classes = 10 classes not the 11 from the PHB.

Please read my post before commenting like this

[ex-ebonfold]

Please read my post before commenting like this

awwww. but its even longer than mine. do I have tooo. ^_^
and you did say you saw the sorceror as a wizard/fighter even if not necessarily a 50-50 split. you said they were "fleshed out" but I don't think that really gets to it. A bard only marginally resembles the wizard/thief you ascribe him, and I see larger difficulties matching other classes up to fleshed out half and half classes.

I must say I agree that sorcerors make better fireball slingers than wizards, but Ive seen more fireball slinging sorcerors than wizards so I can't say for sure.

It may well be that you play wizards really different. Personally I have never met a wizard who memorised spells to prepare for every possible eventuallity. Most Ive seen focus on the areas they expect to encounter during the day, so that theyll be useful to the party for more than a minute or so (most times a single investigative spell only raises more questions. Likewise only one protection spell means that everyone else still dies). I really believe you are undervaluing the benefit of spontaneous magic. Correct spell selection and a few choice metamagic feats and a sorceror bests a wizard in almost all endeavours, and is not nearly as inflexible as you make out, no matter how fewer spell's hes got.

I think another consideration for whether people consider wizards more powerful than sorcerors is how readily they let wizards acquire new spells. I've seen high and low spell count games, but wizards are not likely to ever learn the entire players handbook worth (or even half that many).


I agree that adding 2 skill points to a class can be a big deal, but certainly not moreso than a large increase in their basic combat damage. The power of any change to a class is strongly circumstancial - giving a barbarian a single free exotic weapon feat is less of a boost than giving one to a sorceror, just like 2 extra skill points to a sorceror is a bigger boost than giving them to a rogue, who will be less affected by 2 more skills. (whereas 2 more skill points allows a sorceror to have some versatility in his skills while maintaining spellcraft/knowledge (arcana) and concentration at high levels)
As I said I dont think a sorceror really needs boosting, I just think that before you do you should put some careful though into the ramifications. Changing your standard fighting gear from daggers and quarterstaffs to great axes and long bows is a very big step.


Oh and wicky, I can't agree that greased hands blocks touch attacks. they've got to touch you, not grab you, so the fact that they can hold a grip for all of 0.007 seconds isn't relevant.

[Glim]

The only real drawback of being a sorcerer is that you can't go around spending money to buy extra spells, so you have a nice spell selection, as opposed to the few you know at a normal progress. It may be enough to slay the evil kobolds, time and time again, but you'll suck at sneaking, compelling people or investigating, or general non-combat adventuring. A sorcerer may be more flexible, a wizards definately is more versatile.

[Ail]

Well, let me add my opinion.
My experience with Sorcerer is restrict to Baldur's Gate 2, which was a 2nd Ed computer game but foreshadowed some of the classes that would appear in 3E.
In there, I played a sorceror and a wizard, and I can tell you I really had to get rid of the sorcerer. Basically, the big BIG difficulty of playing the sorcerer and I think it was not properly covered here, is to make the right choice of spells when you get them.
If you're a wizard, you're inflexible because when you memorize spells you're stuck with them and may not have the proper spell for the day.
If you're a sorcerer, you're WAY MORE INFLEXIBLE because if choose wrongly you have the bad spell for the rest of your life.
Granted, I have dramatised a bit, but that was the difficulty I felt. Really, to play a sorcerer, you have to be really experienced or to have great hindsight. Nor do I agree that a sorcerer should choose his spells according to the group. That does not seem realistic to me: after all, learning spells is a life compromise and is like in real life: you should pick the degree and job you like, not the one that suits your wife best, because who knows?, you might yet get divorced.
With the PC is the same: a PC should do what suits his personality best, not what is dictated by the needs of the party. If that were so, then some players would feel forced to be mere assistants while others got to play the characters of their dreams, and I can't agree with this.
Personally, the only change I'd make for the sorcerer would be to somehow give them the possibility to change their spells repertoire at some point.
I tell you, in BG2, I really had that sorcerer completely useless even though she could cast 6 fireballs per day.
On the other hand, note this: a sorcerer can only pick general purpose spells. He can never have a spell for the odd situation that appears once a year, because that spell will be a complete waste. And yet, you may just have need for it in your next particular adventure. That tends to make the sorcerer's spells less interesting and more geared to, what? combat situations? but that's too narrowing. That would make the sorcerer a kind of arcane fighter and nothing more.
Morale: the Wizard is still my favourite class, along with the Barbarian

Ail