D&D 5E Is the major thing that's disappointing about Sorcerers is the lack of sorcery point options?

[Yunru]

What, being ineffective? Can happen a lot of ways. You can be fairly effective without very good stats, for that matter. For instance if you make her a wizard and she gets mad and starts throwing magic missile, her stats make no difference. Neither does the choice of magic missile define her in that instance, since she could just prep something else tomorrow. OTOH, if she's a Sorcerer, the fact that MM is one of her spells is a little bit defining.


But, are you seriously trying to assert that /what/ a character can do can't be character defining, just because RP can be? Or are you arguing against the idea that /only/ capabilities are character-defining?

Only. Character personality is far more important than character ability, but that doesn't mean character ability can't be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Only. ... but that doesn't mean character ability can't be.

I don't know how you got "only" from what I said up thread, but consider it successfully argued against.

As long as we have no issues with character capabilities also being potentially character-defining.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To be fair, as a villainous NPC ...

He could.

I mean, he's not really restricted to all the same limitations as the PCs, neh?

I don't generally break the rules for NPCs or PCs.

Technically as a DM I have the power to break the rules for either (e.g. give a PC four arms, troll regen, and a natural AC of 15 because he pushed the button on the weird bio-machine), but I am very, very cautious about breaking the rules for NPCs without onscreen justification because it has so much potential to wreck the game. I'm 100% A-OK with using any ability that's in the PHB though because the players already know those are possible.

They were still extremely frustrated by their inability to target Cowl (the Rogue/Shadow Monk). It was fun but it made me feel kind of like a bully. Just imagine how much worse I'd feel about that victory if I'd been breaking the rules in Cowl's favor to pull it off!

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't generally break the rules for NPCs or PCs.

Technically as a DM I have the power to break the rules for either (e.g. give a PC four arms, troll regen, and a natural AC of 15 because he pushed the button on the weird bio-machine), but I am very, very cautious about breaking the rules for NPCs without onscreen justification because it has so much potential to wreck the game. I'm 100% A-OK with using any ability that's in the PHB though because the players already know those are possible.

That's not against the rules though. That's using the Monster/NPC creation rules in the DMG.

 

[MoonSong]

I hate to tell you, but if you find combat boring you're probably in the wrong game. Unless you're lucky enough to get a DM that either homebrews or feels fine tweaking published adventures and who likes to run low-combat games.

I which case Font of Sorcery is still your friend: turn those high level slots into multiple low level utility slots.

Which utility spells to go with those slots? the ones that have effects out of combat are mostly outside the sorcerer list. And it isn't that hard, to avoid combat part of the time, not all of the time, but certain encounters can indeed be avoided.

 

[Yunru]

Which utility spells to go with those slots? the ones that have effects out of combat are mostly outside the sorcerer list. And it isn't that hard, to avoid combat part of the time, not all of the time, but certain encounters can indeed be avoided.

Then play another class or compromise and use the skill system to suppliment what you're missing.

 

[Miladoon]

That's not against the rules though. That's using the Monster/NPC creation rules in the DMG.

True. It might hold more "realism" at the table if the NPCs function like the PCs, tho. However, using the creation rules is not breaking the rules.

 

[MoonSong]

Then play another class or compromise and use the skill system to suppliment what you're missing.

But that's not the experience I'm looking for, why is it unreasonable to ask to have the same kind of out of combat spells that are already there? (And honestly I find it offensive and offputting to be told to play a wizard, reffluffing a wizard is not a solution, I will literally die if I ever play a wizard)

 

[Yunru]

The choice to rely on those spells is entirely yours. Hell the only thing other than a kit the pure blooded thief uses is the skill system. So take what spells compliment you, and then be a thief sorcerer. You don't need Knock for instance, just pick the lock.

I'm not saying more wouldn't be better, I'm saying you're making a mountain out of an anthill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will literally die if I ever play a wizard.

Maybe you should carry one of those epipens, just in case.