D&D 5E Xanathar hint from Crawford?

[CapnZapp]

And if they make the sorcerer better, the wizard will suffer in comparison and suddenly we'll have threads about how the wizard sucks.
Perfect balance is impossible. One is always going to be better...

It's no coincidence that the sorcerer became the whipping boy class after they "fixed" the ranger last year. Whatever's at the arbitrary bottom is always going to get the most attention. And trying to "fix" them all just makes a treadmill that makes another class the least popular class.

No, that's just a lazy excuse to do nothing.

We can definitely work to improve the weak end of the game, without that having to be seen as a negative, almost Sisyphean, task.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

If a year or 10 years from now there is no revised sorcerer, well, you can guess that the devs eat more fruit than your stale cherry.

There will be no revised sorcerer in just one year (at least not in final, printed, form)

In ten years, however...


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

And if they make the sorcerer better, the wizard will suffer in comparison and suddenly we'll have threads about how the wizard sucks.
Perfect balance is impossible. One is always going to be better...

It's no coincidence that the sorcerer became the whipping boy class after they "fixed" the ranger last year. Whatever's at the arbitrary bottom is always going to get the most attention. And trying to "fix" them all just makes a treadmill that makes another class the least popular class.

This is definitely a risk. And I've seen it happen as well. People always want to complain about "the worst" class, which is certainly cyclical when the designers go on an arms race treadmill of constantly trying to "fix" things.

IMO, there are two factors that really should be the most important

1. First, realize that not every class is designed for you. You don't have to have every class appeal to your personal desires, and it doesn't mean the game is broken if they don't. Rather, what is important is if the fans of that class are dissatisfied.
2. If there are significant numbers of fans dissatisfied, then it's worth revisiting.

Based on those two things, and looking at the survey results we just had for example, then there is some sort of justification for revising the ranger and sorcerer classes. But that's it. Every other class came out pretty well. Any personal tweaks to those other classes would be better suited for an individual group to tweak them at their table. That way you can avoid the arms race you're talking about (and like you said, does happen).

On a side note, I see a lot of people complaining frequently, but not a whole lot of solutions. If you (general you) think the sorcerer is so broken, where is your version?

 

[Ancalagon]

This reasoning strikes me as bonkers, as it effectively advocates for maintaining game imbalance, and one helluva slippery slope argument to make.

Indeed!

This is definitely a risk. And I've seen it happen as well. People always want to complain about "the worst" class, which is certainly cyclical when the designers go on an arms race treadmill of constantly trying to "fix" things.

IMO, there are two factors that really should be the most important

1. First, realize that not every class is designed for you. You don't have to have every class appeal to your personal desires, and it doesn't mean the game is broken if they don't. Rather, what is important is if the fans of that class are dissatisfied.
2. If there are significant numbers of fans dissatisfied, then it's worth revisiting.

Based on those two things, and looking at the survey results we just had for example, then there is some sort of justification for revising the ranger and sorcerer classes. But that's it. Every other class came out pretty well. Any personal tweaks to those other classes would be better suited for an individual group to tweak them at their table. That way you can avoid the arms race you're talking about (and like you said, does happen).

On a side note, I see a lot of people complaining frequently, but not a whole lot of solutions. If you (general you) think the sorcerer is so broken, where is your version?

It's easier to complain that to design a good class. Most of us (me included) aren't quite up to the task. The "easiest" way to would be to chance how spellcasting works - each slot was memorized to something, back to 3e style - which would make the sorcerer unique again. But that may not be a good idea to be honest.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I am so excited for Xanathar's Guide!

I can't wait to open it.

Read it.

Play through some of the options.

And then return to the base PHB.

There's a lot of truth to this, however I do find that my current favorite subclasses are all from UA. My favorite fighter is the Scout, my favorite Barbarians are the Zealot and Ancestral Guardians, my favorite ranger is the Revised with Deepstalker.

I don't know if any of these will make it into XGtE though.

So in my case I will be likely to buy it read it, then go back using UA.

 

[Jester David]

This reasoning strikes me as bonkers, as it effectively advocates for maintaining game imbalance, and one helluva slippery slope argument to make.

But perfect balance is impossible. The closest you can get is rock paper scissors, and it's still possible to win more than theoretically possible. And D&D is ridiculously more complicated than Roschambo...

There will ALWAYS be class that are weaker and classes that are stronger. And changing the balance just moves other classes to the top and other classes become the bottom.

No, that's just a lazy excuse to do nothing.

We can definitely work to improve the weak end of the game, without that having to be seen as a negative, almost Sisyphean, task.

But aren't you always advocating that it's hard to challenge players already? How is making other classes OP a solution?

And, again, whenever you move a class up the rankings, there's another class on the bottom. And very often "balance" is subjective, and there's going to be disagreements.
Pathfinder is STILL tweaking the balance. Ultimate Intrigue, the sixth or seventh large player hardcover, was focused on "fixing" certain weaker builds. And there are many, many more smaller books on sub-builds and concepts.
It's never ending.

There's a compromise. Where they look at how happy and unhappy people are with the classes and see if any really jump out. Look for anomalies. And then fix any classes that really jump out. Which they're doing. With the ranger. They don't need to keep doing it with classes that tested well.

We don't need errata designed to "fix" classes and invalidating physical books. We don't need endless revisionary classes. We don't need classes that fill an existing role but are "rebalanced". We don't need math fix feats or class fix feats. And we probably don't need mandatory spells that have to be taken to "fix" a class, because then people will just complain about spell taxes or the loss of flexibility.

 

[Staffan]

On a side note, I see a lot of people complaining frequently, but not a whole lot of solutions. If you (general you) think the sorcerer is so broken, where is your version?

I'm no game designer, but here are some things I think could make sorcerers more attractive:
1. Additional spells known, ideally one per spell level and fixed based on origin.
2. Quicker restoration of sorcery points, perhaps per short rest instead of long rest?
3. More spells that tie into the sorcerer's strengths. For example, a larger variety of elemental damage spells for the draconic sorcerer, and more spells with attack rolls for the wild mage.
4. More cool origins.

I think those would go a long way toward making the sorcerer more attractive without overshadowing the wizard.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

IIRC the sorcerer from previous editions had a smaller spell list, but could cast more often each spell. With the fact that in 5e, all caster are more like spontaneous spellcaster from before, maybe a simple change would be give the sorcerer more slots per level, like, lets say 1 slot per spell level. It would mix well with the option to sacrifice spell slots for sorcery points because the cost of doing so is less if you have more spell slot than the wizard. Adding more slot also help with the perceived problem of ''too few sorcery points'': you can use this extra 3rd level slot for an additional fireball, or change this extra 3rd level slot into more sorcery points, while still having the same fireball/day ration as a wizard.

 

[Mistwell]

You can totally make a Fire Draconic Sorcerer and it will be more than playable, it will be effective and powerful and thematic.

That's not the complaint.

The complaint is that it's too hard and too compromising to make lots of OTHER archetypal characters. The blood mage. The water witch. All the other kinds of sorcerer.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Couldn't additional subclasses address that issue?

 

[Staffan]

IIRC the sorcerer from previous editions had a smaller spell list, but could cast more often each spell. With the fact that in 5e, all caster are more like spontaneous spellcaster from before, maybe a simple change would be give the sorcerer more slots per level, like, lets say 1 slot per spell level. It would mix well with the option to sacrifice spell slots for sorcery points because the cost of doing so is less if you have more spell slot than the wizard. Adding more slot also help with the perceived problem of ''too few sorcery points'': you can use this extra 3rd level slot for an additional fireball, or change this extra 3rd level slot into more sorcery points, while still having the same fireball/day ration as a wizard.

The problem with that approach is that all full casters in 5e have the same progression, because that's what makes multi-classing spellcasters work (except warlocks, who are weird). It would fit better with the system to give them more sorcery points, which they could then turn into spell slots or use for other shenanigans.