D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Since when are any of these things pacts?

Genuinely not one of those things is a pact. The sorcerer is not "imbued" with magic from a pact. It is some kind of inherent aspect of their being. The cleric is not channeling magic, they are expressing devotion to a belief--unless you mean to devalue literally all of human religion as merely a transactional contract? Even with many of the things that fly today (like outright antitheism from certain segments of the scientific community), I doubt that would go over well. And it's...like it's literally the POINT of the Warlock that you DON'T get "magical knowledge." You DON'T become an expert. You have only what you dealt for--and trying to advance beyond that on your own power doesn't work.

Like please consider for a moment the potential of the warlock chassis for the sorcerer.

I already have. I have found it wanting. Severely so. Fundamentally inadequate, in fact.

People got over the warlord thing too.

No, they didn't. They realized it wasn't worth the bother. There's rather a big difference there.

 

[Zardnaar]

Absolutely. A lot of the people who had an issue with 4E have been exceedingly lazy in giving their reasoning-- the "it's just World of Warcraft" being the most obvious. I do not fault you or anyone else for getting annoyed at those people.

Had this been a thread about 4E specifically and I was reading it I'd probably make a similar point in that vein about the lame reasons people were giving about hating 4E... but since this is a thread about the differences of Sorcerers and Wizards and Minigiant's arguments all devolved down to them hating Wizards because they thought fans of Wizards is what caused 4E to not be embraced... I made the point I did.

It's more the gaslighting and strawmanning about 4E. It's been the default argument sincec2008 context being "they don't really mean they dislike 4E".

A lot of thevpowers are very similar. PHB is full of 1W, 2W, 3W or 1d8, 2d8+ rider effect on every class.

Leader ability 1d6+healing surge as a bonus reaction type deal.

In any event people don't have to explain themselves or justify why they dont like 4E or any other edition.

Doesn't offend me if you don't like 5E or 3.5 or any other edition. My pet favorites are 2E, B/X and 5E btw. Not to fussed if others don't like them. Vanilla starwberry or chocolate it's up to you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Since when are any of these things pacts?

Since you put it in your backstory. Because that's where the warlock pacts are. It is only an explanation of how you got the power, not what the power actually is.

I already have. I have found it wanting. Severely so. Fundamentally inadequate, in fact.

How so and why is the second hand wizard chassis that the sorcerers currently use better?

No, they didn't. They realized it wasn't worth the bother. There's rather a big difference there.

Not really as long as they keep playing. And seems that most did.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's more the gaslighting and strawmanning about 4E. It's been the default argument sincec2008 context being "they don't really mean they dislike 4E".

Is it gaslighting to call someone out when they make patently false statements about a game? One they often admit they never even played?

Because if that's gaslighting now, we've ruined the term, it's become meaningless garbage, and will need to come up with a new one that actually captures the important (and entirely unacceptable) behavior that "gaslighting" used to refer to.

A lot of thevpowers are very similar. PHB is full of 1W, 2W, 3W or 1d8, 2d8+ rider effect on every class.

So every cantrip is the same because it deals 1dN per X levels damage. Every spell is the same because it deals some amount of generalized average dice per spell level.

Your arguments fall flat, Zardnaar. Or do I need to remind you of some of the discussions of yours I've borne witness to, where your blatant bias in favor of 3e and against 4e was so clearly put on display?

Leader ability 1d6+healing surge as a bonus reaction type deal.

So the fact that every healer gets cure wounds in 5e is a problem then? Even though it has less variation than the powers you claim are identical but aren't?

In any event people don't have to explain themselves or justify why they dont like 4E or any other edition.

Unless they say provably false things, of course. I think folks who say provably false things should be called out for saying such things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since you put it in your backstory. Because that's where the warlock pacts are. It is only an explanation of how you got the power, not what the power actually is.

How you get the power is precisely as important as what the power actually is.

That's why we play classes and not spreadsheets. I am genuinely shocked to hear you say anything like this.

How so and why is the second hand wizard chassis that the sorcerers currently use better?

"Better than a garbage fire" is not a ringing endorsement--and I have gone on record more than once as saying I wish the Sorcerer were better.

The original playtest Sorcerer was awesome, and should have been the class we actually got. But the uber-traditionalists hated it because it wasn't 3e-like. So it died before it ever got a chance to show what it could really do.

Using spell points, having physical transformations, and being someone who shifts from a spellcasting-heavy playstyle to a some-other-thing-heavy playstyle, depending on what your Sorcerous Soul is? THAT is a unique and interesting concept, perfectly tailored to the theme and concept of the Sorcerer. It puts their soul front and center, and creates an interesting and dynamic conflict, where the Sorcerer is constantly both struggling with and dependent upon the source of their powers. That's good, interesting mechanical design that reinforces the story and vice-versa.

Not really as long as they keep playing. And seems that most did.

Let me introduce you, then, to what I call "lingering resentment." When someone feels snubbed, and is pushed into a "like it or lump it" position, that tends to upset them. But, because they have been forced to accept a "like it or lump it" result, there is no resolution. Nothing is resolved. It just festers. Such festering feelings can remain below the surface for a very long time, and have subtle effects. The resentment can turn folks away from products they might otherwise favor, because they're starting from a more skeptical position. It can bring together folks who might not otherwise have organized, creating stronger and more strident opposition.

And I think we've been seeing exactly this with the changing response to 5e over time--and the quite clearly growing feeling among 5e players that WotC is out of touch with the playerbase, certainly exacerbated by their idiotic behavior and boneheaded maneuvers of late, but present even before the OGL debacle.

 

[MoonSong]

Since when are any of these things pacts?

Genuinely not one of those things is a pact. The sorcerer is not "imbued" with magic from a pact. It is some kind of inherent aspect of their being. The cleric is not channeling magic, they are expressing devotion to a belief--unless you mean to devalue literally all of human religion as merely a transactional contract? Even with many of the things that fly today (like outright antitheism from certain segments of the scientific community), I doubt that would go over well. And it's...like it's literally the POINT of the Warlock that you DON'T get "magical knowledge." You DON'T become an expert. You have only what you dealt for--and trying to advance beyond that on your own power doesn't work.

The designers have definitely muddied the waters. Instead of leaning onto the sorcerer being all innate and the warlock being all external, they went with "your sorcerer can be also 'created' by an external force", and "your patron changes you."

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.

For a hombrew basic I'm picking warlock and sorcerer to go alongside fighter and rogue. For it, I'm reimagining the warlock as more of a theurgist and spirit speaker. The warlock thus adventures to pay respects in shrines and to find relics and other artifacts related to speciffic spirits and entities to get magic from. Making warlocks thus blast and utility focused.

On the other hand, making sorcerer more generalist and less blasty. Placing support and protection spells there. As part of the divide, sorcerer is a bit slow to cast in combat, but keeps that speed out of combat, while the warlock is fast to cast in combat, but needs a longer time to cast a ritual out of combat. Finally both ckasses have exclusive spells they can learn without a problem and can access a pool of shared spells they need to find by adventuring. Q

 

[MoonSong]

Since you put it in your backstory. Because that's where the warlock pacts are. It is only an explanation of how you got the power, not what the power actually is.

I wish warlocks could risk loing access to their power if they wrong their patron. But that won't happen with paladins not being able to fall, or clerics being able to be cut down from their deity.

 

[Minigiant]

Sorcerous Scales

1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a piece of lizardskin)
Duration: 8 hours


You cause your skin to thicken into protective scales. Your base AC becomes 14 + your Dexterity modifier (maximum +2). The spell ends if the you don armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.

Dragon Scales
If you have the Draconic Bloodline, when you cast sorcerous scales you gain resistance to the damage type of your dragon ancestry and you can spend a number of sorcery points (up to your sorcerer level) to an additional 1d6 slashing damage per point to your unarmed attack as your hands turn to claws

Wild Scales
If you have the Wild Magic origin, when you cast sorcerous scales you gain resistance to damage to attacks when the d20 rolls an odd number as your skin swirls with chaotic energy.

Divine Plate
If you have the Divine Soul origin, when you cast sorcerous scales your skin hardens to brilliant plates increasing your AC to 15 + your Dexterity modifier (maximum +2) and any healing you receive is doubled.

Shadow Scales
If you have the Shadow MAgic origin, when you cast sorcerous scales you know the ray of sickness and false life spells..

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How you get the power is precisely as important as what the power actually is.

That's why we play classes and not spreadsheets. I am genuinely shocked to hear you say anything like this.

It might be important narratively, but not mechanically. Perhaps the fighter learned their battle manoeuvres at a posh fencing school for nobility, perhaps they learned them at an arena where they were forced to fight as a gladiator. Doesn't matter for the mechanics, they work just the same.

"Better than a garbage fire" is not a ringing endorsement--and I have gone on record more than once as saying I wish the Sorcerer were better.

We agree on something. But that's my comparison point. "Would this be an improvement on what we currently have?"

The original playtest Sorcerer was awesome, and should have been the class we actually got. But the uber-traditionalists hated it because it wasn't 3e-like. So it died before it ever got a chance to show what it could really do.

To me not being like the 3e sorcerer would be a selling point.

Using spell points, having physical transformations, and being someone who shifts from a spellcasting-heavy playstyle to a some-other-thing-heavy playstyle, depending on what your Sorcerous Soul is? THAT is a unique and interesting concept, perfectly tailored to the theme and concept of the Sorcerer. It puts their soul front and center, and creates an interesting and dynamic conflict, where the Sorcerer is constantly both struggling with and dependent upon the source of their powers. That's good, interesting mechanical design that reinforces the story and vice-versa.

Yeah, that sounds genuinely cool. Though I think you are fixated on this one specific interpretation of sorcerer, so to you anything that is not that will not do. But if you still have the playtest material, just use it. I tried to search, but unfortunately I didn't find this version.

Let me introduce you, then, to what I call "lingering resentment." When someone feels snubbed, and is pushed into a "like it or lump it" position, that tends to upset them. But, because they have been forced to accept a "like it or lump it" result, there is no resolution. Nothing is resolved. It just festers. Such festering feelings can remain below the surface for a very long time, and have subtle effects. The resentment can turn folks away from products they might otherwise favor, because they're starting from a more skeptical position. It can bring together folks who might not otherwise have organized, creating stronger and more strident opposition.

And I think we've been seeing exactly this with the changing response to 5e over time--and the quite clearly growing feeling among 5e players that WotC is out of touch with the playerbase, certainly exacerbated by their idiotic behavior and boneheaded maneuvers of late, but present even before the OGL debacle.

Perhaps. If there is resentment, I suspect it is mostly regarding more fundamental stuff than this though.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is it gaslighting to call someone out when they make patently false statements about a game? One they often admit they never even played?

Because if that's gaslighting now, we've ruined the term, it's become meaningless garbage, and will need to come up with a new one that actually captures the important (and entirely unacceptable) behavior that "gaslighting" used to refer to.


So every cantrip is the same because it deals 1dN per X levels damage. Every spell is the same because it deals some amount of generalized average dice per spell level.

Your arguments fall flat, Zardnaar. Or do I need to remind you of some of the discussions of yours I've borne witness to, where your blatant bias in favor of 3e and against 4e was so clearly put on display?


So the fact that every healer gets cure wounds in 5e is a problem then? Even though it has less variation than the powers you claim are identical but aren't?


Unless they say provably false things, of course. I think folks who say provably false things should be called out for saying such things.

There's more spell effects in 5E that are different vs 4E phb to phb.

Strawmanning. Putting words in someone's mouth they didn't say.

Gaslighting trying to make people think something they did not.

people have point blank said why they dont like 5E but you pull out some arguement someone said once upon a t8me sonewhere on the internet.

No one said anything about taking toys away from the wizard. Hell its not that popular a class on Beyond, surveys or BG info they released.

Go have a reread like I did a few weeks ago. Each level you get 4 options or so most are some among of damage+rider. The odd heal spell.

More variety in 5E.