D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Minigiant]

Yes, all of that. The main unifying factor seems to be that no one is really happy with the current sorcerer.

The Sorcerer was tailored to people who ultimately did not play the game.

I'm personally completely against a CON based caster. It lets people only care about a single stat and ignore all others.

I'd rather make all classes more MAD, rather than what WotC is currently doing by trying to make every class SAD.

I was thinking more MAD for the Magician.

CON.for bonus Magic points
INT for Spell DC
WIS for bonus damage

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I provided my suggestion: kill the sorcerer, give metamagic to the wizard, make the spellcasting ability selectable between Charisma or Intelligence, provide a strong option for spell points as a casting method, consolidate subclasses as appropriate to provide themed options for learned and inborn magic.

Why not remove Wizard and Bard as well and make one class - Magic User, with Sorcerer, Wizard and Bard being its three subclasses on top of other subclasses?

 

[Remathilis]

I'm almost always on the 'more classes' side. For example I'd love to see the warlord and swordmage get added, as well as a dedicated 'pet class'.

But combining wizard and sorcerer, while having warlock eat the remaining sorcerer subclasses is my single exception to this.

The swordmage is done so many times it's not funny. If there is no conceptual space for the sorcerer or warlock, there CERTAINLY isn't for a dedicated gish class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The swordmage is done so many times it's not funny. If there is no conceptual space for the sorcerer or warlock, there CERTAINLY isn't for a dedicated gish class.

Bard should be that class, but they made it yet another full caster for the already too crowded full caster environment.

 

[Remathilis]

So, you think cutting a class out of the game would give more room for subclasses for other classes? Sure, I guess. I'm sure if the developers cut out fighters we could get more barbarian and paladin subclasses, but that seems like a rather pointless endeavor, since we would lose things that the fighter alone is best to support.

As an aside, I would be 100% in favor of killing the fighter if we could have awesome, flavorful warrior classes.

 

[Remathilis]

So, at post #700, has anything been accomplished or decided on? At this point I have no idea of people want to change the sorcerer, make a new sorcerer, roll-over sorcerer into another class, move another class into sorcerer, or remove the sorcerer entirely? All of them? Something else? At this point, I want to start a poll with those options. ;-)

No. We need another 700 posts to come back to the point that half of D&D's player base thinks it's fine as is and the other half would prefer the character generation rules fit on a cocktail napkin.

 

[Remathilis]

Bard should be that class, but they made it yet another full caster for the already too crowded full caster environment.

Bard isn't the right vessel for either the "mage with a sword" or the "warrior who knows magic" tropes. Bard should be the "rogue with support and trickery magic" which is what it mostly is.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

As an aside, I would be 100% in favor of killing the fighter if we could have awesome, flavorful warrior classes.

This is wrong thinking. Fighter isn't an isue. The idea Fighter needs to be a simple class for the beginners, when Barbarian exists is. Personally I would replace Fighter with a Warrior, turn Monk into a Fighter (as in, martial arts fighter) that is stripped off from all mystical trappings (we can offload those on to Ranger as far as I'm concerned) and let them both share maneuvers, jsut make more of them and avialable for the classes and all subclasses.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Bard isn't the right vessel for either the "mage with a sword" or the "warrior who knows magic" tropes. Bard should be the "rogue with support and trickery magic" which is what it mostly is.

Bard is a full caster now. It used to be that it was the class that used to do a bit of everything decently, but now the magic part overwhelms everything else. Unless you choose a subclass that specifically supports that, the bard is a fool if they pick up weapons. This seems wrong to me.

The class works fineish, but I don't think it feels very bardy. It is just another full caster to join the legion of full casters.

 

[Shardstone]

I think people on this forum argue ad populum too much. A lot of people are dissatisfied with a lot of different classes. A lot of people have completely antiethical perceptions of what a class should be. Yet at the end of the day, WotC still has to put out something good. It doesn't have to fit your vision, but it does have to be good.

Its just so trite, hearing people say "Well, you can't please everyone, so might as well accept dogsh*t." The sorcerer can be made good. There's lots of ways to make it good. There's plenty of alternative sorcerers, not just the one I linked, that are great. WotC just has to make a decision on a direction and follow through on it.

Don't hit me with that 70% UA nonsense in response to this. That's completely unrelated to my point. People love to use that as a shield to argue that we shouldn't improve the game. But what ultimately matters is that the sorcerer ends up being a quality class -- one you can look at and say "It may not be my taste, but I think it is well designed," or "I might have preferred this idea, but this direction isn't bad."

Seriously, if your argument about the Sorcerer is "Why not just delete it?" then you're basically saying you think your vision means more then my vision, which is the opposite of how you improve things. You improve things by polishing vision, and the sorcerer needs polish. And if you want "fewer classes" in your games, all you have to do is not offer the sorcerer at your table.