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


log in or register to remove this ad


Umm, for the record and because this sounds a lot like deja vu... @Jago is not related to me in any way nor is a sockpuppet of mine.

Promise... really really pinkie swear...


Sounding really convincing there. About as convincing as Charm freaking Person is convincing IHateThisSpellSoMuch.

Although apparently I did not see the 2nd black cat walk by and am missing the deja vu?
 

Metamagic was a lousy fit for Sorcerers. Everything about metamagics scream "analytical mind", which is exactly what sorcerers aren't. If there was one class to give metamagics to, it is Wizards. (Or, perhaps even better, Psions)

But generally I wish metamagic was kept as a standalone subsystem, not tied to any one class.
Would have made a heckova feat
 

I like metamagic on Sorcerers. It's a subtle twisting of the weave that only an inate caster can feel for. Them Wizards with their books will never know what it's like to touch magic, have it be a part of you.
 

Would have made a heckova feat

Because let's just give Wizards even more than the Sorcerer, neh? If it's a Feat, it's pretty much an Auto-Take for Sorcerers because what else do they have aside from Metmagic in this edition? If that goes, they'd need expanded spell lists and Origins that give massive bonuses.

Kinda like the Wizard Traditions.
Which they also already have. Like Shaped Fireballs. A thing Metamagic can do. Amongst other powerful abilities.




I'm starting to realize why I have played a Wizard a grand total of once, and even then it was a multiclass Bladesinger.
 

I view that phrase as unnecessary and conceptually harmful. "It's acid, but poison immunity still protects you against it?" Just, no.

According to the DMG spell construction rules and the DMG monster math, resistance type is not factored into evaluating the power of a spell or the power of a monster. (E.g. Red dragons don't have a higher CR than normal just because of their fire immunity.) I therefore have no problem saying that a player's ability to bypass said resistance in one dimension (e.g. anything -> acid) doesn't significantly affect game balance.

Even if that is true, why should it matter? After all my suggestion "doesn't significantly affect game balance" anymore than yours does. Surely being able to cast acidball on hordes of orcs more than makes up it not working on pit fiends. On top of that, conceptually it could be a hold over from the original spell ("the natural state of the spell re-emerges when it strikes something with resistance....").
 

I like metamagic on Sorcerers. It's a subtle twisting of the weave that only an inate caster can feel for. Them Wizards with their books will never know what it's like to touch magic, have it be a part of you.
I don't disagree with the basic idea.

I just feel the delivery is... off.

Spontaneously twisting the strands of fate is one thing.

Metamagic on the other hand feels... deliberate, detached, and as I said: analytical.

I think Sorcerer tricks should have involved a skill check. There is no blood, sweat and tears in something you can't fail at.

Metamagic to me is Captain Picard pointing, saying Make It So. It's all about resource management. It's all about being smart in how you use your precious points.

A sorcerer that could try to cross the beams whenever she wanted, but at a price. Failure. Nosebleed. Whatever. That'd be sumthin'
 


I don't disagree with the basic idea.

I just feel the delivery is... off.

Spontaneously twisting the strands of fate is one thing.

Metamagic on the other hand feels... deliberate, detached, and as I said: analytical.'
Well yeah, so's me putting backspin on a ball. It's still something I have to feel for, to coax forth from the the interaction of ravket and ball. Sure I could know the mechanics brhind it, but that won't let me apply it without that inate sensing ability.
 

Remove ads

Top