POLL: Sorcerer vs mage

Remove all ads!

Which is better?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 29 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Sorcerer vs mage (29 votes.)

Sorcerer vs mage (Choose 1)
* Sorcerer - 83% (24)
* Mage - 17% (5)

 

Sorcerers kick major hinie.

If for no other reason than the fact there are always situations (and everyone has had them) that the one spell you need for a particular situation has already been cast and you're now screwed because you've already cast it.

You're limitied slightly because of the spells you can learn (only 5 per level), but the rest can be cast through scrolls or your secondary caster (if you don't have one, get one!!). The secondary caster can also milk the experience gained from scrolls as well. Save the best offensive spells in the game for your Sorcerer and you have one serious - and versatile - damage machine on your hands. I was turned off by them at first, too until I discovered their true potential.

Sorcerers are a little weaker at first, but not for long. Wizards are limited by what they have memorized at that moment, whereas Sorcerers have everything "memorized" all the time. They get my vote.

 

Sorcerers

1. They're way more sexy.

2. The restriction for the writing of spells in the book has generally in a CPRG no downside. There's only a restricted number of spells which are really usefull. The only problem is, to chose the right spells.

3. If chosen the right spells, near unlimited supply of all the kick ass spells that clear every enemy away.

4. Wizard would be more usefull: If the spells are unknown (first time through) or just generally experementing with spell combinations.

 

A Sorceress is better than a mage, because of their mass of spell slots. Imho a sorceress is better than any mage, except of a wild mage ( I love him ) , he's better than a mage because of the Nahal's Reckless Dweomer spell! The spell rocks (you can cast every spell in your spellbook with it) , with it you can cast totally 10 grade 9 spells. No sorceress can so.

 

Bah, a sorcerer is a product of a demon who got humanphile...

I rather have a wizard, where sorcerers only have intelligence, mages have the wisdom to use the intelligence

 

I have to agree with the wizard. Sorcerers, to me, are just way too boring and very limited. I like versatility and being able to experiment with different spell combinations.

 

Please explain?

Sorcerers rock my proverbial world

 

with a mage:conjuror\cleric and a kensai\mage in ur party u dont need a sorceror ^_^

i just thought of creating a good party (hard to play but good chars).

well this is the party i thought of:
Half-orc Kensai
Human Monk
Human Fighter:kensai\thief
Human Thief:"kit"\fighter
Human Mage:Conjuror\cleric
Human Kensai\mage

the thief\fighter and fighter\thief backs up each other whereas u get theif skill when ever u need it...i was thinking about a Ranger:archer\druid if it can be done, but we do need thief skills at all time so i left out the ranger for the thief.
also when the fighter duals into thief he\she will gain levels very quickly.....
also is there any other races that can dual class??? and which thief class should i choose??

 

@ Death Whisper

We're not talking about dual or multi-classing or party formations. Pick a favorite between Wizard and Sorcerer and state why, or don't post here.

Also, try if you can not to post the same respones in several different topics. This would make 3 different topics now you've brought this up, that I've seen. Are you just copying and pasting the same posts and spitting them back out again or what? I'm not a moderator, so feel free to ignore me, but damn that's annoying.

[No, don't ignore him. Death Rabbit makes good sense - BTA]

[ May 09, 2003, 23:22: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Here's the crux of my problem between these two classes. I'll do some very rough math to illustrate. A mage earns between 1000 and 9000 XP per spell learned. OK, that's an average of 5000 / spell. There's about 15 spells per level (on average, and again, this is ROUGH calculation) so 5000 * 15 = 75000 XP by the end of the game -- given how rich you are by the end of the game, you ability to chug potions and buy scrolls makes this feasible -- that's 12500 XP for each member of the group, just for learning things! This means that a mage can have a FAR greater variety of spells, and he contributes XP that a Sorceror simply cannot.

Now, how many spells do you really need? Well, the limit of 5 that is imposed on the sorceror is a little low, but realistically speaking, I'd say about 10 spells / level is about all you really need. The rest is fluff. Especially when you have an elven mage memorizing stupid spells like Infravision -- I mean, the only reason to do that is for the XP. I have spells that I've never used (polymorph self comes to mind, as well as stinking cloud, lightning bolt, death spell, etc.) but I guess they're nice to know.

The Sorceror's real strength is in the # of spells he can cast -- on this, he rocks. Plus, in some cases he is more versatile than a mage -- the well rested sorceror is prepared for ANYTHING. One just has to be careful not to make foolish spell selections.

Given that the Sorceror does not have to put in so much time to learn magic, I figure he should have a slightly larger weapon selection -- short swords, clubs, spears and shields comes to mind. Is this the case in 3E?

End long, obnoxious post.

 

Two people actually voted for mage!

 

That's nothing. If TOB installed, you can have approx. 5'000'000 in the end. 12500 is 6 Illithids or beholders more or less.

 

You can do all the project image with a mage as well. Mage is more versatile, both for fun and usefulness. If one party member is imprisoned, will your soccerer free him? Perhaps not. When you fighting Kangaxx, will your soccerer have spell immunity? Maybe not. Do you want to try polymorph a dragon into a jelly? Your soccerer probably can't. But a mage can do everything. Sure you can use scrolls, but a good mage don't rely on scrolls.
I do agree soccerer is way better than a mage, in fact the question should be is soccerer better than *any* other class?
Another question is: is a soccerer better than Edwin? Edwin can cast about the same number of spells per day, in fact he can cast more in the early 2/3 of the game, of course he can cast a lot more variety too. With ToB, can't cast true sight is no longer a big problem.
I used to use soccerer in SoA, but the thought that I'm not much better than Edwin made me quit.(And Edwin is killed by Elminster easily, this makes me that much worse.) Now I'm a wizardslayer/thief, more than 100% MR, I can kill Edwin whenever I want.

[ May 10, 2003, 04:59: Message edited by: 14 ]

 

Several points.

1. Sorcerers can use scrolls and so can cast spells like the imprison release.
2. In the earlier levels when a mage would have just one spell a sorcerer will have more and thus is more durable.
3. You don't need variety, one good attack spell, one for lowering immunity, a good defense and a counter barrier is everything you need for a fight, other than that it's optional.
4. The biggest problem with the mage is that you tend to run out of spells, with the sorcerer this doese'nt happen as often.
5. Maybe a minor point but you also don't have to search for scrolls, in TOB the manual points to TWO wish scrolls, both in hard to reach places, I never even found one and I'm thinking that a sorcerer would'nt have this problem.

 

Archers can't Dual to ANYTHING, which sucks the big one. Thank god for SK

 

@corbulo87

While mages normally spend years between the books to gain the power along with the wisdom to NOT use it (Think of Thalantyr in BG1)

Sorcerers are born with their magic abilities, this makes them unreliable spellcasters, as they did not gain the wisdom to use their abilities.

Generally true, however, there are some notable exceptions. - Elminster

[ May 10, 2003, 17:48: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

I prefer the Sorceror, mostly because it seems more believable (at least, in a world where you have magic...) The idea that you have to memorise each spell doesn't quite seem right, particularly given that you might memorise the same spell twice: why? I much prefer any system that gives you a certain amount of power that you can exert, and a list of spells to choose from. I guess a compromise would be that you could choose a set of spells to learn before resting, and then cast any number of them (up to a limit); but that's changing AD&D rules.

 

IIRC memorising also means gathering the required spellitems and preparing the spell.