D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

To be fair, in 5e clerics no longer really are warrior-priests. The option to use weapons is in theory there, but their cantrips are almost always more effective and allow you to focus on wisdom alone. Which I think is a shame, but if that's how it is going to be, then they should just make it explicit, instead of making the choice to invest to weapon fighting a subpar trap option. I am also not sure the clerics need all the strong armour proficiencies they have.

 

[Remathilis]

To be fair, in 5e clerics no longer really are warrior-priests. The option to use weapons is in theory there, but their cantrips are almost always more effective and allow you to focus on wisdom alone. Which I think is a shame, but if that's how it is going to be, then they should just make it explicit, instead of making the choice to invest to weapon fighting a subpar trap option. I am also not sure the clerics need all the strong armour proficiencies they have.

Clerics still can get martial weapons very easy (even easier in 24) and all armor. I'm talking about "simple weapons and light/no armor" as the default. On par with a wizard in terms of combat.

 

[Horwath]

Or, counter offer: it becomes the only option and Vancian Magic is gone forever, ushering in a new age of glory and prosperity.

both die in fire and spellpoints shines on new horizons.

with some amount of spell points recovery on short rest and all on long rest.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Clerics still can get martial weapons very easy (even easier in 24) and all armor. I'm talking about "simple weapons and light/no armor" as the default. On par with a wizard in terms of combat.

Yes, I get that. And it would probably be fine. And that martial weapon proficiency is a trap anyway. It makes players think they should be fighting with weapons, even though that is an ineffective choice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean like clerics? Or druids?

I explained that already. Clerics (and druids) have a more limited spell list thematically. And honestly both are getting a little too crowded for my tastes anyway. Themed subsets of the greater divine list would suit me better, so neither class has full access to everything a cleric or druid could possibly cast.

 

[TwoSix]

I explained that already. Clerics (and druids) have a more limited spell list thematically. And honestly both are getting a little too crowded for my tastes anyway. Themed subsets of the greater divine list would suit me better, so neither class has full access to everything a cleric or druid could possibly cast.

The model I really I wish was the default is the late 3.5 beguiler/warmage/necromancer model, where each class has a small, tightly constrained spell list, but has full access to every spell on the list.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i'm not really sure how you read any of that first bit from my post, i made no mention in my post nor have any issue with 'characters drawing power from performance' or the kinds of people who play the game.

my point is the bard's thematical design is that of a dabbler and jack of all trades who also specialises in social abilities, who does a little bit of everything to fill in when you don't have a specialist, but i think it's just a bit much to give them fullcasting in conjunction everything else that they do, bardic inspiration, versatile skills and expertise, healing, buffing, control, utility and offensive magic, some get martial weapons and extra attack.
magic is very powerful in 5e, and the versatility of the bard's spell access lets them push their power into many different areas. giving them fullcasting lets them push that power even further.

they might not be the 'master of all' yet but they're certainly pushing past the 'jack of all trades' IMO.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You are welcome to disagree with me on the power of the bard.

Thank you for your permission.

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.

See, it is difficult to even disagree with you, because this is all so vague. What is a "very diverse spell list"? Most Bards I see take the same few spells, with minor variations, so their list doesn't seem very diverse to me. How is simple weapons plus finesse swords and the longsword "decent" weapon proficiency? They lack access to the best melee weapons, but even wizards can get a d8 melee weapon and a d8 ranged weapon, is it just the Rapier that makes it decent? Why is their limitation to light armor (less than the druid and cleric) not a mark against them for melee?

And I disagree that it strengthens their narrative to be even better at fighting in melee, but worse at spells. But that is likely because I disagree with you about what their narrative even is.

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

Clerics need twice the spells on their list that they currently have. Every cleric ends up with the same limited list, because they have so few spell options per spell level, and most of them are situational. I'm not saying they lack power, I'm saying they lack options, getting the fewest options out of every full caster in the game.

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.

Not because they are so popular, but because the wizard flavor is so weak. There are only two things that the wizard has going for them in terms of flavor. 1) They study magic, 2) They have a spellbook.

Well, if you give them innate magic, then they no longer need to study magic. They can be born naturally talented, meaning the single thing defining the wizard is their spellbook... a thing that already gets practically written out of a large percentage of wizard characters. You would be left with nothing that actually makes a wizard different from anything else, and the wizard would be reduced to nothing. The class name would be gone, the story of studying magic without an innate talent would be gone, and the spellbook would be a vestigial organ most tables forget about.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.)

Never going to happen. Not in anything but the most twisted of universes would we go back to Vancian casting, even for a single class. DnD created multiple classes for the sole purpose of getting away from Vancian casting, and made two editions without it. We are not going back.

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.

Preventing overlap between clerics of different gods is bizarre to me. Do War Gods not want battlefield medics to worship them? To gods of civilization never want those who can fight to defend that civilization? Does an agriculture god not cover plants, and the sun, and life?

I want clerics to have more options, so they aren't forced to overlap, but the concept of a deity is complex enough that attempting to prevent different domains from having the same spells is just silly to me.

 

[Scribe]

Never going to happen. Not in anything but the most twisted of universes would we go back to Vancian casting, even for a single class. DnD created multiple classes for the sole purpose of getting away from Vancian casting, and made two editions without it. We are not going back

Which is unfortunate to me. That's a balancing mechanism lost.