Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Designer apathy and sunk costs, The reason the sorcerer is doomed to uncanny valley one-trick-ponieness.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6746834" data-attributes="member: 40177"><p>I'm still not getting this entire thread - first, the title makes no sense, but whatever. We'll let that pass.</p><p></p><p>Now, to pick your new post apart and see if I can get where you're coming from.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a good thing. Changing how classes work lead to the two biggest quagmires wotc has faced in their tenure with D&D - 3.5 and the 4e revised stuff. It is better to have a strong core for the class, and develop without changing the baseline. </p><p></p><p>No one wants to have a book come out in a few years - say, a PHB 2 - that makes the original classes completely different... or even slightly different. A few errata here and there are okay. A brand new rule that makes the sorcerer different than from the PHB? Not so much. Especially because most fans seem to think the sorcerer is okay - maybe not as exciting as the wizard, but okay none the less.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Were they trying to create a turning point for the class? Or just create a new subclass? Because I never got a vibe they were trying to make a "turning point". Compare how the storm sorcerer is presented to the new ranger (which does seem to be a "turning point" option for a future release), and you'll see what I mean.</p><p></p><p>It's just "hey, sorcerers are neat! Here's a new option! This guy was, like, hit by lightning!"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do new subclasses invalidate the others? How does that even work? I really don't get the logic here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No class has anything going for it at low levels. That's why they're the low levels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. And that's probably a thing. It's a hindrance that will last not much time at all. In my drop in games, characters stay at level one for one or two sessions - maybe four hours of play. So it's a gap that doesn't exist for very long, and the only time you'll see it is in the rare instance where there's both a wizard and a sorcerer in the same party... otherwise, you're competing against a hypothetical gap. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I dunno. They seem pretty potent to me - and require the player to make a choice. I like it. Means two sorcerers will have different specialties and focuses from one another. Which seems to be what you're arguing for?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's the whole point of the sorcerer! Has been since it first came out! You change that, and you're going to have a LOT of sorcerer fans throwing up their arms in rage. The limited spell selection (but the ability to cast more/stronger) is the sorcerer's whole "schtick".</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Well, that's the warlock's fault there. Also, multiclassing is kind of bad anyways in 5e. Whole other argument. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then don't blast. I've seen non-blaster sorcerers work. In 3e, we had a wild mage sorcerer who was notorious for not being a blaster. He was pretty awesome with his utility spells. Lots of fun. And you can still do it in 5e. </p><p></p><p>Maybe it won't be uber powerful, but if you want to play the game at only the uber powerful level, and then complain when what you want to build within a class doesn't hit uber powerful levels, it's kind of skewed thinking. It'd be like me complaining that my eldritch knight, while a great fighter, just can't keep up with spellcasters. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Take a feat for it. Familiars got moved to the warlock because it felt more thematically appropriate. If you really want a familiar... ask the GM. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Was that ever a sorcerer staple? Never in any game *I* played in. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, this one was definitely a sorcerer staple in games I played. But then, summons got nerfed big time in 5e in a sense. And it's fine that they got moved over to the wizard class, who has an entire subschool built around summoning. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, it's not a big gap. It's a design choice. They WANT the class to be tight, focused, and probably violent. It works as is - maybe not the way you wish, but the class you seem to always be pining for is a wizard. Maybe you hate the term, but mechanically, that's what you're looking for. It does all the things you seem to want the sorcerer to do. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know nothing about the open playtest (I didn't bother), so I'll take your word for it. And I'll agree, that would be frustrating. But what would you argue for? For it to be more like the wizard?</p><p></p><p>How do you design a sorcerer that is similar to earlier verisons while still letting it have its own place... without mirroring a class already in play? I think the sorcerer in 5e is thematic, mechanically interesting, and fairly powerful. Personally, I'd prefer the wizard, but that's just me... I have a few players that are chomping at the bit to play a wild mage.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6746834, member: 40177"] I'm still not getting this entire thread - first, the title makes no sense, but whatever. We'll let that pass. Now, to pick your new post apart and see if I can get where you're coming from. This is a good thing. Changing how classes work lead to the two biggest quagmires wotc has faced in their tenure with D&D - 3.5 and the 4e revised stuff. It is better to have a strong core for the class, and develop without changing the baseline. No one wants to have a book come out in a few years - say, a PHB 2 - that makes the original classes completely different... or even slightly different. A few errata here and there are okay. A brand new rule that makes the sorcerer different than from the PHB? Not so much. Especially because most fans seem to think the sorcerer is okay - maybe not as exciting as the wizard, but okay none the less. Were they trying to create a turning point for the class? Or just create a new subclass? Because I never got a vibe they were trying to make a "turning point". Compare how the storm sorcerer is presented to the new ranger (which does seem to be a "turning point" option for a future release), and you'll see what I mean. It's just "hey, sorcerers are neat! Here's a new option! This guy was, like, hit by lightning!" Do new subclasses invalidate the others? How does that even work? I really don't get the logic here. No class has anything going for it at low levels. That's why they're the low levels. Sure. And that's probably a thing. It's a hindrance that will last not much time at all. In my drop in games, characters stay at level one for one or two sessions - maybe four hours of play. So it's a gap that doesn't exist for very long, and the only time you'll see it is in the rare instance where there's both a wizard and a sorcerer in the same party... otherwise, you're competing against a hypothetical gap. I dunno. They seem pretty potent to me - and require the player to make a choice. I like it. Means two sorcerers will have different specialties and focuses from one another. Which seems to be what you're arguing for? That's the whole point of the sorcerer! Has been since it first came out! You change that, and you're going to have a LOT of sorcerer fans throwing up their arms in rage. The limited spell selection (but the ability to cast more/stronger) is the sorcerer's whole "schtick". Well, that's the warlock's fault there. Also, multiclassing is kind of bad anyways in 5e. Whole other argument. Then don't blast. I've seen non-blaster sorcerers work. In 3e, we had a wild mage sorcerer who was notorious for not being a blaster. He was pretty awesome with his utility spells. Lots of fun. And you can still do it in 5e. Maybe it won't be uber powerful, but if you want to play the game at only the uber powerful level, and then complain when what you want to build within a class doesn't hit uber powerful levels, it's kind of skewed thinking. It'd be like me complaining that my eldritch knight, while a great fighter, just can't keep up with spellcasters. Take a feat for it. Familiars got moved to the warlock because it felt more thematically appropriate. If you really want a familiar... ask the GM. Was that ever a sorcerer staple? Never in any game *I* played in. Okay, this one was definitely a sorcerer staple in games I played. But then, summons got nerfed big time in 5e in a sense. And it's fine that they got moved over to the wizard class, who has an entire subschool built around summoning. First, it's not a big gap. It's a design choice. They WANT the class to be tight, focused, and probably violent. It works as is - maybe not the way you wish, but the class you seem to always be pining for is a wizard. Maybe you hate the term, but mechanically, that's what you're looking for. It does all the things you seem to want the sorcerer to do. I know nothing about the open playtest (I didn't bother), so I'll take your word for it. And I'll agree, that would be frustrating. But what would you argue for? For it to be more like the wizard? How do you design a sorcerer that is similar to earlier verisons while still letting it have its own place... without mirroring a class already in play? I think the sorcerer in 5e is thematic, mechanically interesting, and fairly powerful. Personally, I'd prefer the wizard, but that's just me... I have a few players that are chomping at the bit to play a wild mage. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Designer apathy and sunk costs, The reason the sorcerer is doomed to uncanny valley one-trick-ponieness.
Top