D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[CreamCloud0]

And yet, as I've said before, why are there not tons of magical humans running around breaking the limits of mundanity in nearly all published 5e settings? Your description of a magical world doesn't fit the examples of worlds we've seen in many cases.

just because anyone has the capacity to doesn't mean they inherently will, like, you're basically asking 'well given any person on earth technically has the potential to become an olympic athlete or a doctor why aren't we up to our armpits in gold medal finalists and brain surgeons'

 

[Flights of Fancy]

the concept of the wizard as sorcerer subclass is that yes they have the gift of magic,

Which is good if you like that concept. My point was some people do, others don't. For persons who do not it does not work.

But not everyone who reads spellbooks can cast from them. There's more to it than that or you'd get bookish clerics casting wizard spells.

My take is actually pretty simple. Anyone can learn wizarding magic, but to power it they need to carry out some obscure rituals. And if you haven't carried out some version of those rituals attempting wizarding magic will be ... unpredictable as your magic is balanced differently than it is for wizards. Because wizards take time and effort to keep theirs balanced to allow themselves flexibility. Anyone in theory can learn this - but not everyone does. The gift is self-made through the ritual or rituals. (Different wizards have different rituals, but they all know most of their rituals are basically a mnemonic device so they don't screw them up).

For your take that works. But in option 2 there is no gift. You learn to cast spells as wizard through learning magic and utilizing it. Others reading wizard spellbook gain nothing from them as they are not wizards.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Right. If one wanted to conceptually merge the sorcerer and the wizard, this would be the way to do it. Wizardry is a way to refine sorcery, implying that wizard is the subclass of the sorcerer and not other way around.

That is option 1 yes.

If the other way, sorcerer would be wizard subclass that through will force or blood has broken the link to the spellbook and no longer relies on it.

 

[CleverNickName]

What is the sorcerer's reason for existence? Does it have enough traction to continue as a class?

Weird flex, but okay...I'll take a crack at answering your questions.

What is the sorcerer's reason for existence?
Well, I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:

• Because lots of people think they are fun to play.
• Because lots of people wanted a different way to cast spells.
• Because "innate magic" is a popular trope in fantasy literature, JRPGs, and elsewhere.
• Lots of people want more Charisma-based options

Does it have enough traction to continue as a class?
Obviously it does, since it has been included and expanded in the last three and a half editions of the game and will be included in the revised 5E rules later this year.

But as far as Redundant Wizards go, I'd be more concerned about the newer, less popular Artificer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For your take that works. But in option 2 there is no gift. You learn to cast spells as wizard through learning magic and utilizing it. Others reading wizard spellbook gain nothing from them as they are not wizards.

Which is the way it works now and the way it works with my take. You seem to want to change the wizard class so anyone can pick up a wizard spell book and use it immediately?

 

[tetrasodium]

Weird flex, but okay...I'll take a crack at answering your questions.

What is the sorcerer's reason for existence?
Well, I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:

• Because lots of people think they are fun to play.
• Because lots of people wanted a different way to cast spells.
• Because "innate magic" is a popular trope in fantasy literature, JRPGs, and elsewhere.
• Lots of people want more Charisma-based options

Does it have enough traction to continue as a class?
Obviously it does, since it has been included and expanded in the last three and a half editions of the game and will be included in the revised 5E rules later this year.

But as far as "redundant wizards" go, I'd be more concerned about the newer, less popular Artificer.

Itwo if not all three of those seem to be saying the same thing. 'm not sure that I'd call "has a more valuable primary attribute instead of intelligence in an edition that took great pains to devalue intelligence" a different way of casting spells

 

[Micah Sweet]

High level = Superhuman

Perhaps. But that certainly doesn't jive with this, "the world is magical, so everyone is superhuman" idea some insist is the default of D&D without evidence.

 

[CleverNickName]

Itwo if not all three of those seem to be saying the same thing. 'm not sure that I'd call "has a more valuable primary attribute instead of intelligence in an edition that took great pains to devalue intelligence" a different way of casting spells

True; I should have written "preparing" instead of "casting." And you're right about Intelligence in 5E...its the defacto "dump stat" for most of the characters at my game table. I've made a few adjustments to it that have helped a bit:

• Initiative is Intelligence-based. This makes it more about alertness, quick thinking, and the ability to size up a situation or an opponent.
• Ranged attack rolls are Intelligence-based. This makes it more about calculating trajectories, compensating for wind, motion, and cover, studying angles and doing trigonometry in one's head.
• And I'll mention this anyway even though it's not a house-rule: magical traps use Int (Arcana), not Dex (Sleight of Hand).

Dex is still used for stealth, acrobatics, armor class, picking locks and pockets, and almost half of all save throws in the game...so nobody is getting left out. (Even our rogue doesn't mind these changes.)

Anyway. That's a whole other topic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Weird flex, but okay...I'll take a crack at answering your questions.

What is the sorcerer's reason for existence?
Well, I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:

• Because lots of people think they are fun to play.
• Because lots of people wanted a different way to cast spells.
• Because "innate magic" is a popular trope in fantasy literature, JRPGs, and elsewhere.
• Lots of people want more Charisma-based options

Does it have enough traction to continue as a class?
Obviously it does, since it has been included and expanded in the last three and a half editions of the game and will be included in the revised 5E rules later this year.

But as far as Redundant Wizards go, I'd be more concerned about the newer, less popular Artificer.

Any in-universe reasons? Everything you cited was an appeal to popularity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Telepathy is not gained by someone who is quoted m. It's not part of their skill set and not something they were born with

I'm familiar with mesmer and he's generally considered quite discredited. Ithink you've misunderstood who you were responding to and are relying on telepathic transmission of the point that you are trying to make in order to avoid elaborating and being descriptive of your point. I'm woefully unskilled with telepathy and not seeing where you elaborated,... I'd be thrilled if you could bestow telepathy rather than elaborating but would appreciate either if the point can stand well enough that it allows you to you so so.

what's mesmer? actually i don't care, it's not important.

the discussion went like this: (granted with alot more back and forth but summarising)


'why should a human fighter/rogue be able to do extraordinary feats without a power source? earth humans cant do all that'

'they do have a power source, it's the ones that are part of quite literally everything: magic and ki, the world isn't earth'

'fighters/rogues don't use magic or ki, it's not in their class descriptions, the other classes have explicit power sources'

'the description of the world states that there is a level of magic in literally everything, and ki in all living things, they use that, they start with everything they ever need to be powerful, other classes use additional sources of magic and ki for powering their abilities but fighter/rogue just use the base enhancements that everybody starts with'

'fighter/rogue gain their power through feats+christmas tree'

'no. everything they need to be strong is in the power of the base class'

'so hypothetical base class barista can have enough power to match up against an optimised dragon cyborg feats+christmas tree without any assistance? what if the barista also gains optimised dragon cyborg feats+christmas tree traits?'

'this is before feats+christmas tree'


do you see what the original point was and how the misunderstanding occured now?