D&D 5E (2024) Could the DnDNext Sorcerer be revived as its own class?

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

The core concept and mechanics have always existed, but always in differing and scattered forms. Not only that, but they lack a narrative class story unlike every other class except fighter and wizard. The links to elves formed a potential hook, but one which wasn't sustainable long term due to the issues with linked species and classes.

Now that paladin has essentially eaten the spellstrike niche with all its smite spells, this has left the concept in a really poor state. Its signature mechanic got nabbed by another class, while it lacks a proper class story beyond its mechanic.

Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger tried eating some scraps of the narrative niche, but without the mechanics which actually make the concept fun, they feel hollow if you've played a previous edition or pathfinder gish.

But you can't simply add a class which has its entire narrative and mechanical identity be 'hit with weapon and magic damage through weapon'. That's just a paladin minus the entire paladin class story. Adding that would be a serious case of stepping on toes.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

I mean you could use that logic to say we just need one class, and fluff it however you want.

The flavour is a really important aspect. I've tried multiple times across multiple groups to reflavour a class or subclass entirely. It would last about a day before the DM and other players were describing what I was doing as just the base flavour again, no matter how many times I corrected them.

After the 58th time of having to correct the narration of my reflavoured hexblade because it was all being described as darkness and shadow flavour, I just kind of gave in. My frost themed warlock concept just ended up morphing back into vanilla hexblade.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean you could use that logic to say we just need one class, and fluff it however you want.

I mean that's what games like Champions and Mutants & Masterminds do. One mechanical system that you can use to build any character you want and can fluff it any way that you want. But they also have "classes" to a certain extent, which are just pre-made and pre-bought hero concepts (like the blaster, the armored tech, the detective, the speedster etc.)

The flavour is a really important aspect. I've tried multiple times across multiple groups to reflavour a class or subclass entirely. It would last about a day before the DM and other players were describing what I was doing as just the base flavour again, no matter how many times I corrected them.

After the 58th time of having to correct the narration of my reflavoured hexblade because it was all being described as darkness and shadow flavour, I just kind of gave in. My frost themed warlock concept just ended up morphing back into vanilla hexblade.

Well, while I sympathize with you that your players don't go along with your theming... just because you have irritating players doesn't mean everyone else in the world does. But that complaint has been used as a clarion call since the very beginning of time... a player needing TSR / WotC to write what they want down in the book so that it becomes "real". And if WotC doesn't do that... then it isn't a "real" thing in the game and thus doesn't count. You need a frost-themed Hexblade written down in a book so that your players willingly accept that concept as a real thing and treat your character with the respect it deserves. And I understand that need. I presume you did a full re-write of the class and subclass you were using that refluffed every feature away from shadow and into frost and then gave that to the DM and the other players (so they all had the same information and naming conventions to use?)

But of course even that won't deter some players. Some players just have this block in their heads that says only what is written in the book by a Wizards of the Coast author counts as true. And thus trying to run up against that kind of person with refluffed or 3rd party material ain't going to work. They will never get it or go along with it. But unfortunately, that doesn't mean we can expect WotC to do our dirty work for us by actually writing what we want and need in their books just to get our fellow players to go along with it. Because there are just too many millions of players out there who all want and need something different and WotC can't satisfy all of us. Thus all that remains is for us to use our things the way we want... and to hell with our fellow players who don't also go along with it.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I mean that's what games like Champions and Mutants & Masterminds do. One mechanical system that you can use to build any character you want and can fluff it any way that you want. But they also have "classes" to a certain extent, which are just pre-made and pre-bought hero concepts (like the blaster, the armored tech, the detective, the speedster etc.)



Well, while I sympathize with you that your players don't go along with your theming... just because you have irritating players doesn't mean everyone else in the world does. But that complaint has been used as a clarion call since the very beginning of time... a player needing TSR / WotC to write what they want down in the book so that it becomes "real". And if WotC doesn't do that... then it isn't a "real" thing in the game and thus doesn't count. You need a frost-themed Hexblade written down in a book so that your players willingly accept that concept as a real thing and treat your character with the respect it deserves. And I understand that need. I presume you did a full re-write of the class and subclass you were using that refluffed every feature away from shadow and into frost and then gave that to the DM and the other players (so they all had the same information and naming conventions to use?)

But of course even that won't deter some players. Some players just have this block in their heads that says only what is written in the book by a Wizards of the Coast author counts as true. And thus trying to run up against that kind of person with refluffed or 3rd party material ain't going to work. They will never get it or go along with it. But unfortunately, that doesn't mean we can expect WotC to do our dirty work for us by actually writing what we want and need in their books just to get our fellow players to go along with it. Because there are just too many millions of players out there who all want and need something different and WotC can't satisfy all of us. Thus all that remains is for us to use our things the way we want... and to hell with our fellow players who don't also go along with it.

The groups I play in are all open to minor homebrew and refluffing. It's just that certain classes or concepts in particular seem to stick pretty strongly in peoples heads.

One common change which we make, is permanently having a different damage type to what that ability or spell would usually be, and that does seem to help players change their visuals of what's going on. Even though damage types do nothing 99% of the time, just saying 'it does d6 cold damage' instantly changes what they're seeing in their heads.

 

[TwoSix]

While I love the "deplete resources to gain martial buffs" concept, I feel like it might be easier to integrate into a warlock chassis than a sorcerer one. ("Warlock - what can't it do?")

Basically, every time you cast a warlock spell, in addition to the spell, you also gain a one buff out of a stacking set, which would be roughly in line with the power level of an invocation or pact boon. All of those buffs would then reset after a short rest.

Do that, and you can implement the concept as a series of new invocations, or maybe a subclass. Definitely don't need a whole new class for it unless you want to a lot of different "buff sets", which might require multiple subclasses and siloization.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I think we both agree on the cause, but not the cure.

Wizard and Fighter are designed to be a catch all because when they conceived of as fighting-man and magic-user, they were supposed to fill all those different archetypes equally. The fighting man was a bandit, knight, ranger, barbarian, etc, while the magic-user was a diviner, warlock, witch and wizard. (Cleric has this to a lesser degree as the "everyone who prays" class). Which is why every class that has come after it has had to continuously justify it's existence both mechanically and narratively pretty much from creation onwards.

I kinda want the fighter and wizard killed. I want them replaced with more specialized classes that do more than fight and cast magic. I want a knight, a warlord, a necromancer and a witch class that has a more definitive niche. Yes class bloat, but I'm willing to suffer that to stop arguing if ranger deserves to be it's own thing for 30+ years.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Swordmage.

The word you're looking for is "Swordmage".

PF calls it "Magus" but I don't care for that name myself. Still works as a genuine "I use sword-and-spell" class though.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Swordmage or duskblade?

If WotC needs ideas for a new class the "dragon-theme champion" may be wellcome. But what if a dragonborn or spellscale was a dragon-theme class?

I miss the monster classes from Savage Species and I like the idea of a monster-theme class but this sounds too hand-to-hand fight instead ranged attack like the most of spellcasters. How would be a werebeast-themed subclass, or a golem-themed subclass?

 

[James Gasik]

Swordmage or duskblade?

If WotC needs ideas for a new class the "dragon-theme champion" may be wellcome. But what if a dragonborn or spellscale was a dragon-theme class?

I miss the monster classes from Savage Species and I like the idea of a monster-theme class but this sounds too hand-to-hand fight instead ranged attack like the most of spellcasters. How would be a werebeast-themed subclass, or a golem-themed subclass?

3.5's Green Star Adept turns you into a construct. It's not a good PrC (suddenly losing your Con score one day is pretty terrible) but it's thematically interesting. Weretouched Master was in one of the Eberron supplements. And as I recall, I think it was the Dread Necromancer that slowly became something akin to a Lich.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Swordmage.

The word you're looking for is "Swordmage".

PF calls it "Magus" but I don't care for that name myself. Still works as a genuine "I use sword-and-spell" class though.

Why not an axemage, or a macemage, or glave-guissarmemage?

PF calls it magus to indicate it's not locked into any specific weapon.

The PF Magus is a horribly fiddly class.