D&D 5E Was there a mistake with the sorcerer weapons? (sorcerer and simple weapons)

[Scorpio616]

In 3e, the extra weapon proficiencies seemed to be part of the trade off for a more limited range of spells compared to the wizard. In 5e, the sorcerous heritage features seem to occupy that space.

Agree, i'd treat the option to posses a weapon they are not specifically granted proficiency for is the error. They are definitely full casters now.

 

[MoonSong]

Agree, i'd treat the option to posses a weapon they are not specifically granted proficiency for is the error. They are definitely full casters now.

Clerics, bards, warlocks and druids are full casters too and they have simple weapons, bards and clerics even wield some martial ones. And spell varriety isn't a justiffication bards already know more spells than sorcerers and have more skill proficiencies.

 

[Andor]

No idea what I was thinking...

 

[The Hitcher]

I think it's trivial to allow sorcerers access to all simple weapons. It's not going to break anything.

 

[mach1.9pants]

^This, just make them proficient with simple weapons, not going to break the game IMO

 

[bolo__]

There's no real problem with having a weapon you're not proficient with.
The only drawback is that you do not add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls. That's it.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Paraxis]

There's no real problem with having a weapon you're not proficient with.
The only drawback is that you do not add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls. That's it.

Or am I missing something?

You are missing that a lot if not most see not getting a +2 to +6 bonus to attack as a big deal.
Heck I value a +1 bonus to hit over pretty much any other ability in the game, no character of mine would ever use a weapon he was not proficient in.

But again we are talking sorcerers here giving them simple weapons is trivial, at level 5 and higher cantrips are always going to better, except for attacks of opportunity, and for that I would rather invent a new cantrip than anything else.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Meh. Sorcerers in 3e suffered delayed caster progression, and they no longer have that penalty over Wizards. They also have all the Metamagic powers and Sorcery powers. You've got both Bard and Warlock for an arcane caster with better weapon selection, and if you're willing to suffer delayed progression, you can take a level of Warlock, Fighter, War Cleric, or Barbarian. Furthermore, you have cantrips that largely obviate the need for weapons, particularly past level 5.

 

[Dausuul]

Giving simple weapons to sorcerers won't break anything. They already get quarterstaff, dagger, and light crossbow. What more, mechanically speaking, do you get from simple weapons? Nothing that's going to make a difference except in a few corner cases. Instead of a quarterstaff, you can have a spear, which is just like a quarterstaff only you can throw it 20 feet. Woo. You do more damage and get better range off most attack cantrips.

I see no problem with this house rule. If I had a sorcerer player who wanted to wield a spear, I'd say go for it.

 

[The Hitcher]

There's no real problem with having a weapon you're not proficient with.
The only drawback is that you do not add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls. That's it.

Or am I missing something?

You're missing that CHAR-OP IS ALL! (Welcome to EN World.)