Sorcerer - Class or Theme?

[Dragonhelm]

While I like the sorcerer class, there has been little to differentiate it from the wizard. In 3e, they cast the same spells, and were differentiated only by a minor amount of fluff, and the ability to cast spells spontaneously. While I liked the idea of spells know, the magister class in Arcana Unearthed proved that the two classes could be effectively combined into one.

Pathfinder added the bloodlines, which is cool, but the sorcerer still uses wizard spells. Essentially, it's a variant wizard.

I like the 4e approach a lot better, but I'm not sure the 4e sorcerer is as strong of an archetype as the wizard or warlock.

My concern for 5e is that we will have 3 major arcane spellcasters, and that the sorcerer will get lost amongst the shuffle.

It occurs to me that the sorcerer might function well as a subclass of the wizard, like what we see with the witch in 4e. However, I'm not sure that subclasses will remain.

So what about themes? While I believe that themes can be broad (i.e. the noble), I also think they can be restricted by race or class. So what if the sorcerer was a theme for the wizard, where we show what type of wizard it is? So, for example, it may be an elemental/wild mage, or a bloodline mage, but in the end, still a wizard.

Thoughts?

 

[The Shadow]

All we know for sure that themes do is give skills. I don't think they have the scope to introduce something as big as spontaneous casting.

I *could* see a theme giving something like bloodline abilities. You could also support them with a feat chain, if desired. But that bloodline wizard would be a Vancian sorcerer, something very different from what we've seen before.

The way the design team seems to be going is to provide arcane casters (and possibly divine ones too) with several different approaches to magic, Vancian being among them. Then the GM can say, "OK, we use all the core classes," or "This world has only wizards and sorcerers, no warlocks," or "Sorcerers only," or whatever.

A world where the only arcane casters are warlocks would definitely be interesting, though I don't think I'd want to play one.

(And I'd like to see the bard drift away from being arcane, personally, though I realize I'm in the minority here. At the very least I'd like to see the option for a druid-like bard.)

 

[Mattachine]

I like the differentiation that 4e brought to sorcerers, as well as more details for different types of warlocks. On the other hand, they downplayed different types of wizards, which I was sad to see.

I would love to see 5e keep all three arcane archtypes right from the get-go:

magic through knowledge (wizard)
magic through pact (warlock)
magic through bloodline (sorcerer)

All three are common tropes in mythology, literature, and movies/TV, and each should have a different flavor.

My ideal situation would be to see the ability to mix and match. For instance, a wizard that additionally makes a pact with a demon, or a sorcerer who attends a magical college.

 

[The Shadow]

My ideal situation would be to see the ability to mix and match. For instance, a wizard that additionally makes a pact with a demon, or a sorcerer who attends a magical college.

I very much agree with this, but it will be very hard to do right.

Odds are, you either end up with something pointlessly underpowered (like multiclassing wizard and sorcerer in 3e) or synergistic combinations that leave the 'pure' classes looking weaksauce.

What is needed is some way of saying, "I'm an X level arcane caster. 50% of my spells are Vancian, 40% are spontaneous, and I have this one neat trick I can do through a pact." And have that combination be roughly equivalent to an X level wizard, an X level sorcerer, or an X level warlock.

It's a very tall order. Things like the 'one neat trick' can be done through feats, I think - and if other feats are comparable in power, it should balance. It's the splitting of spells between mechanics that is going to be the bugbear.

 

[Mattachine]

Mix and match can be done well. Fourth edition did multiclassing through feats such that you could pick up a level-appropriate ability from another class to replace one of your own abilities.

Heck, third edition multiclassing with casters actually works out reasonably well if you just adopt a house rule that caster level always equals your total character level. I think a workable system isn't too hard.

 

[marleykat]

If a multiclassing model is used.

Mix and match can be done well. Fourth edition did multiclassing through feats such that you could pick up a level-appropriate ability from another class to replace one of your own abilities.

Heck, third edition multiclassing with casters actually works out reasonably well if you just adopt a house rule that caster level always equals your total character level. I think a workable system isn't too hard.

I definitely don't want 4e style multiclassing that is "dabbling " not being proficient in multiple classes at the same time. Theme could work but the magic system can't be DnD vancian. Arcana Evolved or point/encounter based or spontaneous would be needed.

However the houserule of character level equals caster level works fine.
To prevent "dipping " use capstones like Pathfinder or similar like Fantasycraft (they do something softer at 14th). If some kind of multiclass model is being used.

 

[Gothikaiju]

Class, please.

I sort of like how pathfinder does it, with spontaneous casting, as well as bonus feats and powers from your bloodline. I really like characters with innate supernatural power.

I just hope they would be constitution, rather than charisma, based-- power from the blood, not personality...

 

[The Shadow]

Heck, third edition multiclassing with casters actually works out reasonably well if you just adopt a house rule that caster level always equals your total character level. I think a workable system isn't too hard.

Wait, what? I've never seen this house rule before, and it's entirely possible I'm missing something, but how is that supposed to work?

You appear to be saying that a Wizard 1/Fighter 16 should be capable of casting 9th level spells, but that can't be right. Do you instead mean that he would have all the same 1st level spells as before, but cast them as a 17th level wizard? Perhaps even that he would get as many per day as a 17th level wizard?

 

[Yora]

I always treated sorcerers as wizards with non-vancian casting system, which I hope they will be again in 5th Edition.

 

[Sammael]

I like the differentiation that 4e brought to sorcerers, as well as more details for different types of warlocks. On the other hand, they downplayed different types of wizards, which I was sad to see.

I would love to see 5e keep all three arcane archtypes right from the get-go:

magic through knowledge (wizard)
magic through pact (warlock)
magic through bloodline (sorcerer)

All three are common tropes in mythology, literature, and movies/TV, and each should have a different flavor.

My ideal situation would be to see the ability to mix and match. For instance, a wizard that additionally makes a pact with a demon, or a sorcerer who attends a magical college.

All three archetypes are perfectly valid. However, there is no reason why they can't be just "kits" added to the basic Mage class, much like the "Aragorn Ranger" and "Drizzt Ranger."