D&D 5E Sorcerer Changes

[Guest 6801328]

Probably because you decided that a fighter would intentionally ignore their likely secondary attribute.

But 16 is reasonable. I see many if not most characters having a 20 as their primary stat by 8, but very few having above a 16 as their secondary until mid-teens. (Classes like Monk and Paladin, which really have two primary stats, are exceptions.)

4 + 5 == 6 + 3, for what that’s worth.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Probably because you decided that a fighter would intentionally ignore their likely secondary attribute.

No. I'm quoting the figures used by the person I was responding to originally. Take it up with @Shiroiken not with me.

 

[bedir than]

No. I'm quoting the figures used by the person I was responding to originally. Take it up with @Shiroiken not with me.

my bad.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

my bad.

Thank you. I'm just a bit tired of being criticised for things that, for once, I didn't say, rather than things I did!

On topic, I feel like the whole idea that CON-based Sorcerers would be a real "problem" is just completely undermined by the general fact that 5E is pretty well-balanced in a lot of regards, and even if Sorcerers could just have CON primary and the accompanying HP increase and slight increase to CON saves (something they're already proficient in, so it's even less of a balance impact in practical terms), they would still be somewhat "meh" power-wise as 5E classes go.

I'm not advocating that they "should" be changed to CON, to be clear. I just don't think it would "break" the game if they were (I mean it definitely wouldn't), or even make them "overpowered"

 

[bedir than]

It's already their second-most important stat, so the increase in HP is going to be 1 or 2 per level at the levels people play

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's already their second-most important stat, so the increase in HP is going to be 1 or 2 per level at the levels people play

Yup, so it's like, would giving people the Tough Feat for free break the game or cause a serious problem or even suddenly make Sorcerers "the best caster"? Obviously not. Because this is barely more than that.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Suggesting otherwise seems bizarre to me.

That is the point, it seems bizarre to you, which is just your singular view point.
What specifically leads you to this viewpoint?

Since snark levels and frustration seem to be on the rise; I thusly, want to be clear, that I am not asking this question antagonistically, but out of genuine curiosity.

Seeing the sorcerer class played at the table, leavened my own quite negative view of the class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What specifically leads you to this viewpoint?

All analysis of the Sorcerer I've ever seen, including my own, together with my experience of them in play. There was some claim that on GitP they "believed otherwise", but searching that found nothing, so if there is stuff that's showing how the Sorcerer is actually solid-to-amazing rather than "meh" I wait to see it.

Seeing the sorcerer class played at the table, leavened my own quite negative view of the class.

I've seen a bunch of Sorcerers played, and they've been significantly less effective than other casters played by the same players (including, very specifically, Warlocks in at least two cases). Wizards are almost ridiculously more effective, especially ones with good subclasses. One of the characters was an extremely effective character - but it was in spite of being a Sorcerer - most of his effectiveness came from being as Changeling with high CHA owned by a player who was really keen on this idea - but a Rogue with Expertise in social skills and a decent CHA would have been more effective in most situations.

The lack of versatility, seriously limited spell-list, the fact that metamagic isn't what it used to be, together with terrible base AC and little ability to use either cantrips or weapons to do decent damage between spells all piles up to make a class that's only "okay" on a good day.

And again let's be clear - this is 5E.

Sorcerers are not "trash" in any real sense. The range between the strongest non-exploit-y characters, and the weakest "basically optimized" (i.e. highest stat in primary etc.) characters in 5E is relatively small. I'm not saying "people are dumb to play them" or anything of the sort, lest anyone put words into my mouth. They have quite a lot of style and flavour, and support a much wider array of spellcaster archetypes from fiction than 5E Wizards do.

So they have a reason to exist, but I feel like their design is a weird hangover from a previous edition where they were spontaneous casters and Wizards weren't. I think someone else said similarly. If they had significantly more versatility, both in spells known and spell-list, that would be the main thing that would improve them, I'd suggest.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If they had significantly more versatility, both in spells known and spell-list, that would be the main thing that would improve them, I'd suggest.

But then what distinguishes them from Wizards? The whole idea was that you get less versatility, but what you do get is more powerful because of metamagic. If you give them "significantly more versatility", aren't they just better Wizards?

"A tiny bit more versatility, flavored by subclass" I could understand.

 

[Todd Roybark]

So they have a reason to exist,

See now, you are engaging in crazy talk, as the Sorcerer is the First D&D class I would give to the Nazis, in a Sophie’s Choice situation.

I oft wonder if finding the class distasteful is less about the obvious whiteboard planning deficiencies, and more about the age of the player.

The Sorcerer and Ranger classes are the two classes, where the seemingly widespread dissatisfaction that people have for the classes, is based less off the classes being subpar/unplayable options...but about the two classes not having certain thematic elements adequately represented, and a sense that what options the classes do have are slightly subpar compared to other classes.

Rangers, ‘play’ pretty well at the table, like sorcerers.

Hypnotic Pattern combined with Careful Spell, is a great combo....and the warlock class amply demonstrates that a class that basically consists of spamming killer combos can be effective.

Yet being dissatisfied with the Sorcerer class (and Ranger class), is still rampant.