Wizard vs. Sorcerer: Which one would you rather play? Which would you rather be?

[cbwjm]

I really liked the 3e sorcerer. The whole WOTC in 5etying the Sorcerer into manifesting a specific set of abilities related to the parent ancestry (as they define it) is why I dislike the 5e sorcerer class (as of the moment). I don't recall either Merlin, in the stories with which I am familiar (e.g. T.H. White, Excalibur) growing demon wings due to his infernal heritage or Circe, due to her divine heritage growing angel wings. It is also why I disliked the sorcerer in both 4e and Pathfinder as well , but at least Pathfinder had the Arcane Bloodline.

Your reasons for disliking the 5e/pathfinder sorcerer is why I like them. The 3e sorcerer by comparison was often said to have a draconic background but how did that manifest? It didn't, all you could do was cast arcane spells. I'm not saying it was a bad class, it just wasn't an interesting one. When I saw what pathfinder did, I thought it was cool, they actually gave the class some kind of identity.

 

[MoonSong]

Your reasons for disliking the 5e/pathfinder sorcerer is why I like them. The 3e sorcerer by comparison was often said to have a draconic background but how did that manifest? It didn't, all you could do was cast arcane spells. I'm not saying it was a bad class, it just wasn't an interesting one. When I saw what pathfinder did, I thought it was cool, they actually gave the class some kind of identity.

A big problem is that the class services two different audiences, magic as a reflection of personality and magic as embodiment of a magic creature/concept. (There is also "I'm an X-men", but I think it could swing to either extreme). In the former you want variety of options and effects to choose from and as little intrusive flavor baked in as possible, in the latter you want the opposite, focused, clear cut and flavorful blocks to work with. Still both of them are build-to-concept in a way wizard is completely unfit for.

 

[gyor]

Your reasons for disliking the 5e/pathfinder sorcerer is why I like them. The 3e sorcerer by comparison was often said to have a draconic background but how did that manifest? It didn't, all you could do was cast arcane spells. I'm not saying it was a bad class, it just wasn't an interesting one. When I saw what pathfinder did, I thought it was cool, they actually gave the class some kind of identity.

It was a mechanic more then class in my opinion.

It had just a hint of fluff and D&D 4e, D&D 5e, and PF ran with that hint of fluff, and turned it into something thing interesting

I just don't get those who want to drain all the flavour from the class. I mean in 5e the Wizard has got most of the 3e Sorcerers flexibility anyways.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

A big problem is that the class services two different audiences, magic as a reflection of personality and magic as embodiment of a magic creature/concept. (There is also "I'm an X-men", but I think it could swing to either extreme). In the former you want variety of options and effects to choose from and as little intrusive flavor baked in as possible, in the latter you want the opposite, focused, clear cut and flavorful blocks to work with. Still both of them are build-to-concept in a way wizard is completely unfit for.

As time goes on, I become more convinced that they should split the two apart. The "I'm a moon druid who wildshapes into something other than a beast" sorcerer might be better as a half caster, since there are some big gaps in a lot of types (also annoying if your celestial sorcerer never gets wings). Mike Mearls has been talking about the warden lately, and if that was its own class instead of being a barbarian or druid subclass, it could be a good base (if you expanded it past just being "nature stuff").

The problem with the nonbackground sorcerer is that 5e classes needs subclasses (otherwise I guess it could be the charm school wizard [that is pun, not a reference to enchantment] whose gig is "uses charisma instead of intelligence"), and we are left with few options: subclasses based on damage type (seems pretty similar to the dragon sorcerer), some kind of special casting mechanism (which would be? the closest we have to that is the wild magic sorcerer), or some kind of way to gather up magical energy (the party can only adventure in high magic areas?). None of these seem like really good options (that charm school wizard is starting to look better all the time....). I suspect that is one of the reasons we are where we are now (of course if the playtest had a second sorcerer option whose daddy was a big ball of magical energy [pre 4e eladrin perhaps?], things might be different).

 

[MoonSong]

It was a mechanic more then class in my opinion.

It had just a hint of fluff and D&D 4e, D&D 5e, and PF ran with that hint of fluff, and turned it into something thing interesting

I just don't get those who want to drain all the flavour from the class. I mean in 5e the Wizard has got most of the 3e Sorcerers flexibility anyways.

Like I said, two audiences. More power to you if you fancy it, but I don't care for platonic perfect higher concepts that lead to cookie cutter characters, I want as much freedom to make my characters unique. IMO when the higher concept matters too much, there is little room for the character to be an individual

 

[MoonSong]

As time goes on, I become more convinced that they should split the two apart. The "I'm a moon druid who wildshapes into something other than a beast" sorcerer might be better as a half caster, since there are some big gaps in a lot of types (also annoying if your celestial sorcerer never gets wings). Mike Mearls has been talking about the warden lately, and if that was its own class instead of being a barbarian or druid subclass, it could be a good base (if you expanded it past just being "nature stuff").

The problem with the nonbackground sorcerer is that 5e classes needs subclasses (otherwise I guess it could be the charm school wizard [that is pun, not a reference to enchantment] whose gig is "uses charisma instead of intelligence"), and we are left with few options: subclasses based on damage type (seems pretty similar to the dragon sorcerer), some kind of special casting mechanism (which would be? the closest we have to that is the wild magic sorcerer), or some kind of way to gather up magical energy (the party can only adventure in high magic areas?). None of these seem like really good options (that charm school wizard is starting to look better all the time....). I suspect that is one of the reasons we are where we are now (of course if the playtest had a second sorcerer option whose daddy was a big ball of magical energy [pre 4e eladrin perhaps?], things might be different).

I think that the best way to go about a nonbackground sorcerer class would be to use subclasses to define party role: buffer, gish, white mage, blaster, social mage, utility mage, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that the best way to go about a nonbackground sorcerer class would be to use subclasses to define party role: buffer, gish, white mage, blaster, social mage, utility mage, etc.

That runs aground on the issue of traditional D&D-caster flexibility. You could design a new class to be one of those things, but it'd be no better at it than the neo-Vancian classes, who could also be as good at two or three of the others. It lampshades how radically imbalanced D&D has always been, and nobody likes that.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think that the best way to go about a nonbackground sorcerer class would be to use subclasses to define party role: buffer, gish, white mage, blaster, social mage, utility mage, etc.

That is pretty standard for the full casters (bards and druids more so since XGtE came out), so no mechanical reason it wouldn't work for the sorcerer. 5e isn't going "fluff free" on any class (since the focus is primarily on "new/casual" players and having a basic story for them is good marketing). If I was building it from scratch, I would probably change it to wisdom-based and say the sorcerer has a natural aptitude for sensing certain patterns of magic in the world and how they interact with certain things, which moves the origin from something that happened to the sorcerer to something that happens to the patterns of magic, thus putting no restraints on the nature of the sorcerer's background.

 

[houser2112]

3.PF: Sorcerer
5E: Wizard

I loved the 3E sorcerer because I hated fire-and-forget Vancian casting. 3E retained Vancian casting, but at least I could ditch the fire-and-forget part with the sorc. The 5E full casters beat up the sorcerer and stole his lunch money.

 

[pogre]

Be = Sorcerer (all about the Charisma and groupies), plus it seems like a lot less work.
Play = Wizard