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

[doctorbadwolf]

Honestly, I think a newbie is going to be happier with the available options and more likely to work with what is available. Think of the people complaining about the current sorcerer, they are from 3e and wanting to make a PC in a similar fashion to their 3e sorcerers with all spell options available to them that are available to the wizard. A newbie isn't going to be carrying around earlier edition baggage.

nah. I never even looked at the sorc in previous editions, after an initial determination that the mechanics were what I wanted when I had a concept that seemed like it would fit. I'd have to do research to even tell you how they worked in 3.5 or 4e, because I never actually played one.
i think in 4e they were ranged strikers, right? "Blasters", IIRC.

And again, the 5e sorcerer conceptually interests me, but mechanically just doesn't feel right. And part of it is that for me, it's easier to play that fluff as a warlock.

But the wizard sure as taxes isn't going to work as a reflavored sorcerer, or warlock, or any other caster, for me. The wizard mechanics tell a story, just as the warlock mechanics do, and they aren't swappable, IMO.

The sorcerer should, IMO, be very flexible, but lack the complex options of a wizard. Probably little to no summoning, lots of direct effects, etc. stuff like mage hand makes sense for sorcerers, as do other "move things around" spells, and all the controlling elements spells and the like.
But also counterspell, and the ability to copy magical effects they see, and even spend time to learn to duplicate them, because they can see and feel the actual flow of energies that the wizard controls and directs by way of ritual break dancing, chalk drawing, and chanting" Azerath Metrion Zinthos!".

Wizard casts fireball.

sorcerer watches, and goes, "oh! Ok, so the bat poop and coffee grounds opens up a little air funnel thingy to the fire place, and the weird chanting encases it in air, while that fantastic little jig directs the whole thing into the right angles and stuff, and the air gets eaten by the fire as it shoots out, and the fire gets bigger and bigger because it's eating more air. Cool!"

Wizard: "Um...yeah. That...what?"

Later
Sorcerer: concentrating and talking to herself, "Ok, open the funnel, just like any other fire magic..oh hey it really is easier with the bat poop! Gross but cool! Ow! Sorry! "

Cleric: "maybe practice that over by the river, not by my tent?

Later, again.

Bard, drunk: Hey can you fireball yet? Shoot that big rock!

Sorcerer: "Yep! I got that thing down!" Under her breath, "kinda" " ok, create the hollow air ball prison for the fire, then open the fire thingy...METATRON XYLAPHONE!" Shoots fireball at the big rock.

Wizard: that's not...but...what the ass!?

Ok, it's possible my favorite natural caster type characters are mostly self taught teenagers. :shrug:

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

And again, the 5e sorcerer conceptually interests me, but mechanically just doesn't feel right. And part of it is that for me, it's easier to play that fluff as a warlock.

Interesting. So what exactly about the Sorcerer doesn't tell this narrative for you? I kind of feel that with Font of Magic, Metamagic, and extra cantrips, the "natural, inborn magic" shtick is very noticeable and feels right. When we talk about "feels", the subjective nature of such things means some will be in one camp, and others in a different one, naturally, but I'm just curious about the above quote.

 

[I'm A Banana]

We can stand on whatever requirements we want for our own thresholds of what's acceptable to us, but we can become the architects of our own unhappiness sometimes when those requirements are not simply personal, but also are highly specific and rigidly inflexible. "I want the game fiction to match my own personal preferred fiction" is not a reasonable expectation out of any game other than one you write yourself. If that's an expectation, you set yourself up for disappointment.

Sorcerers have *always* had a narrative of being dangerous, challenging, otherworldly, exotic, and a little inhuman (the "X-men" comparison is not a bad one). It's fine if that doesn't work for you, but it's not fine if you presume that all 5e sorcerers played according to strict RAW must be "monstrous" just because they speak to that - because that's not the reality of playing a 5e sorcerer. Similarly, sorcerers have *always* been narrow spellcasters (the roles mentioned for the sorcerer in the 3.5e PHB can all be filled by the 5e sorcerer, forex). It's fine if that doesn't work for you, but it's not fine if you presume that all 5e sorcerers played according to strict RAW must be "blasters" just because they speak to that - because that's not the reality of playing a 5e sorcerer.

It's like those townsfolk in Footloose discovering that the power of dance doesn't actually cause abrupt and irreversible moral decay. The thing you fear happening doesn't actually happen.

Compare "I prefer elves" to "Without elves, this game is just a dungeon-crawling hack-and-slash without anything beautiful!"

After discovering that the thing you fear doesn't come to pass, you can decide then if you were interested in those prohibitions in and of themselves for some reason or another ("I still prefer elves, I just like 'em, personal reasons, I'm not interested in playing a game without 'em."), or if you were actually concerned about the results and care if those results don't happen ("Well, I guess this game without elves has a lot of beautiful things after all, maybe I don't need elves!").

If you're interested in the prohibition itself, you can at least hold that other people might be able to enjoy these things very much for what they are, and that there's no inherent flaw in the thing itself ("The game might be fun, even beautiful, but if it ain't got elves, I ain't interested."). It's not that the thing is bad, it's that it's not for you.

If you're interested in the result, you can then hold that the prohibition doesn't have the most direct bearing on the result you're looking for - your world has just expanded! The thing is fine, and maybe you don't need to stand on your personal point in the future.

Either way, the fear that the sorcerer must be a horrofic fire-blasting monster in 5e can be surrendered.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Interesting. So what exactly about the Sorcerer doesn't tell this narrative for you? I kind of feel that with Font of Magic, Metamagic, and extra cantrips, the "natural, inborn magic" shtick is very noticeable and feels right. When we talk about "feels", the subjective nature of such things means some will be in one camp, and others in a different one, naturally, but I'm just curious about the above quote.

I don't want to play a dragon person, I want to play a person who is innately connected to magic, it's source, or the energies it is made up of, and who manipulates that magic freely. Everything about the sorcerer, except maybe sorcery points and metamagic, does something other than that, to me.

Wild magic isn't as bad in this regard, but I don't dig the actual wild magic thing, with the rolling and the...just no.

The warlock mechanically, to me, does a much better job, by having quickly refreshing magic, magical effects that aren't spells, being able to manifest a magical weapon from the fabric of reality or whatever, the innate magical abilities represented in many invocations, it's just a lot closer, for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd have to do research to even tell you how they worked in 3.5 or 4e, because I never actually played one.
i think in 4e they were ranged strikers, right? "Blasters", IIRC.

You could almost have created a new 'blaster' role for just them: They were strikers with many ranged and close powers (and some area or ranged multi-target), that thus could do some minion-sweeping/area-interdiction like a controller. Then there were the Elemental Sorcerers, the one and only daililess E-style arcane sub-class. OK, then there were the weird dagger-channeling charging sorcerers, because system-mastery, and 4e had a charge fetish the way 3e had a spike fetish.

The sorcerer should, IMO, be very flexible, but lack the complex options of a wizard.

Really, any non-prepped caster lacks the complexity of a wizard (or Cleric or Druid).

I don't want to play a dragon person,

And if you did, you could presumably play a dragonborn.

I want to play a person who is innately connected to magic ...The warlock mechanically, to me, does a much better job, by having quickly refreshing magic, magical effects that aren't spells, being able to manifest a magical weapon from the fabric of reality or whatever, the innate magical abilities represented in many invocations, it's just a lot closer, for me.

Except it's connection to magic is quite explicitly through a pact with a patron, rather than innate.

Compare "I prefer elves" to "Without elves, this game is just a dungeon-crawling hack-and-slash without anything beautiful!"

The game has elves. Plenty of 'em. :|

But, hypothetically, compare either of those (just asking for elves to be available, if with polar extremes of politeness) with:

"Gnomes are close enough, in fact, they're better elves than elves ever were." or "Most fans are sick of elves, bringing back exactly the elves you want would do more harm to the game then good."

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I don't want to play a dragon person, I want to play a person who is innately connected to magic, it's source, or the energies it is made up of, and who manipulates that magic freely.

I suppose I'm of the mind that these two things need not be mutually exclusive. If draconic blood/heritage/power is what gave you the innate connection to magic that you have, then everything about the Draconic Origin makes sense to me, while still making sense within the Sorcerer narrative as a whole.

What seems to be sticking out to me the most is a lack of a "generic" Sorcerous Origin. Wild Magic attempted this, but it's mechanics are too.. "finicky" is the best word I can conjure. People are very reasonably uncomfortable with the key, major aspects of the class (Wild Surge). I think people would've been much happier with more Origin options. Having a generic "Arcana Bloodline", in conjunction with Draconic and Wild Magic (and I still think Shadow should've been an original option), would seemingly alleviate some of the flavor issues/lack of choice with the Sorcerer class as a whole. Subclasses are a big deal. Having a more freeform, generic subclass to more freely "make one's own" would probably help a lot. Just my thoughts.

 

[The_Gneech]

What seems to be sticking out to me the most is a lack of a "generic" Sorcerous Origin. Wild Magic attempted this, but it's mechanics are too.. "finicky" is the best word I can conjure. People are very reasonably uncomfortable with the key, major aspects of the class (Wild Surge). I think people would've been much happier with more Origin options. Having a generic "Arcana Bloodline", in conjunction with Draconic and Wild Magic (and I still think Shadow should've been an original option), would seemingly alleviate some of the flavor issues/lack of choice with the Sorcerer class as a whole. Subclasses are a big deal. Having a more freeform, generic subclass to more freely "make one's own" would probably help a lot. Just my thoughts.

I agree with this. The "pretender wizard" model of sorcerer could totally go here, with bonus spells (including Find Familiar), or a certain number of open slots that can pull from other lists (a la the bard's Magical Secrets). Really I was very surprised that an "Arcana" line didn't exist in the core book to begin with.

-The Gneech

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, hypothetically, compare either of those (just asking for elves to be available, if with polar extremes of politeness) with:

"Gnomes are close enough, in fact, they're better elves than elves ever were." or "Most fans are sick of elves, bringing back exactly the elves you want would do more harm to the game then good."

The first response tells you that the presence or absence of elves might not wreck the game in the way you fear - if gnomes are better, maybe gnomes can help make the game into something that's not a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler without beauty. If what you want is an experience an elves are just a path to that experience, that should be rewarding - now you don't need to be shackled to elves! If what you want is just elves regardless of the experience, you might say, "Eh, gnomes don't scratch that itch for me," and either houserule back in elves or happily play a game with elves in it. Bonus points for going into detail about the material differences that define these different experiences for you and helping other people who also might be missing elves a little taste of that with something tossed out on the DM's Guild or something.

For the second response, if you're interested in the experience the elves brought, you should be really interested in hearing about the negative side of that experience (some of your own players might've struggled with it), and about the trade-offs it entails. You might decide that it's worth it for your games, or to make some changes, or whatever, but you'll have a better understanding of how a game mechanic produces an effect in the audience, which should make your own games a little bit better regardless of your choices. If you're interested in elves regardless of the experiences they brought, knowing that they created some negative effects might lead you to, say, taking gnomes and changing their name and giving them pointy ears and making them Medium in your game, because that's enough to make them elves in your book.

In either situation, reacting with "But a real failure of the game was that it doesn't have elves because that makes the game a dungeon-crawling hack-and-slash game without any beauty!" is ignoring how the game plays in practice: with variety and beauty and problem-solving aplenty!

Or to collapse the strained metaphor, insisting that the sorcerer must be a horrific blasty monster just because it isn't what you personally want it to be is ignoring how the game plays in practice: with sorcerers who are not horrific blasty monsters. You can accept that you don't like the sorcerer anyway for whatever reason, or you can accept that as long as you don't have to be a horrific blasty monster maybe the sorcerer is OK, but you can't just reasonably keep insisting that a sorcerer must be a horrific blasty monster.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You could almost have created a new 'blaster' role for just them: They were strikers with many ranged and close powers (and some area or ranged multi-target), that thus could do some minion-sweeping/area-interdiction like a controller. Then there were the Elemental Sorcerers, the one and only daililess E-style arcane sub-class. OK, then there were the weird dagger-channeling charging sorcerers, because system-mastery, and 4e had a charge fetish the way 3e had a spike fetish.

Really, any non-prepped caster lacks the complexity of a wizard (or Cleric or Druid).


And if you did, you could presumably play a dragonborn.

Except it's connection to magic is quite explicitly through a pact with a patron, rather than innate.

I remember reading about charging sorcs on the forums. 4e is crazy in just...the best ways.
Agreed on the prepped thing, but why can't sorcerers just have a smaller total list, but cast any spell on that list of a level they can cast, no prep, no spells known. Every sorcerer knows every sorcerer spell, and can learn new ones through observation. :shrug: feels more like an inately magical caster, to me.
More the spell point idea I posited early in the thread, with modifiable cantrips, etc

i love dragonborn! Their the only race I'd play as a sorcerer, because then I'd get wings and stuff.

Warlocks: near as I can tell, the patron is entirely flavor text. Nothing is reinforced mechanically. In my groups, changing flavor text isn't even something you need DM permission for. Ever. Changing mechanics, though, is DM/group decision authority only. Even stuff like casting stat. You can't be a wizard that casts with CHA, unless the DM decides it's ok, and no objections are raised.
So, like i said, the warlock mechanics do the sorcerer better, for me, than the sorcerer.
[MENTION=6801700]UnadvisedGoose445[/MENTION] there are mechanical bits that reinforce becoming a draconic person built into the draconic sorcerer. I'd be fine with invocation style options that let you grow armored scales, or whatever, but IMO it shouldn't be built into the class.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

@UnadvisedGoose445 there are mechanical bits that reinforce becoming a draconic person built into the draconic sorcerer. I'd be fine with invocation style options that let you grow armored scales, or whatever, but IMO it shouldn't be built into the class.

It's not! It's built into the subclass. You can choose to not be a Draconic sorcerer. The problem, from my understanding, and I hear you on this one, is that Wild Magic isn't most people's cup of tea. So that makes it seem like Draconic is a sort of "only" choice for the entire class. I agree that that shouldn't be the case. I'd like to see the options we have now, plus the Shadow sorcerer, and most importantly, a "generic magic" type that isn't revolved around Wild Surges.

I also hear what you're saying regarding liking the Warlock mechanics, and it makes sense. I just think that the Sorcerer, as is, can be "saved" by simply providing some more Origin options, for the most part.