Legends & Lore: The Sorcerer class

[Greg K]

It was sounding good to me until the transformation bit for the dragon heritage sorcerer.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Sorcerer points, Dragon & Wild magic fit the sorcerer well IMO :thumbsup:

 

[Minigiant]

So:

Wizard: Burning hands. Ray of frost. Comprehend Languages. Mending, Ray of frost. Sleep.
Warlock: Darkness, Eldritch Blast, Darkness, Darkness, Eldritch Blast, Darkness, Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Blast, Darkness, Eldritch Blast x80
Sorcerer: Burning hands. Empowered Burning hands. Widened Burning hands. Ray of frost.

In hyperbole.
I am okay with this.

 

[Li Shenron]

Interesting. I like that the sorcerer gets the same number of spells per day the wizard does. Since they are using the same spells per day table, I believe this also means sorcerers won't be a level behind wizards in learning new spells anymore, which is great. That was always the worst part of playing a sorcerer in 3rd edition.

I agree a lot, I think in 3e the decision was done mostly because the designers were afraid that casting without preparation was going to give the Sorcerer too much advantage. It could have been balanced in other ways, without that spell level delay.

 

[delericho]

"When the class was created for 3rd Edition D&D, it was in many ways a mechanical conceit—a wrapper for a new approach to spellcasting." -> been sayin' this for years: the concept/flavor of the sorcerer was originally an afterthought.

Yep. And, actually, I was fine with that - the mechanical distinction was enough to justify the class, and the fluff was such that players could spin it however they wanted. So, if they wanted a 'wizard' without the Vancian memorisation/cast straightjacket, then that was the class for them.

But, in that case, is the Vancian mechanisms are removed from the game, or the Wizard class redesigned so that some Wizards can bypass them, then the need for the Sorcerer class disappears. In which case it should just be removed - it was a mechanical artifact, so if mechanical changes make it redundant then it can go.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, this seems like a sorcerer to me. Cast fewer kinds of spells, cast them in more different and interesting ways. Leave the transmuter-gish for the wild-shape specialized druid.

I'm fond of how they located the extra spellcasting within the mechanic of Sorcery Points, because that is a LOT more modular than 3e's way of doing it. More spells/day is only one possible manifestation of sorcery. Yay!

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I really, really hope sorcerers don't use the exact same spell list as wizards again. They say they want to bring the sorcerer out of the wizard's shadow. There's no better way to do that than to give them their own spell list. Obviously, it's fine for them to share some spells with wizards, just as clerics and druids do. But there should be some spells that only they have on their list. If even paladins and rangers can get some of their own unique spells, sorcerers should too!

Can't XP you right now, but I hope the design team is reading it.

Cheers!

 

[ThirdWizard]

But, in that case, is the Vancian mechanisms are removed from the game, or the Wizard class redesigned so that some Wizards can bypass them, then the need for the Sorcerer class disappears. In which case it should just be removed - it was a mechanical artifact, so if mechanical changes make it redundant then it can go.

Yeah, I find this extremely worrying, as I thought wizards could choose from a variety of spellcasting methodologies. In such a ruleset, there's no need for a separate class whose only difference is how they cast spells. I wonder if they went back on their original plan, and wizards are just vancian. I really really hope not. That would be a big let down.

 

[MoonSong]

Yep. And, actually, I was fine with that - the mechanical distinction was enough to justify the class, and the fluff was such that players could spin it however they wanted. So, if they wanted a 'wizard' without the Vancian memorisation/cast straightjacket, then that was the class for them.

But, in that case, is the Vancian mechanisms are removed from the game, or the Wizard class redesigned so that some Wizards can bypass them, then the need for the Sorcerer class disappears. In which case it should just be removed - it was a mechanical artifact, so if mechanical changes make it redundant then it can go.

Actually no, while the mechanical distinction is important to have a meaningful sorcerer class, the wizard class has never been able to cover the sorcerer fluff, and fluff is a key part of it all. The playtest sorcerer from before was cool and in some ways showed everything many sorcerer players desired from the class, however it had too strong of a flavor, and in certain parts it was gross, why you had to turn into a monster? it seemed unfortunate, so either you are a bookworm or you just turn into an ugly disgusting monster?.

I like this idea of the sorcerer, metamagic was very important for them in 3.x, and having the ability to use their spells with flexibility is a recognition of the fact sorcerers aren't niche blasters like wizards, their choice of a niche is just wider, but once they pick a niche they settle on that. Besides this is something that was left unsaid: sorcerers bring to the table all of the spells they know, which at some point might be more than what a particular wizard has prepared at the time. Also being a distinct class allows for certain cool things, higher hit dice, more proficiencies, more stat bumps... Remember no word on sorcerers and ritual casting has been said, it opens up the chance to get more fancy stuff. I'm liking this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, I find this extremely worrying, as I thought wizards could choose from a variety of spellcasting methodologies. In such a ruleset, there's no need for a separate class whose only difference is how they cast spells. I wonder if they went back on their original plan, and wizards are just vancian. I really really hope not. That would be a big let down.

Well no... it's not just how they cast spells is different. Mike said it himself... there are different sorcerer heritages for the power they wield. One inhabits their draconic ancestry, one has inate magic that explodes wildly out of them. There's a story to why they have power and how they wield it, which is completely different from the book-study of the wizard.

That's no different than the separation between the cleric and wizard or the druid and the cleric or the warlock and the wizard. Their stories of how and why they have magical power, and their ways of manipulating it are different.

I mean... just based on the massive amount of complaints that occurred when it was originally suggested that the wizard, warlock, and sorcerer were all sub-classes of the mage... making any of these as sub-classes to another would not make many people happy.