D&D (2024) Could the DnDNext Sorcerer be revived as its own class?

[Zardnaar]

Whereas I think the wizard is basically SPELLBOOK: THE CLASS. If anything, the wizard should be a subclass of sorcerer who gets a spellbook that they can use to swap out their spells known from. But inertia will keep Spellbook as a base class (it's one of the Core Four). So thus I will keep fighting for the "I don't need a book" magic user to remain visible.

If anything I think wizards are looking at the Apocalypse.

Rarely see one ever vs the amount of Sorcerer's/Bards/Warlocks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Spontaneous Metamagic fits D&D Sorcerers the most.

Changing spells on the fly via your innate connection in the 6 seconds of each round is very sorcerer.


While deep connection to a bloodline is also sorcerer, it could be its own class.

Having all dragon powers or undead powers or angel powers due to lineage or accident should be its own class. Especially if you are allowing for a warrior or healer option.

I'm not saying metamagic should be removed from the Sorcerer.

I'm saying that it has too little beyond that--and that the "your soul physically manifests as you draw on its strength" thing would have filled both the mechanical and thematic hole that the existing Sorcerer has.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not saying metamagic should be removed from the Sorcerer.

I'm saying that it has too little beyond that--and that the "your soul physically manifests as you draw on its strength" thing would have filled both the mechanical and thematic hole that the existing Sorcerer has.

But, as repeatedly pointed out, and supported by WotC's own market research, a class that changes what it does as it levels up make for terrible gameplay.

And "is it fun to play?" always has to be the bottom line.

Good class design plays pretty much the same way from level 1 to level 20.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But, as repeatedly pointed out, and supported by WotC's own market research, a class that changes what it does as it levels up make for terrible gameplay.

So most Bards and Warlocks, some Sorcerers and Artificers, and all EKs and ATs are terrible and should never have existed?

If your argument is "don't add armor proficiencies after level 1", the playtest Sorcerer didn't do that either, so that's irrelevant.

Having gameplay shifts across a single DAY are just fine--in fact, several classes are built around it.

And "is it fun to play?" always has to be the bottom line.

Sure. Market research which shows that adding armor proficiencies at higher levels is not a great gameplay choice has nothing whatever to do with making classes which change their gameplay over the course of a single day and then revert back at the start of a new day. Completely different things.

But I'm also of the opinion that they should never have done the "subclass at level 3" thing to begin with! Yet another reason why actual novice levels would have been so much better, rather than this "levels 1 and 2 are training wheels" albatross around 5e's neck.

Good class design plays pretty much the same way from level 1 to level 20.

No. Good class design has the same day to day experience from level 1 to level 20. That doesn't mean that the experience from second to second is identical. Much the opposite, actually. The experience SHOULD change across the course of a day for some classes, while remaining almost unchanged for others. That's...literally supposed to be the thing justifying the stupidly high power of magic--it's supposed to run out. (Of course, in practice, I find that it often doesn't actually DO so, even for characters who spend multiple spells in every fight, unless they're Warlocks in typical groups, meaning, those that don't take enough short rests.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So most Bards and Warlocks, some Sorcerers and Artificers, and all EKs and ATs are terrible and should never have existed?

I haven't noticed any of those changing significantly. The EK still charges into battle and hits things with his sword. Being able to sometimes boost AC with a shield spell doesn't change that.

But I'm also of the opinion that they should never have done the "subclass at level 3" thing to begin with! Yet another reason why actual novice levels would have been so much better, rather than this "levels 1 and 2 are training wheels" albatross around 5e's neck.

Sure, and WotC somewhat agree too, hence clerics choosing to play as a martial or caster at level 1. But subclasses do not change the way the class plays, they just modify what extra tricks are learned at higher levels.

No. Good class design has the same day to day experience from level 1 to level 20. That doesn't mean that the experience from second to second is identical.

In the sense that some characters hit things with swords and others cast spells, yes the second by second experience is expected to be much the same. That's what the market research showed, and what I have observed in 42 years of play. That's why cantrips were added to the game - so if your "I cast spells" character ran out spells they could still do their thing and cast spells. I remember the days of wizards being "dagger and dart guy", and they were not good.

 

[Zardnaar]

So most Bards and Warlocks, some Sorcerers and Artificers, and all EKs and ATs are terrible and should never have existed?

If your argument is "don't add armor proficiencies after level 1", the playtest Sorcerer didn't do that either, so that's irrelevant.

Having gameplay shifts across a single DAY are just fine--in fact, several classes are built around it.


Sure. Market research which shows that adding armor proficiencies at higher levels is not a great gameplay choice has nothing whatever to do with making classes which change their gameplay over the course of a single day and then revert back at the start of a new day. Completely different things.

But I'm also of the opinion that they should never have done the "subclass at level 3" thing to begin with! Yet another reason why actual novice levels would have been so much better, rather than this "levels 1 and 2 are training wheels" albatross around 5e's neck.


No. Good class design has the same day to day experience from level 1 to level 20. That doesn't mean that the experience from second to second is identical. Much the opposite, actually. The experience SHOULD change across the course of a day for some classes, while remaining almost unchanged for others. That's...literally supposed to be the thing justifying the stupidly high power of magic--it's supposed to run out. (Of course, in practice, I find that it often doesn't actually DO so, even for characters who spend multiple spells in every fight, unless they're Warlocks in typical groups, meaning, those that don't take enough short rests.)

Good game design is people want to play your gane ultimately.

If your game actively turns people away it's not good design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I haven't noticed any of those changing significantly. The EK still charges into battle and hits things with his sword. Being able to sometimes boost AC with a shield spell doesn't change that.

They suddenly gain spellcasting. That's a pretty dramatic shift.

Sure, and WotC somewhat agree too, hence clerics choosing to play as a martial or caster at level 1. But subclasses do not change the way the class plays, they just modify what extra tricks are learned at higher levels.

Sure they do. Consider the Beast Master Ranger, or the Valor Bard.

In the sense that some characters hit things with swords and others cast spells, yes the second by second experience is expected to be much the same.

Nnnnnnope! Like unless you have some FRESH new research that is completely different from the other stuff, that's literally not true, and the Warlock class specifically demonstrates why it's not. At any level-up, the player can decide to become a bladelock.

That's what the market research showed, and what I have observed in 42 years of play. That's why cantrips were added to the game - so if your "I cast spells" character ran out spells they could still do their thing and cast spells. I remember the days of wizards being "dagger and dart guy", and they were not good.

Yet that is still a (dramatic!) change in gameplay. If you truly do run out of spells, you are functionally on "magic crossbow" duty--it's just one that uses Cha/Int/Wis and thus you don't objectively suck at using it. And that's why the Warlock's eldritch blast is rather more powerful than most cantrips...and why they can make it one of the best baseline offensive options in the game with a single invocation. (EB+AB is, effectively, a one-handed +1 longbow with a slight range penalty, no ammunition, and the possibility of wielding a melee weapon at the same time if you're a Bladelock; if you add a second invocation to get Eldritch Spear, then even at level 3 it already exceeds the base range of a longbow and by level 16 it exceeds the maximum range thereof.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Good game design is people want to play your gane ultimately.

That is merely adequate game design.

Good game design rewards the player for playing in ways designed to be a good experience, and discourages players from playing in ways that would produce a bad experience. Good game design achieves the design goals which the designers set out for the game (recognizing that

If your game actively turns people away it's not good design.

Sure. I completely agree with that. I don't see how a character transforming over the course of a day--and transforming more dramatically as they gain levels--is a bad thing. Artificers and Druids, particularly Battlesmiths and Moon Druids, change frequently, but that's seen as good and wonderful even though those features are only gained at higher levels now with 5.5e.

Druids transform. They can transform into more powerful forms at higher levels. Moon Druids transform even more, and into even more powerful forms. This is not considered bad. It is, instead, considered quite good. Clearly, a character changing their abilities in response to choices they make is not a bad thing. Likewise, Barbarians rage, but only have finite uses thereof, and after they're out, they simply don't have most of their exciting abilities anymore.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is merely adequate game design.

Good game design rewards the player for playing in ways designed to be a good experience, and discourages players from playing in ways that would produce a bad experience. Good game design achieves the design goals which the designers set out for the game (recognizing that


Sure. I completely agree with that. I don't see how a character transforming over the course of a day--and transforming more dramatically as they gain levels--is a bad thing. Artificers and Druids, particularly Battlesmiths and Moon Druids, change frequently, but that's seen as good and wonderful even though those features are only gained at higher levels now with 5.5e.

Druids transform. They can transform into more powerful forms at higher levels. Moon Druids transform even more, and into even more powerful forms. This is not considered bad. It is, instead, considered quite good. Clearly, a character changing their abilities in response to choices they make is not a bad thing. Likewise, Barbarians rage, but only have finite uses thereof, and after they're out, they simply don't have most of their exciting abilities anymore.

Transforming has been a Druid thing since day 1.

Playtest Sorcerer was interesting but wasn't a Sorcerer.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Whereas I think the wizard is basically SPELLBOOK: THE CLASS. If anything, the wizard should be a subclass of sorcerer who gets a spellbook that they can use to swap out their spells known from. But inertia will keep Spellbook as a base class (it's one of the Core Four). So thus I will keep fighting for the "I don't need a book" magic user to remain visible.

Oh I totally agree that wizard is problematic af as a class. It's entire identity is 'does magic' and as a result the wizard community loses it whenever new spells exist which they can't cast or when over classes can do things with magic they can't.

I'd personally merge sorcerer and wizard into a single 'mage' class. With the subclasses being the type of magic they focus on (blood magic, bladesinging, necromancy, war magic, etc).
While also merging sorcerer and warlock into a single 'patron/bloodline' class. With the subclasses being all those magical creatures which end up as subclasses to both of those classes in 5e.

Fighter also suffers this problem, but it manifests in a slightly different way. "person who can fight" is so broad that literally any martial class idea has people saying it should be a fighter sub, while I constantly see people saying that ranger, barbarian, monk, and sometimes even paladin should be fighter subs.