That being said, the fact that I'm not a sorcerer fan shouldn't make my opinion of the class irrelevant, on the contrary, both as a DM and as a Player I find the new sorcerer much more appealing than the (for me) bland class it used to be, both mechanicly and more importantly thematically and I think that as a play tester it's my right and duty to express this.
It shouldn't be irrelevant, no. Your opinion should matter (and does!). But it shouldn't be the most listened to voice.
You're not meant to like every class. If there's no class for you that is a problem: if your favorite class doesn't work for you that's a deal breaker. Which is the issue; if sorcerer fans are losing their favorite class so it appeals to non-sorcerer fans the edition is failing.
There are 5 reasons the sorcerer doesn't work.
It isn't a wizard clone.
This
is an issue. The sorcerer is the class for people who like wizards but dislike the default magic system. As such, it should still feel similar to a wizard. There should absolutely be differences, but they should have more in common than not.
The solution to sorcerers being too much like the wizard isn't to remove similarities but to add differences. Paladins are very similar to fighters, and the fix isn't to reduce paladin's armour and weapon choices while reducing hitpoints.
It's very tacked on.
The new sorcerer hook (transforming as spells are used) is brand new. It comes out of nowhere, having no real relation to prior sorcerers in the game or in the fiction. It's not an evolution like the fighter's mechanic or clerics channeling divinity.
Even the flavour seems like a justification. The fluff in
Legends & Lore doesn't mesh with the fluff in the playtest. It reads like they added the mechanic and started changing and tweaking the story to fit the mechanic.
The unique mechanic doesn't mesh with the unique flavour.
The hook for sorcerers is that they have inborn magic. The class' unique mechanic is that they transform as resources are spent. There's no overlap.
The willpower system doesn't count, as there's likely to be an optional module that lets wizards use it. Sorcerers exist so there's a core option that uses it for players whose DM only wants to use the core.
The sorcerer's unique mechanic should directly relate to their inborn magic, to spells being instinctive to them, to magic being their heritage.
It shouldn't affect what it does
In the current iteration of the rules, bloodline determines hit dice, armour proficiency, weapon proficiency, all in addition to bonus powers.
So... granddaddy was a brass dragon so you know how to use a greatsword? That's just effed up.
I'm okay with sorcerers having higher HD than wizards (they're not bookworms). Leather armour and expanded weapons are also good. I like them having spears in 3e. But, at the same points, it shouldn't go as far as it does.
It steals the swordmage thunder.
We'll eventually have a Gish class. We need one. Whether it's a bladesinger or swordmage or duskblade or magus is irrelevant. It's a solid niche to be filled.
Forcing the sorcerer into the melee caster role does a disservice to both. It means we get a less than ideal sorcerer and a less than ideal swordmage.
It'd be like calling the war domain build of the cleric "the paladin". It does the job fine and is an adequate compromise, but no one is really happy.
This is a bit big for this thread, co-opting the OP's discussion. I really should re-post this as its own topic.
