D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

That is coherent. It is the warlock fluff which is incoherent. Pact is "why" but not "how," and it is the how which would be the metaphysics.

So... we are going to erase the sorcerer class, because the warlock doesn't explain how making a pact for magical powers gives you magical powers?

Vague is not incoherent. Warlock fluff is not incoherent AT ALL.

I like them a lot. They just represent the sorcerer better than they do the warlock. Though of course how to properly represent a warlock would first require answering the question of what warlock is in metaphysical sense, which the class currently doesn't.

It does. I don't understand how you think the warlock does not answer the question of what a warlock metaphysically is. It is vague, yes, but that is a function of encompassing many different variations on the same theme, not because it is incoherent.

Nah, that can still be represented via the warlock mechanics, so it is not lost.

So, don't erase the sorcerer by combining them with the warlock? Or do you think being a warlock with a contractual obligation to a greater power somehow covers being born cursed with powers because you were forced to live in an arcane wasteland?

Or are we know just talking about changing the mechanics of sorcerer (the thing you didn't want) and just changing them to match the warlock?

Or are we going to veer again into another argument that doesn't match either of those?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean I've been advocating for this for years, and I thought there was some hope after the Tasha's subclasses actually felt really thematic and unique to their bloodline.

Then we get the 1dnd playtest and it's back to square one again. Draconic bloodline especially is insanely barebones. While both metamagic and the new innate sorcery feel tacked on, rather than part of the class. Innate sorcery is an amazing idea, but it fails to interact with the subclasses existing at all, so compared to barbarian rage it's so lacking.

Lack of origin spells combined with subclass features which only appear once almost all campaigns are over mean that if you want to play towards your bloodline theme, it's a real struggle. And the sorcerer spell list is so limited that you can't even make up for it by picking thematic spells from it.

And yet for all that, I saw numerous threads online saying that the subclass spells should be removed from the remaining subclasses, rather than added to the missing ones.

The reason I have no hope for the sorcerer ever improving is that a huge portion of the playerbase don't want it to lean into its subclass themes or have truly unique mechanics. They want 'generic wizard, but hot' as a class, and any strong influence from the subclass themes given to sorcerer makes being 'generic wizard, but hot' more difficult for them.

I agree with all of that. I'm also disappointed with what we've seen from 1D&D, I'm also disappointed the sorcerer seems to be stuck as a pale shadow of the wizard.

But I'd much rather continuing fighting for a better sorcerer, than give up and kill the class that has some of the most integral themes to fantasy out of every single class in the game. Seriously, sitting in my room, looking around at my books? I count at least 17 book series I can see in front of me that have a main character born with great power innate to themselves. They didn't make a deal with something. They don't worship something. IF they study at all, it is to understand the power they were born with. They aren't tied to the forces of nature. They aren't bound by oaths and willpower. They don't lack magical or inhuman power.

The sorcerer as a thematic concept is VITAL to fantasy. And losing it will do one of two things. It will harm DnD as a whole, or it will just make everyone turn that concept to every single other class with magic. Which they already try to do, by saying Wizards are born with magical talent that they then need to study to master. Which is the sorcerer trope. Not the Wizard or the Warlock or the Bard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It does. I don't understand how you think the warlock does not answer the question of what a warlock metaphysically is. It is vague, yes, but that is a function of encompassing many different variations on the same theme, not because it is incoherent.

The issue is that the pact is just a reason for why you have the power, but that really doesn't affect how the power functions. It doesn't actually answer what the power is, which is needed to determine what it should do.

I have said this many times. The pact imbues you with magical essence, turning you into a magical being = sorcerer; the pact lets you channel magic from a powerful being = cleric; the pact gives you access to magical knowledge = wizard.

So, don't erase the sorcerer by combining them with the warlock? Or do you think being a warlock with a contractual obligation to a greater power somehow covers being born cursed with powers because you were forced to live in an arcane wasteland?

If both turn you into an inherently magical being then they should be represented by the same class. Which event made you so is just backstory. Like we don't have a separate class for fighters who are knights and thus have sworn fealty to a liege lord. That is interesting, but it doesn't change their class whether their liege lord paid them to go to an expensive fighting school or whether they learned to fight on their own.

Or are we know just talking about changing the mechanics of sorcerer (the thing you didn't want) and just changing them to match the warlock?

It doesn't matter to me what the gestalt class is called. We can call it sorcerer instead of warlock if that's better. But the sorcerer fluff gets the warlock chassis, and warlock fluff gets assigned to this or some other class depending on what we interpret the pact to be actually doing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Um, what? I've plenty of bards with crossbows and rapiers do very well. I had a Whisper's Bard who was the main damage dealer for a group with their poisoned blade ability.

Sure, their debuff spells are always more impactful, but they take concentration, and while the bard is concentrating, their decent dex is usually good enough to be decent with finesse weapons.

Personally, if there is a class with confused metaphysics, it is the bard. They overlap too much with wizards, but also heal. One DnD almost fixed it by letting Bardic magic be the Ur-magic that can be for any branch of magic, which was a beautiful and elegant solution... until it was murdered in the crib because wizards "needed" exclusive access to the best arcane spells, because... well just because they are the coolest and the best, right?

Really, the number of times it comes down to wizards being the problem...

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.

They just need more rhythm-based spells and abilities. The lack of unique spells is hurting them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Trouble is you don't want to go giving all the good gish spells to the full casters. As seen in the playtest, this just results in the full casters being able to martial better than martials and half casters.

Exactly. I remember the single moment I hated Wizards the hardest. I had opened Xanathar's and found Steel Wind Strike for Rangers. I was ecstatic, it was an excellent melee spell for Rangers, which lacked good melee spells. It was thematic. It was cool...

And wizard's got it 8 levels earlier and I've never seen a single ranger ever cast it. And wizards did not need this spell.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I suppose that's true, but honestly I don't like bard as a full caster and am uninterested in their 5e incarnation. I really wish 5e hadn't up-gunned them, because now I can't turn it back without a player riot (they unsurprisingly love bards).

I think it is very telling that the edition where bards became full casters is, bar none, the edition where bard is the most popular and most beloved. Almost like they made a good decision there....

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Um, what? I've plenty of bards with crossbows and rapiers do very well. I had a Whisper's Bard who was the main damage dealer for a group with their poisoned blade ability.

Sure, their debuff spells are always more impactful, but they take concentration, and while the bard is concentrating, their decent dex is usually good enough to be decent with finesse weapons.

That works in early game, but past fifth level they cannot keep up as actual weapon using classes get extra attacks (or increasing sneak attack in case of rogues.)

Personally, if there is a class with confused metaphysics, it is the bard. They overlap too much with wizards, but also heal. One DnD almost fixed it by letting Bardic magic be the Ur-magic that can be for any branch of magic, which was a beautiful and elegant solution... until it was murdered in the crib because wizards "needed" exclusive access to the best arcane spells, because... well just because they are the coolest and the best, right?

True. The source of bardic magic is poorly defined and it bugs me.

Really, the number of times it comes down to wizards being the problem...

It also works in reverse. Wizard subclasses must remain boring, as more interesting concepts are already covered by other caster classes.

They just need more rhythm-based spells and abilities. The lack of unique spells is hurting them.

True.

What I would do with bards is to lean on their buffing and music more. I get that some people hate just whole troubadour thing, but that's at the core of bard's identity, so just deal with it. I would give them "songs," buff or debuff auras they could activate and keep up for long periods of time by singing. They would have several, but obviously could only have one up at given time.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I agree with all of that. I'm also disappointed with what we've seen from 1D&D, I'm also disappointed the sorcerer seems to be stuck as a pale shadow of the wizard.

But I'd much rather continuing fighting for a better sorcerer, than give up and kill the class that has some of the most integral themes to fantasy out of every single class in the game. Seriously, sitting in my room, looking around at my books? I count at least 17 book series I can see in front of me that have a main character born with great power innate to themselves. They didn't make a deal with something. They don't worship something. IF they study at all, it is to understand the power they were born with. They aren't tied to the forces of nature. They aren't bound by oaths and willpower. They don't lack magical or inhuman power.

The sorcerer as a thematic concept is VITAL to fantasy. And losing it will do one of two things. It will harm DnD as a whole, or it will just make everyone turn that concept to every single other class with magic. Which they already try to do, by saying Wizards are born with magical talent that they then need to study to master. Which is the sorcerer trope. Not the Wizard or the Warlock or the Bard.

Thing is, in almost all of the books i've read where the character has inborn power, the character is very 'human', which the sorcerer subclasses directly push away from. They don't have scales or tentacles or anything like that, which is exactly what the sorcerer bloodlines are suggesting.

Harry Potter or Rand Al'thor would definitely be sorcerers when it comes to inborn power, but their 'theme' is much more wizardy, using their power through knowledge, rules, and experience.

I'm in the group which really wants sorcerer to lean into the original DnDNext playtest vision, where the class has a 'become the monster' theme to it. But this utterly kills the vision of the class for probably the majority of players. Yennifer doesn't devolve into a chaos spawn after using too many spells.

Even Gandalf, the archtypical 'wizard' has innate magical power. I can barely think of any example of a true dnd 'wizard' in fiction at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what do you give bards in exchange? Bards already get good skill use and can get combat abilities, and bardic inspiration only goes so far. Further, 5e doesn't like handling +1 bonuses (a design issue that doomed the warlord) so it's not like you can have them be buff machines.

We all agree the 3e bard was mediocre, and in 4e everyone was a full caster, so there isn't much you can do with bard if you plan on keeping it viable.

I preferred the bard from 2e, classic jack of all trades. Reduce to half caster, bump fighting and skill use, emphasize support, and make archetypes lean into one trade or another. They should be that Adventurer class spoken of earlier.

Bard as a full caster just makes them feel like all the other full casters, but better because any and all magic is basically on theme for them and they still have great skills, great support, and good weapon use.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thing is, in almost all of the books i've read where the character has inborn power, the character is very 'human', which the sorcerer subclasses directly push away from. They don't have scales or tentacles or anything like that, which is exactly what the sorcerer bloodlines are suggesting.

Harry Potter or Rand Al'thor would definitely be sorcerers when it comes to inborn power, but their 'theme' is much more wizardy, using their power through knowledge, rules, and experience.

I'm in the group which really wants sorcerer to lean into the original DnDNext playtest vision, where the class has a 'become the monster' theme to it. But this utterly kills the vision of the class for probably the majority of players. Yennifer doesn't devolve into a chaos spawn after using too many spells.

Even Gandalf, the archtypical 'wizard' has innate magical power. I can barely think of any example of a true dnd 'wizard' in fiction at all.

Right. In most fiction the casters are some sort of blend of what D&D would call sorcerer and wizard. They have innate magical power, but have to actually study and use formal techniques to properly master it.