D&D 5E On whether sorcerers and wizards should be merged or not, (they shouldn't)

[MoonSong]

(I wanted to address this post, but I thought it was better to make a new thread for it. Because ... reasons. I keep seeing this idea over and over.)

Re: Sorcerer, I think the class plays better than people are giving it credit for on the conceptual level. That said, thematically there is no heavy lifting that the class does that could not be done by the Wizard class with some cosmetic changes. If the most ardent supporter, feels the class does not have enough spells/ Sorcery points...lets roll it into the Wizard class...(along with metamagic and Sorcery points)...between votes for Wiz and Sorc, the total stands at 22. Combine the two classes.

The thing is you just can't really merge Sorcerer and wizard. I mean is not impossible and I can stop you from trying, but it is impossible without losing the character concepts the sorcerer cover entirely. The DnD wizard is really iconic, it has a very overpowering flavor that gets to dictate background and character history -even down to personality and possibly playstyle-. This is not a recent thing, it goes way back to OD&D. It is a sacred cow that nobody can even dream of slaughtering.

However this iconicity also makes some character concepts unable to work with the wizard. Do you want to play a character that isn't actively looking for more [magic] power? One that sees her magic as curse? One who views magic as a reality of life and little different from blinking or speaking? One that isn't about lore? One that isn't really smart? One that is outright dumb or an airhead? One that is poor? One that emulates Circe, Samantha, (classic) Sabrina or Elsa? Wizard is an awful match for any of them. That's where the Sorcerer class comes. It covers the characters that are a poor fit for the wizard, and by covering them, the wizard has no pressure to be these characters. But it has to be good on its own, because otherwise we have second rate character concepts, characters that are bad just because they don't fit in the iconic -but rigid- wizard box.

Now this duality seems to give people headaches. And I get it, why do we need two primarily spellcasting classes? However, merging the classes would be counterproductive, and would be at odds with both classes. Merging them would necessitate that the resulting class is either so broad and generic that the iconic wizard is just gone, or keep the wizard's iconicity, in which case you haven't successfully merged sorcerer and wizard, you've just gotten rid of the sorcerer altogether. Having a mega class that gives choice of either style is also a waste of time, because at that point you've just essentially kept the two classes, it just happens that they can't multiclass with each other.

My point in a nutshell.

 

[Olrox17]

You probably should have made this a poll. Anyway, i agree that the sorcerer has its own niche and absolutely deserves to be an autonomous class.

 

[Leatherhead]

You could merge the warlock and the sorcerer. Any Patron could be an Origin, and vice versa.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the casting stat was changeable then you could merge wizards and sorcerers. As is, the wizard is knowledge based. The sorcerer is non-knowledge based.

That difference is enough to keep them separate.

 

[Don Durito]

We really don't need three Charisma casters.

Personally I would keep the Sorcerer, slaughter the Warlock and rethink the Bard, but I suspect I'd be in the minority.

 

[FrogReaver]

We really don't need three Charisma casters.

Personally I would keep the Sorcerer, slaughter the Warlock and rethink the Bard, but I suspect I'd be in the minority.

We need something that accommodates the concept of casting because of internal power instead of external knowledge or diety.

 

[tetrasodium]

Personally I feel like because of how knowledge skills, crafting, & "warlock invocations" (cough wizard bonus feats) were changed in 5e wizard's don't really feel very wizardy anymore

 

[Krachek]

They should not be merge.
but the sorcerer concept has been badly implemented, especially when they open up the blood line idea.
The OP describe well the wizard concept, the warlock take the space of magic teach or powered by an external patron, sorcerer have to manage all the numerous other ideas. It’s there that it go bad.
Innate psionic power, innate elemental power, Innate draconian or chaotic power,
all implemented by one class? Don’t ask why we are disappointed.

Sorcerer would be better serve by a DM toolbox to create custom classes.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

My short answer would be: they should, but that ship has sailed. Then, we could have a class with a distinguishing identity to represent characters with inborn magical abilities. The RAW sorcerer is a very poor representation of the archetype, in my opinion. "Like a wizard, but charismatic and no spellbook". Really? We could do much better than that.

 

[oreofox]

We really don't need three Charisma casters.

Personally I would keep the Sorcerer, slaughter the Warlock and rethink the Bard, but I suspect I'd be in the minority.

I merged the warlock into sorcerer, made a few of the patrons into bloodlines, and made the sorcerer cast on Constitution instead of Charisma. Charisma works fine for the bard, but it never made much sense for the sorcerer. If the sorcerer's power is innate, it makes more sense to use Constitution, not Charisma. Charisma is force of personality, looks, likeableness, and such. That fits the bard perfectly.

My sorcerer has the warlock spell list merged into it, and gains invocations (as well as having all the base sorcerer stuff).