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

[I'm A Banana]

Sorry I missed the memo where it said this was a monster class

You're on a slippery slope here.

From 3e: "It’s true that sorcerers often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage...A household with a budding sorcerer in it may be troubled by strange sounds or lights, which can create the impression that the place is haunted...sorcerers are on their own, feared by erstwhile friends and misunderstood by family...Arcane spellcasters from savage lands or from among the brutal humanoids are more likely to be sorcerers than wizards."

In their very inception, sorcerers were "freaks." They didn't fit in. They caused disturbances. They were common among the "brutal humanoids." 5e preserves that flavor, and even backs it up mechanically with wild surges and dragon scales and flying.

That doesn't mean only monsters are sorcerers, but it does mean that every sorcerer is at least somewhat of an outsider. That's part of the sorcerer's original story. And if flavor matters, then it should be part of the story of any sorcerer that you play as well. It doesn't have to be, of course, but then the flavor doesn't really matter very much and you can make whatever flavorful changes to whatever class or archetype you want and your "dimensional mage" can be a wizard.

First, while I agree that too many options can turn off newbies, too few is also a problem because it makes it harder for newbies to take the image in their head and find the right mechanics to express it. Skilled players familiar with the system can find good mechanical approximations for most concepts, particularly by being aware of refluffing possibilities, but an inexperienced player only has the options in front of them at the moment. For example, a new, inexperienced player displeased with their spell options as a sorcerer may not even know that wizards get access to all the same spells, plus more. Even if they did know, they might reject switching to Wizard on fluff (or primary stat) grounds, not thinking to ask the DM to refluff the wizard as a sorcerer.

A new player doesn't know enough about what the spell options do to have an opinion one way or another. They don't have a level of system familiarity that lets them understand that spell lists are distinct between classes, let alone be capable of comparing them. Also, newbies don't typically come to the game with a strong character image initially in their head. They approach the game by asking "What can I be?" (Or "Can I be like (pop culture icon X)?" at best), and go from there. "Limitations" aren't something that you feel until you've explored the thing thoroughly first.

Second, increasing the size of the Sorcerer spell list to make more concepts realizable can't qualify as too many options until it surpasses the wizard list, unless you're arguing that 5e wizards themselves are newbie poison.

Yeah, I would definitely argue that a Wizard in any edition is newbie poison. Hell, spellcasting alone is probably about six decision points more complicated than it should be from a purely newbie perspective, but we've got some historical baggage there that can't be shed without dramatically altering the brand identity of the thing, so I'm comfortable with "slightly less confusing than the editions before it" as a truce. The OD&D Wizard probably wins the newbie-friendly contest, and even it is saddled with system mastery issues and Vancian spellcasting.

Personally I feel the character-building minigame is an important part of what drives experienced players to keep playing D&D, because it can be done solo. When in-between campaigns and/or gaming groups, the ability to build characters as a creative exercise keeps interest in the game high. Once of the prices of having deliberately limited options is reducing the appeal/longevity of the minigame to your veteran fanbase.

If D&D is a game meant to be played at a table with friends, then it should be designed for that medium, and every other axis it could fire on is secondary at best. If D&D is not meant to be played at a table with friends, I've got more fun things to do with a free evening than pouring over books imagining how cool this character that I'll never actually get to see played would hypothetically be. My free time is overflowing with options.

I don't understand how, for example, not giving the sorcerer access to the entire wizard list significantly improves the class for you personally. You'd have no more options than a wizard would, so there shouldn't be too many, and it leaves the fluff divide between the classes entirely intact, so they remain distinct. (If both classes had unique spells, I could see an argument that merging the spell lists would reduce the distinction between the classes, at least so long as the assignment of particular spells had a thematic divide. But when one class's spell list is a strict subset of the other's and lacks any rhyme or reason, I don't find that convincing.)

It weakens the fluff divide significantly to give sorcerers access to thorough, methodical, ritualistic magic. That isn't an instinctive power born in your soul, it's...wizard stuff. A spell or two might be OK in a subclass that specifically had need for it, but as a general principle, the sorcerer's spell list should only include spells that enhance it's playstyle as a user tightly themed spontaneous magic. Some spells, I could see a case for (silence maybe!). Others, no (Tenser's Floating Disc isn't spontaneous magic, it's a wizard spell developed by a specific wizard and trained to other specific wizards through their books).

I'm also unconvinced that the "marginal gain" of improving the game for whatever-size swath of the gaming audience feels as I do is necessarily any less valuable than improving it for whatever-size swath shares your opinions. Without some sort of concrete data on the prevalence of certain preferences, what basis can there be for claiming your opinion is more important than mine? It does indeed sound like you're saying that my preference is wrong on the (unknowable) basis that it is less popular than yours.

It could be a huge mistake to use narrow classes as a design ethos. But, 5e seems to be doing fine - whether that's because of, in spite of, or regardless of it's use of narrow classes is mostly a matter of opinion.

There is a difference between tossing out the "sworn & beholden" fluff for the warlock and changing the mechanics of the wizard class to no longer have a spellbook or be based on charisma. I've never yet encountered a DM who wasn't fine with rewriting fluff, but I've met several who were very hesitant to make even small mechanical changes. And for those who do organized play, the former is legal, but the latter is not.

The line is not nearly as hard as that. Which ability score you cast spells with or whether your spellbook is a literal book or just a sort of free-floating spell list or whatever is all fluff. What's more, deciding your Arcane Trickster has a mysterious magical origin is also fluff.

I'm glad! Your experience shows that the class has enough options for you to be content. But I don't see how your experience is sufficient to reduce my perspective to "white-room speculation". I am indeed frustrated with the sorcerer builds that the truncated spell list precludes--there's nothing hypothetical about it.

There's nothing hypothetical about your frustration.

However, your frustration sounds like it is based in aesthetics, not execution.

These are very different kinds of frustrations. In as much as D&D is designed to be a game played at a table with friends, execution is much more important. Aethetics have a lot to say, too, sometimes even louder, but they are a secondary goal, and shouldn't get in the way of the primary goal.

And narrow classes, IMXP, make D&D a better game to play at a table with more friends.

 

[MoonSong]

You're on a slippery slope here.

From 3e: "It’s true that sorcerers often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage...A household with a budding sorcerer in it may be troubled by strange sounds or lights, which can create the impression that the place is haunted...sorcerers are on their own, feared by erstwhile friends and misunderstood by family...Arcane spellcasters from savage lands or from among the brutal humanoids are more likely to be sorcerers than wizards."

In what word being covered in scales, being bald an purple, or looking like a dead body counts as good looks?

 

[flametitan]

In what word being covered in scales, being bald an purple, or looking like a dead body counts as good looks?

Who said the scales had to be prominent? The book itself says they're thin, so I'd assume that they're writing under the idea that the average person might not notice that the sorcerer has scales to begin with, unless they're getting fairly intimate (though that is probably not the most realistic way to write "your scales are only as visible as you want them to be.")

The shadow Sorcerer quirks were supposed to be optional, so you don't have to look like a corpse.

I know what you're being frustrated with. I wouldn't mind something a little more generic either. That said, I understand why wotc went the route it did as well, and I rather enjoy it, as it means something to be a sorcerer rather than a wizard, beyond just how the magic is executed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In what word being covered in scales, being bald an purple, or looking like a dead body counts as good looks?

I mean, Rule 34, at least. But the point of that quote was "a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage."

The scales in 5e are "a thin sheen," so I'm imagining something that looks like regular skin, but has a kind of rainbow shimmering when light hits it at a certain angle, and if you look closely, you can see transparent (or maybe slightly colored!) scales about the size of a patch of skin between two pores - definitely a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage, but nothing that gets you lynched on sight. There's probably a range of interpretation for that but a thin sheen doesn't really imply a monstrous visage.

The wild mage in 5e doesn't have ANY inherent physical changes, so unless you've rolled a lot of physical effects from a wild surge, you look just like anyone else with a high CHA. (and if you are a wild mage who, unlike my crazy gnome, actually doesn't want to Surge, you're even less likely to have a change). Those physical effects include a lot of temporary effects, and some changes to your height and age, and the blue skin. The storm mage also includes no inherent physical changes.

Like the good book says, Don't Panic. If you want to play a sorcerer without being horrifically monstrous, 5e sorcerers do that. But, you do have a good chance of having a touch of the exotic. Don't expect to not turn heads - you are, after all, someone of exceptional origins.

 

[eayres33]

This is an interesting thread. When I read through the PHB the first time, I wanted to be a non-magical class. I am a huge Conan fan so I wanted to be a Barbarian, but once our group started to choose its role, a fighter, a cleric and a rogue, I started looking for a magic user. To be honest I instantly fell in love with the Draconic Sorcerer. Granted, I wanted to be a blaster, but the whole character design was all too perfect.
Since then, I’ve also fallen love with the Halfling wild Sorcerer, but haven’t got to play it yet. I think the options given to the Sorcerer so far are flavorful and competitive. Yet I would not have an issue with more options. The question becomes what are you willing to give up for more sorcerer options?
Having the Generic Mage sounds nice, but if it costs me an Inquisitor or an Agent class from Wizards then I will pass the three options I have seem fine, but if the cost is more Cleric options, or Wizards schools, then fine, I feel those classes are over represented to begin with.

 

[Yunru]

In what word being covered in scales, being bald an purple, or looking like a dead body counts as good looks?

Considering those scales are good enough armor that they might be all that's covering them?

If it's humanoid enough someone will find it sexy.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

If it's humanoid enough someone will find it sexy.

 

[Imaro]

In what word being covered in scales, being bald an purple, or looking like a dead body counts as good looks?

*shrug* Farscape??

 

[Yunru]

In what word being covered in scales, being bald an purple, or looking like a dead body counts as good looks?

Racist much?

I count discrimination against skin tone, body shape, hair features and skin properties. Might as well of said 'In what world having a beard, being bald and black, or looking like an anorexic counts as good looks?'

 

[I'm A Banana]

Racist much?

I count discrimination against skin tone, body shape, hair features and skin properties. Might as well of said 'In what world being covered in hair, being bald and black, or looking like a bodybuilder counts as good looks?'

We can have this discussion without getting personal, I think. Someone thinking the sorcerer's physical changes are too extreme doesn't mean that they're also racist.