New Sorcerors are too "vulgar"

[slobster]

But spontaneous casting wizard is what we need.
If they want to do something else as well, they are free to do it. They may even call it sorcerer if they think they absolutely have to, but that shouldn't be a reason to drop the spontaneous casting wizard.

I want there to be spontaneous casting wizards, but I'd like it to simply be a class variant of the wizard that . . . casts spontaneously. No reason to use up a whole new class for a relatively simple tweak.

 

[Gargoyle]

1. It's a different class than the one presented in 3e and 4e, and I like that. The 3e and 4e sorcerers felt too much like wizards and warlocks, this has its own feel.

2. It's only one origin, the first of what will certainly be many. Other origins will have different stories and different mechanics to back them up.

3. I think this origin is much cooler for players who want a dragon-like character than earlier attempts, such as the dragonborn race or the various prestige classes / paragon paths because you do get dragon like traits right out of the gate at level 1.

Thumbs up for the 5e sorcerer.

 

[Kavon]

I want there to be spontaneous casting wizards, but I'd like it to simply be a class variant of the wizard that . . . casts spontaneously. No reason to use up a whole new class for a relatively simple tweak.

This is what I'd want them to do. Give other ways of casting to all the spellcasters instead of having to do some clumsy houseruling ('simply' crossing through the name and putting down "wizard" isn't enough).
I'm fine with all spellcasters having their default way of casting, just give some options to change things around and have it be built into the system.

It doesn't matter how simple it is to house rule things - When we have modular options, I'd like to have things that are obviously perfect for this be given as options.

 

[Umbran]

If you want the physical side of a dragon, play a dragonborn. If you want the metaphysical side, play a draconic sorceror.

I, personally, like the idea of the transformation being visible. That can have social consequences - do you a really want your character to start getting all fang-y now, nor not?

 

[The Shadow]

I, personally, like the idea of the transformation being visible. That can have social consequences - do you a really want your character to start getting all fang-y now, nor not?

Very good point.

Also, no matter how 'vulgar' a dragon sorcerer may be, I doubt anyone will be so gauche as to mention it to the scaly, clawed, armored guy with a breath weapon.

 

[erf_beto]

I think we just need some time to adjust to the concept. Sure, I like the "sorcerer is just a spontaneous casting wizard" approach, because the fluff can be as broad as "wizard" or "fighter", but in the end, the sorcerer in the playtest has great potential. My only concern is how to emulate the "I have no idea how I got these weird powers" concept.

 

[MoonSong]

1. It's a different class than the one presented in 3e and 4e, and I like that. The 3e and 4e sorcerers felt too much like wizards and warlocks, this has its own feel.

Well the 3e version is my favorite version of the sorcerer across the editions, despite (or maybe because) the "bland flavor", to me it represents the most flexible and customizable sorcerer I've ever seen. The only thing I think it lacked was propper Prestige class support (wizards got many exclusive prestige classes, sorcerers needed more).

I never felt the 4e sorcerer "felt" too much like a warlock, my only concern wit it was that 4e sorcerers where siloed into the blaster niche and that there wasn't enough suppport, only five bloodlines oppossed to the many pacts warlocks had. Wizards need to support Charming, Ilusionist, and utilty sorcerers as well, not just "I blast" and "I blast in melee" sorcerers

2. It's only one origin, the first of what will certainly be many. Other origins will have different stories and different mechanics to back them up.

I just hope the other origins they come up don't feel so gross, not all sorcerrer fans are into playing monstruous characters, and I hope they provide a more neutral origin that lends itself to be flavored as we wish. Sometimes I just want to play a sorcerer without making explicit where he got his powers, or justify his powers as any way I wish rather than conform to one of the few preselected flavors.

3. I think this origin is much cooler for players who want a dragon-like character than earlier attempts, such as the dragonborn race or the various prestige classes / paragon paths because you do get dragon like traits right out of the gate at level 1.

I'm not against players that want more draconic characetrs, as long as it isn't at the cost of the design space of those who just like the sorcerer for what it is (or used to be): a charismatic, simple and flexible caster. Again I really hope wizards give us more subtle origins (including a "flavor neutral" one) instead of just making increasingly more mosntruous and disgusting ones.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well the 3e version is my favorite version of the sorcerer across the editions, despite (or maybe because) the "bland flavor", to me it represents the most flexible and customizable sorcerer I've ever seen. The only thing I think it lacked was propper Prestige class support (wizards got many exclusive prestige classes, sorcerers needed more).

I agree - but I also think that the 'bland flavour' can be used to make sorcerers unique. Take the existing 'change and gain power as you cast spells' feature of the 5E sorcerer. Instead of making it based on the fact that you're part-dragon, make it based on what spells you cast. Throw out fireballs and your eyes start to glow red and you get fire resistance, keep going and enemies take fire damage if they attack you. Spend your willpower on illusions and maybe your appearance changes for the day, perhaps you have a mirror image that never goes away. Opt for charming all your foes and people will be mesmerised by your presence. It doesn't have to go down strictly school lines, but you could flavour sorcerers this way and keep the same mechanics, but without the fixed heritage.

 

[Sadrik]

I agree with the op it feels like the fluff is getting of the way of how the DM can interpret a sorcerer in his or her campaign world.

 

[Greg K]

I think we just need some time to adjust to the concept. Sure, I like the "sorcerer is just a spontaneous casting wizard" approach, because the fluff can be as broad as "wizard" or "fighter", but in the end, the sorcerer in the playtest has great potential. My only concern is how to emulate the "I have no idea how I got these weird powers" concept.

No, we don't need time. We have had similar transformation/manifestation concepts in previous editions. In 3e, they were heritage feats and PrCs and DMs like myself could simply allow or disallow them as appropriate to our campaign, because they were options not built into all dragon "heritage" sorcerers.
Just as bad or worse in my opinion, is the additional proficiency in armor and weapons.