D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

I'd like a Sorcerer that could do metamagic for just about every spell, and that could spend Sorcery Points on other magical feats, like Magical Successes for skill checks or reinforcing their bodies against magic or magical damage. I'll admit, this idea is really just inspired by Jujutsu Kaisen, but I love that manga's variant of the sorcerer concept; someone with a limited number of spells that can change their target, AoE's, range, damage, saving throw (within reason), and maybe even how often it saves + requiring no spell components but being able to cast spells at a higher level by using V, S, and M components for each spell.

Subclasses get new spells and special ways to spend their Sorcery Points on top of other features, such as Frightening Presence etc.

Of course, Sorcery Points get fused with Spell Points.

This would make it so the Wizard has the most spells/prepackaged abilities, Warlocks have the most character options with their pacts and invocations, and Sorcerer's have the most flexibility when it comes to manipulating their spells in novel ways. Each one becomes a different expression of D&D's idea of Arcane magic.

This is one of the concepts I like as well, and why I tend to point towards various psion concepts I've seen for a potential set of sorcerer mechanics. A lot of them tend to take the approach of giving a single, generic ability, then spending power to alter it in a variety of ways.

Kibblestasty Psion in particular can feel very much like I would want an innate caster like a sorcerer to feel.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If the mechanics actually supported such stories, you'd have a point, but they don't. The mechanics don't care if the cleric was devout from childhood or converted later when they were forced to repent. And there is nothing about warlock mechanics that support the latter better then the cleric mechanics.

And there is nothing in the rogue mechanics to speak to any of the things people go to the rogue for. Bards? Their only mechanic that actually ties into musician is using musical instruments as a focus, something half the groups I've played with ignore.

Not everything about a class is determined by mechanical enforcement. And the Cleric being "forced to repent" just innately has a different feel to the story, because they already earned the power by becoming a cleric, but the Warlock is being given power then told to use that to become better. The cleric doesn't have a pact, and that makes a difference, even if you could claim they do and therefore it is the same. You could also claim that a rogue has a pact and that is why they have cunning action and sneak attack. But you don't go looking for a rogue to fulfill that story.

No, it is because warlock is cool chassis with interesting mechanics and sorcerer isn't. So people want to play the "dragon mage" and have decent mechanics so they want a dragon warlock.

So why aren't all players playing warlocks? Why aren't all clerics, paladins, arcane knights, wizards, bards, sorcerers and whoever else's story not handled by warlocks? Why play a Fey Wanderer ranger, the Warlock has a cool chassis with interesting mechanics and the ranger has been plagued with problems, so why not play a warlock instead?

Because people are looking for a different story, and the warlock doesn't fit well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The LU paradigm is the WOTC paradigm.

What if you want another paradigm. Only that 3PPs sorcerer and their subclasses/feats/items work with it.

Give me an example.

 

[Chaosmancer]

but that isn't information you are obligated or required to know to play the game, do you want the DM to micromanage your entire character for you? or leave the module open for you at the table? those problems are playing the game, you're meant to account for the things you don't know to account for, do you want a warning every time you take an action that might be detrimental or even just less than optimal?

And I like good food, therefore I must want a 5-star chef to hand-make every meal I ever eat, right?

No, I don't want the DM to micromanage everything, but there is a reason that Vancian casting was abandoned. Because it fundamentally DOES require that. Why did the Vancian system in 3.5 allow cleric's to substitute any spell for Cure Wounds? Because cure wounds can be necessary, and it was impossible to know HOW necessary. It made the game less fun and forced people to play in ways they didn't want to play. Therefore, they had to find a solution. And the solution was to make an exception for Vancian casting.

If memory serves me, in 3.5, there was never a spell like Revivify. Why not? Because it would never be prepared. Or if it was, it would only be prepared once. After all, if you are spending three or four slots on preparing for someone to die, you could instead spend them on preventing the death.

Frankly, the only people I ever see supporting a return to Vancian casting at those who are convinced they are smart enough/skilled enough/cautious enough/good enough planners to never run into the problems the system imposes. Look at your last two posts, in this one you accuse me of wanting the DM to coddle me to prevent me from making mistakes, and in the last one you sarcastically set the dichotomy between any level of planning, and just charging in like "a herd of nigh immortal magic slinging bulls with red bandanas covering their eyes". Because of course, I could never sit and plan things with my party, aware I don't have the full information, and therefore be painfully aware that if I had to predict the exact number of times I have to cast a specific spell, I would be setting myself up for failure. I must play like a fool with no regard to plans, because I'm aware that no plan is perfect and setting up Vancian casting encourages nothing but the safest most perfect plans.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't see a problem with any of that. This whole line of discussion is subjective preference and nothing else.

Sure, it is subjective. And subjectively the VAST VAST majority of people have rejected Vancian casting. And that isn't because they want to be coddled like CreamCloud0 suggests.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're the one who made the claim. You provide the evidence.

Fine. I did some research. Other than the game Invisible Sun, every single game I looked at talked about using something other than Vancian Casting.

Morkbork, Blades in the Dark, Dungeon World, I know not all of these are OSR games, but if it was a game I had heard of before, it used a different casting style. Usually rolling skills to cast spells.

So, unless you are going to require a bibliography of every source I looked at and copies of the rules, I have done the research and found no evidence of Vancian casting in OSR games. Excepting Invisible Sun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

IMO, you'd get closer to the desired narrative if you used bespoke mechanics. Extensive re-flavoring is not worth doing in my view.

Sure, but if someone isn't a game designer and capable of making an entire warlock but not a warlock class... then the reflavoring is worth it rather than abandoning the concept.

 

[James Gasik]

And I like good food, therefore I must want a 5-star chef to hand-make every meal I ever eat, right?

No, I don't want the DM to micromanage everything, but there is a reason that Vancian casting was abandoned. Because it fundamentally DOES require that. Why did the Vancian system in 3.5 allow cleric's to substitute any spell for Cure Wounds? Because cure wounds can be necessary, and it was impossible to know HOW necessary. It made the game less fun and forced people to play in ways they didn't want to play. Therefore, they had to find a solution. And the solution was to make an exception for Vancian casting.

If memory serves me, in 3.5, there was never a spell like Revivify. Why not? Because it would never be prepared. Or if it was, it would only be prepared once. After all, if you are spending three or four slots on preparing for someone to die, you could instead spend them on preventing the death.

Frankly, the only people I ever see supporting a return to Vancian casting at those who are convinced they are smart enough/skilled enough/cautious enough/good enough planners to never run into the problems the system imposes. Look at your last two posts, in this one you accuse me of wanting the DM to coddle me to prevent me from making mistakes, and in the last one you sarcastically set the dichotomy between any level of planning, and just charging in like "a herd of nigh immortal magic slinging bulls with red bandanas covering their eyes". Because of course, I could never sit and plan things with my party, aware I don't have the full information, and therefore be painfully aware that if I had to predict the exact number of times I have to cast a specific spell, I would be setting myself up for failure. I must play like a fool with no regard to plans, because I'm aware that no plan is perfect and setting up Vancian casting encourages nothing but the safest most perfect plans.

Alternately, people who want to return to Vancian casting want to return to the days there it was entirely possible that a spellcaster had no useful spells for a given situation and rarely could produce "magic bullets" to solve problems out of their hat without doing a lot of legwork to know they needed such.

A lot of the "Martial v. Caster" threads spend time on the "caster has spell that trivializes what the martial adds to the party" and the damage a caster can do with unspent spell slots. A few years back, I weighed in on a "goodberry destroys exploration" thread by pointing out the spell totally existed in AD&D- the issue was nobody was preparing it because it's contribution to the game was so limited compared to other spells you felt you needed.

Or take the Cleric- I don't know about you, but almost every Cleric I ever saw played in my AD&D days had Cure Light Wounds in every 1st-level spell slot because it was something you know you'd need, and a spell the other classes might not even have access to.

Even in 3e, I played in a group where our "healer" was a Druid and it was a horrible experience since they had to choose between "cool Druid spell" and healing spells, added to the fact that someone decided Druids should be second-tier healers for...reasons.

I hate Vancian with every fiber of my being, being forced to memorize "Magic Missile x 3" is pretty wretched, but there are things you didn't see when you had to make choices with little information to work with- it's a different kind of game and one where spellcasters do have less versatility.

Of course, the issue is, the game was always designed for players to have ways to get information, from scouting to divination to hiring a sage- but a lot of GM's became loath to give out that information, because a "challenging" adventure could be rendered into a cakewalk with the right prep.

Back in the day, to fight a dragon, we'd scrimp and save resistance items and potions, load up on spells the thing wouldn't be immune to, and what was meant to be a frightening encounter with a top tier enemy generally ended with us cheering and the DM frowning. Unless the DM pulled a fast one "oh see, the Dragon has a Hat of Disguise and is really a Blue dragon, not a...." and the like.

D&D has always been a game where information is powerful- just look at that old chestnut "but does your character know about trolls?". Logically, of course they ought to, if Trolls are a thing.

But if they do, a rough fight becomes trivial. Or the classic AD&D werewolf. A creature immune to all but special weaponry, able to spread a dread curse and hide it's true nature- if you don't know you're fighting a werewolf, it's very likely a TPK. But if you do and you're ready for it? It's pretty much a joke.

Because the game hinges on these things and has from the beginning, we end up in this paradigm where it's important to not give players an even break, even as the game has evolved to try and give players just that.

We went from Gygax saying no caster should ever be allowed to get their pick of spells, with NPC's turning up their noses at the mere thought of sharing spells to games where you automatically get your pick of new spells when you level up without any justification more than "off-camera research".

It's more fun for the player to be able to take the options they want, naturally, but the game hasn't really evolved to the point where it's really safe to always allow them to do that- because WotC has to serve two masters- keeping the people who want to push the game in a different direction happy while not alienating the people who are happy the way it is, thank you very much.

So I can't discount people who want to return to a style of play I don't care for (and I've been playing since late '88 so I have some experience with it) because a lot of what WotC has done is make things easier for spellcasters without changing the fundamental play experience.

The game is built on this idea that monsters have surprises and it's hard to always be ready for them, and that acquiring and recovering resources are meant to be important things, but players can easily optimize to actually be prepared for a wide range of circumstances and can trivialize the attrition model using the actual core rules!

And this will continue until WotC picks a lane. Which they can't, because every time they try, lol, half the player base loses their collective minds.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then, to lay my cards on the table (as I edited the post you replied to), here's the list of classes 5e has...

Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.

And here's the, or perhaps "my," list (in very loosely descending order of "necessity") of "missing" class-fantasies:

Warlord
Psion
Swordmage
Assassin
Shaman (this brings us to the 18 I mentioned)
Alchemist
Avenger
Summoner
"Machinist" (not married to the name, but it captures the concept well enough)
Warden
Invoker (which brings us to 24)

Several of these have minor, weak, or incomplete representation via one or more existing subclasses. Swordmage is the poster child here, but all of the first five have something like that (so-called "Warlord Fighters," Aberrant Mind Sorc, the weak sauce Assassin Rogue, Flame Druid, etc.) There's a reason for this: forcing these class-fantasies to be content with mere subclass representation, even in multiple forms, doesn't quite scratch the itch.

Once you hit that 24 point, it's...just really hard to come up with new ideas that actually merit full-throated classes rather than subclass representation. The archetypes covered really do hit just about all of it.

Just for the sake of discussion, I disagree with a few of these. Though that could also be not understanding the themes you are going for.

I agree with the need for a Warlord (martial support character). I can maybe see the Shaman, if I squint, but that seems more aesthetic to me than mechanical. Maybe as a class that buffs itself with stacking buffs? I'm not sure what the mechanical hook would be. Alchemist.... yes and no. I think we need better crafting rules to cover the alchemist concept, but I'm not sure how to make it work mechanically, especially since it is simply making items. Summoner is one I agree that could be needed thematically, but mechanically it is just constantly a pain to try and make work.

Psion? Not interested in a psychic class. Sorry. I can see why people might want it, but I don't.

Assassin? The rogue works for that. They aren't the BEST assassin able to do every assassin thing, but that's the nature of trying to make a solo operator work in a team game. Rogues do fit the archetype pretty closely though. And trying to make an Assassin class who CAN work solo in a team game is asking for trouble. And to be clear, I'm talking thematics and overarching mechanics, I agree the existing Assassin Rogue is not working up to snuff.

Swordmage? Eh, maybe? We have a ton of gish concepts, and I think they can be handled well enough with the existing subclasses. I know you aren't happy with subclasses at level 3, but enough of my games start at level 3, and we can start with the Magic initiate feat, so I'm fine with it.

Avenger? Warden? I'm not sure what these would be. Same with Invoker and Machinist, I'm just not sure what concepts you are trying to call on here.

So, for me... Warlord, better crafting rules, and maybe a shaman/warden concept of nature infused self-buffing. That would cover the few concepts I don't see a satisfactory way to make in DnD.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Alternately, people who want to return to Vancian casting want to return to the days there it was entirely possible that a spellcaster had no useful spells for a given situation and rarely could produce "magic bullets" to solve problems out of their hat without doing a lot of legwork to know they needed such.

A lot of the "Martial v. Caster" threads spend time on the "caster has spell that trivializes what the martial adds to the party" and the damage a caster can do with unspent spell slots. A few years back, I weighed in on a "goodberry destroys exploration" thread by pointing out the spell totally existed in AD&D- the issue was nobody was preparing it because it's contribution to the game was so limited compared to other spells you felt you needed.

Or take the Cleric- I don't know about you, but almost every Cleric I ever saw played in my AD&D days had Cure Light Wounds in every 1st-level spell slot because it was something you know you'd need, and a spell the other classes might not even have access to.

Even in 3e, I played in a group where our "healer" was a Druid and it was a horrible experience since they had to choose between "cool Druid spell" and healing spells, added to the fact that someone decided Druids should be second-tier healers for...reasons.

I hate Vancian with every fiber of my being, being forced to memorize "Magic Missile x 3" is pretty wretched, but there are things you didn't see when you had to make choices with little information to work with- it's a different kind of game and one where spellcasters do have less versatility.

Of course, the issue is, the game was always designed for players to have ways to get information, from scouting to divination to hiring a sage- but a lot of GM's became loath to give out that information, because a "challenging" adventure could be rendered into a cakewalk with the right prep.

Back in the day, to fight a dragon, we'd scrimp and save resistance items and potions, load up on spells the thing wouldn't be immune to, and what was meant to be a frightening encounter with a top tier enemy generally ended with us cheering and the DM frowning. Unless the DM pulled a fast one "oh see, the Dragon has a Hat of Disguise and is really a Blue dragon, not a...." and the like.

D&D has always been a game where information is powerful- just look at that old chestnut "but does your character know about trolls?". Logically, of course they ought to, if Trolls are a thing.

But if they do, a rough fight becomes trivial. Or the classic AD&D werewolf. A creature immune to all but special weaponry, able to spread a dread curse and hide it's true nature- if you don't know you're fighting a werewolf, it's very likely a TPK. But if you do and you're ready for it? It's pretty much a joke.

Because the game hinges on these things and has from the beginning, we end up in this paradigm where it's important to not give players an even break, even as the game has evolved to try and give players just that.

We went from Gygax saying no caster should ever be allowed to get their pick of spells, with NPC's turning up their noses at the mere thought of sharing spells to games where you automatically get your pick of new spells when you level up without any justification more than "off-camera research".

It's more fun for the player to be able to take the options they want, naturally, but the game hasn't really evolved to the point where it's really safe to always allow them to do that- because WotC has to serve two masters- keeping the people who want to push the game in a different direction happy while not alienating the people who are happy the way it is, thank you very much.

So I can't discount people who want to return to a style of play I don't care for (and I've been playing since late '88 so I have some experience with it) because a lot of what WotC has done is make things easier for spellcasters without changing the fundamental play experience.

The game is built on this idea that monsters have surprises and it's hard to always be ready for them, and that acquiring and recovering resources are meant to be important things, but players can easily optimize to actually be prepared for a wide range of circumstances and can trivialize the attrition model using the actual core rules!

And this will continue until WotC picks a lane. Which they can't, because every time they try, lol, half the player base loses their collective minds.

I agree with a lot of this, and this is a much more balanced and nuanced take. I have had plenty of times, while playing a caster, that I didn't have a spell to solve the problem. However, I can see how a Vancian style would make that even less likely, and make it easier for a DM to play into that style of challenge.

That being said, I wonder about a nugget of wisdom I picked up once in a discussion of traps. If noticing the trap makes the trap trivial to overcome, it was a bad trap. And I think this might apply to the design of monsters like werewolves and trolls. If they are only challenging if you are ignorant of how they work, or lack the resources to handle their gimmick... maybe they aren't well-designed. Thinking about it, I have almost never used a Troll, and the few times I did, they were modified trolls. But I have used regeneration, and I have often set the counter to be something OTHER than fire. And generally, those fights were planned to be tough for other reasons.

I think I agree with you that WoTC needs to pick a lane, to a degree. I think this idea of challenges being trivialized if you figure out the secret information may be too rampant. It is good occasionally, but most fights shouldn't be that way. I think we are slowly moving away from that paradigm though, one limping step at a time.