Is the Sorcerer Story Too Narrow for a Base Class?

[KidSnide]

Looking at today's L&L, I'm unsure about the story behind the sorcerer. Don't get me wrong... it's cool. I like the idea that there is this magic within the character that is just under control, but begins to transform the sorcerer as willpower is expended. That's badass, and a terrific character concept.

But isn't the story a little... umm... specific?

I think of the sorcerers I've played with (maybe a half dozen or so), and I'm not sure these "you transform as your magic is expended" mechanics would be a good fit for any of them. Yes, this character background is a sorcerer. But it's just one type of sorcerer. In 3.x terms, this type of character story would belong with a sorcerer based prestige class, not a base class.

As I see it, the sorcerer story should cover a wide range of inherent magical powers or simply arcane powers that are a lot narrower and more specific than those for a wizard. The storm sorcerer in my current game is just a striker war wizard with a lighting / thunder focus. Most of the other people I know who created sorcerers were either looking for a less complicated spell list, a charisma based wizard or some kind of narrow super-specialist. "Inherent magic" is ok (although I can think of many sorcerers that gloss over this), but the L&L background and the current mechanics are just too much.

A mechanic that requires the character's identity to fade away as the sorcerer runs out of spells is going to leave too many "former sorcerers" looking for a new class to represent their character. Players need building blocks too, and class is a little too close to a prefab character concept. It's a great idea to provide strong story hooks, but PH1 classes should also cover a wide range of character types.

-KS

 

[The Shadow]

I won't be surprised if there is a sorcerer bloodline or two (or more) that feature much less physical transformations, and instead feature things like magical surges and blowback, both for good and for ill. Those should be a good fit for most sorcerers, I'd think. In fact, that's kind of how I've always pictured them in my head, and was a little frustrated that the mechanics didn't reflect it.

Which sorcerer bloodlines and warlock pacts a DM chooses to allow will, I suspect, be major flavoring elements in a world. (Of course, for a given world, the answer might well be: None of them. No warlocks at all, etc.)

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, thanks but no thanks on the "second soul" stuff. That's not how any sorcerer I'm interested in playing works.

Innate access to magic can come from a variety of sources. I've no problem with that being one of them, but I don't want it to be part of all of them.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Looking at today's L&L, I'm unsure about the story behind the sorcerer. Don't get me wrong... it's cool. I like the idea that there is this magic within the character that is just under control, but begins to transform the sorcerer as willpower is expended. That's badass, and a terrific character concept.

But isn't the story a little... umm... specific?

I think of the sorcerers I've played with (maybe a half dozen or so), and I'm not sure these "you transform as your magic is expended" mechanics would be a good fit for any of them. Yes, this character background is a sorcerer. But it's just one type of sorcerer. In 3.x terms, this type of character story would belong with a sorcerer based prestige class, not a base class.

As I see it, the sorcerer story should cover a wide range of inherent magical powers or simply arcane powers that are a lot narrower and more specific than those for a wizard. The storm sorcerer in my current game is just a striker war wizard with a lighting / thunder focus. Most of the other people I know who created sorcerers were either looking for a less complicated spell list, a charisma based wizard or some kind of narrow super-specialist. "Inherent magic" is ok (although I can think of many sorcerers that gloss over this), but the L&L background and the current mechanics are just too much.

A mechanic that requires the character's identity to fade away as the sorcerer runs out of spells is going to leave too many "former sorcerers" looking for a new class to represent their character. Players need building blocks too, and class is a little too close to a prefab character concept. It's a great idea to provide strong story hooks, but PH1 classes should also cover a wide range of character types.

-KS

I'm not in love with the concept, though I like the idea of Sorcerer's getting something when their Willpower is exhausted so that they aren't totally helpless. It also reflects the fact that their spell lists are apparently getting whittled down quite a bit.

I notice that mechanically there are no drawbacks to the 'transformation' that happens when you exhaust your willpower pool- i.e., no penalty to Cha checks because you are covered in scales or have claws for hands. As a DM, I would thus be totally fine for re-fluffling the sorcerer transforms to something else- like you can use the no-Willpower abilities as an at-will once your spells are exhausted, rather than turning into a lizard man. Pathfinder's sorcerer bloodlines had some similar effects where you could gain a claw attack as you advanced in the bloodline- but some of the effects were more minor, like manifesting a spell-like ability or something like that.

One of my main complaints about this round of playtesting is that there don't seem to be enough options to really evaluate the classes- with only 1-2 specialties for the core classes and only one bloodline/pact each for the Warlock/Sorcerer, I really don't know what the final versions of these classes will look like- a lot for me depends on the range of options, and whether there is enough to support character concepts or play styles that I am interested in.

For instance, the single Sorcerer bloodline seems very combat-oriented. I've previously used a Sorcerer character in PF that was more of a 'Face' type- heavy on interaction skills to take advantage of high Cha, and with some focus on charm/mind control type spells. Can I build that in 5e? Will it be viable compared to other classes, or other bloodlines? I won't really know until we see more of these classes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yeah, thanks but no thanks on the "second soul" stuff. That's not how any sorcerer I'm interested in playing works.

Innate access to magic can come from a variety of sources. I've no problem with that being one of them, but I don't want it to be part of all of them.

I completely agree. I don't mind having crazy, dangerous sorcerers out there who have a "second soul", but that should just be one of many types of sorcerers. I just want to play a 3.x/Pathfinder style sorcerer that has innate magic. I don't want to have to deal with transforming into a monster as I cast spells each day and I don't want to have to worry about being possessed by a second soul.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I won't be surprised if there is a sorcerer bloodline or two (or more) that feature much less physical transformations, and instead feature things like magical surges and blowback, both for good and for ill. Those should be a good fit for most sorcerers, I'd think. In fact, that's kind of how I've always pictured them in my head, and was a little frustrated that the mechanics didn't reflect it.

Precisely. I think we need to be careful about making judgments based on one blood-line. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Wild Magic bloodline that was quite like the one you described.

One question I have that hasn't been raised much - how much difference is there between a Fae-bloodline sorcerer and a Fae Pact warlock, or a daemonic-bloodline sorcerer and a Daemonic Pact warlock?

 

[The Shadow]

Precisely. I think we need to be careful about making judgments based on one blood-line. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Wild Magic bloodline that was quite like the one you described.

Wild Magic, sure. Also, I don't know much about 4e, but I gather there, sorcerers are elementalists who end up surrounded by elemental auras when they cast and so on. That seems tailor-made for 5e bloodlines, and needn't involve you in 'second soul' stuff.

I might add that in the D&D Core video, they said they want and expect you to make up your own cleric domains... that will presumably also apply to sorcerer bloodlines and warlock pacts.

One question I have that hasn't been raised much - how much difference is there between a Fae-bloodline sorcerer and a Fae Pact warlock, or a daemonic-bloodline sorcerer and a Daemonic Pact warlock?

It's an interesting question. I am sincerely hoping that the fey bloodline tends to manifest more in behavioral than in actual physical changes. (I also hope that they do not go the route of the Pathfinder fey bloodline. Give me Visage of the Summer Court over Laughing Touch any day. Ugh.)

As for the differences... Even if the powers are fairly similar, I think the feel will be quite different. The Willpower mechanic vs. the Favor mechanic will ensure that. A pact feels all kinds of more... specific. You get power X in exchange for Y. While the sorcerer feels like he's losing control.

There don't seem to actually be any negative consequences to running out of Willpower as yet. Will it have mechanical teeth at higher levels? Or will it be left purely up to roleplaying? I suspect the latter, but I wouldn't mind seeing some way of being tempted to the Dark Side, if you will.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree that this (and the Warlock too) is going to be quite a narrow concept for many campaigns, but then I guess than for other groups even the Paladin, the Ranger or the Bard are too narrow concepts.

I'm not sure if they have anything comparable to 3ed Prestige Classes in mind, my guess is not...

But I would like "niche" concepts to be treated in a different way than PrCls, at least as they were in 3ed, because they were not really meant just for "niche" but rather for "elite" characters, hence the fact that only mid-high level characters had a PrCl. A "niche" character concept doesn't necessarily imply a certain power level, so it might be more appropriate to allow it since 1st level, and I think this is quite the case for the current Sorcerer and Warlock concepts.

Thus a base class is better (although not the only options... it could have been done differently I guess, e.g. a theme/specialty, but then it would work only in games where feats are used), so my only "solution" to making them feel appropriately niche is to have these classes somewhere else than the PHB.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Precisely. I think we need to be careful about making judgments based on one blood-line. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Wild Magic bloodline that was quite like the one you described.

One question I have that hasn't been raised much - how much difference is there between a Fae-bloodline sorcerer and a Fae Pact warlock, or a daemonic-bloodline sorcerer and a Daemonic Pact warlock?

This is currently my only issue with the two classes as presented. I get that the sorcerer doesn't have a choice about his power, thematically, but that's not true mechanically when we throw multiclassing into the mix. Warlocks don't suffer this problem.

Further, both classes have this 'transformation' going on as they expend or gain power.

I would rather avoid the second soul stuff too. Does every monster with a spell-like ability have a second soul? No. The magic is inherent, but the source should remain mutable. Currently the mechanics force you to choose a source of your power, whereas I would rather they define what your power does to you - so instead of draconic or daemonic blood, you should become a pyromaniac with fire spells and related powers. In fact, elements (and wild magic) is a good start, just because it avoids treading on the Warlock thematic stuff.

 

[Yora]

I really just want a spell point wizard.

In the worst case, I just replace the wizards spells per day with the sorcerers spells known, but I don't like that they throw away what the sorcerer class is and replace it with something entirely different that uses the same name.