This is a very odd argument.
By that logic, they can and should give wizards the ability to wear plate and use greatswords as well, because you can choose to play a robed wizard in a staff if you want but you're not limited if you want a different type of wizard.
I'm a 4E player. 4E wizards, if they pay the price in stats and proficiency feats, are entirely capable of using plate (tricky, requiring stat investment and multiple feats) and greatswords (easy, one feat). Despite the option being there, few take it. The costs outweigh the benefits.
I'm not opposed at all to the idea of wizards in plate with greatswords. They'd still be lousy melee combatants (not to mention lousy spellcasters if you didn't also ditch Arcane Spell Failure).
(I should also note that despite the frequent use of them in examples, the playtest sorcerer is not proficient in the use of greatswords. Greatswords are heavy weapons, the draconic sorcerer only has access to martial weapons.)
Sorcerers are the class for people who like wizards but hate the wizard spell system. So they should be simmilar in play to the wizard, a simmilar role.
3E Sorcerers were, sure. 4E Sorcerers were not. There weren't any Sorcerers in earlier editions, to the best of my knowledge, so it's not like there's a long tradition of how sorcerers in D&D
must be in order to be right.
Right now the playtest Sorcerer seems to combine elements of both versions, as well as adding a few new spices to the mix.
If they want sorcerers to be wizards with a different spell system, I don't think there's really enough
there to justify having a separate class. All you'd need is a set of optional Spell Point rules for the Wizard.
As its own class, it has its own flavour, and needs the mechanics to be able to back up that different flavour. Not all of the flavours they come up with are going to appeal to everyone, nor should they.
They're trying to force the sorcerer into the gish archetype when it might not have been the best fit.
It's too much. Too much change and too many ideas too fast. Which might be the intent: toss out all the potential ideas and see which are received well and which are not.
I don't see it as forcing anything. I see it as offering an option. Not all Sorcerers will be draconic. Not all of them will have access to additional armours and weapons. Not all draconic sorcerers will invest in the resources to benefit from the melee boosts.
You need Str or Dex in order to make effective use of the weapon proficiencies and attack bonus. Probably Str, as finesse weapons offer no damage advantage over the basic weapons that everyone is proficient with, whereas the martial ones do.
The wizard, not pursuing melee, is free to put his stats somewhere else. Perhaps Con to offset the HP advantage. Perhaps Cha to make up some ground in social situations.
I also don't see it as too much change or too fast. The 3E and 4E Sorcerers were quite different from each other. If anything, the differences between this sorcerer and the 3E one are smaller than the differences between this and the 4E one, which didn't have to share a spell list (except amongst different flavours of sorcerer).
I'll take sorcerers as the melee spellcaster, the replacement for the bladesinger/ duskbade/ magus/ swordmage if that's what they're focused at being. It's not ideal as it's a big departure from the old sorcerer.
I don't think it's a replacement for the swordmage or bladesinger, at least not as I'm familiar with them from 4E. The bladesinger cast magic and fights in melee simultaneously, not alternating between the two. The swordmage's magic
is melee magic, not borrowed wizard spells that are mostly intended for use at range. It's a spellcaster who gives up a good deal of magical power and options in exchange for being a pretty decent melee combatant (or a melee combatant who gives up a good deal of melee power and options in exchange for being a pretty decent spellcaster).
All else being equal (same stat array, for instance), the draconic sorcerer is a less competent spell-caster than the wizard, and a less competent melee combatant than the fighter. Trying to be particularly good in either category will weaken their effectiveness in the other, and can never actually catch them up. Trying to support two separate attack stats means forsaking all secondary stats.
Right now, why be a wizard when you can cast the same spells with twice the hitpoints, far higher AC, and a killer melee attack as a fallback?
Why be the wizard?
All issues of different class flavour aside, here's a few mechanical incentives to choose the wizard instead of the sorcerer:
Higher Magic Attack - The draconic Sorcerer's extra +1 to weapon attacks puts them exactly 1 ahead of the Wizard in weapon attacks. In return, for
magical attacks, the wizard starts out 1 ahead, and moves up to 2 ahead at level 4.
Higher Spell DC - Again, the Wizard starts out 1 point ahead, and moves up to 2 ahead at level 4.
Earlier access to higher tier spells - The Sorcerer gains tier 2 spells at level 4. The Wizard gains access to them at level 3, as well as getting tier 3 spells at level 5.
Access to a broader list of spells - The Sorcerer spell-list is a sub-set of the Wizard list. Any spell the Sorcerer can cast, the Wizard can as well. The reverse is not true.
More spells - The Sorcerer knows 6 spells at level 5. The Wizard knows 9. The Sorcerer gets 2 cantrips to start, the Wizard gets 3. The Sorcerer starts with 2 spells, the Wizard starts with 5.
Extra skill - The Wizard gains a free knowledge skill, which benefits from Intelligence being their main stat. The Sorcerer gains no skills outside of those provided by their background.
Yes, you are missing something .
And, with this, you are being dismissive and not interested discussion, I have never stated that I don't want a martial sorcerer. I have offered an alternative that keeps the base sorcerer of all heritages as non martial keeping with the 3e version in that respect, but also allowing for martial sorcerers of any heritage (much like the 3e battle sorcerer) using existing mechanics for customizing characters.
However, since you are dismissive and, apparently did not read the full posts, that is all I am going to write in reply. Have fun gaming!
My apologies, it was not my intent to be dismissive, and I am interested in discussion.
I think your proffered alternative has a few rather major flaws.
1) Backgrounds and Specialties are, so far anyways, designed to be optional. In any campaign where they are not in use, your approach removes the option of the armoured sorcerer altogether.
2) Backgrounds do not give weapon or armour proficiencies, nor do they give attack bonuses. Specialties, through feats, could. However, as feats are largely cross-class, putting an attack bonus into a feat sets a bad precedent in a flattened math system. The attack bonus either has to reside in the heritage choice or it has to go away. It really doesn't have anywhere else to go.
3) Removing additional proficiencies and attack bonuses from the list of viable ways to differentiate heritages lessens the design space available.
4) Requiring the specialization resource to be committed to achieving the armoured sorcerer shuts armoured sorcerers off from all other specializations.
5) The Cleric already has set the precedent that an internal-to-class customization option (Domain) is a perfectly viable way to grant additional weapon and armour proficiencies.
- or about werewolves or the White Wolf games. So I have no idea if and how I'd adapt that. But we don't call the Shadowrun Shaman a Shaman for just those reasons. Depending on the game, it's bender or magician. 
