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

[Frozen_Heart]

ngl I don't find metamagic an interesting mechanic. It used to just be a general caster feat, and 'bad wizard with a feat glued on' shouldn't be a class.

The 5e playtest sorcerer didn't have metamagic at all, and all its power and theme was in the subclass. It was such a unique and fun mechanic and led to a completely different class story and battlefield niche compared to wizard.

Even if it wasn't a sorcerer, what I'd give to have those mechanics and class story back again in 1DnD.

 

[Incenjucar]

Most metamagic makes more sense to me as something that a Vancian caster does as part of memorization, adding the inherent cost of possibly making the wrong call on what will be needed during the day. For them, magic is mechanical.

Spontaneous casters should have more "physical" interactions with their magic where they can do things faster and stronger or more often than normal, For them, magic is biological.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thematically the sorcerer is great. It's the "none of the above" caster. Wizards get their power from reading books. Warlocks from patrons. And sorcerers are the "none of the above" choice; the seventh son of a seventh son, the person who was hit by lightning by the Century Storm, the person abandoned in the Shadowfell and survived, the one with weird blood, the one with a psychic parasite, etc. etc. If one full arcane caster deserves to leave for being thematically bland and boring it's the wizard.

Mechanically ... yeah. The sorcerer and wizard need differentiating, and the wizard was there first.

 

[fuindordm]

After all, it's fine that Fighter and Barbarian exist. Two mostly non-magical martial classes in one game, whose only difference is the arbitrary mechanics? As long as one isn't head-and-shoulders above the other, I think it's fine.

Martials and spellcasters aren't even playing the same game in some ways, which is another problem. I think fighter, barbarian, and rogue coexist well because their rules encourage different styles of combat. Naturally, the rules could go even further to differentiate them, and it seems like 1D&D is trying to do this to some extent.

On the other hand, in the current playtest, I have trouble seeing how wizard and sorcerer would provide a different experience for players. I don't actually have a problem with metamagic being the sorcerer's niche to encourage a different style. As @Dausuul said :

IMO, what this means is that the designers should emphasize building up the distinctness of the classes. If the sorcerer can't be eliminated, then it should be given a job; I think that job should include making the class work well for players who want simpler spellcasters with less bookkeeping.

So give them more sorcery points, and more metamagic options, and let them do more weird things with their few spells known--even (shocking) improvising variations on their spells that are not strictly covered by the rules!

Imagine if your sorcerer player could say :
"I'd like to cast fireball, but bounce it off the building across the street and through the open window"
"I'd like to cast gust of wind, so it blows straight down on that flying monster and forces it to land"
"I'd like to cast shatter, but make the sound ultrasonic so that it frightens all the wolves"

 

[fuindordm]

Thematically the sorcerer is great. It's the "none of the above" caster. Wizards get their power from reading books. Warlocks from patrons. And sorcerers are the "none of the above" choice; the seventh son of a seventh son, the person who was hit by lightning by the Century Storm, the person abandoned in the Shadowfell and survived, the one with weird blood, the one with a psychic parasite, etc. etc. If one full arcane caster deserves to leave for being thematically bland and boring it's the wizard.

Mechanically ... yeah. The sorcerer and wizard need differentiating, and the wizard was there first.

I agree the wizard looks pretty boring storywise compared to the sorcerer and warlock nowadays. Its story is a relic from a different era of fantasy writing and Gary Gygax' gamist effort to make a class with truly impressive magic and strong limitations on using it. But the spells have been downgraded since that time, and the limitations have been diluted to ribbons.

The ability to have unlimited spells known, and to invent new spells are still key to the class. But "inventing spells" should be much more flexible than the pseudo-metamagic Modify Spell. I think the new ability to swap out prepared spells during the day is actually a pretty exciting addition to the class.

 

[Stalker0]

Now Story-wise is I think the even BIGGER reason why people want the class to exist-- because the flavor text of the class is their preferred method for the acquisition of magical power. Sorcerers just have it. It is innate. For however they acquired it, for however it manifests itself, for whatever reason they can use it... some players just like that narrative. And that narrative is MUCH different than the narrative of the Wizard (who had to study magic like it was a science and learn how to use it), the narrative of the Warlock (who had to make a deal with some powerful extradimensional being for the power in exchange for some type of service), and narrative of the Bard (who, like the Wizard, had to learn how to manipulate magic but did so via music rather than book studying.)

A good summary.

Now is this worthy of a class versus a subclass vs a feat, etc.... that is always more of a preference. Should a paladin be its own class or a fighter/cleric? Should a warlord be a thing or just a subclass of fighter, etc. Its always a preference and the answer is you could do it any of those ways.

But since the sorc has gotten elevated to base class status, its likely not to go away. And so the goal is to ensure the sorc's mechanics properly reflect the flavor and give a distinctive niche all of its own. In this regard, I think the 5e sorc has been mostly a failure. I really don't get any sense of innate magic from them, metamagics feels like an add-on more than a core feature. And worse, I think the warlock just does the motiff better, the warlock with its at-will invocations feels a lot more "innate magic" to me than the sorc does.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I think this is a good argument for improving the sorcerer and taking some of the wizards toys

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sorcerers being the 'one with metamagic' is so weird to me.

Not only did the Sage absolutely wreck the Sorc's ability with metamagic in 3e, making it completely useless by making it a full round action (even Quicken!), but metamagic feels like a thing you get to do by studying magic, not having magic as a mutant power like Wanda Maximoff.

I feel like the sorc should be the one with a huge spell list and the wizard should be the one that optimizes the ones they manage to tease out through study.

 

[Incenjucar]

A wizard being able to take a prepared spell and modify it as a ritual would be great, too.

Imagine they have fireball prepared, but what they really need is to melt a hole in the fireproof cavern wall, so they draw some metamagic runes on the wall and cast Fireball, converting it into an Acid Ball and making a nice big exit.

 

[Blue]

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

When introduced in 3rd edition, its only distinction from the wizard was limited spells known and more spell slots. The class was a reaction to Vancian spell preparation, but didn't introduce any new story elements to support the mechanical change.

The very first paragraph of the description introduces where they are different from a narrative perspective. They are the raw talents, the ones who control magic innately instead of through study. And it even brings in that some claim draconic bloodlines. We have a story description.

(If you are conflating "story elements" and "specific setting lore elements" then that shouldn't be in the core books.)

And really, a native talent arcanist is a common archetype in novels, shows and movies. It is fulfilling the primary duty of a class - allow players to create characters to fulfill archetypes and genre tropes. Mechanics are just how, and never by themselves justify a class. This is the "why", and it's a good one considering how common those archetypes are.

Over time, and through into 5th edition, designers leaned into the "ancestry" theme, proposing sorcerer variants and subclasses that granted new spells or magical powers so the PC could be more like a dragon/demon/angel/aberration/etc.

Not wrong, but incomplete. Less than half the subclasses focus on an ancestry, with the majority mentioning an ancestry or "growing up near a source of X" or just "born with them" as one possible source while also listing other sources that are not ancestry themed. I was surprised when I first realized this myself.

So the PC got some story hooks, but they always came from the customization and not the base class. In 5th edition the design also introduced sorcery points and metamagic for sorcerers--but as with the 3rd edition innovation, this feature is a meta-gaming rule innovation intended to create contrast with wizards, with minimal story or flavor to back it up.

The flavor that sorcerers are the masters of their magic, so they know fewer spells but can do more things with them than a wizard?

Sorry, that's been well established, this is also wrong.

On the other side of the fence, the wizard also got new magical powers through "specialization". Initially this provided more spell slots and a boost to learning spells in one of the "academic" schools, but wizard specializations now have much wider variety than the 8 schools, and also grant innate magical powers to the PC.

Yes, classes get subclasses with features. This is a truism.

Consider a wizard and a feyblooded sorcerer, both specialized in illusions.

No, I won't. Because you are putting restrictions on the feyblood in order to have it match a particular wizard subclass. And you're not even doing with an official subclass, so I have no idea or care how much an official subclass is to a wizard subclass.

The two PCs have different innate powers via their subclasses, but in 5th edition they both prepare spells, cast with spell slots, can modify their spells (the wizard needs more time and does it later), get some extra spell slots (arcane recovery vs sorcery points)... in short they are functionally very similar.

Um, no, they don't both prepare spells. The sorcerer has spells known. Quite a different mechanic.

Yes, they use spell slots, just like clerics and rangers and everything that uses spells, just like we use a d20+modifiers >= to a target - it's a universal mechanic for ease of understanding.

And saying that because they use a universal mechanic of spellcasting they are similar is saying that the druid and the wizard are similar. It's too far to even be a stretch, it's irrelevant.

Frankly, my own feeling is that the sorcerer has outlived its usefulness as a base class.

First, what you said could equally be that the wizard has outlived it's usefulness as a base class.

Second, every point you've brought up has been factually incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant.

Come back with a solid foundation and we can talk about your ideas. But your understanding of the sorcerer is profoundly flawed. I'm not even a fan of the current implementation of the sorcerer but I feel compelled to set right the facts instead of this narrative.