D&D 5E A Sorcerer Variant: Spells by any other name?

[Xeviat]

You're already at new-class place. You are pulling out the most iconic features (sorcery points and metamagic), putting in a new feature system, changing their casting from spell slots to spell points, and changing their focus to thematic damage and removing some other nifty niches like twinned buffs. With the exception of their spell list, it's already an entirely new class.

My plan is to keep sorcery points and to use them as part of the overchanneling things. Twinned buffs could easily be part of those spell's augments; there are quite a few buff spells that allow you to target more creatures with higher level slots, after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ganymede81]

Ignoring mechanics, there could be some thematic overlap between the Sorcerer and Warlock.

I'd just throw in a paragraph that says something like "Some dragon warlocks get their power not from a living dragon patron, but from the residual power of a draconic ancestor. Sometimes called sorcerers, these dragon warlocks might experience flashes of memories from their long dead ancestor or other faint urgings that function similarly to the demands of another dragon warlock's patron."

 

[Xeviat]

I agree the sorcerer is one of the classes most in need of re-design. Its raison d'être has evaporated from 3E and it lacks the unique magic from 4E.

First, thank you for the thoughtful post.

I strongly second that. I *think* what the designers were aiming for by making Metamagic a sorcerer exclusive was a sort of compromise between the rigid spell system and build-spells-on-the-fly system found in other RPGs.

I believe so too. In my own experience, I saw more metamagic on Wizards than I did on Sorcerers, even though they could use it better in a way.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself with those fine-tuning tweaks...and the ability to push spells to a higher level than normally capable of requires a lot of playtesting/design to balance it.

The BIG question, the one that needs to be addressed FIRST, is conceptual: What is a sorcerer, and how is that expressed in the class design?

"Overchanneling" could be a bit much, yes.

For their concept, the bloodline is the Sorcerer to me. The Sorcerer is the class you should take for concepts like "I want to have a dragon's power", or be like a number of other supernatural things. This "could" put them in a similar place as the Warlock, conceptually, I am starting to consider.

This seems to be about dealing damage in manner X, Y, or Z. That's totally one type of sorcerer, but I can think of sorcerers who aren't blasters.

It also seems like it could easily get mired down in details, slowing down actual play at the detail.

I'm not sure how it could get mired down anymore than spells, but I suppose the more options you hand someone, the more difficult it can be to make those choices. Spellcasters are complex, so even a simple caster could be more complex than a simple warrior.

I believe the sorcerer should be re-designed as D&D's "simple spellcaster." Instead of giving sorcerers MORE spells known, I actually think that a sorcerer should be required to tightly specialize. The wizard is the swiss army knife – that's covered already. The sorcerer should do a few things really well, and be able to

Tight specialization would have to require being able to treat every problem like a nail. But if the Fighter can be simple, then a focused Sorcerer could be too.

QUOTE=Quickleaf;7208567]I'm really hesitant about conceiving of sorcerer sub-classes as bloodlines due to the overlap that creates with the warlock.

"I've sworn a pact to an Archfey" vs "I am descended from an Archfey" feels like these two concepts are jockeying for the same design space. And then you get into the question of... "Wait, so you're descended from a Fiend....but you're not a tiefling?"

INSTEAD, I'd look at sorcerer sub-classes as far less specifically defined than, for example, a warlock's patron. Maybe you hail from a Secret Arcane Lineage? Or maybe your first memories are from a foul new moon rite when you emerged as one of the Cauldron-Born? Or maybe you are a Child of Prophesy?

I'd also consider lining up these sub-classes with major breakdowns of spellcasters in actual play – controllers, blasters, and...I know there are more, but I'm blanking now

Maybe ... or maybe I might merge them.

I don't see any advantage to giving sorcerers the ability to have spells known. Bards, Wizards, and Warlocks can draw from many of the same spells. They're roughly equally complex. The sorcerer should be something different. It should be the entry point for those not-too-serious gamers who want to play Hermione or Harry Potter or Walker Boh or whatever innate-caster from fantasy literature they like.

Maybe.

I actually think a sorcerer shouldn't need to deal with any "spell accounting", whether they're called spell points or spell slots. For example, maybe they have a Magic Fatigue Check instead? I'd want a sorcerer to basically do their thing ALL the time...cantrips in 5e terms. And then their ability to boost their cantrips (or whatever mechanic you go with) would be governed by a Magic Fatigue Check or something along those lines. There'd be no points/slots to track whatsoever...the most there'd be to track would be the use of a feature that recharges after a long and/or short rest (kinda like the Champion fighter).

Points and slots are easier to balance around. More random rolls would be harder. I've been using spellpoints for a while and it seems like people grasp them quickly. MP is a pretty broad concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quickleaf]

Points and slots are easier to balance around. More random rolls would be harder. I've been using spellpoints for a while and it seems like people grasp them quickly. MP is a pretty broad concept.

One of my favorite OSR games – Beyond the Wall – has an interesting take on cantrips that may serve as inspiration for sorcerer re-design:

Each time a cantrip is cast, the caster makes a spellcasting ability check. If successful, the cantrip is cast no problem and can be cast again. If the check fails, you cast the cantrip but you must choose either (A) to exhaust your uses of that particular cantrip until you rest, or (B) to be able to cast the cantrip again, but your current casting is warped in some inconvenient "spell backlash" way as determined by the DM.

I think it's a really great mechanic. It's meant to model characters from young adult novels by Ursula K. LeGuin (e.g. Sparrowhawk), Susan Cooper (e.g. Will Stanton), and Lloyd Alexander (e.g. Eilonwy).

Yes, it may be harder to balance around, but I kind of see that as fitting an innate spellcaster like a sorcerer.

 

[TwoSix]

Ignoring mechanics, there could be some thematic overlap between the Sorcerer and Warlock. The Sorcerer has magic in their blood. The Warlock is granted their power. To some, these could be the same thing. To others, they could be strongly different. It might be similarly close as Cleric vs Druid.

I've always felt there's more overlap than not. Between fiend, fey, and dragon, I don't see a strong reason why two of them are "I made a deal with an X" and one of them is "My great-grandpa was an X". Wild magic could just easily be a pact with a demon or a slaad or a fey. Old one pact could be born under a celestial alignment of dark stars, or a child born to a cultist.

You can easily add new pact forms that reflect an origin as opposed to a deal, like some kind of blood pact that gives special invocations that change your form.

 

[MoonSong]

I've always felt there's more overlap than not. Between fiend, fey, and dragon, I don't see a strong reason why two of them are "I made a deal with an X" and one of them is "My great-grandpa was an X". Wild magic could just easily be a pact with a demon or a slaad or a fey. Old one pact could be born under a celestial alignment of dark stars, or a child born to a cultist.

You can easily add new pact forms that reflect an origin as opposed to a deal, like some kind of blood pact that gives special invocations that change your form.

But you are missing the forest for the trees with this one. Yes, bloodlines and ancestors are important to sorcerers, but not for all of them. Sorcerer Magic ought to be thematic, but it isn't limited to which entry in the monster manual knocked-up grandma. By focusing so much into the bloodlines we lose sight of the themes and the individuality of each sorcerer. Sorcerer isn't just for "I want to be a dragon" players, it used to be for "I just want magic without trappings" people and "I want to do one thing really well with magic" people too.

 

[TwoSix]

But you are missing the forest for the trees with this one. Yes, bloodlines and ancestors are important to sorcerers, but not for all of them. Sorcerer Magic ought to be thematic, but it isn't limited to which entry in the monster manual knocked-up grandma. By focusing so much into the bloodlines we lose sight of the themes and the individuality of each sorcerer. Sorcerer isn't just for "I want to be a dragon" players, it used to be for "I just want magic without trappings" people and "I want to do one thing really well with magic" people too.

I'm fine with that. I think my main problem is that wizard-sorcerer-warlock-cleric make kind of a spectrum, but the way they're presented feels a little incoherent, and pushed features that would work for multiple classes into one class.

Wizards and sorcerers both have a "master of the arcane" vibe classically, and both could have used metamagic.

Sorcerers and warlocks both have strong fluff concepts tied around extraplanar or fantastical origins of their power. Warlock abilities like short rest casting and at-will invocations both just as easily fit into the "font of magic" concept for a sorcerer.

Clerics and warlocks both have themes of "service to a greater power". They both share the concept of being granted spells by their sponsor. The cleric spell prep method is more suited for casters who receive power from an outside source; likewise, clerics would have benefited from invocations tied to their domains.

Personally, I would have preferred either a setup with a "generic arcanist" and a "generic divine caster" (call them wizard and cleric because tradition) with multiple subclass options. Or, a trio of "I studied magic" - "I was granted magic" - "I AM magic", corresponding to wizard-cleric-sorcerer, and Int-Wis-Cha casting.

 

[gyor]

I like it. It lets the sorcerer do interesting and unique things while escaping an arms race with the wizard that the sorcerer is never going to win (I have 2 words that prove Mama [WotC] loves wizards more: lore wizard).

I do think that conflating spell points and sorcery points is a bad idea, though. It is like an Enron accounting scheme. It looks good on the surface, but then when you get into it, you realize what looked good was a product of double counting, but you only get to count once. To make it worse, even after experiencing the negative effects, people are still so entranced by the illusion, they go out of their way to rationalize it as something else was to blame. If it has to be in the game at all (and I don't think it should), then it should be the sorcerer's capstone. After all, capstones are as much aspirational as they are practical, so at least it would serve some benefit. For myself, I think sorcery points ought to be limited to powering metamagic and subclass features.

Hopefully WotC consignes the Lore Wizard to the dungeon.