One hundred ways to fry a Kobold is not the versatility I'm looking for. You knnow something about not blasting would be nice...
Yeah but that was the Sorcerer's main strength even back in 3rd edition.
The strength of the sorcerer in 3rd was that no slots went to waste. You could always turned a slot into an attack or defense if needed. You could technically pick utility spells but sorcerer had so few spells known that you ended up taking only the general one and rarely did a sane sorcerer take many niche utility spells.
The sorcerer was always the best general blaster. The best way to play it (if you DM didn't allow crazy powergaming or held back on magic items) was to take mostly attack and defense spells and a few of the most general utility and noncombat spells like fog cloud and charm person. The generalist sorcerer was kinda weak in 3e. My group had one and she died because she couldn't kill an assassin fast enough.
The main issue to seem to be having is that you want to play a sorcerer that doesn't play to its traditional strengths. There's nothing wrong with playing against type but I wouldn't expect support.
Now I did like the playtest sorcerer but I knew it wouldn't fly. 5th edition wanted to have traditional feel so having sorcerers transform into melee warriors was against type. It could have been their 4th subclass (after the raw mage).