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

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

'Swordmage' was the identity for a single edition. It's not been swordmage before or since.

Though out of all of the arcane gish attempts, it certainly had the most going for it both narratively and mechanically.

(This arcane gish talk is making me want to start another arcane gish thread)

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

The PF2e magus is an extremely well regarded class. The 1e version was a bit of a mess though.

What impresses me is that they've managed to keep a single name and identity for a dedicated arcane gish class for two editions in a row! DnD has never managed that.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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?

I'd kind of thought along similar lines, but not quite the same. The 4e swordmage had an elemental leaning, so the subclasses could be based around creatures which also have elemental subtypes. Such as dragons, giants, genies, golems, and elementals.

Though I also think that the 'class story' for the arcane gish should be individuals who secure and guard dangerous knowledge, artifacts, creatures, and places of power. 'Secure, contain, protect' the class basically.

As that gives them an entire thematic niche which is completely unique compared to the other base classes.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

At least with fighter it's fully justified. The class truly succeeds at portraying a generic "can be anything" warrior, or mostly at the beginning. Then we had the thief who started to erode at that identity early on. Magic user was always a lousy fit for the "any caster" theme; it has always been its own idiosyncratic thing. I know we call it Vancian, but it doesn't work like Vance's Dying Earth. It is very much ultra-specific, but a sizeable part of the community -including a disproportionate part of the design teams over the years- refuses to see that the emperor has no clothes and as long as that doesn't change, other casters that more properly reflect folklore and pop culture will be hindered.

Particularly the Sorcerer which has been from the beginning the elephant in the Room because of how vast it truly is and how the wizard existing forces us to disproportionately cover only one part of the class potential -I'd wager the class could see some split into heritage form monster magic and broader personality/concept magic-. A properly designed Wizard class has problems fostering more than a handful of subclasses. A well designed warlock has the potential for a subclass for each entry in the monster manual. A well rendered sorcerer -something I don't think we'll ever get- would support one subclass for each word in the dictionary.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

You cannot properly merge wizard and sorcerer without losing one of them. Any merger is either erasing the sorcerer with extra steps, or a failure*. Unless you went truly generic like with the microlite20 mage but that is way more free-form than what D&D usually gets.

* If at first level you need to pick between spellbook/nospellbook and Int vs Cha you don't have a single class, but two babies in a coat pretending to be a class.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

You cannot properly merge wizard and sorcerer without losing one of them. Any merger is either erasing the sorcerer with extra steps, or a failure. Unless you went truly generic like with the microlite20 mage but that is way more free-form than what D&D usually gets.

What is sorcerer at this point? Metamagic? A feat nabbed from previous editions at the very last minute which previously all casters had, simply because the first playtest failed.

Bloodlines? Which happen to overlap pretty much completely with warlock patrons.

That's all it is. A wizard with no spellbook and the metamagic feat glued on, who happens to use warlock subclasses rather than wizard ones.

 

[MoonSong]

What is sorcerer at this point? Metamagic? A feat nabbed from previous editions at the very last minute which previously all casters had, simply because the first playtest failed.

Bloodlines? Which happen to overlap pretty much completely with warlock patrons.

That's all it is. A wizard with no spellbook and the metamagic feat glued on, who happens to use warlock subclasses rather than wizard ones.

The spellbook might be a single element, but it is one with huge implications. It means spellcasting is a goal, something voluntary which needs constant work to keep going. It also makes magic something serious and for the learned. It means that education has to be accounted for in your backstory. -unless you really want to roleplay a prodigy supergenius- Additionally, it means magic is fungible and even a commodity, so while the character identity can be "I do magic", making it be "I do this kind of magic" can be hard to keep and it is hard to sell to the table.

I don't care for the specifics, I only care for the playable archetypes. And the wizard is very lacking for anything not inside its little box. (As mentioned above, default flavor matters and colors perceptions at the table) It can't do Elsa, Circe or Samantha.

____________
And for the nth time, metamagic is only in 5e because they needed something for the sorcerer. Designers had long given up on metamagic as they couldn't balance it while keeping it fun within the Neo-vancian paradigm. And they still under tuned it a lot. No sorcerer, No metamagic in 5e. (Did you see the metamagic feats in the playtest? they were extremely lame)

 

[CreamCloud0]

What is sorcerer at this point? Metamagic? A feat nabbed from previous editions at the very last minute which previously all casters had, simply because the first playtest failed.

Bloodlines? Which happen to overlap pretty much completely with warlock patrons.

That's all it is. A wizard with no spellbook and the metamagic feat glued on, who happens to use warlock subclasses rather than wizard ones.

i mean it's just as easy to ask 'what's a wizard at this point but a sorcerer without a bloodline or metamagic in exchange for a spellbook.'

the sorcerer 'magical bloodline' narrative also encompasses the 'spark of magic' aspect of the wizard much better than the reverse, so if you made a sorcerer subclass with a spellbook, a few spell specialization and INT-based features and you've basically recreated 90% of the wizard experience.