D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Absolutely, which is why I don't count on WotC for nothin'. 3pp and homebrew are the answer for these issues.

 

[TwoSix]

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

Honestly, it's way more about being flashy and cool than it is about "winning". I'd rather be OP and die in session 4 than underpowered and survive the whole campaign.

"Success" is massively overrated as a motivation in modern D&D, since there aren't any win conditions, and there aren't even any real penalties to dying.

 

[ezo]

The problem with the class is that it has both heavy overlap thematically with warlock, while also having two different groups of players wanting 'their' interpretation of the sorcerer to be the one in game. And those interpretations are pretty mutually exclusive.

I think there is a lot of overlap thematically with cleric as well, and with more and more subclasses coming out, there will continue to be greater overlap.

---

Anyway, looking at the sources, I think part of the issue is Sorcerers having both a "bloodline" and "event" origin. Meanwhile, Warlock has their pact, but also "arcane research", which bends them a little towards the Learning/Study source as well, and the patron leans towards Entity.

SOURCE: DEAL ("Pact")
Warlock: Your arcane research* and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.

*arcane research should be removed, or focused instead on the idea of "research of the entity" that becomes your patron maybe.

The focus of the Warlock shoud be the pact with the Patron. I've rarely seen this emphasized in play, and I hold myself guilty of that as well.

A question comes to mind and I think there are both views on this: does the Patron bestow magic on a continuous basis so the Warlock must continue to abide by the pact, or once the pact is made and the Warlock gains the magic, is the Patron no longer needed?

In many ways, it seems to me that if the first (continuous basis), the Patron takes on as an Entity role, not necessarily "worshipped" however. Then, if the second case, the encounter with the Patron is an Event, and it becomes similar to the Sorcerer.

SOURCE: ENTITY
Cleric: As a conduit for divine power, you can cast cleric spells.
Paladin: You have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does.
(Sorcerer: "Bloodline", the idea that your blood came from the entity, via a gift, pact, or whatever)
(Warlock: "Patron", the idea that your Patron is also an Entity, but does the power you wield come directly from the Patron?)

SOURCE: EVENT
Sorcerer: An event* in your past, or in the life of a parent or ancestor, left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with arcane magic.

I always found this interesting and sadly underdeveloped by WotC. The "event" is the key to the sorcerer. I would like to think if the event is an encounter with an entity, from whom you or your ancestor received magic, how does this differ from the Pact of the Warlock? I know it *can, the question is HOW???

Any other "event" works well IMO.

SOURCE: "Primal" FORCE (Nature)
Druid: Drawing on the divine* essence of nature itself, you can cast spells to shape that essence to your will.
Ranger: You have learned to use the magical essence of nature to cast spells, much as a druid does.

*divine should be removed here. You already have the Nature Doman for clerics, so getting magic from a Nature diety should fall under that subclass and not Druid. Druid should come from the force of Nature, itself.

SOURCE: LEARNING/ STUDY
Artificer*: You've studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells, channeling the magic through objects.
Bard: You have learned to untangle and reshape the fabric of reality in harmony with your wishes and music.
Wizard: As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power.

*ok, I really don't like the Artificer, but I think it would fall under this source.

---

That's it for the moment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My plan would deal with that.

Your plan to give Metamagic to the wizard and delete the sorcerer? Giving all the stories of sorcerers to other classes?

I guess it does technically "deal" with the situation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Why would I prevent someone from playing a wizard just because I'm annoyed that the wizard class gets spells when they don't need them and the other classes don't? My frustrations with design decisions is not nearly enough of a reason to stomp on other people having fun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

people liking sugar and all that...

Sugar is healthy for people, natural sugars like from fruits at least. Over-indulgence is an entirely different thing.

Also, a product that has literally nothing to do with health or health knowledge... the success and "goodness" of it is entirely based on if people like it. If people hate it, then it isn't a good product.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

I understand it is your opinion, but... you've also explicitly stated that they lack weapon skills at the level you want, and it is well known that they lack damage spells.... so how are they overpowered?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sugar is healthy for people, natural sugars like from fruits at least. Over-indulgence is an entirely different thing.

Also, a product that has literally nothing to do with health or health knowledge... the success and "goodness" of it is entirely based on if people like it. If people hate it, then it isn't a good product.

that doesn't change my point, fullcaster bard is enjoyed out of the power fantasy rather than thematic necessity, they'd be better off designed as a short rest halfcaster but spells are power and people are always going to enjoy more power, i can give paladin fullcasting and people might like it smiting from dawn til dusk but that doesn't mean it was designed well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think there is a lot of overlap thematically with cleric as well, and with more and more subclasses coming out, there will continue to be greater overlap.

I don't see how. Cleric subclasses are tied to thematic concepts, Love, War, Knowledge, Death, Light; meanwhile warlock patrons are tied to types of beings, Fey, Fiend, Undead, Aberration. Those two things are not really going to overlap more than a Glamour Bard, Dream Druid, Fey Wanderer Ranger and Feylock already do... which is very very little.

SOURCE: DEAL ("Pact")
Warlock: Your arcane research* and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.

*arcane research should be removed, or focused instead on the idea of "research of the entity" that becomes your patron maybe.

The focus of the Warlock shoud be the pact with the Patron. I've rarely seen this emphasized in play, and I hold myself guilty of that as well.

I don't disagree with that, I just think this is an artifact of the Arcane Skill being the skill associated with a lot of planar forces. I think the warlock HAS studied magic, because you need some magical rituals to even summon or contact an otherworldly force on purpose. But I agree the emphasis should be on the pact and the patron.

A question comes to mind and I think there are both views on this: does the Patron bestow magic on a continuous basis so the Warlock must continue to abide by the pact, or once the pact is made and the Warlock gains the magic, is the Patron no longer needed?

In many ways, it seems to me that if the first (continuous basis), the Patron takes on as an Entity role, not necessarily "worshipped" however. Then, if the second case, the encounter with the Patron is an Event, and it becomes similar to the Sorcerer.

Why is both not an option? Why can't some of their magic and powers come from the patron bestowing power on a continual basis, some come from a single use "event", and some come from their book or blade? It only has to be one or the other if you force it to be.

SOURCE: ENTITY
Cleric: As a conduit for divine power, you can cast cleric spells.
Paladin: You have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does.
(Sorcerer: "Bloodline", the idea that your blood came from the entity, via a gift, pact, or whatever)
(Warlock: "Patron", the idea that your Patron is also an Entity, but does the power you wield come directly from the Patron?)

Your phrasing indicates that the cleric and the paladin are channeling power, that's even how the patron and warlock are doing it. Channeling power from a specific individual force. That isn't how sorcerers work. That would be like saying that a Pit Fiend's power comes from another entity, because the pit fiend was created with fiendish powers.... no? The pit fiend is, in and of itself, a source of power.

The sorcerer's blood has an origin, sure, but that doesn't mean that they are the conduit for a dragon's magic they are INNATELY FILLED with draconic magic.

SOURCE: EVENT
Sorcerer: An event* in your past, or in the life of a parent or ancestor, left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with arcane magic.

I always found this interesting and sadly underdeveloped by WotC. The "event" is the key to the sorcerer. I would like to think if the event is an encounter with an entity, from whom you or your ancestor received magic, how does this differ from the Pact of the Warlock? I know it *can, the question is HOW???

Any other "event" works well IMO.

You may like to think the event is an encounter with an entity, but you are wrong. Actual sorcerers I've seen in play:

• A storm sorcerer who, as a young thief, grabbed a gemstone filled with the elemental power of storms. The gem fused with them, embedding itself in their hand, and altering them to be a sorcerer
• A shadow sorcerer who, during an attack that they feared killed their family, was ripped into a planar portal and lost in the Shadowfell. When they finally found their way back to the prime material plane, they had been infused with shadow magic
• A wild magic sorcerer who (I've seen this twice) either stole or created a potion of pure magic. Upon drinking the potion, they were infused with raw, uncontrollable magicks.

None of those stories involved an entity, but they all did involve an "event" a singular point in time where the magic was infused into the person.

SOURCE: "Primal" FORCE (Nature)
Druid: Drawing on the divine* essence of nature itself, you can cast spells to shape that essence to your will.
Ranger: You have learned to use the magical essence of nature to cast spells, much as a druid does.

*divine should be removed here. You already have the Nature Doman for clerics, so getting magic from a Nature diety should fall under that subclass and not Druid. Druid should come from the force of Nature, itself.

Fully agreed. I tend to remove nature domain gods and arcane domain gods, to keep those concepts separated.

 

[Chaosmancer]

that doesn't change my point, fullcaster bard is enjoyed out of the power fantasy rather than thematic necessity, they'd be better off designed as a short rest halfcaster but spells are power and people are always going to enjoy more power, i can give paladin fullcasting and people might like it smiting from dawn til dusk but that doesn't mean it was designed well.

Where is this "bards are super powerful" stuff coming from? They've never been somehow more powerful than other classes. Personally, I've found them to be a bit lackluster when people play them. Certainly good, but rarely having the impact that. say. a paladin can have on a battle.