D&D 5E Is the major thing that's disappointing about Sorcerers is the lack of sorcery point options?

doctorbadwolf said:

like being able to ignore concentration sometimes, concentrate on two spells at once

Click to expand...

Concentration is virtually the only meaningful limitation left on (some) magic in 5e.

or some unique abilities that wizards can't ever learn to do without somehow gaining innate magic (MC), ie abilities that aren't spells.

Click to expand...

Even abilities that aren't spells (Totem Barbarian primal rituals, Elemental Monk ki powers) are spells in 5e, so that sounds like a stretch.

As it is, I feel like the warlock feels more like a sorcerer, mechanically, than the sorcerer does.

Click to expand...

Jago said:

It does! The Warlock is a better freaking Sorcerer than the Sorcerer!

What is happening!!!

Click to expand...

The Warlock's flavor is pretty solid and mitigates against that, but, yeah, just mechanically, that's fair. The GOO Warlock also makes a surprisingly good psion, mechanically. It's almost as if the Warlock's mechanics - a solid combat-effective at-will, some more-potent short-rest abilities, and a few, harder to get, more limited dailies - were a good formula, in general... ;P Then again the Bard has a couple of things that make it seem like a better Sorcerer than the Sorcerer, too...


Seriously, though, if you look at what made the Sorcerer work in 3e, and at what's causing issues in 5e, the fix might not be the Sorcerer, but the other casters. Taking the prepped full casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) back to traditional Vancian, including fewer slots as well as the loss of spontaneous casting, might help.

On the Sorcerer side, opening up it's spell list or allowing a subset of known spells to be from any list could certainly help, too, maybe making origins closer to Backgrounds in establishing an expectation that DMs just dream up new ones (on some basic formula, like a known 'origin' spell per spell level) for players who want something different.

Jago said:

Then by your hilarity and my bookishness, we will attack the Sorcerer until gets a UA too.




But this is part of the issue. The Wizard has a Tradition for every single Magical School in D&D.
The Sorcerer started with 2 Origins and then gained a 3rd after they gutted it. The answer cannot be to just Homebrew because that's Rule 0 Arguments: just because you, yourself, can fix it, is not an excuse for it to be broken in the first place




Making more Magic is less impressive when you're just regurgitating the same 5 spells over and over, though. That's not indicative of a class that's pure magic, THAT feels like a Wizard to me: rote and repetitive.




A thief cannot be charming, swindling, flying-by-the-seat-of-their-pants and more, dare I say, Roguish in their manner? The idea of thieves that get by on sheer luck or flash and pizzaz is just as iconic as the methodical burglar, and I feel fits the idea of D&D more.

You also list Eight 1st Level spells to make this Concept work. You'd need to be A Level 7 Sorcerer to have all of those, if you take nothing but 1st Level Spells, so have fun staying behind the power curve that most definitely exists. Again, if I can't make my concept work by Level 3 when everyone else is coming into their Archetype (4 Spells Known), that's a problem. So let's go with Disguise Self, Fog Cloud, Feather Fall, and Sleep. ... No, I'm not getting magical thief from this because I have no other spells that can really help solidify this. And yes, the Arcane Trickster works best
for this, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't work for a Sorcerer. And again, a Wizard knows 10 Spells by this point, if they haven't found any scrolls or books to add to their own spellbook. Meaning a Wizard can do this better.

As for where your Magical Origin comes from, may I direct you to the Elder Scrolls where Nocturnal is a literal Goddess of Thieves​. Most settings have something similar, and again, things like the Plane of Shadow would be appropriate. Or even just like a connection to the very fabric of Luck or Fate or ... something.




1.) Wizards get a Conjurer and Abjurer School. Meaning Wizards are always going to be superior at this.
2. You're basically saying 'Be a Wizard if you want to follow a theme because their archetypes play to that'. Again, the lack of support is not justifiable by comparison to the Wizard. The answer cannot always be "Create an Archetype". I can play a Paladin as a dozen different things with only 3 Archetypes, and yet the Sorcerer seems shoehorned into a few, select roles and they fail at at least half of them.
3.) Go play 7th Sea, learn some Porte Magic, and watch as the idea of tearing open the very fabric of something like The Weave is very Sorcerer in application. Again, these are people Made Of Magic, I cannot stress enough how their casting should be LEAPS AND BOUNDS AHEAD of any other Arcane Spellcaster, at a cost of some sort. Metamagic is supposed to fulfill that ideal, I suppose, but the lack of spell support just makes that fail on every level.




It does! The Warlock is a better freaking Sorcerer than the Sorcerer!

What is happening!!!

Click to expand...

Give sorcerers the same casting system as warlocks, IMO. They are different in enough other ways that it won't hurt anything in terms of niche protection.

Also, the Warlock isn't great at doing what I think of as a warlock, which is someone who dropped out of magic college, or stole a book, or is Constantine, or whatever, and uses binding, ritual, etc magic to tap into things best left alone, bind minor entities to their will, make deals as needed for a specific thing, curse people, mess about with the cosmic balance, fate, luck, etc.

The vanilla WoW Warlock works better for me, conceptually, than this Warlock. I want the warlock to be the sort of person an uptight Wizard might call a petty dabbler, little better than a street magician, right up until the warlock reaches into the wizard's shadow, using it to hack the wizard's wards, steals his luck, turns the wizard's magic against him, animates his shadow to taunt him, and then appears from seemingly nowhere to stare the wizard in the face before stabbing that face with a hatchet.

I want Constantine.


What I don't want, is Faust.

Luckily, I can mostly just reflavor, but in this case "reflavour" means "rewrite the entire flavor text of the class", which sucks.

Also, pretty much gotta go pact of the tome for it to work right. IMO, the Warlock needs ritual casting, and some native binding ability. I need to be able to build a combo of the chain and tome warlock, with an at-will curse ability and an optional way to deliver magical attacks with a weapon.

I think all that could be done with a pact boon, patron, a couple new spells, and maybe a couple Invocations.

While we're at that, why not use the warlock class chassis to build a new Sorcerer. It won't fix the phb one, but it will play a lot more like a sorcerer than the phb one in the meantime.

doctorbadwolf said:

...like being able to ignore concentration sometimes, concentrate on two spells at once, or some unique abilities that wizards can't ever learn to do without somehow gaining innate magic (MC), ie abilities that aren't spells. As it is, I feel like the warlock feels more like a sorcerer, mechanically, than the sorcerer does.

Click to expand...

One of the homebrews I submitted for comment here was using a metamagic as an alternate concentration. It was 2 SP when casting to start, and 1 SP at the top of each of your turns to continue. You couldn't "downgrade" to concentration, when you stopped paying it ended.

Tony Vargas said:

Concentration is virtually the only meaningful limitation left on (some) magic in 5e. Even abilities that aren't spells (Totem Barbarian primal rituals, Elemental Monk ki powers) are spells in 5e, so that sounds like a stretch. The Warlock's flavor is pretty solid and mitigates against that, but, yeah, just mechanically, that's fair. The GOO Warlock also makes a surprisingly good psion, mechanically. It's almost as if the Warlock's mechanics - a solid combat-effective at-will, some more-potent short-rest abilities, and a few, harder to get, more limited dailies - were a good formula, in general... ;P Then again the Bard has a couple of things that make it seem like a better Sorcerer than the Sorcerer, too...


Seriously, though, if you look at what made the Sorcerer work in 3e, and at what's causing issues in 5e, the fix might not be the Sorcerer, but the other casters. Taking the prepped full casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) back to traditional Vancian, including fewer slots as well as the loss of spontaneous casting, might help.

On the Sorcerer side, opening up it's spell list or allowing a subset of known spells to be from any list could certainly help, too, maybe making origins closer to Backgrounds in establishing an expectation that DMs just dream up new ones (on some basic formula, like a known 'origin' spell per spell level) for players who want something different.

Click to expand...

IF you made the other casters back to traditional vancian caster, I'd stop playing them, as would my whole group. The death of that model is one of the reason my group was even willing to look at 5e, rather than just sticking to 4e. We ain't goin' back.

As for concentration and non spell magical abilities:
The concentration idea needn't be always on. I meant an ability to expend a resource, probably spell points, to ignore concentration on a single casting of a spell.

Non spell magical abilities: The game has some, already. It's not like it would be hard to invent more. Even if you look at them as spells, it wouldn't be hard to create new spells, and make them exclusive to the sorcerer, accessible only via the sorcerer class feature that grants them, and just not call them spells, to make it extra clear that wizards can't ever have them without becoming a sorcerer, ever.

IMO, the Sorcerer could also cast from any spell list, no prep, no spells known, no spell slots even. Just spell points combined with a warlock-style per encounter basis (which also keeps the required number of spell points down), and class features that also use spell points, so it's a choice between boosting a spell, doing a thing less subtle than most spells (like healing for xdy/spell point), or casting a traditional spell.

Likwise, the sorcerer could have a list of unique cantrips, each of which has a list of ways in which you can spend spell points to boost them. Combine that with the above idea, make spells cost 1 SP per spell level, all spells with levels are cast at highest level you can do, regain SP on short rest. Also be sure to give them all the "create fire" "control fire" "gust of wind" type spells that can easily be seen as the Sorc reaching into the threads of magic to directly manipulate energies/elements.

And there's no reason why Sorcs shouldn't be able to learn new spells by observing others, IMO. After all, they can see and feel the magic itself.

Speaking of which, on the list of abilities you could give a sorc, the ability to examine a creature and "see" what it's strong and weak saves are, any magical immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities, etc, as well as native ability to sense magic and magical creatures, absorb magical energies and throw them back, etc. using actions and spell points as appropriate, of course.

In some ways, the monk almost makes the best chassis the sorcerer. Replace all the punch things stuff with magical abilities like I've described, and give it those cantrip ideas as ki abilities that can be boosted at later levels with additional Ki, etc.


Anyway, there's all my "brain crack" for building a more interesting sorcerer. Enjoy.

Yunru said:

Goddess of Thieves as an origin? Oh you must be talking about a Trickery cleric.
Unless the Goddess of Thieves is your mother or something.

Click to expand...

Why?

What even is the impulse to dismiss people's ideas like this?

In what world does it make sense for the only representation of a character blessed by the goddess of theives to be the trickery cleric?

Heck, ignoring the thematic problems with that, what about people who don't like the cleric? What about people who want to play a god touched character, not a servant of the gods?

Yunru said:

Goddess of Thieves as an origin? Oh you must be talking about a Trickery cleric.
Unless the Goddess of Thieves is your mother or something.

Click to expand...

Basically what @doctorbadwolf said (thanks mate) - What if I want the idea of someone whose blood comes from the Divine, but is not some petty servant kneeling at an altar or whispering homages to some deity? There is the Favored Soul for this, but again, that's not official and a GM does not have to allow that. The only class where the Magic is 100% related to the blood is the Sorcerer. You could argue that Bards are pretty innate too, but that's more innate talent in figuring out how to manipulate the Weave through Sound, not the physical connection to the very source of magic.

By this logic, why play a Sorcerer at all, whom are connected directly to Magic, when there is an Arcane Cleric whom is a servant of the God(dess) of Magic? Same thing, neh?

Also, you're damn right I'd play the son of Nocturnal; Daedric Princing it up all over Tamriel.

Jago said:

What if I want the idea of someone whose blood comes from the Divine, but is not some petty servant kneeling at an altar or whispering homages to some deity ?

Click to expand...

People really have the worst ideas about what Clerics actually are. But I don't blame them too much, considering Warlocks are actively stealing their theme now. Which just leads me to the conclusion that Clerics need a thematic overhaul more than any other class that hasn't got one at the moment.

doctorbadwolf said:

IF you made the other casters back to traditional vancian caster, I'd stop playing them, as would my whole group. The death of that model is one of the reason my group was even willing to look at 5e, rather than just sticking to 4e. We ain't goin' back.

As for concentration and non spell magical abilities:
The concentration idea needn't be always on. I meant an ability to expend a resource, probably spell points, to ignore concentration on a single casting of a spell.

Non spell magical abilities: The game has some, already. It's not like it would be hard to invent more. Even if you look at them as spells, it wouldn't be hard to create new spells, and make them exclusive to the sorcerer, accessible only via the sorcerer class feature that grants them, and just not call them spells, to make it extra clear that wizards can't ever have them without becoming a sorcerer, ever.

IMO, the Sorcerer could also cast from any spell list, no prep, no spells known, no spell slots even. Just spell points combined with a warlock-style per encounter basis (which also keeps the required number of spell points down), and class features that also use spell points, so it's a choice between boosting a spell, doing a thing less subtle than most spells (like healing for xdy/spell point), or casting a traditional spell.

Likwise, the sorcerer could have a list of unique cantrips, each of which has a list of ways in which you can spend spell points to boost them. Combine that with the above idea, make spells cost 1 SP per spell level, all spells with levels are cast at highest level you can do, regain SP on short rest. Also be sure to give them all the "create fire" "control fire" "gust of wind" type spells that can easily be seen as the Sorc reaching into the threads of magic to directly manipulate energies/elements.

And there's no reason why Sorcs shouldn't be able to learn new spells by observing others, IMO. After all, they can see and feel the magic itself.

Speaking of which, on the list of abilities you could give a sorc, the ability to examine a creature and "see" what it's strong and weak saves are, any magical immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities, etc, as well as native ability to sense magic and magical creatures, absorb magical energies and throw them back, etc. using actions and spell points as appropriate, of course.

In some ways, the monk almost makes the best chassis the sorcerer. Replace all the punch things stuff with magical abilities like I've described, and give it those cantrip ideas as ki abilities that can be boosted at later levels with additional Ki, etc.


Anyway, there's all my "brain crack" for building a more interesting sorcerer. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Well, I have some ideas. (The point on sorcerers learning spells from watching others, even in 3e they technically could learn non-standard spells, there were just not direct ways to do it in the RAW, and they spent a spell known to learn it upon level up)

A "soft" fix:

• Create an origin that focuses on familiars, utility and stuff to emphasize "I'm one with magic" while being as flavor neutral (I would dare "completely bland in flavor"). Don't touch the main class.
• Create unique spells for sorcerers that covered ALL the effects possible and are NICHE FILLING. In short sorcerer-only spells that are spell+ version of things others can do. (My invisibility is bonus action and doesn't consume concentration, my shield can protect anybody and even from area effects, none of them need components of any kind, my familiar is sturdy and can survive combat, my floating disk lasts 8 hours and can be ridden, my version of fireball changes type at will)
• Alternatively rewrite spells so they have riders that only work for sorcerers.

A "hard" fix that eschews metamagic.

• Rewrite the class, give it a d8, all simple weapons, extra skills, eventual expertise, detect magic at will with no material components.
• Baseline cantrips.
• Expand the spell list so it includes way more of the so-called wizard only spells and some druid spells, name spells, etc, anything without a costly component
• Start knowing four spells.
• Learn three spells each level.
• Get a bonus spell that refreshes on a short rest, it scales more slowly than a warlock's -to help cover some utility during exploration-.
• One or two unlimited lower level spells at higher levels.
• Make subclasses focus on mechanics, one that makes casting even easier (+bonus spells), one that focuses on origins (pick among 12+, each one gives a language, an offensive/defensive proficiency, and a type associated that changes all spells to it, at later levels bonus damage, wings, etc), another that creates a tank -bonus hp, armor, weapons, double attack-, another that focuses on rituals and stuff.

Overhauls aside for the moment, the sorcerer just plain needs a half dozen or so more subclasses.

Leatherhead said:

People really have the worst ideas about what Clerics actually are. But I don't blame them too much, considering Warlocks are actively stealing their theme now. Which just leads me to the conclusion that Clerics need a thematic overhaul more than any other class that hasn't got one at the moment.

Click to expand...

I know that Clerics do not have to be precisely what I said. Just so much as a Wizard does not have to be an old man with glasses, a Barbarian does not have to be Conan, a Fighter does not have to be an uncharismatic idiot, and a Druid does not have to be a hippie.

But I am trying to highlight that if I wanted to play a Sorcerer with a divine concept, I want to play a Sorcerer with a divine concept. I don't want to Turn Undead or get Domain powers. I want metamagic and the like.

Clerics are pretty thematic and they work. I'm all for people playing Knowledge Clerics like Magical Indiana Jones, or Trickery Clerics like shadow-touched Robin Hoods, or Nature Clerics as like Park Ranger/Wardens. I don't think I've ever once played a Cleric as I've described: I've worshiped in taverns and at the helms of ships, and I have championed the faith as someone who does not quite understand why they have these blessings but wants to help others just as much as someone who 100% understands what they are and uses that to take advantage of the hapless and the hopeless.

But their blood is not Divine. Their casting comes from Wisdom, not Charisma. They do not gain the same abilities and skills as the Sorcerer. It is, simply, not the same.

The Warlock is not really stealing the theme of a Cleric: Domains have been a part of D&D for quite awhile, and it works quite the same way as always. Honor the God who provides your domain, do their good work, feel your connection with them, and don't piss them off or you're suddenly going to be lacking some of that divine might.

cbwjm said:

I see no reason why the cleric has to be beholden to a deity, you could use it as someone with divine blood casting miracles from their bloodline instead of getting their magic direct from a deity. Otherwise, for the sorcerer with the divine bloodline, it really does sound like it is just a matter of current archetypes for the sorcerer not meeting the requirements of what you want. Either create your own subclass or adapt another class to the concept, the divine wizard comes to mind. If you can adapt a domain to a wizard archetype then I see no reason why you couldn't do the same for a sorcerer archetype.

Personally, I have no trouble creating a sorcerer thief using nothing more than the criminal background and a few spells, but I can understand why some people may want more options. Maybe they don't want to have dragon scales or feel the thunderous might of a storm flowing through their veins for their sneaky spellcaster.

Click to expand...

I reiterate: creating my own subclass is not a solution. It is a patch on something that needs actual attention.

I don't want to play a Divine Wizard with my spellbook and my rote and practice. I want to play raw magical power, from the force of my personality and presence. And adapting the Domains lead to the Favored Soul, which again, may not be allowed, and some people actually claimed was too powerful for a Sorcerer (strictly because they got a bigger spell selection).

Can I reflavor a Cleric to do this? Yes. Absolutely. Sure.

But as I said, it's not the same. The skills are not the same. The abilities are not the same. I still have to present a Holy Symbol to call down magic, why? I am Magic. This cannot be understated.

If I want to play Magical Shadow Incarnate, I should not be looking at Monk to do so. If I want to create a whirling power of sand and wind that was born from the very soul of a Djinni, I should have more options than just a Druid.

I can reflavor a Barbarian to act like a Fighter. I can reflavor a Rogue to act like a Barbarian. But they're not the same. If they can give attention to the Ranger and give a rework where it now can fit several different concepts of Ranger, the Sorcerer should receive the same attention and a thorough look at the class.

If the answer is consistently "Find another class/archetype to play your concept" or "Create your own archetype" when I want to play a Sorcerer for my concept because thematically it does fit, then there is an issue. I can take a Wizard and turn that into anything. I can take a Cleric and turn that into anything. Why can I not do the same with the 2nd biggest raw Arcane Spellcaster in the game?