How do we fix the Sorcerer?

[Caliban]

I think that for the most part, sorcerers are fine as is. That being said, at low levels they feel like they run out of "fun stuff" to do faster than other casters.

Personally, I'd give sorcerer's extra known spells based on their origin - similar to a cleric domain.

I also like the idea of allowing them to spend hit dice to regain sorcery points on a short rest that someone mentioned earlier.

 

[Inchoroi]

I never had a sorcerer at my tables, but were it the case AND the player told me that he had issue with the powerlevel of his character, I might do something like this:

1) Sorcery Points: can spend HD (max = to level) to regain same amount on short rest.
2) Spell list: Give access to what I can ''natural arcane list'' aka all arcane and druidic lists.
3) Thematic list: This is where I go into 3PP material. Kobold Press has some highly thematic type of magics that can be added for specific origin at lvl 1 (Dragon magic, Chaos Magic, Angelic Magic, Elemental Magics etc)

I like the idea of spending hit dice to regain sorcery points; might incorporate that. The individual origins should give bonus spells, though; just a couple really thematic ones. The idea of granting the sorcerer all (or maybe just one or two more) of the metamagic abilities are very intriguing, as well. Might have to play with that.

I've had two sorcerers (one of whom was all the way to level 20), and one of my main NPCs is a sorcerer in my campaign, and I've not seen any real issues as far as balance. The draconic bloodline sorcerer and the wizard seemed on par to one another, which was surprising, since the wizard's player was a power-gaming little SoB (still love the guy, though).

 

[Kinematics]

Actually, as Tony Vargas has brought up in another thread, WotC had design goals laid out for when they were building 5E. One bit of summary:

More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D's past. The key game experience of D&D lies at the game table. Our work must start by focusing on the key elements of D&D and the unique traits of a tabletop RPG. The mechanics must support those two factors, not the other way around.

I would say that they failed when it came to Sorcerer. More precisely, metamagic was in the game, and they apparently felt that they needed to carry that mechanic over, and the only place they had that could fit it was the Sorcerer class. Thus the Sorcerer became the repository of a mechanic, rather than be built from its design's intent.

Even the way that metamagic interacts with the spell lists make it feel very patched-on. About half of the metamagics are generally useful, and half are extremely situationally useful. Even those that are generally useful heavily bias your spell selection. Unless you completely ignore the metamagics, the mechanics end up being what defines your character, rather than be a tool that supports your character.

Sorcerer is often described as weak, even though it's technically not (if built to metamagic's strengths). It also has one of the highest "unsatisfaction" ratings, alongside Ranger. And I think this is largely because they ignored their own design rule, and created a class for a mechanic, instead of a mechanic for a class. (Even Ranger can be seen in a similar light, where the class seems like a pastiche of mechanics, rather than mechanics properly designed for the class.)

They should have based the sorcerer's spell casting on CON rather than CHA. I see well being and stamina fit the sorcerer's story better than strength of personality. With CON as the sorcerer's "fuel" it would be quite logical for them to be able to burn through a few HD to boost their spell points if they want to risk it.

Additionally, I'm thinking to allow sorcerer's to attune to up to four magic items (all other classes limited to three).

There's no reason to think that a Sorcerer should be better attuned to magic items than anyone else.

As for the stats, hmm... At first I thought it wouldn't work. Every class has its stat proficiencies split up such that one comes from Str/Int/Cha, and the other from Dex/Con/Wis. In general, the latter three are the big defensive stats (what almost all spell saves target), and thus are considered bad choices for offensive potential. However Rogue has Dex as its primary offense, and Cleric has Wis as its primary offense, and neither are considered overpowered simply because of that, despite them gaining both offense and defense from their primary stat.

So having a class with Con as its primary may actually not be such a bad deal. Plus, by having Con as the primary, you're putting your main stat value in a stat that has no associated skills, so you weaken yourself in other ways. And thematically it makes more sense, for a class that's often based around bloodlines, to have their power literally come from the strength of their body.

Int - Wizard
Wis - Cleric, Druid, Ranger
Cha - Bard, Paladin, Warlock
Con - Sorcerer

Yeah, it seems reasonable. Probably makes Paladin/Sorcerer a little easier, and Warlock/Sorcerer a little harder.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, as Tony Vargas has brought up in another thread, WotC had design goals laid out for when they were building 5E. One bit of summary:

I would say that they failed when it came to Sorcerer. More precisely, metamagic was in the game, and they apparently felt that they needed to carry that mechanic over, and the only place they had that could fit it was the Sorcerer class. Thus the Sorcerer became the repository of a mechanic, rather than be built from its design's intent.

IDK if that's exactly what happened. For one thing, Metamagic was a series of feats in 3.x, that any caster could learn, and the Wizard got bonus feats to spend on. And, the Sorcerer was a bit /worse/ at meta-magic than prepped casters, taking longer to cast a spells with meta-magic applied.

However, that last, in particular, was the subject of some complaints: the Sorcerer as a natural-talent sort of mage casting spontaneously, feeling out spells rather than learning them formally, would seem, in concept, to be perfectly suited to meta-magic.

So, I suspect they went back to the concept of the Sorcerer (which, as long as I'm speculating wildly, I might as well opine was probably just pulled out of the ether as something to append to the Spontaneous Casting mechanic), and worked from that to "should probably be able to make up magical effects on the fly" then circled back past game elements and selected meta-magic.

All in keeping with their goals. Even if not a result I care for.

Sorcerer is often described as weak, ... has one of the highest "unsatisfaction" ratings, ...I think this is largely because they ignored their own design rule, and created a class for a mechanic, instead of a mechanic for a class.

I think the sorcerer was originally a class created for a mechanic, just in 3.0, not in 5e.

So having a class with Con as its primary may actually not be such a bad deal. Plus, by having Con as the primary, you're putting your main stat value in a stat that has no associated skills, so you weaken yourself in other ways.

You also gain a lot of hp.

 

[Winterthorn]

You also gain a lot of hp.

If a sorcerer is considered to have all their power in their blood, then to me this fits. HP is very much a generic measure of stamina/endurance, so magic in the veins can be argued to offer a sorcerer superior combat resilience compared to that of other arcane casters. Thus sorcerers take a tad more beating and still be standing, as part of their shtick lol.

Edit: a number of other fantasy game systems, as well as stories, touch on spell casters burning their health on their magic and needing to recover later. This could have emphasized further in the design of the sorcerer to distinguish it better from other arcane casters. I think it would have been a good direction to take by WotC, if done well.

 

[Kinematics]

If a sorcerer is considered to have all their power in their blood, then to me this fits. HP is very much a generic measure of stamina/endurance, so magic in the veins can be argued to offer a sorcerer superior combat resilience compared to that of other arcane casters. Thus sorcerers take a tad more beating and still be standing, as part of their shtick lol.

It also gives a better excuse to steal the Consumptive Power feature from the Mystic (as it seems to fit the Sorcerer concept better anyway), and use that as the mechanism for "more than baseline" spellcasting, analogous to the Wizard's Arcane Recovery.

Just a thought, for alternate ways to handle that issue.

 

[Winterthorn]

I just read the Consumptive Power feature of the mystic. Yup, I really like that for the sorcerer.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

My personal preference in 4e roles goes: Leader > Controller >>> DM >Defender >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Striker.

But, Role wouldn't have saved it for me. The appeal of the 3.x Sorcerer was build-to-concept, with that vast list of spells to put together a picture of a specific set of magical powers that work, conceptually. 4e & 5e just do that for you, so from anything you can imagine, to dragon magic or wild - wait for a supplement if you want anything else.

I am not sure "build-to-concept" was feasible in 4e (at least inside a class; I think 4e and 5e work better when you decide on your concept and then pick the class that best fits the concept, rather than picking a class and hoping it fits your concept [or that WotC eventually makes a subclass for the class around your concept]).

Thank you for the insight. I agree that they made a lot of strikers (almost seemed like as many strikers as the rest of the classes put together). Still my second favorite casting in 4e class was the warlock and my second favorite melee class was the avenger, so I can't say I was too put out by it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am not sure "build-to-concept" was feasible in 4e (at least inside a class; I think 4e and 5e work better when you decide on your concept and then pick the class that best fits the concept

That's the way, of course. If a class more-or-less exactly matches your concept, you take it.

3.x, you could always take a combination of classes and a few feats to paint a concept. But two classes, the fighter & Sorcerer, stood out because they gave you a lot of room to customize, and not a lot of room to compromise it because you can't prep new feats or known spells overnight.

In 4e, in essence, all classes were like that, and you could re-fluff powers at whim, which was lovely, but you couldn't climb too far out of your role box, so if you (like me) didn't care for a certain role, you had fewer classes to work with. And, your ability to mix them was limited.

So the sorcerer went from a favorite to a non-starter. I could still build to concept, but a character that would've been a sorcerer became a wizard or whatever...

rather than picking a class and hoping it fits your concept [or that WotC eventually makes a subclass for the class around your concept]).

Which is where we are with the 5e Sorcerer. Innate magic? That's a Sorcerer. Innate magic that's not Dragon or Wild? Wait for a sub-class.

Still my second favorite casting in 4e class was the warlock and my second favorite melee class was the avenger, so I can't say I was too put out by it.

Warlock had a great flavor, and they shade into control totally see it, in spite of the role.

Avenger, though: Maybe you can return the favor and give me some insight into Avengers and their fans. I never grocked the Avenger, how it was supposed to play, precisely, but I've run for players who've had a blast with them, including, perhaps ironically, a build to concept prevent I did, absent said understanding.
??

 

[Li Shenron]

So, how do you folks think we could fix this?

Let the Sorcerer change the list of known spells on a long rest. In practical terms, it still won't be more powerful than a Wizard.