D&D 5E It's the Sorcerer!

[Andor]

While I grant you there is plenty of room for adding more bloodlines to the sorcerer it seems like something they are pretty obviously holding for later expansion.

Plus it's a great place to flex your house rule muscles. If your player wants a Fey bloodline or Celestial bloodline or Vampire-Pony bloodline then sit down with them and work it out. Everyone wins! Unless it's the vampire-pony one...

 

[gyor]

Actually depending how how you build a warlock, warlock is the easiest.

Example a Chain Feylock pick Eldrich Blast and Mage Hand as your first cantrips, a Pixie as your familiar, choose Eldrich Blast buffing invocation (about 4 of them), and none spells ones like Devil's Sight (120 darlvision even in magical darkness), Beguiling influence (prof in Deception and Persausion skills, voice of the chain master speak throughyour familiar), and Eyes of the RuneKeeper (read anything).

After that you have a whopping 4 spell slots to look after, all of the same level. So in combat you spam your buffed up Eldrich Blast, and use your favourite highest level spell every once in a while, and once in a blue moon use your patrons gifts.

 

[Remathilis]

Everyone wins! Unless it's the vampire-pony one...

Hey! You leave Horseferatu out of this!

 

[Mistwell]

Ranger and Paladin are easy casters

 

[MoonSong]

Ranger and Paladin are easy casters

Bard is also looking like a simple straightforward caster, you just know stuff, use it on the slots you have.

 

[Falling Icicle]

This looks really cool. I think they've done a pretty good job distinguishing between the sorcerer, warlock and wizard, both in fluff and mechanics. I also like this art much better than the trick-or-treat warlock.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think, at that point, one starts to get into a "have your cake and eat it, too" situation. While it's not a direct correlation--there's wiggle room and shades of gray--the fact is that, beyond a certain point, options equal added complexity by definition. Add enough items on the mechanical menu, and it eventually becomes impossible to keep the class "simple."

I disagree. In fact, probably the most basic tenet of game design is "simple to learn, difficult to master." That is, create a simple rule set that requires complex strategic thinking. How do you do this? First off, by only adding complexity where it leads to interesting and useful choices.

To speak directly to the point: replace spell slots with spell points, and the sorcerer class becomes significantly less complex and easier to understand, while actually adding more tactical options.

 

[Vael]

To speak directly to the point: replace spell slots with spell points, and the sorcerer class becomes significantly less complex and easier to understand, while actually adding more tactical options.

Disagree. Why make the sorcerer, which uses similar spells, have to learn a brand new way of managing spells, when compared to every other casting class? You are also assuming that sorcery points and spell points are the same thing, which may not be the case. I like spell points as an alternative system, but that's why it's in the DMG, not the default option.

And given all the trouble 3.5 Psionics gets, I'm not sure that spell points are all that simple.

 

[Li Shenron]

The difference is pretty easy: the wizard is the loser who has to study rigid recipes to do magic, the sorcerer is magic incarnate!.

If you want to get mechanical, one carries a spellbook being limited to what these spells can do and is always a nerd , the other one just does spells and is very adaptable and adept at improvising with them, and sometimes is crazy.

The Sorcerer seems really underwhelming, especially with spells known. Sorcery Points and Metamagic had better be really impressive.

Narratively, the Wizard is still that "rigid" guy, but the new vancian mechanics make it really flexible.

As [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] brilliantly enlightened us some time ago, we shouldn't see the Wizard only as a 3e vancian Wizard with the added flexibility that prepared spells need not be 1-to-1 mapped into slots. Instead, we can think of it as a 3e Sorcerer who instead of casting from a fixed known spells list, she casts from the prepared spells list i.e. a list she can change on next day.

That means e.g. a 20th level Wizard has a list of 20+Int spells list to cast from every day (and can change it next day - limited to her known spells which are in the 40-range), while the 20th level Sorcerer has a 15 spells list (and cannot change, except swap some known spells when levelling up).

Number of base slots is identical. So the Sorcerer additional abilities (e.g. going beyond the daily limits) should better be good or she'll clearly lose the comparison. Because in 3e the Wizard knew many more spells and got them a level earlier, while the Sorcerer had 30-50% more spells per day and huge casting flexibility, but in 5e the Wizard is actually more flexible before counting the Sorcerer's special abilities.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I disagree. In fact, probably the most basic tenet of game design is "simple to learn, difficult to master." That is, create a simple rule set that requires complex strategic thinking. How do you do this? First off, by only adding complexity where it leads to interesting and useful choices.

To speak directly to the point: replace spell slots with spell points, and the sorcerer class becomes significantly less complex and easier to understand, while actually adding more tactical options.

I disagree. That doesn't reduce complexity, it just changes it.

Part of the game involves recognizing how your remaining resources are likely to be spent, what resources are remaining, and when your resources are spent (so you know when to rest). Spell points and variable spell costs make it more difficult to tell how many resources are left. If you can't evaluate the status of your character, that's not a good thing. Furthermore, I'd argue spell points are more difficult for bookkeeping than spell slots.