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

[Paul Farquhar]

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

No it isn’t. Try playing an EK as a spellcaster and you won’t get very far. It’s still a class that hits people with a sword. It gets a few tricks as it levels up, just like the battlemaster does. Spells, manoeuvres, it’s just fluff that does not change the way the class plays.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

No it isn’t. Try playing an EK as a spellcaster and you won’t get very far. It’s still a class that hits people with a sword. It gets a few tricks as it levels up, just like the battlemaster does. Spells, manoeuvres, it’s just fluff that does not change the way the class plays.

Tried playing an EK Knight a few years ago. I asked what class was most like a 3e/4e gish and got directed to it.

God it was a miserable experience. A fighter which can can a few cantrips.

Needless to say at level 8 I talked with my DM and we reworked the character into a forge cleric/fighter multiclass.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tried playing an EK Knight a few years ago. I asked what class was most like a 3e/4e gish and got directed to it.

God it was a miserable experience. A fighter which can can a few cantrips.

Needless to say at level 8 I talked with my DM and we reworked the character into a forge cleric/fighter multiclass.

EK is fine if you are happy with the concept of "fighter who can cast the odd spell", and have some idea as to which spells work with that. But it's important to realise the EK is less of a caster/gish than a paladin or ranger.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

EK is fine if you are happy with the concept of "fighter who can cast the odd spell", and have some idea as to which spells work with that. But it's important to realise the EK is less of a caster/gish than a paladin or ranger.

The wizard spell list also has the issue of not meshing well with the gish playstyle. There is a good reason for the paladin and ranger not using the cleric and druid spell lists.

It's a real shame the arcane gish concept never managed to develop a class identity of its own.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Transforming has been a Druid thing since day 1.

Plenty of things come and go with time. Druids in 2e, a least, didn't get the ability to change shape until 7th level. Now it's innate.

Plus, elements of transformation have been present in the Sorcerer since there was such a thing. Remember the Dragon Disciple PrC? Yeah. That's literally what they were rolling with--but with the notion that that would generalize to many different kinds of sorcerer.

It would actually make your sorcerous soul matter, rather than it being 110% purified fluff with zero relevance beyond a couple middling class features, which is what we actually got in 5.0. 5.5e has tried, vainly, to squeeze something more interesting out of the withered husk of a Sorcerer we got. It's...pretty thin, and doesn't really do much until you get to very high level (well, other than the bonus spells, but those are more a convenience than a class feature IMO.)

Playtest Sorcerer was interesting but wasn't a Sorcerer.

You declare this like there was a clean, consistent, universal pattern across many decades.

That's simply not the case. The sorcerer has been something fairly different in every single edition where it's appeared--which, I'll note, is only 3e, 4e, and 5e. Indeed, the 3e and 5e Sorcerers are actually some of the most different classes between those two otherwise highly similar editions.

It was perfectly workable as a new Sorcerer for the same reason that 3e inventing a Sorcerer in the first place was perfectly acceptable. There simply isn't a single fixed form for it.

Just like how Druids picked up animal companions in 3e, and then lost them again in 5e. Or how Bards have been literally like four different things across the various editions at this point, with almost nothing in common between them beyond "using the magic of music". 1e Bard was functionally a PrC, a hybrid fighter/thief/druid with extra stuff added o'ertop. 2e Bard was functionally a prebuilt Wizard-Thief with some musical abilities. 3e Bard was a hybrid Rogue-Cleric-Wizard that sucked at being any of those three things (except maybe Rogue) unless cheesed, and was generally a weak class unless you stuck to E6 type rules. 4e made Bards awesome, being trickster/healer/drum major/renaissance (wo)men. One of the few things 5e genuinely translated from 4e was the Bard, mostly because it was the first time since 1e that they'd actually been clearly good, hence why I say it's only been four different things rather than five.

Classes change between editions. Sometimes, the changes are small or subtle or not clearly understood until later. Sometimes, the changes are dramatic and obvious and all that you have in common between them is the overall loose thematic notion.

The D&D Next playtest Sorcerer was more similar to past Sorcerers than any post-1e version of Bard has been to the 1e Bard--to the point that 3e literally DID try to revive the old 1e Bard as a legit PrC, the Fochlucan Lyrist (but, unfortunately, like the 3e Bard, it sucks and isn't as good as the actually good Bard PrCs, like Sublime Chord). Yes, I agree that there are differences. The differences are not nearly as dramatic as you claim they are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The wizard spell list also has the issue of not meshing well with the gish playstyle. There is a good reason for the paladin and ranger not using the cleric and druid spell lists.

It's a real shame the arcane gish concept never managed to develop a class identity of its own.

I mean, it did.

5e just chose not to implement it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The wizard spell list also has the issue of not meshing well with the gish playstyle.

There is some good mobility and utility stuff the EK can pick up.

They don't need to use their slots in a fight, so they can use them for out-of-combat stuff.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I mean, it did.

5e just chose not to implement it.

It really didn't. First it was 'elf', then next edition it was spellsword or bladesinger. Then next edition is was eldritch knight, bladesinger, and duskblade. Then pathfinder decided it was magus (which they've kept for two editions running!). Then it was swordmage. Then it was back to eldritch knight and bladesinger as subclasses.

Compared to ranger and paladin. They first came in as ranger and paladin. Then they were ranger and paladin. Following that they became ranger and paladin. Then in 4e they were ranger and paladin. And then in 5e they reinvented themselves as ranger and paladin.

Part of my theory about why its identity fractured so quickly was because it basically had 'elf' as its narrative class story. Which instantly fell to bits once species as classes was questioned. 4e at least slightly tried to do something, with genasi bringing a bit of an elemental theme to the class. But that was lost in the 4e purge.

'person who hits and magics' is not a class. It's a vague nebulous concept which can apply to half of the 5e classes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It really didn't. First it was 'elf', then next edition it was spellsword or bladesinger. Then next edition is was eldritch knight, bladesinger, and duskblade. Then pathfinder decided it was magus (which they've kept for two editions running!). Then it was swordmage. Then it was back to eldritch knight and bladesinger as subclasses.

Compared to ranger and paladin. They first came in as ranger and paladin. Then they were ranger and paladin. Following that they became ranger and paladin. Then in 4e they were ranger and paladin. And then in 5e they reinvented themselves as ranger and paladin.

Part of my theory about why its identity fractured so quickly was because it basically had 'elf' as its narrative class story. Which instantly fell to bits once species as classes was questioned. 4e at least slightly tried to do something, with genasi bringing a bit of an elemental theme to the class. But that was lost in the 4e purge.

'person who hits and magics' is not a class. It's a vague nebulous concept which can apply to half of the 5e classes.

that's the thing though, the swordmage is not just a 'person who hits and magics', they're a person for whom hitting and casting is one and the same, none of the 5e classes properly do this, the combat and magic mechanics are so separate from each other in all of the attempts in 5e that you don't have the fundamental seamless synergy of the two forces that is the foundation of the class concept.

even if it's had different names and executions, the core concept has existed and been strong through DnD's history.

 

[DEFCON 1]

that's the thing though, the swordmage is not just a 'person who hits and magics', they're a person for whom hitting and casting is one and the same, none of the 5e classes properly do this.

Sure they do. The Battlemaster is a swordmage. But the designers just chose to fluff the magic as "combat maneuvers".

Someone wants a gish? Just refluff all the combat maneuvers as magical effects rather than combat actions. Because at the ends of the day that's all any of these game mechanics are... the same exact actions that we narratively describe differently so as to make us think they are different and special. But they're not. And anyone who has played 4E knows this intimately. Most powers in 4E do the same exact thing and it doesn't matter if its a Martial Exploit, Divine Prayer, or Arcane Spell... push an enemy, pull an enemy, slide an enemy, make an enemy fall prone, do damage to an adjacent enemy, do damage to an enemy out at a distance, do damage to a bunch of adjacent enemies, do damage to a bunch of enemies at a distance in a burst, etc. etc. etc.

You want a true Gish in the game right now? We have one. The Gish has Eldritch Maneuvers and "Arcane Power Dice" they use to magically enhance their weapon use. When the Gish hits with a weapon attack they can choose to use an Eldritch Maneuver-- they roll an Arcane Power Die and add the number rolled as additional magical damage to their swing and can add the magical effect of the Eldritch Maneuver. A couple of the Eldritch Maneuvers are listed here:

Slide Reversal

When you’re within 5 feet of a creature on your turn, you can exhaust one Arcane Power Die and teleportationally exchange positions with that creature, provided you spend at least 5 feet of movement and the creature is willing and doesn’t have the Incapacitated condition. This movement doesn’t provoke Opportunity Attacks.

Roll the Arcane Power Die. Until the start of your next turn, you or the other creature (your choice) gains a magical aura that grants a bonus to AC equal to the number rolled.

Enchanting Commandment

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks to magically compel one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a willing creature who can see or hear you and exhaust one Arcane Power Die. That creature is immediately enchanted to use its Reaction to make one attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, adding the Arcane Power Die to the attack’s damage roll on a hit.

Necrotic Weakness

When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can exhaust one Arcane Power Die to attempt to magically weaken the target and force them to drop what they are holding. Add the Arcane Power Die roll to the attack’s damage roll. The target must succeed on a Strength saving throw or drop one object of your choice that it’s holding, with the object landing in its space.

Illusory Distraction

When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can exhaust one Arcane Power Die to create an illusory image of the caster's choice to distract the target. Add the Arcane Power Die roll to the attack’s damage roll. The next attack roll against the target by an attacker other than you has Advantage if the attack is made before the start of your next turn.

Eldritch Withdrawl

As a Bonus Action, you can exhaust one Arcane Power Die and magically move on the air to escape an enemy. You may take the Disengage action. You also conjure a magical defensive aura around you that allows you to roll the die and add the number rolled to your AC until the start of your next turn.


These are just a few of the Battlemaster Manuevers that have been refluffed as magical effects, and they are exactly the same sorts of effects that would be made were an "original" gish class be created. Because the game mechanics are all one and the same-- especially the ones that are about weapon use. Trip target, disarm target, do additional damage, move target around, etc. etc. etc. Heck, Weapon Masteries are the exact same thing... you could just rename and refluff every mastery as a magical effects (or heck, rename them as the closest cantrip name we already have in the game that does the same effect) and now you have magical cantrip-like magical effects affecting every swing of a weapon.

At the end of the day, every game system in D&D uses the same mechanics over and over and over... we just call them different things and thus we fool ourselves into thinking they are actually different. But we're only just suspending our disbelief via the in-game narration.