D&D 5E Building a better Sorcerer

Krachek · Aug 22, 2017

The identity of the sorcerer is its blood line (or origin). Its bloodline give him an access to raw, spontaneous and unbound magic. The various archetype give an ok feeling of the bloodline, but the feeling of raw, unbound, unique magic has been lost. The 5ed spell slot system make every caster a kind of 3.5 sorcerer, so the unique feeling is lost. Meta magic remains the only mechanic that give a good feeling of unbound magic, but it is poorly related to blood line.
Sorcerer Spell list give poor choices to reach the diverse bloodline. Its restrained choices dont help much to have the feeling of unbound magic. The Spell slot give the feeling of doing magic like any other caster.

So easy upgrade:
Outbound magic: Half of your spells and cantrips may be pick from Druid, Cleric or Wizard spell list. Wont break anything.
Outbound casting: You may use the spell point variant describe in the DMG. Will give a unique casting mechanic to Sorcerer.

Tony Vargas · Aug 22, 2017

snickersnax said:
Meta- has several definitions. One is "as a higher level of abstration" as you point out. But the another is "self-referential". I guess I've always assumed meta- in metamagic was the second definition, meaning that it was magic about magic.

Magic-affecting-magic is certainly what meta-magic feats were when they were introduced in 3e, though I suppose spells like the classic Dispel Magic, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, or 2e's Squaring the Circle or Sense Shifting, were also very much meta-magic in that sense.

What meta-magic actually does in 5e is tweak a spell in some way. That's something it's very reasonable to do in the moment, if you're an instinctive magic-user. At best, if you're a traditional 'Vancian' wizard, it's something you might do when you prepare a spell (which is how it worked in 3e) - at worst, if you're like Vance's actual magicians in the Dying Earth, all you can do is memorize the formulae you find, modding with meta-magic is conceptually off the table.

5e made meta-magic the Sorcerer's thing, and it's really not enough of a thing, by itself. IMHO, it needs to be more deeply integrated with the way Sorcerers cast. Maybe they shouldn't even have spells known, for instance, but just describe the effect they want, and then the DM can work out from existing spells and meta-magic whether it can be done and what level slot it would require? Some sort of check might make a lot of sense, too.

MoonSong · Aug 27, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
Magic-affecting-magic is certainly what meta-magic feats were when they were introduced in 3e, though I suppose spells like the classic Dispel Magic, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, or 2e's Squaring the Circle or Sense Shifting, were also very much meta-magic in that sense.

What meta-magic actually does in 5e is tweak a spell in some way. That's something it's very reasonable to do in the moment, if you're an instinctive magic-user. At best, if you're a traditional 'Vancian' wizard, it's something you might do when you prepare a spell (which is how it worked in 3e) - at worst, if you're like Vance's actual magicians in the Dying Earth, all you can do is memorize the formulae you find, modding with meta-magic is conceptually off the table.

5e made meta-magic the Sorcerer's thing, and it's really not enough of a thing, by itself. IMHO, it needs to be more deeply integrated with the way Sorcerers cast. Maybe they shouldn't even have spells known, for instance, but just describe the effect they want, and then the DM can work out from existing spells and meta-magic whether it can be done and what level slot it would require? Some sort of check might make a lot of sense, too.

A problem with a system like that and the sorcerer is that it takes away player agency on a way that isn't funny. You start playing the DM instead of the game, which is a big problem because DM's over the editions are conditioned to see the sorcerer as a broken overpowered thing despite them being on the weaker side. If you don't believe me see the Wild Sorcerer, you need the DMs cooperation for it to even work properly, I wouldn't want that level of DM control over casting itself.

CapnZapp · Aug 27, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
Magic-affecting-magic is certainly what meta-magic feats were when they were introduced in 3e, though I suppose spells like the classic Dispel Magic, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, or 2e's Squaring the Circle or Sense Shifting, were also very much meta-magic in that sense.

What meta-magic actually does in 5e is tweak a spell in some way. That's something it's very reasonable to do in the moment, if you're an instinctive magic-user. At best, if you're a traditional 'Vancian' wizard, it's something you might do when you prepare a spell (which is how it worked in 3e) - at worst, if you're like Vance's actual magicians in the Dying Earth, all you can do is memorize the formulae you find, modding with meta-magic is conceptually off the table.

5e made meta-magic the Sorcerer's thing, and it's really not enough of a thing, by itself. IMHO, it needs to be more deeply integrated with the way Sorcerers cast. Maybe they shouldn't even have spells known, for instance, but just describe the effect they want, and then the DM can work out from existing spells and meta-magic whether it can be done and what level slot it would require? Some sort of check might make a lot of sense, too.

Agreed on all points.

Except that I'd much rather take the "it's not enough" conclusion to tell us "perhaps metamagic shouldn't be the Sorcerer exclusive thing...?"

Oh what joy if Sorcerers got something else, perhaps related to elements, while metamagic was opened up to Wizards and Ps... Mystics! (At least)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

CapnZapp · Aug 27, 2017

MoonSong said:
A problem with a system like that

Please don't use bold or custom color when you're not emphasizing select parts of your post.

Unless you actually meant to scream at Tonys post, in which case my question instead becomes "wait, what?"

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

MoonSong · Aug 27, 2017

CapnZapp said:
Please don't use bold or custom color when you're not emphasizing select parts of your post.

Unless you actually meant to scream at Tonys post, in which case my question instead becomes "wait, what?"

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I've been using pink letters for almost 4 months now. May 5th was the first time actually. I thought everybody would have gotten used to it by now... But if you have any problem with that, tell [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION], he told me it was ok. How else was I going to be recognizable without avatar and signature?(the bold part is a concession to those using white background)1

Mercule · Aug 28, 2017

MoonSong said:
I've been using pink letters for almost 4 months now. May 5th was the first time actually. I thought everybody would have gotten used to it by now... But if you have any problem with that, tell [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION], he told me it was ok. How else was I going to be recognizable without avatar and signature?(the bold part is a concession to those using white background)1

I may have said it, but it was kinda like "sure, go ahead and stick your man bits in a light socket". I figured it either it wasn't really a serious question or that it would eventually work itself out.

In all seriousness, though, I find the day glow fuchsia to be a heck of a lot less annoying than the folks who force black text. I almost universally prefer dark backgrounds and EN World is no exception. If you're using black font I can't see what you're saying and probably will never read enough of what you wrote to ever care enough to highlight it. In contrast, I see that exact same fuchsia whenever I sit down to code because of the color scheme I use in my IDE. Granted, I'd rather just see it for a few keywords, but it doesn't grossly offend me.

cbwjm · Aug 28, 2017

I tend to scroll past the bright pink text without reading it.

Tony Vargas · Aug 28, 2017

MoonSong said:
A problem with a system like that and the sorcerer is that it takes away player agency on a way that isn't funny. You start playing the DM instead of the game,

Sure, 'but,' it's in line with 5e's general DM Empowerment philosophy and flow of play (DM describes situation, player declares action, DM narrates results/calls for check.