D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

No, add the narrative of the sorcerer to the existing wizard class (along with metamagic), and let the player choose the narrative they prefer. Feel free to change the name of the class (I like "magic-user") if you're worried that otherwise the terrible wizard would "win".

Ah, so you want to delete the wizard class instead. Why? Because, let us be clear, this would absolutely end up with the dissolution of the wizard class.

If you're unwilling to change your own game, I don't really see any value in complaining about it.

I guess venting has a value of its own. Can't really debate that without being a hypocrite. But that doesn't mean I'm doing right either.

Um, what?

Who said I'm unwilling to change my game? I just said I wouldn't get rid of the wizard. I added more Ranger exclusive spells. You know... fixing the problem as I could? I've also taken some wizard spells and moved them to be "found only", meaning that you can't learn that spell "naturally" you need to find it in game, allowing me to keep a tighter handle on them.

Neither of which required me to tell wizard players to suck it up and play something else because I don't like how wizards gain access to too many spells. You know, kind of like changing mechanics instead of deleting classes from the game.

Depends on how many people like or hate it, and whether or not it's presence is a problem for those that hate it, if there are enough of them.

... Yes, something being well-liked requires more people to like it than to hate it. And if there are a lot of people who hate it AND can't stand it... then it may have issues...

This is how liking things works. And how things can be well-liked.

Full caster, plus other stuff.

Cleric is also Full Caster, plus other stuff. Druid is full caster, plus other stuff. Sorcerer is full caster, plus other stuff.

So... what is your point? Full Casters are overpowered?

Is how much damage they do per round our sole indicator of power in this game?

No. But until I get something more definitive than "other stuff" I have to look at the complaints, which seem to be.... bards are full casters who can use weapons? But they can't use weapons effectively... which makes them overpowered?

Well, since weapons are a focus, then combat is a focus and bards are a class with an obvious weakpoint in combat. They find it difficult to build to deal a lot of damage. If you want to talk out of combat... well, then I need something here because outside of social situations... bards are fine? Like, they are good, but they generally aren't overwhelmingly good. They are a support class. If your point is that they make other characters better and more effective... yeah, support class. That's what they do in a team game. But they aren't overpowered.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, so you want to delete the wizard class instead. Why? Because, let us be clear, this would absolutely end up with the dissolution of the wizard class.



Um, what?

Who said I'm unwilling to change my game? I just said I wouldn't get rid of the wizard. I added more Ranger exclusive spells. You know... fixing the problem as I could? I've also taken some wizard spells and moved them to be "found only", meaning that you can't learn that spell "naturally" you need to find it in game, allowing me to keep a tighter handle on them.

Neither of which required me to tell wizard players to suck it up and play something else because I don't like how wizards gain access to too many spells. You know, kind of like changing mechanics instead of deleting classes from the game.



... Yes, something being well-liked requires more people to like it than to hate it. And if there are a lot of people who hate it AND can't stand it... then it may have issues...

This is how liking things works. And how things can be well-liked.



Cleric is also Full Caster, plus other stuff. Druid is full caster, plus other stuff. Sorcerer is full caster, plus other stuff.

So... what is your point? Full Casters are overpowered?



No. But until I get something more definitive than "other stuff" I have to look at the complaints, which seem to be.... bards are full casters who can use weapons? But they can't use weapons effectively... which makes them overpowered?

Well, since weapons are a focus, then combat is a focus and bards are a class with an obvious weakpoint in combat. They find it difficult to build to deal a lot of damage. If you want to talk out of combat... well, then I need something here because outside of social situations... bards are fine? Like, they are good, but they generally aren't overwhelmingly good. They are a support class. If your point is that they make other characters better and more effective... yeah, support class. That's what they do in a team game. But they aren't overpowered.

I don't do multi-quote; it's annoying on my phone. You are welcome to disagree with me on the power of the bard. I feel that a full-caster with a very diverse spell list, excellent support abilities outside of those spells, decent weapon proficiency, and a very strong skill monkey vibe is a little over the top, and feel they would be more in line as a half-caster. It also to my mind strengthens the class's narrative by not basically making them wizard+ for magical versatility.

Clerics have a more restricted spell list than bards, which helps, although their list is also getting crowded IMO.

Also, since my plan takes nothing away from the wizard, please explain to me how what I'm suggesting would kill them. The only thing I can think of it is an assumption on your part that sorcerers are so much more popular than wizards that the latter would wither in the swing halo of the former.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, the most immediate that stands out its Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer, Life Doman Cleric, but Grave Domain Cleric, Shadow Sorcerer, The Undead Warlock is another. There are even more overlaps between Cleric and Warlock or Cleric and Sorcerer as well.

Thematic concepts are often tied to types of beings.

Yes, the Divine Soul Sorcerer and the Celestial Warlock and the Cleric all deal with the gods, celestials and divine forces... Your point? All clerics are tied with celestials. Heck, you put Grave cleric on there, but Grave Clerics have nothing to do with the undead, and the shadow sorcerers have nothing to do with the undead. I mean, seriously, here is the text for the Grave Cleric "Followers of these deities seek to put wandering spirits to rest, destroy the undead, and ease the suffering of the dying.", I mean, I guess wanting to destroy the undead and wanting to work for the undead and become one have connections... sort of like how a Police officer has a connection to a Crime Boss, but they aren't the same themes.

Arcana definitely makes sense for a Warlock, if you want it. But that doesn't mean the warlock has studied magic. They could, sure, but the text in the PHB is generic enough to imply it is the norm.

(bolded) Not necessarily. There are plenty of tales and stories where an entity comes to an individual and offers them power/magic in exchange for service or something else.

Sure, which is why I like that the warlock text has some wiggle room in it for different interpretations. But that IS why the text mentions arcane studies, to plant that idea in the player's head.

I could be. My point was IME most people run it either one way or the other. Many people think once a Patron bestows magic, the Patron can't do anything to remove that magic from the Warlock. Others think that the Warlock's Pact with the Patron includes ongoing service, etc. or the Patron can deny additional power, if not remove it completely.

I, personally, am not doing anything... just highlighting the most common viewpoints IME.

Sure, but if we are going to highlight common viewpoints with the goal of altering the text and presentation... then it behooves us to cover other possibilities as well. After all, whether or not people THINK it has to be one or the other does not mean they are CORRECT.

In case you didn't realize this, it isn't my phrasing, but WotC's, taken directly from the PHB. Unless you were referencing just my comments on the Sorcerer and Warlock? In which case my phrasing really doesn't imply "channeling power" like the Cleric and Paladin IMO. With the sorcerer I simply said your blood (e.g. your magic) somehow came from the Entity, such as a Dragon infusing magic for the Draconic Bloodline. For Warlock, I am actually questioning, hence the question mark, whether the magic comes directly from the Patron.

Anyway, Sorcerer's also "channel power from a specific individual force"---their own. So, they do work that way. Now, it is their's presently (as Sorcerer because of gaining it from an Entity (or their ancestor did), or from an Event.

I was referencing how you ordered all four together to make a connection. However, even here, you are misrepresenting the connections.

For example, you say hat the sorcerer is channeling power from a source.. themself. However, this is completely different from the other three (assuming you want to put the warlock here) because they channel power from an outside source. This is like saying that the Purchase Clerk at Amazon is the exact same as a millionaire, because both have access to a lot of money. But one of those two people is using THEIR OWN money, and that makes a substantial difference.

You are also claiming that the bloodline had to come from an entity... it doesn't. A family born near a portal to Mechanus could become Clockwork Souls... and their bloodline could continue. The Sorcerer has the power from their blood (their mother and her mother and her mother all had the same power) but the bloodline didn't start with an entity, it started with a location.

This is a problem, because people keep trying to present the warlock's patron and the origin of the Sorcerer bloodline as somehow nearly identical, but you keep flattening and misrepresenting the vast variety of sorcerer origins. Maybe a Divine Soul's bloodline comes from their continued guardianship of a divine artifact, no entity required. Frankly, the sorcerers who DO go with the "my great-great granddaddy was a bard who laid the dragon" are often the ones with the least interest in their backstories.

No, they are not a conduit for the dragon's magic, they are just a conduit for magic--linked by either their bloodline from an Entity or from the Event that changed their blood to be infused with magic.

Right, which is completely different from being a conduit for a third party's magical power.

You seem to be thinking I am voicing it is one or the other. I put them both their because they are how the PHB says a sorcerer gets their power. From the "blood"(i.e. power) of an Entity (instilled in the sorcerer's blood) or by have the magic infused in their (or ancestor's) blood by the Event. Both are options for Sorcerers. The Event doesn't have to be an encounter with an Entity, but it could be.

Sure, it could be. But I was directly responding to your words. Looking back, I missed an "if" that seems to be what you are hinging your distinction on. But seriously, that is weak. "If" the sorcerer gains their bloodline magic from having a powerful entity in their family tree, how is that different from going and making a deal with a powerful entity for magic? Because one is born with power, desired or not, and the other sought power. That is not a minor difference.

While I don't think druids as "divine", I have no issue with having Gods of Nature or Gods of Magic. In fact, the patheon we play in has both a God of Nature and a God of Magic.

I do, because the way DnD likes to portray Gods sets them up as "controlling" the aspect they are a god of. This is why, canonically, Mystra is so powerful. She literally controls all magic for all beings, and therefore must be neutral or.... bad guys woudn't have magic...

I much prefer Arcane magic to be largely like physics, it exists and can be harnessed by mortals. This helps prevent Immortal beings from simply running roughshod over mortals. Sure, a God is very helpful for a community, but an Archmage can gain enormous power through dedication, study, and the harnessing of principles of magic. Meanwhile, the realms of nature are handled by powerful spirits that existed before the gods. The Spirit of Fire, The Spirit of the Python, The Spirit of the Mangrove Tree, these are powers that can be equal to Gods, but older and often unconcerned with mortals or anything that doesn't directly come to their attention.

For the Gods, I leave them as embodying concepts of "civilization" and "communities". Healing, War, Commerce, Travel, Freedom, Justice, Order, Knowledge, Love. These are powerful and heady forces, but they only exist in a world that has mortals and has civilizations. They are currently ascendant, but in the world without cities, the bear does not go to war, and the gravity still pulls the rain from the sky.

 

[ezo]

Some further thoughts:

I was considering all the mechanical aspects of magic/spell casting, and this is what I have so far:

Spell lists: every class with the spellcasting trait has a spell list.
Subclass spell lists: many subclasses allow spells outside of the class spell list. Some are automatically prepared or known, others aren't.
Prepared spells: spells which the caster must select after a long rest to have available for spellcasting.
Known spells: spell which the caster has learned and are always available for spellcasting.
Spell powers: special magical features the caster has gained, many mimic spells or allow a spell to be cast (e.g. Invocations).
Spell points: alternative to spell slots, allowing for more flexible casting of spells at spell levels which aren't fixed.
Spell slots: fixed spell levels which are available to the caster to use when casting spells.

I think redefining the spellcasting classes using the above (and any later additions) to increase the differences between those classes might help.

Here are some examples of how things might be done (just an example, ok?):

BARD: bards have no spell list of their own, instead being able to learn any spell they might happen across. Whenever a bard learns a spell, they can cast that spell once and require a long rest before they can cast it again. A bard may learn a spell more than once, allowing the bard to cast it multiple times before resting. (The number of spells and spell levels depend on further design considerations.)

CLERIC: a cleric has a limited spell list determined by their Domain. (Hopefully, the idea is to prevent as much overlap as possible.) Clerics do not prepare spells, but know all the spells on their spell list for the spell levels they can cast. Clerics use spell slots.

SORCERER: the origin of the sorcerer and their corresponding subclass determine their spell lists. Unlike clerics, sorcerers have known spells from their lists. Sorcerers do not have spell slot, instead using spell points, which not only fuel their spells but also their metamagics. Sorcerers are altered by their origins in some fashion, possibly gaining a creature type for their bloodline or some other link to their infusion of magic.

WIZARD: the wizard has a class spell list and must prepare their spells in order to cast them. They use spell slots

 

[Remathilis]

In 1E a Sorcerer was specifically an 8th level Magic-User (and a Wizard was a 10th level Magic-User).

I would be ok with getting rid of the Sorcerer class completely and making it a subclass of Wizard. I am not down with giving them more flavor or abilities as a class.

In Basic D&D, a is a 9th level lawful fighter and a druid is a 9th level neutral cleric. I'd be ok with getting rid of both of them and making them a subclass of the fighter and cleric respectively.

Oh, and a warlock is a 7th level magic user. That is a wizard subclass too. And swashbucklers are now fighters, not rogues.

 

[ezo]

Yes, the Divine Soul Sorcerer and the Celestial Warlock and the Cleric all deal with the gods, celestials and divine forces... Your point?

My point was obvious -- there is most definitely an overlap of theme.

All clerics are tied with celestials.

Not at all. Some are tied to Fey, Fiends, etc. no where nearly celestials.

Heck, you put Grave cleric on there, but Grave Clerics have nothing to do with the undead, and the shadow sorcerers have nothing to do with the undead.

No, they have to deal with Death, which is related to undeath. Shadow Sorcerer have Strength of the Grave, which mimics Undead Fortitude.

I mean, seriously, here is the text for the Grave Cleric "Followers of these deities seek to put wandering spirits to rest, destroy the undead, and ease the suffering of the dying.", I mean, I guess wanting to destroy the undead and wanting to work for the undead and become one have connections... sort of like how a Police officer has a connection to a Crime Boss, but they aren't the same themes.

I never said they were the same, I said they overlap.

Sure, but if we are going to highlight common viewpoints with the goal of altering the text and presentation... then it behooves us to cover other possibilities as well. After all, whether or not people THINK it has to be one or the other does not mean they are CORRECT.

What other possibilities are there? The patron is involved in granting you more magic as you advance, or they aren't. Seems fairly binary to me.

I was referencing how you ordered all four together to make a connection. However, even here, you are misrepresenting the connections.

Which is why I put them in parenthesis, bolded, and a different color. And the connections are not misrepresented.

For example, you say hat the sorcerer is channeling power from a source.. themself. However, this is completely different from the other three (assuming you want to put the warlock here) because they channel power from an outside source. This is like saying that the Purchase Clerk at Amazon is the exact same as a millionaire, because both have access to a lot of money. But one of those two people is using THEIR OWN money, and that makes a substantial difference.

The point is one possible origin for sorcerer is interaction with an Entity. The magic is put in their blood by that Entity or that interaction. I never said they are the same sort of thing, only that each of the four has an Entity involved in how they have magic. You're inferring a lot, to be honest.

You are also claiming that the bloodline had to come from an entity... it doesn't. A family born near a portal to Mechanus could become Clockwork Souls... and their bloodline could continue. The Sorcerer has the power from their blood (their mother and her mother and her mother all had the same power) but the bloodline didn't start with an entity, it started with a location.

FOR THE LAST TIME: I am NOT "claiming" the bloodline HAS to come from an Entity. IT IS ONE POSSIBLE OPTION OUTSIDE OF THE EVENT, which is also there, and you seem to be focusing on to the exlusion of the Entity option. Both exist. Whether the Entity deals directly with the sorcerer or with an ancestor, it is there in those cases.

This is a problem, because people keep trying to present the warlock's patron and the origin of the Sorcerer bloodline as somehow nearly identical, but you keep flattening and misrepresenting the vast variety of sorcerer origins. Maybe a Divine Soul's bloodline comes from their continued guardianship of a divine artifact, no entity required. Frankly, the sorcerers who DO go with the "my great-great granddaddy was a bard who laid the dragon" are often the ones with the least interest in their backstories.

It isn't a problem except the one you keep imposing on this discussion. I mean, really, READ MY POSTS! Stop trying to think you know what I am saying and take my post at its value. Sorcerer orgins come from two possible sources: ENTITY or EVENT (heck, possibly a mix of the two LOL!).

Right, which is completely different from being a conduit for a third party's magical power.

Sigh... which I never claimed it was. You inferred it.

Sure, it could be. But I was directly responding to your words. Looking back, I missed an "if" that seems to be what you are hinging your distinction on. But seriously, that is weak. "If" the sorcerer gains their bloodline magic from having a powerful entity in their family tree, how is that different from going and making a deal with a powerful entity for magic? Because one is born with power, desired or not, and the other sought power. That is not a minor difference.

It isn't a weak distinction at all. I have been talking about both possibilities since the beginning. Also, not all sorcerers are "born" with power, even from an Entity. A sorcerer CAN be the first of their bloodline with that Entity.

A solar might bless a peasant with power, making that peasant a Sorcerer, for some brave deed they did. They are now a Divine Soul sorcerer and the first of their bloodline to have it. See? ENTITY.

I do, because the way DnD likes to portray Gods sets them up as "controlling" the aspect they are a god of. This is why, canonically, Mystra is so powerful. She literally controls all magic for all beings, and therefore must be neutral or.... bad guys woudn't have magic...

I much prefer Arcane magic to be largely like physics, it exists and can be harnessed by mortals. This helps prevent Immortal beings from simply running roughshod over mortals. Sure, a God is very helpful for a community, but an Archmage can gain enormous power through dedication, study, and the harnessing of principles of magic. Meanwhile, the realms of nature are handled by powerful spirits that existed before the gods. The Spirit of Fire, The Spirit of the Python, The Spirit of the Mangrove Tree, these are powers that can be equal to Gods, but older and often unconcerned with mortals or anything that doesn't directly come to their attention.

For the Gods, I leave them as embodying concepts of "civilization" and "communities". Healing, War, Commerce, Travel, Freedom, Justice, Order, Knowledge, Love. These are powerful and heady forces, but they only exist in a world that has mortals and has civilizations. They are currently ascendant, but in the world without cities, the bear does not go to war, and the gravity still pulls the rain from the sky.

Whatever works for you.

 

[Remathilis]

One of the biggest issue with classes in D&D 5e is the cosmology and magic has a default assumption but the designers would explicitly state it out of fear of turning people off.

Instead of saying exactly how each class gets magic and how it flow but saying you can make exceptions or changes, we get wishy washy stuff where everyone comes from different points.

D&D itself needs a Session 0.

In D&D, arcane magic comes from arcane formulas, bloodlines, pacts, the Music of Creation, the Weave (FR), the Moons/Gods (DL), the life of the planet (DS), the Mists (RL) and the Planes themselves. There is no underlying principle of magic because people WANT it to be all those things. They will scream murder if you say something like "all arcane magic comes from the Weave" because "muh Dragonlance" isn't being supported.

D&D has a lore problem. The Core rules need to be vague to support every official setting and most homebrew ones or players riot. Settings aren't detailed enough in the limited space given to get hyper specific. They can't support multiple lines of hyper-specific stuff without fracturing the franchise and cannibalizing their own sales. So 5e throws it's hands up and says "it is what you make it" and we debate endlessly if the sorcerer is unique enough to exist in a setting where magic doesn't get defined any more thoroughly than "casts fireball".

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

This reflects a strongly outdated conception of the people that play D&D. It seems that many current D&D players are the “theater kids” and many of them would relate to a class with strong social skills and which obtains its power from performance.
Even beyond that, a major draw for bards is their versatility, since they can be built for both combat and spellcasting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Full caster, plus other stuff.

You mean like clerics? Or druids?

 

[Remathilis]

You mean like clerics? Or druids?

Gotta admit, I could make a very strong case if I wanted that cleric should be a "white robe caster" class and the druid a half-caster (with a shaman/green witch full primal caster). The warrior of faith is already filled by the paladin.

I think they're fine as is, but I could argue that if we're going for internal consistency, they should both be stripped of either their martial prowess or full casting.