D&D (2024) Can we have the sorcerer fixed now? (Plz, I beg you n_n°)

[This Effin’ GM]

As I expressed in a thread a couple of years back, it is impossible to merge sorcerer and wizard without losing either. Merging sorcerer "back"* into wizard would mean effectively killing the concept. A combined class -or worse turning sorcerer into just a subclass- would be 99% pure wizard (or so be broad that wizard would be limited to a very specific build which is a no no as the wizard itself is a sacred cow) Besides, If sorcerer is being poorly managed as its own class, what makes you think that it being watered down into a subclass wouldn't encourage even more mishandling?

Your argument basically boils down to "I don't want to eff it up in the future, so in order to avoid it, I will eff it up now even harder." Or "I don't want this puppy to be mistreated anymore, so I'm going to put it to sleep and append its name to that other puppy across the street that is always getting a lot of love."

* Because people keep telling the sorcerer was just split from the wizard at some point, but that is a lie. The Wizard/Mage/MU has never covered anything even vaguely resembling a sorcerer. "Splitting" the sorcerer from the wizard didn't result in any narrowing of the class, instead it expanded the character concepts that were possible since none of them could be made before. Placing it under wizard would mean going back to the previous status quo where we trade a class that can cover thousands of concepts and archetypes to one that can't cover even one of them.

My favorite part of this is where in my original post I posited multiple other ideas too but you have honed in on the third one

You don’t like the one idea, fine, no skin off my back but maybe consider not just grabbing the one sentence and boiling it down to “my arguement”. My arguement was there are many ways to save the sorcerer, preserving the identity is here most of the work needs to be done and if that’s not a priority then fine let’s just make a generic archetype rather than a sub par set of mechanics.

 

[gorice]

The fact that the sorcerer still has both spell slots and sorcery points gives me conniptions. I fully expect d&done to keep these and add metamagic points, usable a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus times the phase of the moon.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

The fact that the sorcerer still has both spell slots and sorcery points gives me conniptions. I fully expect d&done to keep these and add metamagic points, usable a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus times the phase of the moon.

Cool way for Dragonlance Sorcerer to handle it for sure

 

[MechaTarrasque]

To be perfectly honest, if you swap the lore, Warlock mechanics make for better Sorcerers than Sorcerers do.

I think I am coming around to that idea, but the idea of backwards compatibility probably dooms it. That being said, once you get past "the class isn't called sorcerer" (I swear 3x has a lot to answer for), then warlocks solve 90% of sorcerer problems: once you have EB, you can save your spell slots for utility spells (and since most of the warlock's utility spells come from invocations that don't use spell slots, you can still use your spell slots to zap things), charisma casting, and the whole familiar thing is covered by 2 of the 3 main traditions....

I think warlocks would be better if they were more like the arachnomancer. Your smart but lazy or jealous warlock get transformed into something where they can use their intellect (I think thematically this works better with smart warlocks than charismatic ones) to be stronger (elemental patron), more graceful (fey patron), tougher (undead patron), able to see the world as it really is (wisdom, GOO patron), or suave (charisma, fiend patron). Every couple of levels they get the "pick one of three" thing some of the barbarian subclasses get (list of 3 based on patron) so that you can be good at hitting things in interesting ways, add half casting, and when they hit level 20, they might become permanently transformed (gives the patron something, likely what the player wants, and who cares what the warlock wants?)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think I am coming around to that idea, but the idea of backwards compatibility probably dooms it. That being said, once you get past "the class isn't called sorcerer" (I swear 3x has a lot to answer for), then warlocks solve 90% of sorcerer problems: once you have EB, you can save your spell slots for utility spells (and since most of the warlock's utility spells come from invocations that don't use spell slots, you can still use your spell slots to zap things), charisma casting, and the whole familiar thing is covered by 2 of the 3 main traditions....

I think warlocks would be better if they were more like the arachnomancer. Your smart but lazy or jealous warlock get transformed into something where they can use their intellect (I think thematically this works better with smart warlocks than charismatic ones) to be stronger (elemental patron), more graceful (fey patron), tougher (undead patron), able to see the world as it really is (wisdom, GOO patron), or suave (charisma, fiend patron). Every couple of levels they get the "pick one of three" thing some of the barbarian subclasses get (list of 3 based on patron) so that you can be good at hitting things in interesting ways, add half casting, and when they hit level 20, they might become permanently transformed (gives the patron something, likely what the player wants, and who cares what the warlock wants?)

You make me realize that the whole ''Warlock as agent of a Patron'' theme would work well for the fabled gish. People often say that the Swordmage lacks an in-setting theme, making it a class that's mostly defined just by its mechanics.

The 4e Essential warlock (hexblade) was pretty good as a gish, receiving the classic warlocks spells from their patron, but also a cool weapon based on their patron choice.

An Int-based warlock could be perfect to give the swordmage a raison d'être in-setting while filing a niche that is left empty by the PHB's offering in favor of yet another caster.

In short:
1) Give the warlock spellcasting chassis to the Sorcerer, making them at last different from the Wizard.
2) Design a Warlock class based on the artificer-chassis: Int-spellcasting from 1st level, pick Blade/Familiar/Tome, Infusing items take a more ''weird fiendish infusion'' vibe instead of science, medium armors, etc etc

 

[Marandahir]

You make me realize that the whole ''Warlock as agent of a Patron'' theme would work well for the fabled gish. People often say that the Swordmage lacks an in-setting theme, making it a class that's mostly defined just by its mechanics.

The 4e Essential warlock (hexblade) was pretty good as a gish, receiving the classic warlocks spells from their patron, but also a cool weapon based on their patron choice.

An Int-based warlock could be perfect to give the swordmage a raison d'être in-setting while filing a niche that is left empty by the PHB's offering in favor of yet another caster.

In short:
1) Give the warlock spellcasting chassis to the Sorcerer, making them at last different from the Wizard.
2) Design a Warlock class based on the artificer-chassis: Int-spellcasting from 1st level, pick Blade/Familiar/Tome, Infusing items take a more ''weird fiendish infusion'' vibe instead of science, medium armors, etc etc

You mean, like a Artificer-caster version of the Blood Hunter? Because that had a lot of overlap with Ranger and Paladin too…

This would be an interesting 3PP or DM’s Guild product, but these sorts of changes are a bit too radical to do while preserving compatibility of narrative and gameplay…

 

[Haplo781]

Sorcerer didn't exist before 3e, but the class neatly filled a thematic void left behind by wizards since day 1 of 0th edition. It simply enabled a lot of character concepts that weren't possible before.

Thematically sure. But mechanically they've only ever had their own niche in 4e. I'd like that to change.

 

[MoonSong]

Thematically sure. But mechanically they've only ever had their own niche in 4e. I'd like that to change.

Take into account that a) Sorcerer has always been dragged down by having overestimated experimental mechanics shoved into it. Them being overestimated has always lead to the class being forced to overpay for them. Changing the current mechanics for newer untested mechanics will only lead to them never being good. What will make them be good? Having the current mechanics polished and rebalanced. That is never going to happen if they just keep reinventing the wheel every time, and that is a reason 4e sorcerer worked a bit in context -though it was also severely handicapped by the nature of rituals which weren't designed to account for a nonbook using spellcaster-. b) The new version is a half edition at best, a wildly radical new design is just not going to happen.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally I like Font of Magic.

I like the idea that sorcerers have a tank of raw uncolored magic that they can twist onto other magic.

But I just hoped there would be some more direct uses of it. Like youcould spend points to make you eyes, mouth,hands, or feet magical forawhile

 

[DEFCON 1]

• Too few spells known. The smallest amount out of all full casters. This makes the class harder to play than it should be, and limits the ability to cover a theme because there are just not enough spells.
• Limited class spells. A lot of the sorcerer class spells focus on combat and there aren't enough non-combat utility effects. Also there are basically no exclusive/sorcerer only spells. And most egregious, Dragon sorcerer can't turn into a dragon despite the spell existing in the game!
• Too much pressure on sorcery points. Sorcerer features rely too much on sorcery points. There are too many uses for sorcery points and not enough of them to cast even a full day's assortment of spells and use metamagic, let alone use the other class features.
• Limited Metamagic. Metamagic takes too long to come online and once you have it you have too few metamagic options for most of your career. Some options are nearly must-haves and some are too expensive for what they do. Some options aren't in the core book (like damage change)
• Issues with subclasses. Almost all older subclasses have issues. Wild magic is too reliant on DM cooperation, Dragon magic works fine, as long as you choose a fire dragon... most older subclasses could benefit from bonus spells, and there are only two in core.
• No familiars.

Some minor nitpicks that are more personal:

• Lack of simple weapon proficiency. Spears are an iconic sorcerer weapon, at least let us have proficiency with them. More of a ribbon since most everybody will just blast, but come on! 5e took them away for no reason!
• Needing an arcane focus or material components. It would be nice, real nice if sorcerers could cast without needing to rely on external items. Bring Eschew Materials back!
• Some more nice to have stuff. Like I don't know letting sorcerers have an always-on weaker version of detect magic.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't like the Sorcerer class, but since I know it isn't going away... I think most of the things you have highlighted are all reasonable and doable in a Sorcerer revision.

I think Sorcerers gaining more spells known... or the other method, which is each subclass gains a pair of subclass spells each spell level that don't count against their spells known total is completely reasonable and I imagine will be done.

I think most metamagics are underpowered enough that you don't need to worry about making more of them available to Sorcerer PCs. Personally, I think the easiest/most effective thing to do is have PCs select metamagics they "know" like they do right now... but that they can also use any other metamagics by spending an additional Sorcery Point over their normal cost.

I think Twinned Spell should be removed as a metmagic, as that and Quickened Spell are the two metamagics that cause the most hand-wringing in terms of "overpoweredness"... and it would just save time and energy to remove it entirely as an option and just not try and balance it across every single spell available currently to be Twinned. (Especially considering Sorcerers would be gaining all the other metamagics as an extra thing to replace it with if my point above was incorporated.)

I think there should be a really long thought and playtest of the idea of switching the Sorcerer over to the Spell Point variant, and adding Spell Points and Sorcery Points together into a single pool. That would solve the lack of Sorcery Points issue, and will make a genuine feeling of change and difference between Sorcerers and other spellcasters. But I do think for this to be workable it would need a crap-ton of playtesting... as Sorcerers would now have many more points to spend on metamagics and other abilities, while at the same time perhaps hamstringing themselves if they blow too many points on those things and thus not having enough left over for a proper amount of spells cast in a day. A Spell Point / Sorcery Point combo would open up many more options... but would be harder for players to guesstimate how best to spend the points in the course of a day.

As far as spell lists themselves... I'm torn. On the one hand, I am a firm believer that every single Sorcerer subclass should have a smaller but distinct spell list for just that subclass, with spells specifically chosen to apply to that subclass's theme. So no Fireballs available to Storm Sorcerers for example, but the primal spell Call Lightning is made available instead. But on the other hand... I also fully realize the amount of page real estate you'd have to add to the game to get that done, and that it really probably isn't feasible. Because you're talking every subclass having a spell list of 9 levels worth of spells, plus probably every color of Dragon sorcerer having their own too. That's I think just way too many pages to spend on something that (while cool) just doesn't affect enough people to warrant going that far. So in that regard, I think just sticking with the one Sorcerer spell list and then the additional two spells known from subclass as above is probably the way to go (which perhaps a sidebar in the PHB or DMG on how to create custom spell lists for individual subclasses.)

Familiars? I think on the one hand it's so inconsequential that there's no reason you couldn't add it to the Sorcerer spell list... but I also think it's so inconsequential to any one particular Sorcerer that not having it on the Sorcerer spell list and instead making it available via the Magic Initiate feat at 1st level for those players who REALLY want it would be fine too. If a Sorcerer player wants a familiar they can now get it... but making them available to every Sorcerer is not necessarily needed. So whatever the survey would say about wants/needs for Sorcerer familiars would be fine with me.

Simple Weapon proficiency? Fine. It's a ribbon as you say, so whatever.

Removal of material components? Add a metamagic for it and I'm good with that idea. Remove them entirely from Sorcerers though? Like I've said in all the Psion class discussions... this is one that for balance reasons I completely understand why WotC would not make this change. The game is set up that all spellcasters need components to cast spells across the board. It's easy to remember and there's no questioning of balance or whatever. But the game also makes the ignoring or removing of material components so easy-- either by just using focuses which can be completely forgotten about after they've been bought-- or by letting individual DMs just choose not to use them for their Sorcerers and Psions if that matters to them. But no one needs the book itself to remove material components for them.

*****

In terms of other potential sorcerer abilities? Unfortunately I think the bigger issue with Sorcerers there compared to Wizards is that the Sorcerer's narrative of character really comes out of their subclass and not their class. For Wizards... it doesn't matter what spell school you focus on, all the narrative parts of who you are is from the Wizard class itself. Regardless of school, you still treat magic like a science, you still have to memorize your spells via spell books, you still can acquire new spells by copying from or using other spell books as though they were instruction manuals, etc. But for Sorcerers... who you are comes directly out of your Origin. Your subclass gives us the narrative of how you acquired your ability to manipulate magic. And the term 'Sorcerer' is almost just a title heading for bringing all these individual casters together, as opposed to an actual thing you are. But that makes it harder to give the class itself more goodies, as those goodies have to be generic enough to apply to every single Origin out there. Like all Sorcerers being able to detect magic at will? Should an Aberrant Mind be able to do that? Does that make sense? Mayyyyyyyyybe? I'm sure someone could reason out why this psionic character might detect magic, but it doesn't automatically make sense. And that's going to be the true of a lot of potential "Sorcerer" features one might want to add to the overarching class. Clockwork Souls and Divine Souls and Wild Mages and Storm Sorcerers are all very different animals... and thus finding features that would make sense to all of them will require a bit of doing. Not impossible by any stretch... but definitely would require some careful thought.