Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is the major thing that's disappointing about Sorcerers is the lack of sorcery point options?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6910057" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>While 'being generic' is very clearly not a design goal for 5e classes - being mechanically distinct presumably is - there are some (sub)classes, like the fighter(BM), that stand in for a broader range of concepts than others. And, yes, arcanist is, in contrast, a heavily-served set of concepts, with 8 wizard traditions (the classic schools), the Warlock, Sorcerer, & Bard, plus EK & AT - 17 sub-classes (darn near half those in the PH) at release. I can understand needing to carefully differentiate them if they were all to be included. </p><p></p><p>I don't necessarily agree that it's 'better' to have many highly detailed, locked-in-flavor options for a genre archetype that tends to be used for exposition, plot device, and the occasional DeM. Nor do I agree that going that rout necessitates eschewing even one sub-class option that's a more generic/customizable catch-all for anything else. </p><p></p><p>And, for 5e's goals of broad inclusiveness and post-edition-war re-unification, every player who finds they can't reprise some favorite PH1-only concept from some past edition is a small, lamentable failure.</p><p></p><p>Better a meaningless set of mechanics with which I can build whatever I want than a meaningless set of mechanics that pointedly exclude the characters I'd like to <strong>role play</strong>.</p><p></p><p>With the same slot-based spellcasting mechanic as all other casters, and a class spell list that is unique only in having absolutely no unique spells, the Sorcerer can hardly claim to be better-differentiated than in 3e, where Spontaneous casting was a huge deal, not something yoinked by every other caster in the game. Meta-magic is cute and appropriate but not enough to hang the whole class on by itself. </p><p></p><p>Not the point, the wizard classically used only a small list of weapons, and those not too well, because of the time devoted to arcane study. Being an instinctive caster, a prodigy, was part of the Sorcerer narrative, and did imply more time available for other pursuits, thus more available weapons because he had more time to practice such things on his path to adventuring. I thought the original Sorcerer and traditional Wizard and the contrast between the two made that abundantly clear, I'm surprised you quibble with it like this.</p><p></p><p>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. Hypothetically choosing one known spell (which, I guess you're assuming, couldn't be balanced/effective) to fit an individual concept, rather than restricting half the sub-class options to a single specific concept, isn't on nearly the same level of annoying, I'd think.</p><p></p><p>It's a resource-management game, you get what you pay for. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The wildmage take on the Sorcerer can be made to work, in concept, for a few less specific concepts than draconic ancestry, but the specifics do leave it less wild than some players might be looking for, and significantly more so than other concepts might call for. Player agency isn't as big a concern in 5e as system-mastery-rewarding 3e, but other classes present more opportunity for it with less trouble.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, a Draconic sorcerer could (or the player could at least RP), some uncertainty about his heritage, in spite of having an affinity for an element and being covered with draconic scales to the tune of better protection than leather armor. It might seem a bit forced, though. </p><p></p><p>A third, less locked-in 'mystery' origin wouldn't have broken the class or ruined the game for anyone.</p><p></p><p>There are plenty of non-bland arcane caster options, the existence of one more customizable one would take nothing away from them. There's no need for this assumption of exclusivity. </p><p></p><p>Well, warlocks - and valor bards and EKs/ATs and magic clerics and bladesinger wizards if we want to go there. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I think, after giving everyone spontaneous casting, the designers were stuck with a basically redundant sorcerer. Rather than just tossing it as unnecessary, and loosening up another class's (warlock or wizard, I suppose) fluff-mechanics interlock to open up the same sorts of concepts, now that there wasn't a meaningful mechanical differentiation to go with it, they made metamagic (which, formerly, any caster could use, but many didn't, because it's really not that big a deal) sorcerer-exclusive and screwed down one 3e bloodline and the 2e/4e wild/chaos magic idea to the only possible sorcerers in an effort to justify having a class of that name. </p><p></p><p>I suppose they did better with it than with the ranger. And it seems like it'd be fixable - the best (recognizably D&D) fix might well be to return most casters to the more restrictive traditional Vancian casting.</p><p></p><p>Medusa isn't a class or de-facto 'source' like arcanists or psionics. (And psionics has gone back and forth on being not-magic or magic.)</p><p></p><p>'No components' would be pushing it, I think, but fewer components or only one component at a time might work, possibly even flexibly. For instance, a clueless sorcerous prodigy might use his 'magic feather' but when he finally looses it, do magic by gesture instead, when he's tied up and trying to use magic, arcane phrases come to his struggling mind. It'd be the kind of inconsistent, intuitive, unpredictable magic use that drives wizards crazy. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6910057, member: 996"] While 'being generic' is very clearly not a design goal for 5e classes - being mechanically distinct presumably is - there are some (sub)classes, like the fighter(BM), that stand in for a broader range of concepts than others. And, yes, arcanist is, in contrast, a heavily-served set of concepts, with 8 wizard traditions (the classic schools), the Warlock, Sorcerer, & Bard, plus EK & AT - 17 sub-classes (darn near half those in the PH) at release. I can understand needing to carefully differentiate them if they were all to be included. I don't necessarily agree that it's 'better' to have many highly detailed, locked-in-flavor options for a genre archetype that tends to be used for exposition, plot device, and the occasional DeM. Nor do I agree that going that rout necessitates eschewing even one sub-class option that's a more generic/customizable catch-all for anything else. And, for 5e's goals of broad inclusiveness and post-edition-war re-unification, every player who finds they can't reprise some favorite PH1-only concept from some past edition is a small, lamentable failure. Better a meaningless set of mechanics with which I can build whatever I want than a meaningless set of mechanics that pointedly exclude the characters I'd like to [b]role play[/b]. With the same slot-based spellcasting mechanic as all other casters, and a class spell list that is unique only in having absolutely no unique spells, the Sorcerer can hardly claim to be better-differentiated than in 3e, where Spontaneous casting was a huge deal, not something yoinked by every other caster in the game. Meta-magic is cute and appropriate but not enough to hang the whole class on by itself. Not the point, the wizard classically used only a small list of weapons, and those not too well, because of the time devoted to arcane study. Being an instinctive caster, a prodigy, was part of the Sorcerer narrative, and did imply more time available for other pursuits, thus more available weapons because he had more time to practice such things on his path to adventuring. I thought the original Sorcerer and traditional Wizard and the contrast between the two made that abundantly clear, I'm surprised you quibble with it like this. 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. Hypothetically choosing one known spell (which, I guess you're assuming, couldn't be balanced/effective) to fit an individual concept, rather than restricting half the sub-class options to a single specific concept, isn't on nearly the same level of annoying, I'd think. It's a resource-management game, you get what you pay for. ;) The wildmage take on the Sorcerer can be made to work, in concept, for a few less specific concepts than draconic ancestry, but the specifics do leave it less wild than some players might be looking for, and significantly more so than other concepts might call for. Player agency isn't as big a concern in 5e as system-mastery-rewarding 3e, but other classes present more opportunity for it with less trouble. Sure, a Draconic sorcerer could (or the player could at least RP), some uncertainty about his heritage, in spite of having an affinity for an element and being covered with draconic scales to the tune of better protection than leather armor. It might seem a bit forced, though. A third, less locked-in 'mystery' origin wouldn't have broken the class or ruined the game for anyone. There are plenty of non-bland arcane caster options, the existence of one more customizable one would take nothing away from them. There's no need for this assumption of exclusivity. Well, warlocks - and valor bards and EKs/ATs and magic clerics and bladesinger wizards if we want to go there. I think, after giving everyone spontaneous casting, the designers were stuck with a basically redundant sorcerer. Rather than just tossing it as unnecessary, and loosening up another class's (warlock or wizard, I suppose) fluff-mechanics interlock to open up the same sorts of concepts, now that there wasn't a meaningful mechanical differentiation to go with it, they made metamagic (which, formerly, any caster could use, but many didn't, because it's really not that big a deal) sorcerer-exclusive and screwed down one 3e bloodline and the 2e/4e wild/chaos magic idea to the only possible sorcerers in an effort to justify having a class of that name. I suppose they did better with it than with the ranger. And it seems like it'd be fixable - the best (recognizably D&D) fix might well be to return most casters to the more restrictive traditional Vancian casting. Medusa isn't a class or de-facto 'source' like arcanists or psionics. (And psionics has gone back and forth on being not-magic or magic.) 'No components' would be pushing it, I think, but fewer components or only one component at a time might work, possibly even flexibly. For instance, a clueless sorcerous prodigy might use his 'magic feather' but when he finally looses it, do magic by gesture instead, when he's tied up and trying to use magic, arcane phrases come to his struggling mind. It'd be the kind of inconsistent, intuitive, unpredictable magic use that drives wizards crazy. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is the major thing that's disappointing about Sorcerers is the lack of sorcery point options?
Top