D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[Corinnguard]

And give them unique "heritage" spells, not brand all sorcerers as gonzo wild cards.

One of the reasons why I liked the sorcerous bloodlines in Pathfinder 1st edition.

 

[Dausuul]

What is the sorcerer's reason for existence? Does it have enough traction to continue as a class?

When introduced in 3rd edition, its only distinction from the wizard was limited spells known and more spell slots. The class was a reaction to Vancian spell preparation, but didn't introduce any new story elements to support the mechanical change. Over time, and through into 5th edition, designers leaned into the "ancestry" theme, proposing sorcerer variants and subclasses that granted new spells or magical powers so the PC could be more like a dragon/demon/angel/aberration/etc. So the PC got some story hooks, but they always came from the customization and not the base class. In 5th edition the design also introduced sorcery points and metamagic for sorcerers--but as with the 3rd edition innovation, this feature is a meta-gaming rule innovation intended to create contrast with wizards, with minimal story or flavor to back it up.

On the other side of the fence, the wizard also got new magical powers through "specialization". Initially this provided more spell slots and a boost to learning spells in one of the "academic" schools, but wizard specializations now have much wider variety than the 8 schools, and also grant innate magical powers to the PC.

Consider a wizard and a feyblooded sorcerer, both specialized in illusions. The two PCs have different innate powers via their subclasses, but in 5th edition they both prepare spells, cast with spell slots, can modify their spells (the wizard needs more time and does it later), get some extra spell slots (arcane recovery vs sorcery points)... in short they are functionally very similar.

Frankly, my own feeling is that the sorcerer has outlived its usefulness as a base class. The wizard class could easily take on all the story-driven innate powers of sorcerers by adopting the subclasses. There could be a subclass that grants sorcery points and sorcery-style metamagic options : the "Intuitive". There could be a subclass that focuses on transforming into a dragon, and a wild magic subclass that has access to chaos bolt, arcane eruption and the other new, unique spells from the playtest.

In short, the only unique distinction remaining between the wizard and the sorcerer is the spellbook--an evolutionary oddity that now serves little purpose and has almost zero impact on the game. If you want your wizard to feel more like a sorcerer, just keep your spells somewhere else: in your familiar, in your arcane focus, as runes that appear on your skin. I don't have a problem with "sorcerers" learning new magic they encounter.

As a matter of game design, you're not wrong. And the same logic could be applied to other classes. Ranger comes to mind.

But the D&D class list is a matter of tradition, not game design. You can inveigh against that, but it ain't going to change. Sorcerer has been around since 3E, it's going to stay.

IMO, what this means is that the designers should emphasize building up the distinctness of the classes. If the sorcerer can't be eliminated, then it should be given a job; I think that job should include making the class work well for players who want simpler spellcasters with less bookkeeping.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Frankly, my own feeling is that the sorcerer has outlived its usefulness as a base class. The wizard class could easily take on all the story-driven innate powers of sorcerers by adopting the subclasses. There could be a subclass that grants sorcery points and sorcery-style metamagic options : the "Intuitive". There could be a subclass that focuses on transforming into a dragon, and a wild magic subclass that has access to chaos bolt, arcane eruption and the other new, unique spells from the playtest.

In short, the only unique distinction remaining between the wizard and the sorcerer is the spellbook--an evolutionary oddity that now serves little purpose and has almost zero impact on the game. If you want your wizard to feel more like a sorcerer, just keep your spells somewhere else: in your familiar, in your arcane focus, as runes that appear on your skin. I don't have a problem with "sorcerers" learning new magic they encounter.

Strangely, I would have agreed with you with the 2014 Sorcerer, but I no longer agree after the release of the One D&D playtest. I think it's fine that the two exist in One D&D. I think my main complaint with the 2014 Sorcerer was that it was, in essentially all predictable cases, just a Wizard with very limiting spell selection. The spell options Wizard had over 2014 Sorcerer was just overwhelming to me. Even if you didn't want Wizard, Lore Bard was felt better to me. The only advantage was that 2014 Sorcerer could more easily abuse multiclassing than Wizard, which if anything was a disadvantage to me. Otherwise, 2014 Sorcerer felt like a trap option.

Now, though, they have the same spell list and spell selection is much more flexible and open for Sorcerers. Having a different theme between the two classes is enough if they are closer in options.

After all, it's fine that Fighter and Barbarian exist. Two mostly non-magical martial classes in one game, whose only difference is the arbitrary mechanics? As long as one isn't head-and-shoulders above the other, I think it's fine.

 

[Deset Gled]

... The class was a reaction to Vancian spell preparation, but didn't introduce any new story elements to support the mechanical change. ... In 5th edition the design also introduced sorcery points and metamagic for sorcerers--but as with the 3rd edition innovation, this feature is a meta-gaming rule innovation intended to create contrast with wizards, with minimal story or flavor to back it up. ...

The idea that you can make sweeping generalizations and propose radical changes to D&D by completely ignoring game mechanics and only paying attention to story elements does not seem particularly novel or useful. Normally, I would simply be apathetic to this idea.

But in this particular case, I couldn't disagree more. 3e wizard vs sorcerer is actually one of my favorite examples of how D&D can use mechanics to differentiate casting classes. If anything, I want more of this type of game design. Give me more differences between arcane and divine casting. Give me bigger space between the nature-based power source of the druid and the godly cleric. Give me rules to show how a necromancer is different from an undead-focussed cleric. Give me options so that the wild-born sorcerer actually plays differently than a science-based wizard.

Let the DM and the players be the ones to create the story and the narratives that drive the characters. What I want from the rules is the mechanical differences that make them unique in actual play and tactics.

 

[Jack Daniel]

"Magic-user minus spellbook" has never exactly been a compelling archetype.

The only time it's ever felt justified has been when it was called "psionicist."

 

[DEFCON 1]

As is the case with all the Classes, the Sorcerer's existence is for two separate things-- story, and mechanics.

Mechanics-wise, the Sorcerer is wanted and preferred by some players because they like Metamagic as a thing. They also don't like the Spellbook and the Spell Components gameplay aspects of Wizards (which is why some Sorcerer players even wish components weren't a thing at all for Sorcerers.) There are also some players who find the class being CHA-based and not INT-based like the Wizard to also be a preferred game state.

So there are plenty of reasons mechanically why the Sorcerer should remain in the game.

Now Story-wise is I think the even BIGGER reason why people want the class to exist-- because the flavor text of the class is their preferred method for the acquisition of magical power. Sorcerers just have it. It is innate. For however they acquired it, for however it manifests itself, for whatever reason they can use it... some players just like that narrative. And that narrative is MUCH different than the narrative of the Wizard (who had to study magic like it was a science and learn how to use it), the narrative of the Warlock (who had to make a deal with some powerful extradimensional being for the power in exchange for some type of service), and narrative of the Bard (who, like the Wizard, had to learn how to manipulate magic but did so via music rather than book studying.)

So there are even more reasons narratively why the Sorcerer should remain in the game-- one for every single subclass that gets made, because every single one changes the method for a character to be infused with magic. In this regard, the Sorcerer is the third "generic" class in the game, alongside the Fighter and Rogue. All three of them are classes that are basically just game mechanics with no real flavor as to who or what they are, and it is their Subclasses that give them their identity. The Subclass is what makes someone a Samurai. Or what makes someone an Assassin. Or what makes someone descended from a Genie. And this is why Sorcerers need to remain in the game-- because that generic access to arcane magic is what allows a player to place whatever story they want upon their character.

And I say all of this... even as I tell you that I don't like the Sorcerer and would actually prefer it stricken from the game.

 

[Minigiant]

View attachment 284189 View attachment 284190

I'm thinking most people here think that Wizards are putting out what they want as well, but like to come here and discuss things.

The original 5e sorcerer was tailored to grognards who actually didn't want to play sorcerer.

The current playtest sorcerer is tailor for easy coding and the designer's vision.

People here wish to express their vision.

 

[Remathilis]

Classes shouldn't exist.

I'm only half-joking. D&D players love the concept of classes but hate every class in the game. Almost every conversation about a class will include ten people demanding justification for why that class should even exist and three people bemoaning why that class is in the PHB but not the warlord/psion/etc. Every damn time. I swear D&D players are the only gamers who look to make the game smaller each revision. You'd never see fighting game players say "yeah Street Fighter 6 looks good, but they have like 22 fighters. We should combine them down to like eight. I mean, so we really need Ryu AND Ken?"

So since it will inevitably end up with people boiling classes down in generic customizable classlike lumps that somehow will support beastmaster rangers, swashbuckler rogues, kensei monks, battlemaster fighters and totem barbarians equally, let's just finish the job and kill the classes. Then, everyone can design a bard, druid, warlock or whatever EXACTLY as they think it should be.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They should exist, but they keep getting their reasons to taken away because 'wizard'.

 

[Incenjucar]

The problem is that wizards keep getting more stuff and fewer restrictions and they keep building more stuff into magic to give the wizard more power. A 2E style wizard would make for a much bigger contrast. The old concept of a sorcerer as basically "what if a PC had monster-style magic" is great as a contrast to someone who has figured out a growing number of ways to do things once thought only possible for monsters, but with many more complications to pull off the same effect.

Wizards should be actually Vancian and reliant on extra nonsense, but able to use arbitrary spells, while a sorcerer should be more thematically-limited based on their origin, but with fewer limitations within their theme.