Never played IWD II. Like old times and very good old times.
As usual I start out a couple parties to get a feel for the team.
Though I get Sorcerers are kind of a blend of Cleric and Wizards, is there one of the two that has a better end game?

Thanks

I have no idea about the endgame, but I think you're mistaken about sorcerers.
Sorcerers have the same spell selction as wizards. The difference is, sorcerers only get a limited number of different spells, but the don't have to prepare them in advance.
Bards on the other hand have access to healing spells and some (but not all) wizard spells. And like the sorcerer they don't have to memorize in advance and use charisma as the deciding attribute for spellcasting.

Sorcerers "receive" their spells rather than memorizing. I use to that in Druids and Clerics (if i remember correctly in BG)
That trait is what I was thinking of.
Thanks.

Sorcerers are better in the endgame, but only if you choose the correct spells during level up. They can cast more high level spells than Wizards. Wizards are more versatile because they can change their set of spells anytime (it requires only a rest to memorize them). If you know what you're doing, Sorcerers are the way to go. :)

Ummmm, no, this is an apples and oranges comparison. In addition to wizards being more flexible in their spell selection, they also get more skill points to fill in diplomacy and thievery roles. Wizards also get more feats than sorcs. They are also able to cast higher level spells than sorcs but this is kinda moot because IWD2 is stingy as hell with spell scrolls. The spell slots open before you find any scrolls to fill them with.

I find having a sorc and an enchanter to be a very powerful and efficient combination. The enchanter handles crowd control, buffing and early game summons but can help out with extra damage if need be (gotta love Skuil Trap) and I can tailor spell selection for the situation. Enchanters don't burn through their spells as fast as a wizard using their spell slots for damage spells which gives them more staying power. Also, because the Enchanter is handling all the support spells, this frees up the sorc to specialize on damage.

A specialist is not objectively better than a jack of all trades as long as they both have roles to fill. And when the jack of all trades and specialist compliment each other, it's just silly trying to compare them.

Sorcerers are better if you want to diversify the spells that you want to cast per day. Let's presume that as a Wizard you want to cast five different 9 level spells without a rest. This means you'll be able to cast only one particular spell per day. Sorcerers can cast even 6 spells from the whole pool of spells selected during level ups. This makes them more powerful in overall, but only if you select the proper spells when leveling your character. In a direct confrontation between high level Sorcerer and high level Wizard, the first would have an upper hand.

I wasn't disputing the your points about the sorcs strengths. I was disputing your claim that a sorc is objectively better than a wizard. You do realize that damage output is not the sole metric for what makes a good character right? Putting a sorc and wizard 1 vs 1 makes no sense at all unless you're of the mind damage output is all that matters. Hint: It's not.

But if I were to use that logic, I can argue that fighters are better than sorcs because if I have a fighter under the influence of anti-magic, the sorcs spells will be useless and my fighter can pummel the living crap out of the sorc with impunity. Does that mean a fighter is better than a sorc? OF COURSE IT DOES!!! Fighters deal good damage without worrying about spell selection, have more feats, have more HP, are proficient with many weapons and can drop a sorcs HP in seconds. Also, I've finished IWD1 (not 2) twice with 5 fighters and 1 F/T, no casters at all. That means all casters (not just sorcs) are useless and all you need are fighters!!! See how silly this is?

Also, there are some low level spells which are very useful but will eventually phase out. Sleep is VERY good at the start of the game. Low level summons are also very good to draw enemy fire away from your heroes while they're low level. Armor is also good until they can find something equitable. There's other examples but I made my point. Wizards can take advantage of such spells without gimping late game performance, sorcs can't. Also, IIRC (my numbers might not be right but they ain't far off) sorcs only get 7 teats in a playthough, wizard get around 11. I also mentioned how wizards get more skill points than sorcs. These strengths make a wizard worth considering but in no way does it make it objectively better than a sorc

Saying sorcs are better than wizards by comparing the strengths of the sorc to the weaknesses of the wizard while ignoring the strengths of the wizard is simply wrong.

One other factor: In IWD2 (and IWD1), scrolls are scarce. In particular, you might not have the scrolls for the spells you want by the time your level is high enough to cast them, and you won't have enough scrolls to go around if you have multiple wizards. Plus, for whatever reason, wizards don't get to choose spells at level up. (Why did they do that?)

Sorcerers, on the other hand, do choose spells at level up, and are not limited to the scrolls that are available, so they can more easily get rarer spells.

(Note that this is one way in which this game differs from Baldur's Gate 2, where there's plentiful supplies of the important scrolls, so Wizards generally have access to the spells they need, even if you have more than one.)

I like to have both, one for flexibility and the other for mass destruction spells


intelligence boosting items and wizard only gear might as well have somebody using them.

In a CRPG, which tends to heavily favour combat-oriented solutions, a Sorcerer will likely outperform a Wizard due to their greater number of daily spells and the ease with which they can apply metamagic feats to spells. In tabletop though, a Wizard can be far, far more potent thanks to their greater versatility, and the fact that their high Intelligence stat will, over the long run, give them lots of skill points to use. To give an example, let's say your party was going up against a powerful Orc Warlord in his Keep. In a CRPG, you'd likely just storm your way into the Keep spells blazing and devastate everything with Fireballs and Lightning Bolts, and a Sorcerer would excel at this. However, in a PnP game, the Wizard with his far greater spell repetoire could do any number of creative ways to eliminate the Warlord. Go in with spells blasting? Pffy. Why not just cast Rock to Mud twice on the keep's load-bearing outer wall so it collapses inward and kills every single last orc inside the keep without anybody in your party even getting a scratch? Or the orcs even knowing you were there? For a Sorcerer to devote one of their precious spell slots to such a niche spell is probably not worth the trade-off, but the Wizard is basically the guy who has a spell solution for EVERY situation, given some time to analyze the problem.

Sorcerers are probably a little more fun to play, since you have more spells memorized and also higher versatility. With wizards you need to have the metaknowledge of knowing which spells to memorize, but also in what quantity. Do I memorize 3 fireballs and 1 invisibility sphere, or just 4 fireballs. You don't have to the these kind of decisions with sorc. Just memorize 4 lvl3 spells and you decide on the go.

Wizards still work fine in parties (well a single wizard, there aren't enough scrolls to support multiple wizards). In solo, sorc >> wiz, you just splash 1 lvl of wiz for items and better DC of spells.