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

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not! It's built into the subclass. You can choose to not be a Draconic sorcerer. The problem, from my understanding, and I hear you on this one, is that Wild Magic isn't most people's cup of tea. So that makes it seem like Draconic is a sort of "only" choice for the entire class. I agree that that shouldn't be the case. I'd like to see the options we have now, plus the Shadow sorcerer, and most importantly, a "generic magic" type that isn't revolved around Wild Surges.

I also hear what you're saying regarding liking the Warlock mechanics, and it makes sense. I just think that the Sorcerer, as is, can be "saved" by simply providing some more Origin options, for the most part.

I was pretty clear that it's part of the dragon sorcerer, man. Pls don't nitpick.

The sorcerer can be salvaged, im just not sure it's worth it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The first response tells you that the presence or absence of elves might not wreck the game in the way you fear - if gnomes are better, maybe gnomes can help make the game into something that's not a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler without beauty.

OK, I can sorta see that, as a response to the phrasing of the extreme case, rather than to the bottom line of what it's actually asking for....

For the second response, if you're interested in the experience the elves brought, you should be really interested in hearing about the negative side of that experience, and about the trade-offs it entails.

Really? You don't think a fan of some past game element wouldn't be quite familiar with it? And it's not like the example was a warning that you might not really want what you're asking for, but a justification for denying it outright. OK, so there might be a trade-off involved for those who opt in, for the 'majority' that don't, there is no issue, why bring them up?

Bottom line, both are denials, both are exclusionary. However polite or rationalized, however impolite or histrionic the initial request or complaint or even demand might have seemed.

I remember reading about charging sorcs on the forums. 4e is crazy in just...

I haven't noticed a 5e fetish yet, not like spikes or charging, anyway. I guess casting, but that's too obvious. :shrug:

Agreed on the prepped thing, but why can't sorcerers just have a smaller total list, but cast any spell on that list of a level they can cast, no prep, no spells known.

The smaller the list, the more concepts you squeeze out?

More the spell point idea I posited early in the thread, with modifiable cantrips, etc

Has it already been brought up, "what about just letting Sorcerers use a mana point system instead of slots?"

Warlocks: near as I can tell, the patron is entirely flavor text. Nothing is reinforced mechanically....there are mechanical bits that reinforce becoming a draconic person built into the draconic sorcerer.

Patron is essentially your sub-class, and glancing again at The Fiend, it looks pretty signficant. Nothing quite like 'having scales' but you get a demonic style resistance, and can throw people into Hell... If you can ignore all that, you can probably manage to pretend that your 13AC is from an 'instinctive ward' or something - or even that your 'wings' are, IDK, a magic carpet.

I'd be fine with invocation style options that let you grow armored scales, or whatever, but IMO it shouldn't be built into the class.

Well, built into a sub-class. All you'd need is a less locked-in sub-class.

 

[flametitan]

Warlocks: near as I can tell, the patron is entirely flavor text. Nothing is reinforced mechanically. In my groups, changing flavor text isn't even something you need DM permission for. Ever. Changing mechanics, though, is DM/group decision authority only. Even stuff like casting stat. You can't be a wizard that casts with CHA, unless the DM decides it's ok, and no objections are raised.
So, like i said, the warlock mechanics do the sorcerer better, for me, than the sorcerer.

The invocations can be made to mechanically fit the sorcerer, but I don't believe the warlock's a good chassis for the Sorcerer as written. The warlock is very limited in their magical output, and while the invocations and recharge on a short rest factors alleviate it a little, I'd have do a lot of hacking to it before I can believe that it accurate represents a class that just spews magic everywhere. And not just the spell list (Which is a major factor in how evocative/not evocative the patrons are); but you don't really feel magical with just two spells available to you at a given moment, do you?

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I was pretty clear that it's part of the dragon sorcerer, man. Pls don't nitpick.

The sorcerer can be salvaged, im just not sure it's worth it.

My intention wasn't to nitpick, it was just a misunderstanding I guess. The literal last sentence said "built into the class" so I was going off that. I think if you're going to have Draconic origins, the features given to that subclass are just fine (subjective, just my opinion). It seemed as though you want more options, and I think that would be a great thing. I was addressing this issue with more options regarding entire subclass choice whereas it seems you want more modularity/choice within even the subclasses themselves. I don't think we were talking about exactly the same things there.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And not just the spell list (Which is a major factor in how evocative/not evocative the patrons are); but you don't really feel magical with just two spells available to you at a given moment, do you?

IDK, if David Blaine could actually levitate, rather than just stand on tippy-toe while you watch from a very specific angle, he'd likely seem a deal more magical.

I guess it's all relative - attending Hogwarts, you'd get teased as a muggle, in the Hyborean Age, you could pass for Thulsa Doom.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I haven't noticed a 5e fetish yet, not like spikes or charging, anyway. I guess casting, but that's too obvious. :shrug:

The smaller the list, the more concepts you squeeze out?

Has it already been brought up, "what about just letting Sorcerers use a mana point system instead of slots?"

Patron is essentially your sub-class, and glancing again at The Fiend, it looks pretty signficant. Nothing quite like 'having scales' but you get a demonic style resistance, and can throw people into Hell... If you can ignore all that, you can probably manage to pretend that your 13AC is from an 'instinctive ward' or something - or even that your 'wings' are, IDK, a magic carpet.

Well, built into a sub-class. All you'd need is a less locked-in sub-class.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm sure we will come up with an optimization fetish eventually, with a couple more books.

I'd say the patrons could with no effort at all be reflavored as origins. Or, as I'd prefer, Sources. You know the magic touches Hell, but depending on your backstory, you may or may not have any idea why. Are you hellspawn? Are you cursed? Is your backstory literally Spawn, from the comics?

Similar with the other patrons. Nothing mechanically ties you to an entity, just a theme.

I don't have to change anything when I play warlocks as it having patrons, but simply having a type of creature they prefer to make deals with, summon, etc. my warlocks know their spells, they don't get granted them. Some they learned (as in, were taught how to do access the energy through a focus and get a reliable effect) from beings they summoned and made deals with, some they worked out on their own, or learned the same way wizards do.

The only mechanical change we make is to let warlocks use their pact boon as their arcane focus. Well, and adding stuff. I'm working on a Cloak of Midnight and an instrument pact boon, and a couple new patrons. ill make a thread for that stuff today. I also may rework the blade lock to be a thing where you found a weapon that is more than it seems, and is granting you power while possibly pulling you toward a destiny.

Anyway, point being, the only thing baked into the mechanics is that your power is related to hell, or the Fey, or messing with minds. The Fey warlock could just as easily be explained as the character being a Fey creature. I'm thinking about playing Feylock satyr soon, but I'm waiting to see if we will get playable satyrs or if I will have to make them myself. If i do, she will be a knight/student of a lady of the lake/4e white lady type being with a staff like the Knights of The Word in Terry Brooks' Shannarra prequels.

On topic, I think it would work great to let sorcerers use mana, and to fold sorcery points into that. Their magic runs on internal energy, and is thus under different limitations than wizards. I think that would be great. Especially if hey could do the extra stuff i mentioned with mana, burn hit dice or absorb magic to get mana back, etc all on the same resource? Yes, please. I'd play the crap out of that, even if it ended up slightly underpowered compared to wizards. I'd prefer not underpowered, but I'm just saying, it would be fun enough I'd let a little power slide in order to get it, given a choice.

And with metamagic using using the same resource you use to cast spells, you can give more metamagics without adding power, IMO, and add some optional stuff where instead of learning a new metamagics trick, you gain a passiv emagical ability.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My intention wasn't to nitpick, it was just a misunderstanding I guess. The literal last sentence said "built into the class" so I was going off that. I think if you're going to have Draconic origins, the features given to that subclass are just fine (subjective, just my opinion). It seemed as though you want more options, and I think that would be a great thing. I was addressing this issue with more options regarding entire subclass choice whereas it seems you want more modularity/choice within even the subclasses themselves. I don't think we were talking about exactly the same things there.

the only thing I really want added to the subclasses is to be able to decide how some things play out. And the dragon sorcerer should have options to not get scaley or winged, or be able to shift into a draconic humanoid form, and back to their normal appearance. So I can choose to just look unusually beautiful, instead of like a scaled, winged, elf creature.

Id even dig some racial origins. Heck, a whole supplement of racial subclasses, with the sorcerer one being a Paragon Origin, where you exemplify your race in a supernatural, almost exarch-ish way, and your magic comes from a sort of genetic memory.

 

[flametitan]

IDK, if David Blaine could actually levitate, rather than just stand on tippy-toe while you watch from a very specific angle, he'd likely seem a deal more magical.

I guess it's all relative - attending Hogwarts, you'd get teased as a muggle, in the Hyborean Age, you could pass for Thulsa Doom.

It is all relative. D&D is a very high magic setting by default, though (probably the only reason Harry Potter is more high magic is because Rowling never put the time in to actually explain how it works). And in a setting like D&D, I wouldn't consider somebody like the warlock to be "made of magic." You could certainly take some ideas from the warlock, but to me the current warlock mechanics are great for a "You've borrowed a couple tricks, but you're still very limited to somebody who's either studied magic or is made of magic."

That said, I could see the modifications one would need to make to turn the warlock into something a little more magical, and they're not hard. The biggest thing would be to remove the all-or-nothing nature of warlock slots.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is all relative. D&D is a very high magic setting by default, though. And in a setting like D&D, I wouldn't consider somebody like the warlock to be "made of magic."

XP because there's no 'concede' button.

 

[The_Gneech]

I haven't noticed a 5e fetish yet, not like spikes or charging, anyway. I guess casting, but that's too obvious. :shrug:

Does remixing the classes count as an edition fetish?

-The Gneech