D&D 5E How should the Sorcerer look when he (or she) comes back?

[Grimmjow]

Sorcerers are not in the new play-test, but that doesn't mean we can't discuses what we want them to look like when they come back out. So i have two questions for you.

1) How many or/and what kind of blood lines should the sorcerer have access to?

2) Seeing as how they used the dragon blood line in the play-test, what are some powers that the sorcerers of this blood line get?

to answer my own questions:

1) I like the list they use in pathfinder (Aberrant, Abyssal, Arcane, Celestial, Elemental, Undead, Destined, Dragon, Fey, and Infernal). I think this list leaves us alot of options. They dont all have to be in the core, but eventually they should all be there.

2) As for the dragon sorcerer, I'd like to see them with some good melee power not as much as they were but still with some melee power. Also it would be cool if they had a breath weapon based off of their dragon. And one last thing. I know its the play-test so they weren't able to add all the different dragons but i hope we see all the metallic and chromatic dragon types.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It sounds like the Sorcerer concept may in some way be consumed by the Wizard class. If they expand the Wizard's conceptual space (which they have done in this packet) and add the option to change your spellcasting method (which they're going to do), why should Sorcerer be a separate class at all?

What if they had "Dragon Magic," "Infernal Magic," and so forth as Wizard traditions?

 

[Grimmjow]

roll play reasons. Wizards study in order to gain their magic ability, while sorcerers gain it from a powerful entity in their heritage.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, for starters, I don't care if wizards get access to celestial magic, dragon magic, etc. at all, because I don't play wizards, I play sorcerers, and not because of access to the bloodlines (that is the cherry on top) I play sorcerers because they are their own thing, reducing them to "A wizard with a bloodline" is an oversimplification, and a potential dealbreaker for many sorcerer fans.

Also because a sorcerer is by nature simpler than the wizard, IMHO forcing the sorcerers to become a complex thing by turning them into a subwizard is a crime againt their nature (and a big turn off), and it kills any chances of customization, specially given how samey are going to be all of the wizards of the same tradition. (If one class is going to eat the other I'd rather have it the ther way around, make sorcerer the base class and turn wizards into sorcerers with the bookworm bloodline)

I keep telling, my favorite sorcerer is the original sorcerer, because THE SYSTEM DIDN'T DICTATE HOW YOU PLAYED YOUR SORCERER. you were enitrely free to decide your own spells, your own focus, which was the source of your power or not care at al about it. In other words YOUR BLOODLINE DIDN'T DEFINE YOU CHARACTER and you weren't forced to be a disgusting ugly blasty sorcerer just because you wanted to descend from a silver dragon (or worse you weren't forced to be a blasty sorcerer just because you wanted to be a sorcerer to begin with).

Also because being their own thing makes it more likely for sorcerers to fully get the things they should have had from the beginning (like better weapon proficiencies, combat capability and hit points than the wizard, not to the extremes of the previous playtest of course, but better competency overall on that regard wouldn't hurt)

 

[Jester David]

I'd make it a wizard alternate class. Replaces the wizard features and options but the two can't be multi classed together.
The problem with the sorcerer is making it distinct from the wizard. Having it be a sub-class means they don't need to force the sorcerer to be something else.

 

[MoonSong]

But making the sorcerer a wizard sub-class is forcing them to be something they are not.

 

[edhel]

But making the sorcerer a wizard sub-class is forcing them to be something they are not.

And what is that? The sorcerer was originally added to 3.0 to justify the huge number of arcane spells so that the 1/3 of the book (hyperbole) wasn't dedicated to just one class. There was no real conceptual space to fill.

I think sorcerer would fit inside the wizard quite well - or you could return to the title magic-user and have all the arcane spellcasters under it. Design articles have pointed to this direction. They're figuring out how to incorporate all the different ways of casting to the system and avoid having multiple similar-but-different spells for numerous different classes (as we did in 3.x or 4e).

Personally I'd prefer having spells organized and presented by effect (à la Savage Worlds) and have the unique spins and flavors of specific spells under the rules text. E.g. under the Entangle spell you would have druid's Entangle, wizard's Web and the higher level variants Black Tentacles and Crushing Grip.

 

[Jester David]

But making the sorcerer a wizard sub-class is forcing them to be something they are not.

They were wizards with a different spellcasting mechanic in 3e. They really were't different. At all. 4e sorcerers could have been a DPS build of wizard for all the differences they had.

Forcing sorcerers to not be spontaneous wizards just pushes them to be less sorcerery. It makes updating existing sorcerers and characters harder.

 

[Grimmjow]

a sorcerer may have been a wizard with a different way of casting but not any more. I dont like the idea of all the casters being one class. three different ways to cast magic and all the classes being able use these different casting ways I'm fine with that. but there should be three different classes though. each one gains their different ways. Wizards gain them from years of study. Sorcerers gain them from a power in the bloodline. Warlocks gain them from making a deal with a ancient power. these three shouldn't be combined into one class. They should feel different from each other. Each class should feel different from itself also. You should be able to put two wizards next to each other, two sorcerers next to eachother and two warlock next to each other, and they should all feel different, depending on where they learned their magic or their tradition (the wizard), their bloodline (sorcerer), or the pact that they make (warlocks)

 

[MoonSong]

They were wizards with a different spellcasting mechanic in 3e. They really were't different. At all. 4e sorcerers could have been a DPS build of wizard for all the differences they had.

Forcing sorcerers to not be spontaneous wizards just pushes them to be less sorcerery. It makes updating existing sorcerers and characters harder.

Even back in 3.0 they weren't really wizards. Many designers treated them as if they were, but they really weren't. Even if the fluff was an afterthought for the crunch, and even if it was a few short paragraphs, there was a lot of win on it. The sorcerer wasn't only a mechanical replacement of the wizard, he covered a very different archetype and it showed. The only thing that prevented them from being even less wizardy was that designers were very scared of them spiraling out of control, yet the intention was they being melee and martial inclined, even the pregen sorcerer was suggested to take combat casting and thoughness as feats and the package included a spear!, from the beginning it was clear sorcerers weren't wimpy bookworms that cowered behind the fighter! they were supossed to mix the mundane with the arcane ways!. The sorcerer wasn't a man that had focussed his life to wield magic, the sorcerer wielded magic to forge his lifepath! And it was awesome! even not being able to go on par with the batman wizard was a boon, how many of you experienced a sorcerer breaking the game?.

In fact the wizard asociation has hurt the sorcerer more than it has been helpful, every time the designers set out to nerf the wizard, they have also nerfed along the sorcerer under the premise of them "being only a different wizard",when there wasn't anything wrong with sorcs, and that is so wrong! the best way we can have a viable sorcerer is by it being it's own thing, something WOTC has been very afraid to do. However it is about time to understand that vancian magic and spontanoeus magic are too different to be balanced using the same chasis, an spontanoeus caster needs at least double the number of slots/spellpoints/mana and more mundane abilites (hit points, proficiencies an even attack bonuses) to be roughly on par with a full vancian caster, failure to understand that not only will give us a wimped sorcerer, but also a more complex than necessary wizard.