Venting on Sorcerer build

[lall]

I have a halfling sorcerer. He has a dagger but hopes to never use it! His favorite tactic is shooting Fire Bolt and moving back 25 feet. He just hit level 2 and his level 1 adventuring combat-wise was hit and miss, mostly miss. His 2nd and 3rd levels will be warlock, so I'm hoping he'll do a little more damage when he hits, via Hex and Agonizing Blast.

 

[MoonSong]

Adventurers are supposed to be special. In the hands of an adventurer, or their antagonists, proficiency with a longsword is not just the knowledge that you're supposed to put the pointy end in your enemies, but rather that you spent the years mastering the weapon to the point you can actually do so.

Fighters aren't just big dumb louts that spend all their time drinking and gambling and lazing about. They spent years and years, often from the age of children, learning how to use and maintain a wide variety of weapons. Training from dawn until after dark, until your fingers bleed, covered with bruises and with the occasional broken bone from training with practice weapons. That is their legacy, their backbreaking labor to become skilled in the art of war. What was this sorcerer doing with their childhood? Their young adulthood?

Every day spent trying to master their magic so as not to be consumed by it was one not spent running until they vomited while wearing heavy mail, learning how to wear it.

Every day spent attempting to master the creation of convincing illusions was one not spent mastering the bow by learning to lead targets and calculate for wind subconsciously.

Every day spent learning to use charms and smooth talk to get five apples for the price of three was one not spent in swordmanship practice learning to parry an attack and deliver a killing blow.

How did your sorcerer grow up, how did he spend his days? If he mastered the lance and the bow and trained in mail, and now uses these skills along with some magical talents, then he was probably a warrior class first. If he thinks that the spear is a fine way to deal with threats, then he learned it on the line, and in a thousand sparring matches, not sitting under a tree and making glowing lights dance.

Class based systems are hard. And horrible. And if there was a single good way to be rid of them, surely we would be. If you have to, to wrap your mind around it, use multiclassing to simulate your unique character origin and upbringing. A game I played had a good idea: imagine your first three levels as how you began your life, what you experienced, and where you are now.

Did you begin life as a the child of the wild frontiers, learning how to use woodcraft and force of arms to survive the rough wilderness, only to find you had a terrifying magical talent, and now you have decided to focus on nurturing it? Rng1/Sor2. Notice how you don't automagically gain Arcana? You weren't trained in that, you have the skillset you created and built in your life before.

Was your sorcerer a gifted magician from birth, using magic as naturally as your own two hands, and went on to learn to use arms and armors and fight, but has now chosen the life of an adventurer to further their skill with magic and explore the limits of their power. Sor1,Ftr1,Sor2

It goes on and on. If you want a "pure" sorcerer with the fancy capstone, and still want weapons and armor training, a variety of feats exist, this goes the same for other skills and abilities.

No need to create strawmen, nobody is asking for a plate armored greatsword wielding sorcerer, just for one with all simple weapons, SIMPLE weapons, the ones traditionally everybody but Wizards can use. The ones that all four previous versions of the class could use well by default, the ones that enable you to not be a blaster. (And the Arcana prof is not something anybody here asked for, so you don't even get what sorcerers are about, arcana is not a priority for a good portion of sorcerer players, if it was they would be wizard players.)

 

[Minigiant]

Truthfully, weapon proficiency is minor for sorcerer. I'd give a player who asks nicely it.

But sorcerers have good at wills now, unlike 3rd edition. And they don't eventually ignore them like 4th edition.
Sorcerers have little use for a spear or shortbow. They start with 4 cantrips. It makes little sense for a sorcerer to spend time learning that many weapons.

This isn't the past where you either had only weapon attacks at-will or just at-will additional abilities.

 

[Capn Charlie]

Yeah, as a power level thing, weapon proficiency is fairly weak in terms of power, everyone who really benefits from proficiency in a weapon already gets it. For sorcs that only ever get 1 attack, light crossbows are pretty great. Heavy might be better, sure, but not by a whole lot.

In my personal game if a sorcerer wanted to choose conventional weapons, I'd grant them proficiency with a nod, assuming it made sense with their character's story.

Honestly, choosing weapons over cantrips makes a weaker character, and I tend to rubber stamp choices like that, whenever a player is willing to sacrifice power for flavor, I do what I can to accommodate.

 

[Mercule]

By wizard logic I refer to the idea that everybody always is so hyperrational and always optimizing for everything, and when applied to in-game that magic is always so superior and mundane is so inferior there is no point on going with the mundane.

I agree that hyper-optimization is a bit annoying, in game. When talking hypothetically, it's natural to focus on one or two key things and worry about those. I don't expect/want every sorcerer to be focused on death-death-death, but it's a pretty straightforward measure of magic vs. mundane, so why not use it for discussion purposes? If desired, I could certainly have had a similar train of logic for creative sorcerers or smithing sorcerers, etc. The conversation started with weapon proficiencies and why sorcerers don't automatically get more. I just kept my discussion within the original scope. The kettle logic indicates that there's some other question or that there really isn't room for a conversation.

If on top training to use a mundane mean meant you could defend as well or nearly as well? If on top both options were equally you? Maybe a gun is the most efficient mean to defend yourself -I'm not big-, but should I ruin my fragile wrists and fingers -that I need for drawing and painting- learning to shoot one? If I needed that hard to learn to defend myself I would use instead my legs to run, jump, dodge and kick.

My point wasn't really about training -- that's more of a wizard conversation. Sorcerers are "naturally big", so to speak. Magic comes (relatively) easy to them, so they'd tend to favor it. They certainly could favor sticking people with a sword, but that wouldn't really be exercising the Sorcerer class. Maybe my point was lost. After a fashion, you're asking why a high-strength, average-dexterity character doesn't have as many bonuses on bows as a high-dex, low-strength character does. Is it possible for a person to be be strong and agile? Duh, of course it is, which is one good argument for rolling dice for character creation. Assuming you're using point-buy, though, you have to make choices and priorities. If you want to play an archer who detests melee -- and is good at archery -- I'd recommend you put points in dexterity. If you want to play a character who is good at swinging a sword, I'd recommend playing a class that gets sword proficiency.

Is it game-breaking to give a sorcerer, say, one martial proficiency of their choice? I doubt it. Does it fit with the core concept of the class? Not really, from my perspective. There's a reason I haven't said much about the balance, other than a vague platitude or two. If that's your concern, then do it (assuming the DM is down with breaking RAW). If the problem is understanding why it's not part of the sorcerer's core wheelhouse, that's where I've tried to give examples. From flavor, it just breaks down to the sorcerer class being designed to represent a character that's a natural at magic and overflowing with it. To give a martial proficiency to all sorcerers just doesn't click, with me, flavor-wise. The class/level based nature of D&D means you need to multiclass or take a feat to pick up stuff from other arenas.

If the main concern is that sorcerers just are too weak in combat, that's possible. Not my experience, but not outside of possibility. I'd look for an answer that made them more magical, rather than more mundane. Maybe all sorcerers should get to add their Charisma modifier to their cantrip damage. Maybe the dragon-blooded sorcerer is fine, but the wild sorcerer should get Improved Critical (19-20) on their cantrips and/or other spells that need an attack roll.

 

[MoonSong]

Yeah, as a power level thing, weapon proficiency is fairly weak in terms of power, everyone who really benefits from proficiency in a weapon already gets it. For sorcs that only ever get 1 attack, light crossbows are pretty great. Heavy might be better, sure, but not by a whole lot.

In my personal game if a sorcerer wanted to choose conventional weapons, I'd grant them proficiency with a nod, assuming it made sense with their character's story.

Honestly, choosing weapons over cantrips makes a weaker character, and I tend to rubber stamp choices like that, whenever a player is willing to sacrifice power for flavor, I do what I can to accommodate.

Good, in a way. But the story that is missing is "I'm a sorcerer, I'm a peasant who -like everybody else in this dangerous world- had to learn how to use the simplest of weapons before my magic developed." this as opposed to the wizard's sheltered experience. And you may think it is underpowering, but for me it gives power, the power to not having to care about combat and focus on the few utilities you can get.

I agree that hyper-optimization is a bit annoying, in game. When talking hypothetically, it's natural to focus on one or two key things and worry about those. I don't expect/want every sorcerer to be focused on death-death-death, but it's a pretty straightforward measure of magic vs. mundane, so why not use it for discussion purposes? If desired, I could certainly have had a similar train of logic for creative sorcerers or smithing sorcerers, etc. The conversation started with weapon proficiencies and why sorcerers don't automatically get more. I just kept my discussion within the original scope. The kettle logic indicates that there's some other question or that there really isn't room for a conversation.


My point wasn't really about training -- that's more of a wizard conversation. Sorcerers are "naturally big", so to speak. Magic comes (relatively) easy to them, so they'd tend to favor it. They certainly could favor sticking people with a sword, but that wouldn't really be exercising the Sorcerer class. Maybe my point was lost. After a fashion, you're asking why a high-strength, average-dexterity character doesn't have as many bonuses on bows as a high-dex, low-strength character does. Is it possible for a person to be be strong and agile? Duh, of course it is, which is one good argument for rolling dice for character creation. Assuming you're using point-buy, though, you have to make choices and priorities. If you want to play an archer who detests melee -- and is good at archery -- I'd recommend you put points in dexterity. If you want to play a character who is good at swinging a sword, I'd recommend playing a class that gets sword proficiency.

Is it game-breaking to give a sorcerer, say, one martial proficiency of their choice? I doubt it. Does it fit with the core concept of the class? Not really, from my perspective. There's a reason I haven't said much about the balance, other than a vague platitude or two. If that's your concern, then do it (assuming the DM is down with breaking RAW). If the problem is understanding why it's not part of the sorcerer's core wheelhouse, that's where I've tried to give examples. From flavor, it just breaks down to the sorcerer class being designed to represent a character that's a natural at magic and overflowing with it. To give a martial proficiency to all sorcerers just doesn't click, with me, flavor-wise. The class/level based nature of D&D means you need to multiclass or take a feat to pick up stuff from other arenas.

If the main concern is that sorcerers just are too weak in combat, that's possible. Not my experience, but not outside of possibility. I'd look for an answer that made them more magical, rather than more mundane. Maybe all sorcerers should get to add their Charisma modifier to their cantrip damage. Maybe the dragon-blooded sorcerer is fine, but the wild sorcerer should get Improved Critical (19-20) on their cantrips and/or other spells that need an attack roll.

Again this is not so much about being superstrong in combat, but a matter of opting out of it and a matter of aesthetics. A sorcerer is easily confused with a wizard, but carry a spear and show how it isn't for show and you immediately run the point across. In a way something low-level sorcerers could do no wizard could replicate. And remember nobody is asking for martial weapons, just simple weapons, spears, sickles and stuff. IOW the things that scream "Peasant not scholar". the 5e sorcerer is truly the first version who feels like a weaker wizard rather than something entirely different.