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

[Tony Vargas]

But, if your focus is out of combat, why would you choose a sorcerer?

Heck, why would you choose an adventurer, right?

Isn't that like playing a fighter or a barbarian and then complaining about a lack of stuff to do out of combat?

Yes. Yes it is. Because, really, all classes can bring it in combat, somehow, to some meaningful extent. But not all them can do a whole lot else, and the edge of the more combat-focused ones have in combat isn't that dramatic, anyway.

Aren't sorcerers pretty heavily focused on combat, just like fighters and barbarians?

Not just like them, no: their list isn't entirely restricted to spells that do damage, let alone spells that always attack AC in order to inflict (iff you hit) one of three types of damage, depending on the implement you use.

Sorcerers almost always were warmages though.

Warmages were their own thing in 3.5, alongside sorcerers & warlocks. FWIW.

If you want lots of stuff to do out of combat, why wouldn't you play a wizard?

Because your concept isn't 'learned magic from books?'

Isn't that what a wizard is for?

Wizards are quite capable of blowing stuff up in combat, with a wide selection of cantrips and spells that inflict damage, impose conditions, and otherwise provide scads of in-combat capability.

Sorcerers were never really generic. They just never got that many spells known to be a "generalist" class.

Generic, not generalist. You could build almost any (nominally) magically-powered 'theme' concept you could come up with using the 3e Sorcerer. There were Sorcerer builds for each of the X-men, even.

But, no, not generalists, they tended to be quite focused on some build idea or theme or magical concept.

The "blaster" sorcerer was more or less the baseline for the class that I think most people played. ((OTOH, I so rarely ever saw a sorcerer in play that I could be way off base here. In all the years I played 3e, I think I maybe saw one sorcerer, and that's maybe))

It was a stereotype, but far from the only possible build.

Again, I have to go back to the idea that you're working backwards here. You're insisting on playing a sorcerer and then trying to force that square peg into the round hole of "magical thief" or "I'm made of magic" concept that you want to play.

Magical Thief obviously screams arcane trickster. But "I'm made of magic?" Of the PH classes, Sorcerer is closest. Wizards study magic, Warlocks bargain for it, Bards find it in words. (Shouldn't even have to mention Clerics or Druids, who draw magic from divine sources - outside not just themselves but off in the outer planes somewhere.)

Now, the Mystic, if going with the 'psionics are magic' rationale, that could work... but then a Sorcerous origin could have worked for a psionic, there's just some overlap there, I suppose...

Sorry? tell me where does it say that sorcerers are contractually bound to be warmages?

The Protocols of the Elders of Lake Geneva? Same chapter where Druids are contractually bound to be hippies, fighters meatshields, Clerics healbots, and Thieves to steal from their own party.

 

[SkidAce]

I use sorcerers as:

A clan of healers (I give them some cleric spells)
Firestarter! (Fire duh)
Mages of the Third Eye (force spells)
Storm Mages (self explanatory)
Fey Blooded (some druid spells)
Demon Blooded (fire and necromancy)
Blood Mages (get sorcery points by using blood of self or others)
Favored Soul (as standard)
Shapeshifters (alter self, etc)
Seeress of Kell (divination)

I like it as a chassis that I can customize...

 

[MoonSong]

I added a fair bit in an edit above, but, just in case it gets lost in the scrum.

Sorcerers almost always were warmages though. They might go the charm route, true, but, outside of a some corner cases, that's what sorcs were. Sorcerer as utility caster is a pretty corner case niche that was not terribly well supported in any edition. And wizards were always better at it than sorcs could hope to be.

Complaining that 5e sorcerers don't do what sorcerers have never really done is a bit of a stretch no?

Well, no. Actually no. In 3e I only played one sorcerer that could be described as a warmage, yet I played dozens of them and never once did I repeat concept, some stuff like beastmaster, thief, con, lightbender, bartender, seamstress, warrior. The class is considered a solid Tier 2, you know why? because it could do any job and very well, the catch is it is one job and only one job, but they do it in a superb way. So maybe I'm an oddity, perhaps my natural aversion to wizards led me to the true potential of the class, but don't tell me the class has never done utility well, because that is just not true.

Edit; Oh I forgot Diplomat(not diplomancer), Seductress, Noble, Showoff who never touches the ground... All done by magic. Magic is so special, why waste it doing somethign as vulgar as killing people?

 

[MoonSong]

Oh, yes. Why am I so adamant about wanting sorcerers to have the same potential as wizards? because they are different approaches to magic! By making one inherently superior to the other the designers declared the other bad wrong fun. Want to do utility? be a wizard, want to be competent on something other than blasting? be a wizard, want to look human? be a wizard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Want to do utility? be a wizard, want to be competent on something other than blasting? be a wizard, want to look human? be a wizard.

Well, if you want to look human you could always cast Disguise Self - it did make the Sorcerer list.

 

[Hussar]

I think the thing to remember here is that in 5e, a lot of the heavy lifting for character concept does come from your background, not just your class. "Bartender" isn't a thing that any class lends itself towards, but, backgrounds do. As is "thief" "diplomat" "seamstress (hem hem)" and "noble". None of those concepts are inherently magical in nature, nor are they based, really, on any particular class. They're all taken care of by the backgrounds.

Now "light bender"? Fair enough. That's a magic guy. But, by the same token, let's not forget that 5e has a massively truncated spell list for all classes. "Light bender" isn't something any class can really do in 5e, unless you mean illusionist. In which case, Sorc or Wizard can do it - phantasmal force, invisibility, etc. These are all available.

Would the 5e Sorc have as many options as the 3e one? Nope. None of the classes do. A 3e caster had what, a couple of THOUSAND spells to choose from? Even in core, you had over a hundred spells to choose from by the time the caster got 3rd level spells. Now, you have about half of that.

I wonder if the issue isn't so much just sorcerer choices, but, the fact that 5e has drastically reduced the number of spells in the game, full stop. Of course a 5e sorcerer has more limited spell options compared to 3e. (or any other edition for that matter, save maybe Basic/Expert) EVERY caster has a much more limited palate of spell options.

Heck, where's my wizard conjurer? I want my wizard to summon minions to do his bidding. But, I can't because "summon minions" is now a druid thing.

 

[Prakriti]

Oh, yes. Why am I so adamant about wanting sorcerers to have the same potential as wizards? because they are different approaches to magic! By making one inherently superior to the other the designers declared the other bad wrong fun. Want to do utility? be a wizard, want to be competent on something other than blasting? be a wizard, want to look human? be a wizard.

Sorcerers make great diplomats. The Sorcerer in my last campaign was proficient in Persuasion and Deception and was the party's leader. I've never seen a Wizard do that.

 

[Uchawi]

Sorcerers make great diplomats. The Sorcerer in my last campaign was proficient in Persuasion and Deception and was the party's leader. I've never seen a Wizard do that.

That is a natural consequence of a Sorcerer being Charisma based, and overall is why I prefer systems like 4E that allows classes to have different primary attributes. It is a simple concept that goes a long way to customize.

 

[Prakriti]

That is a natural consequence of a Sorcerer being Charisma based, and overall is why I prefer systems like 4E that allows classes to have different primary attributes. It is a simple concept that goes a long way to customize.

Even so, it proves that Sorcerers can be good at something other than "blasting." As natural diplomats, they have mastery over a pillar of the game (socialization) that is all but barred to Wizards.

 

[MoonSong]

I think the thing to remember here is that in 5e, a lot of the heavy lifting for character concept does come from your background, not just your class. "Bartender" isn't a thing that any class lends itself towards, but, backgrounds do. As is "thief" "diplomat" "seamstress (hem hem)" and "noble". None of those concepts are inherently magical in nature, nor are they based, really, on any particular class. They're all taken care of by the backgrounds.

Now "light bender"? Fair enough. That's a magic guy. But, by the same token, let's not forget that 5e has a massively truncated spell list for all classes. "Light bender" isn't something any class can really do in 5e, unless you mean illusionist. In which case, Sorc or Wizard can do it - phantasmal force, invisibility, etc. These are all available.

But did all of these through magic. The difference between magical warrior and warrior who does magic on the side.

Would the 5e Sorc have as many options as the 3e one? Nope. None of the classes do. A 3e caster had what, a couple of THOUSAND spells to choose from? Even in core, you had over a hundred spells to choose from by the time the caster got 3rd level spells. Now, you have about half of that.

I wonder if the issue isn't so much just sorcerer choices, but, the fact that 5e has drastically reduced the number of spells in the game, full stop. Of course a 5e sorcerer has more limited spell options compared to 3e. (or any other edition for that matter, save maybe Basic/Expert) EVERY caster has a much more limited palate of spell options.

Heck, where's my wizard conjurer? I want my wizard to summon minions to do his bidding. But, I can't because "summon minions" is now a druid thing.

Well, part of it is the case, but like I complained about my unicorn back in 4e. Where's my talking raven? My invisible servants? My floating disks? Why can the bard have all of them but not the sorcerer?