D&D 5E The Sorcerer's Spells OR Do we want another magic class?

Minigiant · Oct 25, 2015

So due to the confusion of the poll and its hidden aspect in my thread on the Soul of the Sorcerer, I've decided to ask a few new questions. There seemed to b a desire for change in the sorcerer class. However the history of the sorcerer class prevented WOTC from uprooting its mechanics too far from what it once was. So I wonder it there is a desire for yet another magical class which is free from the baggage of prior edition's fluff and crunch. Or if the sorcerer just need new origins and feats to match the needed.

[h=5]1. WHICH SPELLS SHOULD THE SORCERER HAVE ACCESS TO?[/h]

No spells. Only flexible non-spell magic features.
Every spell from every spellcasting class with origin spells being more powerful.
Every spell from every spellcasting class with origin spells automatically known.
Every spell from the arcane classes (bard, warlock, wizard) with origin spells being more powerful.
Every spell from the arcane classes (bard, warlock, wizard) with origin spells being automatically known.
Every wizard spells with origin spells being more powerful.
Every wizard spells with origin spells being automatically known.
All the offensive spells and a few defensive spells with with origin spells being more powerful.
All the offensive spells and a few defensive spells with with origin spells being automatically known.
Only spells associated to the sorcerer's origin and them being more powerful
Only spells associated to the sorcerer's origin and them being automatically known.

The current spell list is fine with origin spells being more powerful.
The current spell list is fine with origin spells being automatically known.
Something else

AaronOfBarbaria · Oct 25, 2015

Something Else.

And, oddly enough, by "something else" I actually mean "the sorcerer spell list as defined in the books, with the sorcerer features as defined in the books too, and maybe a few more origins as they get developed."

The majority of complaints I've seen about the Sorcerer class are rooted in a failure to realize exactly how cool the base sorcerer features are, and the mistaken expectation that the "coolest" part of a character is meant to come from sub-class rather than class in every case, or is simply a complaint that Sorcerers were made different from Wizards at the spell list level, focusing on what spells aren't on the list rather than enjoying the ones that are on the sorcerer list but not the wizard list.

pming · Oct 25, 2015

Hiya!

Um...I don't get it. What's wrong with the Sorcerer? I read some of the "other thread", and...as usual... my experience varies quite a bit from what I'm reading others are saying. The only thing we would consider a "concern" was a Wild Mage Sorcerer's "only-on-a-1-in-20" chance to cause a 'surge'. One of my players had a sorceress he played for months...and only once did she have to roll on the 'surge' table. This pretty much made her a "sorceress", but no "wild". My next house rule is going to be that every spell, including cantrips AND spell-effects from items (like a wand/staff/etc) requires the d20 roll.

But, as far as how the Sorcerer class plays in the game? Perfectly fine. We never had any problems or saw any "weakness" that needed any sort of fixing.
I don't get what the fuss is all about... ???

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Minigiant · Oct 25, 2015

AaronOfBarbaria said:
Something Else.

And, oddly enough, by "something else" I actually mean "the sorcerer spell list as defined in the books, with the sorcerer features as defined in the books too, and maybe a few more origins as they get developed."

The majority of complaints I've seen about the Sorcerer class are rooted in a failure to realize exactly how cool the base sorcerer features are, and the mistaken expectation that the "coolest" part of a character is meant to come from sub-class rather than class in every case, or is simply a complaint that Sorcerers were made different from Wizards at the spell list level, focusing on what spells aren't on the list rather than enjoying the ones that are on the sorcerer list but not the wizard list.

pming said:
Hiya!

Um...I don't get it. What's wrong with the Sorcerer? I read some of the "other thread", and...as usual... my experience varies quite a bit from what I'm reading others are saying. The only thing we would consider a "concern" was a Wild Mage Sorcerer's "only-on-a-1-in-20" chance to cause a 'surge'. One of my players had a sorceress he played for months...and only once did she have to roll on the 'surge' table. This pretty much made her a "sorceress", but no "wild". My next house rule is going to be that every spell, including cantrips AND spell-effects from items (like a wand/staff/etc) requires the d20 roll.

But, as far as how the Sorcerer class plays in the game? Perfectly fine. We never had any problems or saw any "weakness" that needed any sort of fixing.
I don't get what the fuss is all about... ???

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I agree with both.
However the complaints seem to suggest we need yet another magic class. A magical class that has spells but isn't primarily a spellcaster or could opt to not even have spells.

MoonSong · Oct 25, 2015

I think the problem is you are stuck inside this "origin" bit. Nothing wrong with that, but we really need a "I don't know and I don't care were my magic came from and it doesn't have any effect". (On my ideal world you could choose to have an origin and being bound by it for more power or not have one and having freedom to pick whatever spell I felt fitted my individual character)

And yes, I see how sorcerers are good at combat. I just say that I miss a lot of the things sorcerers could do in past editions. I miss my talking raven, riding everywhere on a floating disk pushed by two unseen servants, making miracles and summoning things. More permanent magic effects shouldn't be the sole province of the wizard. The current sorcerer feels like it can only destroy things. I also miss the spear, but apparently I'm alone on it.

SkidAce · Oct 25, 2015

I use sorcerers as "channelers".

So I have a group of healing mystics - sorcerers with cure spells.
A group of efreeti lineage rulers - sorcerers with fire spells.
A caste of magical artificers - sorcerers with magic weapon, bless, searing smite, shield of faith, type spells, etc.
Spellsingers - sorcerers with some bard spells, charm etc. No lore or valor abilities.

Its fun.

Mouseferatu · Oct 25, 2015

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:
I miss my talking raven, riding everywhere on a floating disk pushed by two unseen servants, making miracles and summoning things. More permanent magic effects shouldn't be the sole province of the wizard.

Um... I honestly don't mean to be snide, but... Why not just play a wizard? It does everything you're talking about.

Minigiant · Oct 25, 2015

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:
I think the problem is you are stuck inside this "origin" bit. Nothing wrong with that, but we really need a "I don't know and I don't care were my magic came from and it doesn't have any effect". (On my ideal world you could choose to have an origin and being bound by it for more power or not have one and having freedom to pick whatever spell I felt fitted my individual character)

And yes, I see how sorcerers are good at combat. I just say that I miss a lot of the things sorcerers could do in past editions. I miss my talking raven, riding everywhere on a floating disk pushed by two unseen servants, making miracles and summoning things. More permanent magic effects shouldn't be the sole province of the wizard. The current sorcerer feels like it can only destroy things. I also miss the spear, but apparently I'm alone on it.

Well that's why I added the "all wizard spells" and "all arcane spells" options. I'm also for a generic "arcane" origin for sorcerer which just gives it wizard spells.

But my question is of which spells do you see a sorcerer having access to and how their origin affects this.

MoonSong · Oct 25, 2015

Mouseferatu said:
Um... I honestly don't mean to be snide, but... Why not just play a wizard? It does everything you're talking about.

Because 1) I didn't have to be a wizard to do those, sorcerers used to do that and they can't anymore. 2) I really prefer to play ditzy and dumb characters, 3) Really I don't want to play a character ever remotely related to books, except if it is one of those crazy loons taht have the compulsion to burn every book on sight 4) I hate the wizard class on principle, would never touch a MU or Mage ever, and being told "go play a wizard" just makes me hate them more and resent them.

Zinnger · Oct 25, 2015

Personally I see NO problem at all with sorcerers as written. My game has a draconic bloodline sorcerer and we have a lot of fun with it. I think they offer a very nice alternative to the wizard and have many specials (metamagic and sorcerer points) to make them very special. Having said this, I would not think it OP or crazy to have a sorcerer with an origin that basically states that they do have access to ALL wizard spells as their origin but do not have the other bonuses that are offered from the others. For example, this sorcerer would replace the AC bonus, elemental affinity, wings etc with the ability to choose any spell as their learned spell. I think this would be a fair and balanced trade. the question would be... is this more fun and unique than what is offered? I think not. But if someone really wanted access to all spells I think this works.