D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Micah Sweet]

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.

My plan would deal with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Have you guys considered just...not including the wizard class in your games? I love wizards, but few of my players ever choose them. They most prefer bards and sorcerers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Just because you have said it many times doesn't make you right.

Magical Knowledge makes you a wizard? What about Artificers, are they wizards? What about Bards, Lore Bards specifically seek magical knowledge, are they wizards? Druid rites are taught, are they wizards? Rune Knights are wizards, right, since they have magical knowledge of Runes?

Or well, Druids are clerics right? Except they don't need to have power from a powerful being. Nor do rangers, or paladins, but both CAN have that story. Or, what about a Barbarian, zealot barbarians are powered by their belief in gods, a god's blessing can be the source of their power, are they clerics now? What about Totem Barbarians? What about a Phantom Rogue whose powers come from a God of Death, cleric?

Ah, but the magical being part is totally just a sorcerer, right? I mean, if we ignore Genasi, Tieflings, Elves, ect ect then it is the only class that makes you innately magical.... except for Monks. And Paladins can be innately magical with their aura since they don't require a god, just an oath or contract with themselves, almost like a pact with themselves if you think about. And of course Beast Barbarians or Storm Herald Barbarians are innately magical as well.

Yes, Warlocks could get their power from access to magical knowledge from beyond mortal ken. They might get altered into a more magical being. They might draw power from an outside source. All of these are true... and all of them can be true AT THE SAME TIME. Just like a Cleric is pulling their power from a god, but can also be altered into a magical being by that god's power (forge cleric becoming resistant to fire) and can also have studied religious rituals to pull on ritual magic based on their learning. These are not solid lines that cannot be crossed. Everything is a bit messy, because the story can be a mix.

If both turn you into an inherently magical being then they should be represented by the same class.

No, because if that were true we would need to combine the warlock, monk, sorcerer, barbarian and paladin into one 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.

And yet we DO have a different class for the Fighter who swore fealty and the Paladin who swore fealty. What about a ranger who swears fealty to a Fey Lord and becomes a Fey Wanderer? What about a Dragonborn Phantom Rogue who swears fealty to an ancient Dracolich, becoming Dragonborn and gaining ghost powers?

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.

Well, I disagree that the Warlock mechanics are the best way forward for the Sorcerer. I think they do quite well on the warlock. We need a different set of mechanics for the sorcerer, and I've already put my hat in the ring for something I think fits them far far better.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.)

Okay. Clerics and druids don't keep up with actual weapon using characters with weapons either, unless you build for it. This doesn't mean they don't have builds that do exactly that.

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

Glad we have some common ground.

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

No, not true at all. Wizard subclasses can do a lot, and the other casters DON'T cover all of the interesting concepts. But the wizard spell list needs to stop being the ultimate spell list.

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.

I think that is a good idea, but I wouldn't have them just be songs. Dancing bards are also a very powerful concept. This is why I said "rhythm based" because I want them to work for song AND dance concepts. There is a powerful theme that could be tapped into with that concept, and the idea of echoes of the past.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

True enough, I think that can be handled on a more case-by-case basis. I like the idea that Sorcerer magic is barely controlled, and that using it pushes the person further and further, but the monstrous changes do not HAVE to be physical. I've played with sorcerers whose personalities changed as they channeled their power, and whose power hung on them like a mantle. The idea of the dragon wings being energy constructs, or the scales being a web of power for example.

I want to have both the human looking sorcerer and the monstrous looking sorcerer, because I don't think the physical appearance matters as much as the soul and the power. One of the things I think One DnD hit right is the idea that Sorcerers should have a "rage" a state they enter where their power is unleashed without the limits they normally place on it. And I don't think that requires them to grow horns and fangs, because it is equally awe-inspiring and terrifying for their power to flow off them in visible waves of color that cracks stone. And I don't want people to lose the angle of "I look human, but inside I am something else entirely" which can come from that.

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.

Which is why I want to preserve the Sorcerer and the Wizard. I like the concept of Wizard and Artificer that harness these things through study and ritual, I like it a lot actually. But I also want the inborn power.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The main reason I've 'given up' caring about the sorcerer as a class is the realisation that 90% of players would rather run them as an alternate wizard, rather than as a class which pushes heavily into the monster themes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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....

eh, i wouldn't say just because something is liked that doesn't make it a good thing

people liking sugar and all that...

 

[Micah Sweet]

The main reason I've 'given up' caring about the sorcerer as a class is the realisation that 90% of players would rather run them as an alternate wizard, rather than as a class which pushes heavily into the monster themes.

The monster theme is awesome. Just make it a different class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

eh, i wouldn't say just because something is liked that doesn't make it a good thing

people liking sugar and all that...

Yup. Bards are IMO OP in 5e. Most players IMO like OP things, because they improve their chances of success.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The monster theme is awesome. Just make it a different class.

Sadly 5e absolutely refuses to add more classes. Hopefully 6e lets us have a few more.

Though seeing the direction in which WotC is going in, I suspect we'd get less.