D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, if what you think is that sorcerer needs better mecanics, maybe that is what you should argue for instead of calling for its removal or merger into other class (which is a removal, each class has its own fiction, lose the class, lose the fiction)

The combined class can still serve the warlock fiction... or at least part of it. But like I have explained, I don't think warlock fiction is coherent for a separate class. Some "warlocks" would be clerics, some wizards and some these new combined sorlocks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, if what you think is that sorcerer needs better mecanics, maybe that is what you should argue for instead of calling for its removal or merger into other class (which is a removal, each class has its own fiction, lose the class, lose the fiction)

Doubly so when Wizard, perhaps moreso than any other class, has (with one notable OP exception) the thinnest, weakest, least-flavorful, most-limited subclasses in the game. Even Fighters have meatier subclasses than Wizards!

The combined class can still serve the warlock fiction... or at least part of it. But like I have explained, I don't think warlock fiction is coherent for a separate class. Some "warlocks" would be clerics, some wizards and some these new combined sorlocks.

Then you are simply incorrect. The Warlock is perfectly coherent, fictionally, for its own class--and three half-hearted not-Warlocks will not make up for the loss of one actual, full-throated Warlock.

Hence why I said above that D&D in general has somewhere between 18 and 24 class fantasies. Exactly which 18-24, folks will disagree on, but it's quite clear to me that there are at least another five (and likely more) classes that people want full-throated support for, not half-hearted facsimiles that preserve only a token, superficial representation.

And if you thought the "Warlord wars" in the wake of 5e's publication were bad, just wait for a class people actually GOT, and LIKED, in 5e proper.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I never said people hate Sorcerer.

I said WOTC wastes an overly inappropriate amount of time supporting Wizard fans and will change things about the game to support Wizard at the detriment of other classes.

The main class that catches accidental strays is Sorcerer.

It's not malice but poor time management and skewed priorities.

I think this is the real issue:

I'd ague WOTC still doesn't have a clear vision of the sorcerer.

And as long as it is so, it won't get fixed. And I think if they didn't have vision for the class, they shouldn't have printed it. We don't need a bad class with a specific name just because a past edition had a class with that name (and even then not because anyone had a vision, but because a mechanical quirk of that edition.)

The wizard only affects the issue in a sense that the existence of it, warlock and the bard makes the arcane caster design space so crowded that it is hard to come up with sufficiently differentiated ideas.

 

[Minigiant]

The combined class can still serve the warlock fiction... or at least part of it. But like I have explained, I don't think warlock fiction is coherent for a separate class. Some "warlocks" would be clerics, some wizards and some these new combined sorlocks.

The warlock fiction is coherent.

It like the sorcerer, barbarian, ranger,and monk, is not supported well and WOTC promotes flavor that harms the cohesion it has.

I think this is the real issue:

And as long as it is so, it won't get fixed. And I think if they didn't have vision for the class, they shouldn't have printed it. We don't need a bad class with a specific name just because a past edition had a class with that name (and even then not because anyone had a vision, but because a mechanical quirk of that edition.)

The funny part is there is a clear vision for the sorcerer in the books.

It's just that they aren't fans of it enough to explore it past the surface level.

It's like back when I played Hearthstone, the team lead said they were bringing in a designer for each class who was a fan of the class. Because even though they had a primer for each class's design, there wasn't a an of each class on the team. So they were designing the classes without the imagination of what they clasees were supposed to look like and how fans had fun with them.

This has always been a problem for D&D. Designers creating elements they were not personally huge fans of to produce content or fill requirements.

 

[MoonSong]

@Minigiant I think it would be more productive to split the sorcerer rather than merge it into other class. I can see some dicothomies that muddy the design.

• The desire for metamagic versus the desire for a dead simple beginner friendly caster.
• Monster magic versus personal magic.
• Flashy blasty uber magic versus subtler always on magic.
• Wanting to use Constitution versus preserving Charisma.
• Merging the mundane with the magical, versus 'the mundane way is beneath me'.
• The difficulty to match a given theme with an entry on the monster manual.

This way, we could have a class that specializes in embodying a monster or entry in the monster manual. Cast using Constitution, very blasty and with very specialized spell lists that depend on the subclass choice, maybe even with fixed spells known (ala 3.5 warmage) and some room for customization, like choose an spell you want from this list every x levels. This would include the choice of minor always-on minifeats. This class wouldn't have metamagic, but wouldn't require any spell component.

The other would be a class that focuses on magic as instinct and emotion. This one would keep Charisma. Give it a generalistic magic repertorie less modeled on wizard and blasting and more on having a variety of simple effects. With subclass choice giving access to more specialized spells to cover a theme. This one would keep metamagic but divorced from damage dealing and maybe give them more granularity like with spell points.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Doubly so when Wizard, perhaps moreso than any other class, has (with one notable OP exception) the thinnest, weakest, least-flavorful, most-limited subclasses in the game. Even Fighters have meatier subclasses than Wizards!

True. Wizard subclasses are terrible. They need a complete rethink. Necromancer is the only one I'd keep as a concept.

Then you are simply incorrect. The Warlock is perfectly coherent, fictionally, for its own class--and three half-hearted not-Warlocks will not make up for the loss of one actual, full-throated Warlock.

But it is not. Pact imbues you with magic = sorcerer. Pact lets you channel magic from a powerful being = cleric. The pact gives you magical knowledge = wizard.

Also, I don't think that "edgy creepy caster" is something that needs to be attached to one class. It is a seasoning, not the meal, and would go well as additional flavour with many different classes.

Hence why I said above that D&D in general has somewhere between 18 and 24 class fantasies. Exactly which 18-24, folks will disagree on, but it's quite clear to me that there are at least another five (and likely more) classes that people want full-throated support for, not half-hearted facsimiles that preserve only a token, superficial representation.

I'm sure some people want that. But no, there is no mass demand for more classes, and most certainly people cant decide which ones they would be. Furthermore, the point of subclasses is that they allow adding a twist to existing classes, so we don't need that many full classes to represent wide variety of concepts. And it is not really "watered down" to do it this way. It ensures that the designers can make reasonably number of solid base classes, which in turn help support the subclasses. A solid chassis matters, and currently the sorcerer doesn't have one.

Like please consider for a moment the potential of the warlock chassis for the sorcerer. Each subclass could have their own additional invocations to strengthen their theme. Like all those dragon scales and wings etc could be such options.

And if you thought the "Warlord wars" in the wake of 5e's publication were bad, just wait for a class people actually GOT, and LIKED, in 5e proper.

People got over the warlord thing too. Well, most people... But that reminded me, I hope they completely redo the banneret in the update!

 

[Minigiant]

@Minigiant I think it would be more productive to split the sorcerer rather than merge it into other class. I can see some dicothomies that muddy the design.

• The desire for metamagic versus the desire for a dead simple beginner friendly caster.
• Monster magic versus personal magic.
• Flashy blasty uber magic versus subtler always on magic.
• Wanting to use Constitution versus preserving Charisma.
• Merging the mundane with the magical, versus 'the mundane way is beneath me'.
• The difficulty to match a given theme with an entry on the monster manual.

This way, we could have a class that specializes in embodying a monster. Cast using Constitution, very blasty and with very specialized spell lists that depend on the subclass choice, maybe even with fixed spells known (ala 3.5 warmage) and some room for customization, like choose an spell you want from this list every x levels. This would include the choice of minor always-on minifeats.

I mentioned that exact thing in post 204

And I've long been a propoent of a basic beginner blaster caster class.

Don't get me started on Hexblade. Why Patrons can't make a pact to make you into a noncasting warrior instead of a mage is beyond me.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why Patrons can't make a pact to make you into a noncasting warrior instead of a mage is beyond me.

I'm sure they can. That's called being a fighter or barbarian with a quirky backstory.

 

[MoonSong]

People got over the warlord thing too. Well, most people...

Yeah, I didn't.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm sure they can. That's called being a fighter or barbarian with a quirky backstory.

Fighter doesn't give invocations