D&D 5E Is the major thing that's disappointing about Sorcerers is the lack of sorcery point options?

[Yunru]

Yes.That mechanically-supported abilities are character-defining does not require that they be the only things that can be character defining. (And good luck with any defining RP concept if no mechanics bear it out.)

Mechanically-supported? None of that was mechanically supported. Trigger her berserk button and she'll target you exclusively at the expense of all else. Underestimate her and she'll have something to say when she defeats you.

Only mechanics needed for that are... selecting targets and being able to speak?


Edit: Unless that's what you're trying to say?

 

[MoonSong]

I'm curious... wasn't the 4e sorcerer a blaster (striker) type? What was it's class utility breadth like? Did it have a wide variety of spells? Were you able to make a thief-sorcerer type?

I honestly don't know much about the details of the 4e sorcerer but is that where the 5e version of the sorcerer is perhaps pulling from for inspiration/feel as opposed to the 3e version?

4e gets a pass because everybody was made for combat, even then sorcerers had some pretty good unique utility spells that just made it worth it -and left more permanent effects on the world-. Still, you had the basics, good mba, stuff. There were some nice experiments that could lead to nice things -like weapon spells- but they barely scratched the surface instead they went to yet another wizard variant and gave them tons of new spells that eventually made them uber strikers (like fire genasi wizards)

 

[Imaro]

Most definitely. But even then the Sorcerer had more options than now. I loved my rebreather. So much maths.

Is that with just the first book they appeared in or using supplemental material? Also I'm looking at one of the class guides for the sorcerer and I'm not seeing much built in versatility or breadth (even the utility powers seem heavily combat focused). Could you elaborate on what features of the 4e sorcerer opened this area up for you?

 

[Yunru]

Is that with just the first book they appeared in or using supplemental material? Also I'm looking at one of the class guides for the sorcerer and I'm not seeing much built in versatility or breadth (even the utility powers seem heavily combat focused). Could you elaborate on what features of the 4e sorcerer opened this area up for you?

Oh they didn't have a lot of options outside of combat (not much did). Where they had the options was inside combat. You had a number of ways you could build a Sorcerer, some better than others but very few non-viable.

 

[Imaro]

4e gets a pass because everybody was made for combat, even then sorcerers had some pretty good unique utility spells that just made it worth it -and left more permanent effects on the world-. Still, you had the basics, good mba, stuff. There were some nice experiments that could lead to nice things -like weapon spells- but they barely scratched the surface instead they went to yet another wizard variant and gave them tons of new spells that eventually made them uber strikers (like fire genasi wizards)

Yes but thematically the 4e sorcerer is a blaster, just like the 5e sorcerer... and while everyone was made to hold their own in combat... some classes got features like extra skills, ritual caster, and a wide breath of non-combat utility powers to go in a more non-combat direction. Again the 5e sorcerer seems to pull it's inspiration from 4e as opposed to 3e... which seems to be the disconnect some people are having with the 5e sorcerer not meeting their expectations.

 

[Imaro]

Oh they didn't have a lot of options outside of combat (not much did). Where they had the options was inside combat. You had a number of ways you could build a Sorcerer, some better than others but very few non-viable.

I'm still unclear on what exactly say gives them the ability to be a thief-sorc or allows them to play a dimensional hopper sorcerer or a god-touched sorcerer or many of the other concepts stated earlier that 5e should support. I'm looking over their abilities, spells, etc. and I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Yunru]

I'm still unclear on what exactly say gives them the ability to be a thief-sorc or allows them to play a dimensional hopper sorcerer or a god-touched sorcerer or many of the other concepts stated earlier that 5e should support. I'm looking over their abilities, spells, etc. and I'm just not seeing it.

You may be confusing me with someone else. I was arguing that the Sorcerer's current focus was fine, they just didn't have enough options for said focus.

 

[Imaro]

You may be confusing me with someone else. I was arguing that the Sorcerer's current focus was fine, they just didn't have enough options for said focus.

Ah, ok... I thought the argument that certain thematic concepts that were always attainable by the sorcerer suddenly weren't viable with the 5e sorcerer anymore were being made. My bad.

 

[MoonSong]

Yes but thematically the 4e sorcerer is a blaster, just like the 5e sorcerer... and while everyone was made to hold their own in combat... some classes got features like extra skills, ritual caster, and a wide breath of non-combat utility powers to go in a more non-combat direction. Again the 5e sorcerer seems to pull it's inspiration from 4e as opposed to 3e... which seems to be the disconnect some people are having with the 5e sorcerer not meeting their expectations.

4e made blasting fun. And well it was far from perfect -in fact I complained a lot about it-. Yet it was lightyears ahead of the current one. The 4e sorcerer could do things no wizard could in and out of combat. The 5e is a straight wizard-minus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes but thematically the 4e sorcerer is a blaster, just like the 5e sorcerer...

No, thematically the 4e sorcerer was, just as the 3.5 and 5e sorcerers are, an innate arcane-magic-user with some sort of magical heritage providing the power. In the Role sense, it was a Striker. And the 3e Sorcerer was often played as a sort of 'blaster' (though that wasn't exactly optimal in 3e, but then neither was picking a Tier 2 Sorcerer over a Tier 1 Wizard in the first place).

and while everyone was made to hold their own in combat... some classes got features like extra skills, ritual caster, and a wide breath of non-combat utility powers to go in a more non-combat direction

Not so much that last, but an extra skill or two or Ritual Caster, sure - but that was only the equivalent of a couple of feats. As in 5e, 4e characters were OK out of combat by default, because their checks, between stats & leveling, would mostly be adequate to participate.

Again the 5e sorcerer seems to pull it's inspiration from 4e as opposed to 3e... which seems to be the disconnect some people are having with the 5e sorcerer not meeting their expectations.

No, 4e & 5e inspiration was from the original sorcerer concept - they just didn't take the biggest mechanical support (or reason, I suppose) for that concept: Spontaneous Casting.

Mechanically-supported? None of that was mechanically supported. Trigger her berserk button and she'll target you exclusively at the expense of all else.

And if what she targets you with isn't up to snuff, it won't matter.

Underestimate her and she'll have something to say when she defeats you.

And if the mechanics make her weak enough that it's not underestimation, oh well, that whole 'defining' aspect of her personality is lost, or, at least, defined a little differently, more as comic relief...

So, yes, mechanics can matter even to RP definitions of your character. Even were that not the case, the obvious and never-disputed fact that you can define your character via RP does not mean that its abilities cannot also be defining.