It is not a sorcerer, it's a completely new class

[1of3]

Where is the download for them? I can't find it on the playtest page...

Re-download the second playtest. It's in there now. (If re-download be a word.)

 

[Umbran]

Now what WotC has come up with for the new "sorcerer" doesn't compute for me. It seems a subclass of sorcerer, or more something new entirely. I've tried to think up a better name for this new class, but am not creative right now, as it seems.

People get too hung up on names.

You realize that if every time they make a change that isn't perfectly consistent with someone's idea of that name, they also have to change the name, they'll rapidly run out of iconic names?

Plus, it doesn't seem at all like something new entirely. They're taking a bit of the fluff they started with, and making it actually *mean* something - a tactic shown to be extremely successful and interesting in Pathfinder.

In 3e, "sorcerer" is pretty much just "spontaneously casting wizard". That's *boring*, and insufficiently differentiated from the Wizard to merit inclusion on its own - you should not need an entirely new class just for purposes of having a slightly different spell resource mechanic! If they plan to work modularity such that "spontaneously casting wizard" will fit under "wizard", then the sorcerer name is freed up to be something different.

 

[Scribble]

Re-download the second playtest. It's in there now. (If re-download be a word.)

Thanks! (And you used a hyphen, so it is a word. )

 

[Lwaxy]

then the sorcerer name is freed up to be something different.

But as a sorcerer is indeed a wizard by any other name, I rather have the class name gone completely than turned it into something that, by definition of the word, it isn't. That's the point. It wouldn't only be confusing for old players, new players would probably be as baffled if a sorcerer is not a magician type as in literature and poems.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Let me first say that, in most of my games, mage/wizard/sorcerer is basically the same. The normal public calls them either, not knowing or caring about the small differences. Sorcerers are bloodline based and get respective powers (even before PF introduced that big), mages get spontaneous insights into spells (as in suddenly KNOWING a spell) and wizards get better resource management, even without Vancian.

Now what WotC has come up with for the new "sorcerer" doesn't compute for me. It seems a subclass of sorcerer, or more something new entirely.

It sounds to me like having mages, wizards, and sorcerers "basically the same" except for some fairly minor mechanical differences suggests that they actually shouldn't be separate classes in 5e, but rather different kits ("origins"/"bloodlines"/"traditions") within the same class.

So two points here:

1. We've only seen one sorcerous origin (draconic) and zero wizard traditions (they're not yet implemented). I'd bet the farm that there will be at least one cloth-wearing d4-HP sorcerous origin (maybe wild or fiendish), and probably at least one leather-wearing d6-hp origin too (fey or shadow). So if you like the mechanics of the new sorcerer but not the martial focus, just wait for the glass-cannon origin to come out and reskin it as draconic.

2. By the same token, wild magic has been mentioned as a possible "tradition" for wizards, suggesting that those traditions will potentially have some pretty hefty mechanical and flavor implications (beyond just "evoker" and "illusionist"). So it may well be the case that in your particular campaign, all your wizards, mages, and sorcerers will translate to different arcane traditions in the wizard class. Certainly, if you want to directly translate a 3e sorcerer who has access to the entire wizard spell list, that'll probably be the way to do it.

WOTC has taken pains to show us a range of very disparate arcane casters. The draconic sorcerer, fey-pact warlock, and vanilla wizard all have very different focuses which displays a great breadth of options. I'll be interested to see how the classes compare when we are looking at, say, the evocation-heavy glass-cannon version of all three...

 

[Greg K]

What if they made a generic catch-all heritage option, which didn't have any overt manifestations (maybe glowing eyes and cackling static, like someone in another thread mentioned). In the text about where the heritage comes from, they could say something like "in campaigns where sorcerers' magic is not overtly tied to a particular source, or that source is not obvious, select this bloodline and attribute your magical power to whatever cause makes sense . . ."
That way, if you want sorcerers to resemble their 3E incarnation, you just choose that generic background and say that it comes from dragons, with nobody to gainsay you but no overt physical manifestations of that heritage, either

My post that you quoted was in reference to armor and weapon training granted by the dragon heritage which is a separate issue from the manifestation (with which I also have issue).
For my tastes, as long as the additional armor and weapon training are built in to the Draconic heritage, it will not be fine. I am not saying not to have the option of a martial sorcerer. I like the concept and was a fan of the battle sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana. However, martial training should be a background decision that some dragon heritage sorcerers, logically, may or may not pursue. Therefore, pull out the additional armor and weapon training and create a background that grants that training, create a new Arcane Warror class, or both. This leaves the player the choice and also allows other sorcerers to also pursue martial training or not as fits the individual character regardless of heritage.

As for the manifestation stuff, if I recall, correctly, the post you referred to made reference to Pathfinder. Like the Next Dragon heritage, I didn't like the Pathfinder bloodlines including the Arcane which was considered the default. My issue with all of these is predefining the level powers of the heritage/bloodline (i.e, this specific heritage/bloodline aspect manifests at this specific level). Using Pathfinder as an example, what about aberration necessitates acid spray at first level? Why can't a celestial, devil, demon, or dragon bloodline have an innate ability to use the command spell and lack some other feature? Given my choice, I would prefer something 3e Heritage feats in which the player could choose to have some,none or all of their bloodline abilities manifest. I would also like various options within a heritage from which to choose (including the option not to have a breath weapon for my draconic heritage).

 

[Greg K]

P
In 3e, "sorcerer" is pretty much just "spontaneously casting wizard". That's *boring*, and insufficiently differentiated from the Wizard to merit inclusion on its own - you should not need an entirely new class just for purposes of having a slightly different spell resource mechanic! If they plan to work modularity such that "spontaneously casting wizard" will fit under "wizard", then the sorcerer name is freed up to be something different.

With all respect Umbran, it is *boring* to you where as I find the Dragon Heritage with its default extra armor and weapon proficiency and sorcerous powers over the top and lame *crap* for many campaigns and interferes with player concept and DM campaign design. For myself, the 3e Sorcerer was exactly, what I wanted and, completely, replaced the wizard in my campaigns. On top of that, heritage flavor in 3e could be added to it (or not) through the use of 3e heritage feats (if one used them).

Plus, I believe the design team has stated that they will not be doing alternate spellcasting for individual classes.

Edit: I just want to be clear. With regards the additional armor and weapon training of the Draconic heritage, I am not against the concept of sorcerers trained with additional armor and weapons beyond the base sorcerer. I liked the 3e Unearthed Arcana Battle Sorcerer. My issue is that it is built into the assumption of a draconic heritage sorcerer. Rather than building the armor and weapon training into the Dragonic heritage, I would rather see a Background and/or Specialty Battle Sorcerer that can be taken by any sorcerer as appropriate to background and still leave any sorcerer heritage using the defaults as the base.

As for manifestations of the Dragon Heritage Sorcererous Power, my issue is that every Dragon sorcerer gains the same ability at the same level. The heritage's sorcerous power can be over the top for some campaigns despite innate magic and the concept of heritage still be appropriate or not fit a particular vision. I think 3e with the heritage feats that appeared in supplements are a better option, because players could choose all, some, or none of the manifested abilities as they leveled in Sorcerer (assuming it was valid for a given DMs campaign).

 

[Umbran]

It wouldn't only be confusing for old players, new players would probably be as baffled if a sorcerer is not a magician type as in literature and poems.

I think you're stretching, there. Stretching a lot. You're talking about people playing a game of generally unparalleled imagination and flexibility - if they can manage the game, I think they'll figure it out just fine. It isn't like those words are particularly precisely defined in the English language, what with the paucity of actual wizards and sorcerers. Would you like me to note how, oddly, White Wolf "vampires" are not consistent with Count Dracula, and "garou" are not consistent with loup garou, and Shadowrun "shamans" don't really resemble Asian spiritualists, and pretty much any sci-fi game refers to "starships" that aren't like the Enterprise... and somehow, we manage.

The sorcerer in the playtest packet *is* a magician type. It clearly casts magical spells. Mostly the exact same spells as the wizard, in fact. It also happens to have some hallmarks that its source of power is a bit different, which is consistent with the connotations of "sorcerer" vs "wizard" in typical use of those words in language. It is close enough.

 

[Umbran]

With all respect Umbran, it is *boring* to you where as I find the manifestation as default and the Dragon Heritage with its default extra armor and weapon proficiency over the top and lame *crap* that interferes with player and concept and DM campaign design.[/qupote]

The Pathfinder SRD lists 34 bloodlines for sorcerers, with another 10 from 3rd parties. That seems to me to imply far more potential flexibility in player concept and DM campaign design than seen in most classes.

Plus, I believe the design team has stated that they will not be doing alternate spellcasting for individual classes.

A cite on that assertion would be good, 'cause I haven't seen such a statement.

I wouldn't expect them to do alternate spellcasting for individual classes anyway. That's writing a slew of new classes each and every time you come up with an alternate spell resource mechanic. Very inefficient. I'd more expect guidelines to swap spell-points for vancian, in general.

And, given how dirt-easy it was for folks to reverse engineer a spell-point wizard out of the sorcerer, I fail to see the issue.

 

[DogBackward]

It is fine for *individual* dragon heritage sorcerers to go that route based on the character's background, making it better handled as a background and/or specialty chosen by a player (or even a separate Arcane Warrior class). It should not be hardwired into the Draconic heritage as it forces a specific concept of Dragon heritage sorcerer that may not fit an individual player's concept or a DM's setting.

So? That's what happens with all classes, in all games. Maybe my Rogues don't stab people in the back. Maybe my Warlocks don't make pacts with otherworldly beings. Maybe my Clerics don't hate undead. Maybe my Druids can't change shape.

D&D makes dozens upon dozens of assumptions about setting and theme, and nobody complains about that until... what, one specific assumption about one specific option from one specific class? When you play D&D, you know from the start that there are going to be certain things that the game supports, both mechanically and thematically. Unless you want to go to a fully point-based, completely classless system... you're just gonna have to learn to deal with that. In this version of D&D, Sorcerers that gain their power from draconic bloodlines are gishes... which makes sense, because dragons are badass gishes all on their own.