D&D 5E What should a Sorcerer do?

[ExploderWizard]

They Sorcer?

 

[CapnZapp]

As long as you view the Sorcerer as the fantasy equivalent to the Gunslinger, it works fine.

It's when you expect the Sorcerer to fill the "arcane caster" party slot you run into problems. As said, he only brings the hammer. Don't expect the full toolbox.

In other words, the main disadvantage IMHO is that you still need a wizard!

Bringing along a bard or warlock doesn't perhaps provide the same amount of sheer firepower, but a lot more flexibility and "there's a spell for that" solutions.

After all, damage is what them fighters do nowadays. Sure fireball is neat, but if the only thing you need is damage, the rest of the party does that already.

In short, focusing on damage isn't what a small party needs most from its only arcane caster.

In a larger group, OTOH, I'm sure a Sorcerer can really kick ass, as a second caster freed from the toolbox expectations!

 

[Minigiant]

In short, focusing on damage isn't what a small party needs most from its only arcane caster.

In a larger group, OTOH, I'm sure a Sorcerer can really kick ass, as a second caster freed from the toolbox expectations!

There is truth in this.
A sorcerer in a party with 2 casters already is going wreck face.
Sorcerers kill boss monsters. (Insert Deity) help a boss facing a sorcerer with a store of slots and points.

Also when the game skews heavy to one pillar, the sorcerer quickly becomes the best caster. If your game is 90% killing or 80% talking, sorcerers get close to broken.

 

[Mephista]

I feel that I should point out that there's not a huge "arcane party spot" anymore. Yes, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard are the traditional. But the game plays well with any combination of characters. The only thing you -need- from a person is to be semi-competent at what he's designed to do, and to have fun with him.

Wizards are magical toolboxes, always the right tool for the job. Sorcerers are magical athletes, having much more punch to their spells when they cast them, but not as good at the utility things. In many ways, the difference is much like the difference between rogue and fighter. Lots of utility and combat stuff versus a heavy focus on war, just with magic instead of tools.

Sorcerers shouldn't be expected to act like wizards. There shouldn't be those expectations, anymore than we should expect a bard to act like the cleric all the time. Yes, some similarities in healing spells, but play wise, we don't expect a bard to be a student of religion or to turn undead.

 

[Coredump]

I think the 'new' subclasses should not add so many new spells.... but instead allow for more metamagic options. Giving more spells makes the Sorc more like the Wiz, more meta lets them be more like the sorc.

 

[houser2112]

I think the 'new' subclasses should not add so many new spells.... but instead allow for more metamagic options. Giving more spells makes the Sorc more like the Wiz, more meta lets them be more like the sorc.

The 3.5E sorc at 20th had almost as many spells known for levels 1-3 (14) than the 5E sorc has total (15), and you still had to agonize over your choices. I don't think the new subclasses go far enough to make me think of the sorc as anything but a 3 level dip, if that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorcerers shouldn't be expected to act like wizards.

That's an admirable ambition.

However, in a party of four, there's probably only a spot for one arcane caster.

And the expectations on "the arcane caster of our party" are determined by necessity, no matter what you or I say, want or even like.

 

[Zelc]

And the expectations on "the arcane caster of our party" are determined by necessity, no matter what you or I say, want or even like.

Actually, I'm curious. In 5e, what are the expectations on "the arcane caster of the party", and how much of that can't be fulfilled by the Sorcerer?

We can use levels 3, 7, 11, and 15 as benchmarks.

 

[Mephista]

That's an admirable ambition.

However, in a party of four, there's probably only a spot for one arcane caster.

And the expectations on "the arcane caster of our party" are determined by necessity, no matter what you or I say, want or even like.

One, I'm not sure that there's such a thing as "arcane" or "divine" casters in 5e. I don't recall reading anything to that effect in the core books. No roles, no power sources.

Two, Favored Soul in 3e was a divine class. Spirit Shaman was another divine class inspired by Sorcerer we'll likely see as a 5e Sorcerer subclass. So, even if the Dragon Sorcerer is the 3e arcane caster Sorcerer, I don't think we can apply the term to the 5e class as a whole

Three, the traditional role of the arcane caster is actually "one man artillery." That's what they did back in 1e through 3e. In 4e terms, that was Controller, which all Arcane Power Source classes had a bit in their design as a secondary thing. You might be thinking of all the utility stuff that the Wizard can pull off, which is pretty much the wizard alone, as that's kind of their stick in 5e. The only other thing I can think of is the Arcane skill check, which pretty much anyone can take now.

Four, 5e Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (all "arcane" classes in the past) aren't known for such wide utility as the wizard; I don't think they ever were. Bard actually has more in common with the "divine" cleric, despite being called "arcane" in the past.


I really think that expectations of an "arcane caster" is nothing more than previous edition ideas slipping over where we don't need them. I'd still say you should have someone that can cover ranged AoEs, but a Light Cleric or Land Druid can cover that as easily as an Evoker or a Dragon or Stormsoul Sorcerer. Hells, a Ranger with their bow magic can pull it off. Healing is good, but there's lots of ways to get that without a "divine" class.

But needing utility magic? That's really not a big concern anymore, with how much they've balanced spells to ensure they don't negate the need for skills. If anything, I'd say having a skill monkey is more important than a wizard in 5e!

 

[vandaexpress]

One, I'm not sure that there's such a thing as "arcane" or "divine" casters in 5e. I don't recall reading anything to that effect in the core books. No roles, no power sources.

Two, Favored Soul in 3e was a divine class. Spirit Shaman was another divine class inspired by Sorcerer we'll likely see as a 5e Sorcerer subclass. So, even if the Dragon Sorcerer is the 3e arcane caster Sorcerer, I don't think we can apply the term to the 5e class as a whole

Three, the traditional role of the arcane caster is actually "one man artillery." That's what they did back in 1e through 3e. In 4e terms, that was Controller, which all Arcane Power Source classes had a bit in their design as a secondary thing. You might be thinking of all the utility stuff that the Wizard can pull off, which is pretty much the wizard alone, as that's kind of their stick in 5e. The only other thing I can think of is the Arcane skill check, which pretty much anyone can take now.

Four, 5e Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (all "arcane" classes in the past) aren't known for such wide utility as the wizard; I don't think they ever were. Bard actually has more in common with the "divine" cleric, despite being called "arcane" in the past.


I really think that expectations of an "arcane caster" is nothing more than previous edition ideas slipping over where we don't need them. I'd still say you should have someone that can cover ranged AoEs, but a Light Cleric or Land Druid can cover that as easily as an Evoker or a Dragon or Stormsoul Sorcerer. Hells, a Ranger with their bow magic can pull it off. Healing is good, but there's lots of ways to get that without a "divine" class.

But needing utility magic? That's really not a big concern anymore, with how much they've balanced spells to ensure they don't negate the need for skills. If anything, I'd say having a skill monkey is more important than a wizard in 5e!

Agree with this 100%. I'm not convinced that "arcane caster" is a role that needs to be filled anymore in 5e. The party I'm running has neither a cleric or a wizard; instead I've got a bard, sorc, ranger, barb, and paladin. They're closing in on 7th level in Tyranny of Dragons and thus far haven't really encountered anything they couldn't overcome. Yes, there's the occasional time where it might make things easier if there was a wizard (Leomund's tiny hut, I'm looking at you) but there hasn't been a "need" for an arcane caster.

The need seems to be more focused on overcoming obstacles, like Mephista said: ranged AOE, melee, ranged single target DPR, and then overcoming traps, locked doors, solving puzzles and the like. Most non-combat obstacles I've seen can be overcome with ability checks nowadays. Sure you might have an arcane glyph that needs to be dispelled but my party just goes around it.

I don't know. Maybe I'm not taking everything into consideration. When I started DMing this group I thought in terms of the traditional arcane/divine/fighter/rogue party composition archetypes and they just don't really come into play as much as I thought. The only things that I would say are pretty much non-negotiable necessities for a typical dungeon-crawling party are general combat ability and someone with proficiency with thief's tools. Even a dedicated healer doesn't seem like quite as much of a "must-have" as it used to be, but this will vary on availability of potions and encounter compositions the party typically faces.