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

[MoonSong]

Maybe... but if you do, the spells don't actually work.

I suppose a DM could whip up a sorcerer archetype ("Instinctual"?) that gets "zero components needed for sorcerer spells" as its first-level benefit in the place of wild magic. Possibly with a chance of failure, though I don't think that's really necessary. 6th level benefit could be "can convert HP to sorcery points on a 1:1 basis; your HP maximum is reduced by the same amount; HP max heals by +CHA modifier points (minimum 1 point) per long rest." 14th level benefit could be "you can absorb hostile magic. When a spell is cast that targets only you, you can use your reaction to absorb the spell, nullifying its effects and giving you as many sorcery points as the spell's level. If this would take you above your sorcery point maximum, lose the extra points and suffer the effects of a Feeblemind spell, DC 10 + (level of the absorbed spell)."

Mystical Offspring

1st level Eye of the soul
The first sign of your magic talent is the awakening of a sixth sense, which can be both useful and scary, but it is something so integral to your self that you would be crippled if it went away

You are under the continuous effect of both Detect Magic and Detect Evil And Good, however you cannot learn the school of magic of magic effects you use your action to pinpoint. If a hostile aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead with twice the hit dice as you or more is detected by this effect, you are stunned for as long as it remains within 30' of you. You cannot turn off this effect on any way, but it stops working inside antimagic fields, in which case you are stunned until the effect is reinstated.

Expanded Spell List
The following spells are added to your spell list and are considered sorcerer spells for you. You still need to use a spell known to learn these spells and you cannot modify them with metamagic.

1st
Find familiar
Tenser's Floating Disk
Protection from evil and good

2nd
Arcane Lock
Nystul's Magic Aura
Locate Object

3rd
Bestow Curse
Remove Curse
Non-detection

4th
Arcane Eye
Divination
Locate Creature

5th
Contact other plane
Planar Binding
Scrying

6th level Mystical Maturity
You learn a 1st level spell from the expanded spell list, this choice can't be changed. You learn additional spells from the expanded spell list at later levels.

Level Spell level
6th 1st
8th 2nd
10th 3rd
12th 4th
14th 5th

Level 14 Magic in the blood
You can spend a hit dice as a bonus action to roll it and regain sorcery points equal to the result. Your hit point maximum reduces in the same proportion until you regain that hit dice.

Level 18th Magic Absorbption
You can use your reaction to negate a spell that targets you. If you do, you regain sorcery points equal to the level of the spell negated -up to you maximum amount of sorcery points-. You can use this ability a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1). You regain all uses after you complete a long rest

 

[Xetheral]

But, if your focus is out of combat, why would you choose a sorcerer? Isn't that like playing a fighter or a barbarian and then complaining about a lack of stuff to do out of combat? Aren't sorcerers pretty heavily focused on combat, just like fighters and barbarians? If you want lots of stuff to do out of combat, why wouldn't you play a wizard? Isn't that what a wizard is for?

----

Edit to add after reading a few more responses:

At some point, complaining that your square peg won't go into that round hole has to be on you, rather than the peg. Sorcerers were never really generic. They just never got that many spells known to be a "generalist" class. The "blaster" sorcerer was more or less the baseline for the class that I think most people played. ((OTOH, I so rarely ever saw a sorcerer in play that I could be way off base here. In all the years I played 3e, I think I maybe saw one sorcerer, and that's maybe))

I saw far more sorcerers than wizards in my years of running 3.5, and only one of them was a blaster. Particularly for utility casters, sorcerers were preferred for the additional flexibility spontaneous casting provided. Sure, a sorcerer couldn't get the wide diversity of utility spells available to a wizard, but they also didn't need to guess ahead of time how many of each spell they would need each day. My players found it more effective to take multipurpose utility spells that they could cast in any ratio, and then buy scrolls of the more-specific utility spells for the niche-cases when they arose.

They also appreciated the sorcerer's ability to throw in a single combat spell (or maybe two) on a utility caster and spam them relentlessly if a day ended up having a lot of combat. A utility wizard needed a staff or a wand with combat spells to do the same thing, and that quickly got expensive.

(Note for context: the optimization level at my table was blurred by rampant (and encouraged) multiclassing as a way to model complex character concepts. No one ever chose to play the tier-1-capable classes in a way that approached the power level of tier 1. Accordingly, at my table, sorcerers kept up with wizards just fine, so there was no reason to prefer wizards on the grounds of effectiveness.)

It isn't, and I think this version of the sorcerer is better for that. It has a narrative place and it states it loudly and this makes it stand out in a crowded field of character options, in a way that makes it appealingly different from anything else. It's not Generic. It shouldn't be. It's interesting, instead. Even the fighter probably shouldn't be generic, and being generic is an apparent design goal for the 5e fighter. I don't want a meaningless set of mechanics that you could use to build whatever character you dreamed of, I want a role to play. Yeah, we could use a half-dozen more origins, the same thing could be said about most classes, that's not a big deal, it's not a ding against what exists now. What exists now, IMO, is better than what we had in 3e, and one of the reasons it's better is because it's not just a copypaste of the wizard with a different spellcasting mechanic. It is very much its own thing.

(Highlight added, bold emphasis in original.) I want mechanics that can be used to model a wide variety of character concepts. The wider the variety of concepts the mechanics support, the more precisely I can realize the role I want to play.

Strong class-based themes and fluff are fine so long as they can be easily changed so that the class can be used to serve other purposes too. Warlocks are a great example: the class has very strong themes and default fluff, but if I want to I can ignore the entire deal-making theme and substitute some other variation on the "creepy magic" the mechanics support.

The sorcerer, by contrast, is largely shoehorned into a blaster role by the spells available on its spell list. (This isn't entirely true: there are enough non-blasty spells to make a non-blasty sorcerer. But given the dearth of such spells the number of non-blasty permutations is limited.) I can refluff any of the origins to match a different theme, but that doesn't ameliorate the lack of mechanical support for anything but blasting (with fire).

True, the sorcerer's restriction to blasting isn't necessarily inherently more limiting than the warlock's restriction to creepy magic, but in practice I'd argue that it is. I see the sorcerer's restriction on party role as qualitatively different than the thematic commonality across the warlock spell list. For one thing, you can refluff the warlock spells a lot more easily than you can change the mechanics of the sorcerer's blasts.

Additionally, it's important that the sorcerer used to mechanically support a wide diversity of concepts, and the warlock never did. A class that used to support concepts that it no longer can is always going to be disappointing without an easily available substitute. (The newly-flexible 5e wizard is at best an imperfect substitute due to the mechanical restriction to a spellbook and intelligence-based casting.)

 

[Yunru]

I'm thinking about just doubling the number of metamagics given at any given level, and removing the Sorcerery point costs entirely. What's the worst that could happen?

I wasn't kidding about this, what's the worst case scenario? I can see action-repeat spells and quicken being an issue, but that can be fixed via making metamagic sorcerer spell list exclusive and then making a better spell list.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

So much. The only thing I wanted to briefly pop in and say is that I think it's a mistake to say that Sorcerer's can only "effectively" be blasters. Using metamagic like Careful Spell and Subtle Spell, you can be an amazing battlefield control type with spells like Hypnotic Pattern, Web, etc. Subtle spell makes you really great in so many situations. Being bound and tied up doesn't negate your ability to cast, Silence isn't an issue, and the much-talked about immunity to Counterspell makes that extremely useful. These metmagics, and picking appropriate spells to accomodate them, can make for a very effective character that is not a "blaster".

 

[abirdcall]

Sorcerer non-damaging spells:

Cantrips - 13
1st level - 14
2nd level - 23
3rd level - 17

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think part of why people are seeing sorcerers as being pushed toward being "blaster" types is alongside the reason why others complain that dragon sorcerers "have to be fire" types - they think they need to have at least 1 in-theme damage-dealing spell at every spell level, instead of embracing the up-casting rules to do damage well enough with a smaller selection of attack spells.

Of course, I should note that my statements on why someone doesn't like the sorcerer class as-is are entirely speculative since my group loves them - especially the player that has a wild mage (who didn't mind that I never called for a wild surge check until the party could survive being fireballed), and the player of a silver dragon sorcerer (who didn't mind knowing and casting non-cold damage-dealing spells).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I want mechanics that can be used to model a wide variety of character concepts. The wider the variety of concepts the mechanics support, the more precisely I can realize the role I want to play.

Here's the crux: preferring a toolbox/generic style that lets you make every special snowflake you can imagine is all well and good, but there are tradeoffs to be made for doing that.

One big tradeoff from a design perspective is that this is newbie poison. If you want to give your game a broad, open appeal, you do not want to have to educate new players on the relative benefits of a pool of dozens upon dozens of options. People will just not bother - there are better things to do with their time than learning how to build an imaginary dragon elf or whatever and getting it to do what they want it to do.

From my perspective as a big ol' nerd, a big tradeoff is that generic classes with lots of options have an emphasis on building a character. Wading through a sea of options to curate the perfect mix just reeks of Paradox of Choice - none of these options are increasing my enjoyment of playing the character, where I won't be picking character options at all. In fact, given that some options will be better than others (because any group of two or more things can be ranked), there's a real risk of this turning into "not really a choice" or "a choice between being flavorful and being effective," and leaving me less satisfied than I would be if I had no choice!

None of that means your preference is wrong, but it does mean that not being super-duper flexible isn't some flaw with the class's design, but is an intentional decision that, in getting rid of the ultimate in generic flexibility, stands to significantly improve the class in the estimation of a broad swath of the gaming audience. To put that away just so someone can imagine a "light bender" and a "dimensional witch" and an "arcane thief" and a dozen other preciously unique options all with one class that must also be named "Sorcerer" and who is barred from offering these as archetype options....that's a pretty big ask a pretty marginal gain. That same result can be pretty easily realized in practice by throwing more subclasses at the existing sorcerer 'till yer face turns blue.

Strong class-based themes and fluff are fine so long as they can be easily changed so that the class can be used to serve other purposes too. Warlocks are a great example: the class has very strong themes and default fluff, but if I want to I can ignore the entire deal-making theme and substitute some other variation on the "creepy magic" the mechanics support.

You can ignore any fluff as long as the DM lets you.

The sorcerer, by contrast, is largely shoehorned into a blaster role by the spells available on its spell list. (This isn't entirely true: there are enough non-blasty spells to make a non-blasty sorcerer. But given the dearth of such spells the number of non-blasty permutations is limited.) I can refluff any of the origins to match a different theme, but that doesn't ameliorate the lack of mechanical support for anything but blasting (with fire).

I'm in a game with two sorcerers, and we've got more than enough options between us to avoid doubling up on mechanics with room to spare. My actual play experience says there's enough variety there. White-room speculation on all the hypothetical character types you miss out on doesn't affect the actual enjoyment of the class one little bit.

Also, if you want to ignore fluff, you could be approaching this from the other direction. You can ignore fluff and make a wizard who doesn't use a spellbook and who is tough and strong, or an Arcane Trickster with a mysteriously magical origin, or whatever floats your boat. That's as easy as ignoring warlock pacts.

That is exactly the kind of thing MoonSong is complaining about when she says the sorcerer 'must' be a blaster. It's not that it must be, it's just it's most nearly effective strategy, and it doesn't have a lot of flexibility to step back from it situationally.

My actual play experience as a wild sorcerer alongside a quite-blasty (though not exclusively blasty) dragon sorcerer is making it hard for me to believe the white-room analysis of the Internet Comment Brigade this time around.

 

[Miladoon]

#Fiction2FactSlap!

Sorcerer as Blaster is down.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My actual play experience as a wild sorcerer....

And MoonSong's and play experiences as a sorcerer just illustrate that you two have different tastes. And, perhaps, that yours fit comfortably under 5e's 'big tent,' and hers, it seems, may still be out in the rain, for now.

Here's the crux: preferring a toolbox/generic style that lets you make every special snowflake you can imagine is all well and good, but there are tradeoffs to be made for doing that.

There are synergies, too. You can take the toolbox and create simple-to-choose package deals - either as a DM or a designer - that evoke a setting or campaign or society or theme that your'e going for, or for other purposes, just for one instance.

One big tradeoff from a design perspective is that this is newbie poison. If you want to give your game a broad, open appeal, you do not want to have to educate new players on the relative benefits of a pool of dozens upon dozens of options.

5e seems to manage that risk easily enough with the fighter. You have the relatively choice-free Champion, and the more complex Battlemaster & EK. (Besides, any caster, whether it's fluff is locked-in or flexible, may be a bit much for a newbie, anyway, among spell lists, spells known (and prepared) and slot management, but the PH is full of 'em - 15 complex neo-Vancian prepped caster sub-classes among them.)

None of that means your preference is wrong, but it does mean that not being super-duper flexible isn't some flaw with the class's design, but is an intentional decision that, in getting rid of the ultimate in generic flexibility, stands to significantly improve the class in the estimation of a broad swath of the gaming audience.

That really sounds like saying the preference is wrong, albeit, based on a conscious appeal to popularity.

I also don't see how both can't be readily accommodated, even within a class, given the design rubric of sub-classes to work with. Simple sub class, complex sub-class, concept-first sub-class, customize-to-concept sub-class.

You can ignore any fluff as long as the DM lets you.

It's not like 4e, where the fluff was segregated to one part of a power block and in italics and didn't impact the function of the power.

You can hope the DM will change, ignore, or or manufacture rules for you, of course. Probably with more conviction when dealing with a 5e Empowered DM than most other editions. It doesn't actually invalidate any issues you may have - in fact, expressing those issues is probably going to be part of working towards that - and the more they're dismissed and attacked, the harder that work is going to be...

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are synergies, too. You can take the toolbox and create simple-to-choose package deals - either as a DM or a designer - that evoke a setting or campaign or society or theme that your'e going for, or for other purposes, just for one instance.

...but you'll always be outclassed by the kid with System Mastery who can do all that better by choosing better options.

5e seems to manage that risk easily enough with the fighter. You have the relatively choice-free Champion, and the more complex Battlemaster & EK. (Besides, any caster, whether it's fluff is locked-in or flexible, may be a bit much for a newbie, anyway, among spell lists, spells known (and prepared) and slot management, but the PH is full of 'em - 15 complex neo-Vancian prepped caster sub-classes among them.)

I'm not sure that most warlord fans are satisfied with the BM's archetype emulation, and I'm also not sure that many 4e fighter fans are satisfied with the BM's Defender-role emulation, so I think we've got a pretty clear example of more options not necessarily solving the issue (the only BM's I've seen in play have all been dipped multiclasses done by old hands, so it's not boding well for newbie-friendliness or archetype-building potential).

I think Mearls is onto something when he mentions that a flaw of the Fighter is that its subclasses "don't mean anything."

I do think you could hypothetically weave a more complex, option-based pool of abilities on top of the sorcerer, but I think you'd get much the same reaction the BM has gotten: "It doesn't do what I want it to" on one hand and "It's meaningless" on the other. Maybe not, but there's a high risk.

That really sounds like saying the preference is wrong.

"A lot of people might enjoy a more focused class more" doesn't mean that a broad, flexible class is wrong any more than the preference of most people for The Avengers means preferring Deadpool is wrong. It ain't really about right and wrong, it's about what you gain and what you lose (and I would suggest that your gains in using a broad, flexible class are probably not worth what you'd lose, but that's certainly a debatable opinion).

It's not like 4e, where the fluff was segregated to one part of a power block and in italics and didn't impact the function of the power.

You can hope the DM will change, ignore, or or manufacture rules for you, of course. Probably with more conviction when dealing with a 5e Empowered DM than most other editions. It doesn't actually invalidate any issues you may have - in fact, expressing those issues is probably going to be part of working towards that - and the more they're dismissed and attacked, the harder that work is going to be...

The point I was responding to was that the warlock is "more flexible" than the sorcerer. My counterpoint is that they're about equally as flexible - a DM can ignore whatever. And if your DM is open to ignoring whatever and is fine with not enforcing the fluff of warlock pacts, that opens up playing a Wizard who uses CHA instead of INT or a Sorcerer who has spears if you want.