D&D 5E Xanathar hint from Crawford?

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

I get that, and I do prefer the houserule where you mix spell points and sorcery points in one large pool. But like you said, warlocks already work differently when multiclassing, so why not the sorcerer? Furthermore, I dont think that having a class following the same chassis as any other spellcaster just because it makes it easier to use with an optional rules is weird; sorcerers should be about breaking the conventional spellcasting! Thats partially why I also think the Mystic we saw in UA makes for a better sorcerer than the sorcerer itself.

 

[gyor]

Couldn't additional subclasses address that issue?

More subclasses are coming in XGE, the exact amount is uncertain, between 2 and 5. If the Sea Origin is one of them then you very much have your water witch.

 

[MoonSong]

Yes!
We've seen the alternative with 4e and Pathfinder. Pages and pages of errata to fix "broken" classes. And then re-errata to roll back fixes. Splatbooks after splatbooks to make weak builds valid.
World of Warcraft has been tweaking class balance pretty much non-stop since that game dropped. And it has the advantage of being automatically applied to every character. And some classes are still just better.

It's an endless self-perpetuating cycle.
They fix the sorcerer. Then the warlock needs "fixed" and everyone talks about that class. They "fix" the warlock and suddenly the monk absolutely needs to be reworked. And so on, until it becomes the ranger or sorcerer at the bottom again.

There is however a good reason to fix the sorcerer. It was basically absent from the open playtest, as the design team spent more time trying to erase it from existence than actually asking the player base what they wanted out of the sorcerer. There is also the problem that historically the class has been saddled with "experimental" overestimated mechanics that make designers overcompensate too hard in the other direction -And that is when their name isn't Skip Williams-. So the net result is a class that has never lived up to its potential. -in fact it seems that every new edition just further nerfs the class and takes away flexibility-
And I don't think people are just talking now because the Ranger is fixed and now sorcerer is the bottom of the heap, a lot of that is players playing long enough to notice how short the end of the stick was all along.

Couldn't additional subclasses address that issue?

At this point, they are a sorely needed patch. Particularly if the latest Favored Soul makes it to print, as it has the least intrusive themes and adds a lot of needed flexibility in spell choice. But it won't really solve the core issues.

 

[Mistwell]

At this point, they are a sorely needed patch. Particularly if the latest Favored Soul makes it to print, as it has the least intrusive themes and adds a lot of needed flexibility in spell choice. But it won't really solve the core issues.

The person I was replying to said some archetypes with the sorc worked fine and others did not. Which is why I said subclasses could probably fix it if it's just a matter of archetypes. You appear to be arguing something different (but replying to me as if I were addressing that different issue, though I did not).

 

[Jester David]

There is however a good reason to fix the sorcerer. It was basically absent from the open playtest,

You could argue the same point about the bard. It was my favourite class in 3e and I'm not entirely satisfied with the 5e version, can that be re-done as well then?

as the design team spent more time trying to erase it from existence than actually asking the player base what they wanted out of the sorcerer.

Again, the same could be said about the warlock.

So that's two more classes they need to re-do.

It's easy to find reasons to "fix" a class. Justifications really. It wasn't playtested enough. It's too far removed from past versions. It can't perform something formerly iconic. Alignment restrictions were removed. Etc.
It's always possible to think of a reason to say a change or update is warranted.

There is also the problem that historically the class has been saddled with "experimental" overestimated mechanics that make designers overcompensate too hard in the other direction -And that is when their name isn't Skip Williams-. So the net result is a class that has never lived up to its potential. -in fact it seems that every new edition just further nerfs the class and takes away flexibility-

I'm uncertain of that last bit. There wasn't a lot of nerfing or experimental mechanics going on in 4e. It seemed very much in line with the power of the rogue, avenger, and warlock. And it had as much flexibility as any other class...

And I don't think people are just talking now because the Ranger is fixed and now sorcerer is the bottom of the heap, a lot of that is players playing long enough to notice how short the end of the stick was all along.

Maybe. But it seems unlikely given the complains are often about the number spells known and limited variety of subclasses. The former was well noted and the reason there was a larger number of sorcerer subclasses in Unearthed Arcana. I think as far as WotC is concerned, the latter is a problem solved.

But given only the ranger stood out to WotC as underpowered - and even then the majority of players and DMs thought it was fine - it's much more likely it's a small number of vocal people on a single message board who are just slightly unhappy with the sorcerer. And, again, likely buoyed by the focus away from the ranger as the least popular class.

At this point, they are a sorely needed patch. Particularly if the latest Favored Soul makes it to print, as it has the least intrusive themes and adds a lot of needed flexibility in spell choice. But it won't really solve the core issues.

If you think it needs a patch, then house rule it. Problem solved.

But I don't think we need WotC to start trying to start the "revision cycle" all over again for the third edition in a row trying to re-jigger balance. That causes more problems than it fixes, especially with organised play when introducing a second version of a class can only cause confusion.

 

[gyor]

You could argue the same point about the bard. It was my favourite class in 3e and I'm not entirely satisfied with the 5e version, can that be re-done as well then?


Again, the same could be said about the warlock.

So that's two more classes they need to re-do.

It's easy to find reasons to "fix" a class. Justifications really. It wasn't playtested enough. It's too far removed from past versions. It can't perform something formerly iconic. Alignment restrictions were removed. Etc.
It's always possible to think of a reason to say a change or update is warranted.


I'm uncertain of that last bit. There wasn't a lot of nerfing or experimental mechanics going on in 4e. It seemed very much in line with the power of the rogue, avenger, and warlock. And it had as much flexibility as any other class...


Maybe. But it seems unlikely given the complains are often about the number spells known and limited variety of subclasses. The former was well noted and the reason there was a larger number of sorcerer subclasses in Unearthed Arcana. I think as far as WotC is concerned, the latter is a problem solved.

But given only the ranger stood out to WotC as underpowered - and even then the majority of players and DMs thought it was fine - it's much more likely it's a small number of vocal people on a single message board who are just slightly unhappy with the sorcerer. And, again, likely buoyed by the focus away from the ranger as the least popular class.


If you think it needs a patch, then house rule it. Problem solved.

But I don't think we need WotC to start trying to start the "revision cycle" all over again for the third edition in a row trying to re-jigger balance. That causes more problems than it fixes, especially with organised play when introducing a second version of a class can only cause confusion.

Really, you like the 3e Bard over the 5e Bard, wow, I find that shocking, 5e is the first edition where Bards don't have a rep for being under powered and are possibly one of the most popular classes. Not judging, just shocked.

 

[Jester David]

Really, you like the 3e Bard over the 5e Bard, wow, I find that shocking, 5e is the first edition where Bards don't have a rep for being under powered and are possibly one of the most popular classes. Not judging, just shocked.

I liked my bard to be a bard and do bardic things, not spend all of its time doing wizard or cleric things at high level.

The 5e bard dropped the "jack of all trades" and "magical dabbler" hooks and now it's just another full spellcaster, giving up half its potential class features for moar spells!!!11! Yawn.
From level 7 onward you can pretty much multiclass into sorcerer and lose nothing.

 

[gyor]

Jack of All trades is literally a class feature called Jack of All Trades, and the Bard can dabble in the magic of other classes via Magical secrets.

And they still have tons of stuff they can do beyond spells thanks to inspiration dice, song of rest, counter charm, descent weapons ect..., and that is before you count what Bard Colleges give you.

If you want a half caster ish Bard multiclass Bard with Fighter or Rogue. A Dex based Lore Battle Master Bard could be pretty cool actually, with both inspiration dice and manuever dice.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I had a thought about whose opinions about sorcerers should matter most. It should be players who like to play both sorcerers *and* wizards. If you only like one of those, you just aren't going to be able to feel it out as well.

Couldn't additional subclasses address that issue?

The problem with that is that they wouldn't help other sorts of draconic sorcerers. Draconic shouldn't = fire. Of course, this one is easily addressed by more spells with different types of damage.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Jester David, you are correct that "perfect balance is impossible," and thankfully I am not advocating for "perfect balance," but, rather, I believe that we should strive for competitive balance within an acceptable margin.

Couldn't additional subclasses address that issue?

It would also need additional spell options for the non-fire draconic sorcerers, but that is an easier fix.