D&D 5E It's the Sorcerer!

[Sir Brennen]

Now, I know a lot of people like the neo-Vancian magic. To them I say, God bless. Have the wizard, whose whole schtick is an intellectual understanding of the forces of magic, and he can worry about spell slot efficiency. But if you're going to include a whole class defined as a guy who uses his force of will to cast magic from within, a guy who is just as effective with a Forrest Gump-level IQ, how does that complexity help define the character? If this is as far as they're going to go in differentiating the sorcerer, it might as well just be a wizard subclass.

It's not more complex for the character, just the player. With the few spells known, the character understands the ins and outs of the magic he can access intuitively, which is reflected in the ways he can manipulate it.

But again, I think you were expecting a sorcerer like 3E, that was relatively simpler to play than the wizard. But as 3E went on, and into 4E, that didn't necessarily remain the case. So, neo-Vancian enthusiasm aside, I for one am glad the sorcerer isn't defined by it's mechanical simplicity, as I found the 3E PHB version, unembellished by later supplements, to be rather bland.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it seems to me that the wizard itself is your simple mage this time around. Choose one of the more straightforward specializations, like evocation, and you're pretty good to go. It's a bit of a mental shuffle, to get used to the wizard being simpler, sorcerer and warlock being less so, but I think that's a good thing. I want the Foundational Four to be--or at least have options to be--the simplest and most newbie friendly classes

Not see'n it. The wizard has daily slots to manage, and, even at 1st, has to prepare spells each day, and decide which of the several spells & cantrips he has available each round to use. By itself, that's a level of complexity judged 'too complex' when the fighter briefly had it. And, as the wizard levels up, that complexity explodes. But, there's also the complexity at build, even in Basic - the would-be wizard player needs to choose cantrips and spells, and to do so must learn the 8 cantrips and 11 spells well enough to make choices among them.

Compare that (or any other 5e caster we've seen or seen hints of) to an Elemental Sorcerer from HoEC. Pick a couple of at-wills from a short list, decide which to use and whether to escalate (an encounter resource) each round. That really was simple.


[sblock="grognard grumbling"](And this is mostly personal preference and a grognard do-it-the-old-way thing, but I really think grouping spells by class & level, as was done in AD&D, makes the game easier to learn than putting all the spells in one alphabetical list. Because you can just read through the level of spell you just gained access to and compare them all side-by-side when deciding what to learn or prepare. When you try to familiarize yourself with a spell list in 5e, you end up noticing all kinds of spells of other levels and classes (but starting with the same letter) that you /can't/ cast. I get that it's easier to look up one spell, if you know the name but not the level, but that one benefit doesn't seem worth it - most of the time, when you want to look up a spell, you know the level & name, because the name's right there on your sheet, under X-level spells.) [/sblock]


Actually, I've really been wondering about the whole 'simple class' thing. Mainly, all you hear is calls for a simple fighter, and, the call seems, well, simple enough, but there's actually some nuance to it, because simple can mean several different things:

- simple to create - how long does it take to make a character of the class? How much of the game must the player learn (or even master) to make an adequate character of the class?

- simple to play - how many choices does the character face in play, how difficult are those choices, how thoroughly must you know the relevant game sub-systems to make good decisions for the character.

- simple in design - how hard is it to understand, remember, and even (for the DM) mod the class? Could you easily re-create the class design from memory?

- simple to relate to - how little does the class deviate from the every-day commonplace experiences & expectations of the player?


In that last sense, a caster will likely never be 'simple,' but in the others, it should be possible.

 

[transtemporal]

Other colours for feather boas will be in the DMG.

But you definitely have to wear it, otherwise the sorcerer union won't know you're a member. Also, how's your singing voice? 'Let it Go' is the official sorcerer union song.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not see'n it. The wizard has daily slots to manage, and, even at 1st, has to prepare spells each day, and decide which of the several spells & cantrips he has available each round to use. By itself, that's a level of complexity judged 'too complex' when the fighter briefly had it. And, as the wizard levels up, that complexity explodes. But, there's also the complexity at build, even in Basic - the would-be wizard player needs to choose cantrips and spells, and to do so must learn the 8 cantrips and 11 spells well enough to make choices among them.

Compare that (or any other 5e caster we've seen or seen hints of) to an Elemental Sorcerer from HoEC. Pick a couple of at-wills from a short list, decide which to use and whether to escalate (an encounter resource) each round. That really was simple.

Well, in terms of point two, I wasn't comparing to other edition casters; just other 5E casters. Whether something in 5E is more or less complex than 1E/2E/3E/4E/Wall-E is a different discussion, I think.

But point one... Well, you're not wrong, but you're also only looking at it from one angle. If someone wants a simple character, they won't be managing spells per day. There's no reason a wizard has to shift, and there's nothing stopping a player from saying "These set spells are what I know and all I'm going to useu until I add a new spell level." At that point, the wizard's playing as a sorcerer, in terms of "spells known."

No, most wizard players aren't going to play it that way. But one could, without even any mechanical alterations to the class. And that would, I believe, be the simplest form of spellcaster we've seen in 5E.

 

[Sir Brennen]

But point one... Well, you're not wrong, but you're also only looking at it from one angle. If someone wants a simple character, they won't be managing spells per day. There's no reason a wizard has to shift, and there's nothing stopping a player from saying "These set spells are what I know and all I'm going to useu until I add a new spell level." At that point, the wizard's playing as a sorcerer, in terms of "spells known."

No, most wizard players aren't going to play it that way. But one could, without even any mechanical alterations to the class. And that would, I believe, be the simplest form of spellcaster we've seen in 5E.

I'd be willing to bet many people will play the wizard (and cleric) pretty close to this, anyway. Unless the characters have some fore-knowledge that indicates different spells might be called for ("Oh, the temple is underwater?"), most players are going to stick with the same list of prepared spells at the end of each long rest, with possible minor tweaks here and there until they get to a preferred list. At least in my experience, that's what happened in previous editions.

The 5E neo-Vancian approach even puts less pressure on the player's prepped spell choices, since you're not wasting spell slots for a "useless" choice. So, there's even less incentive to change your prepped list.

 

[Juriel]

There are no simple casters.

 

[MarkB]

This is the first bit of art I actually haven't liked. WTF is up with that pose? He seems to proportioned all sorts of weirdly too - neck like a linebacker, but spindly little arms. He looks like the girl from Frozen, just with fire. He's about to break into a show tune about YOLO fire magic.

Yeah, and that's just what he looks like when he's relaxing in the tavern. Wait 'til you see what he does when he's actually spellcasting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, most wizard players aren't going to play it that way. But one could, without even any mechanical alterations to the class. And that would, I believe, be the simplest form of spellcaster we've seen in 5E.

OK, I'll accept that. (If only because the only other one we've had a good look at is the Cleric, and we don't really know what the complete Warlock looks like.)

I would say it's equally true that we have seen no simple casters in 5e, as yet.

 

[Juriel]

Seriously, suggesting 'just pick Wizard and pick evocation spells and you have your simple caster!' is maliciously silly.

The very basis of Wizards, preparing spells that you then cast a different amount of times from, confused an otherwise very smart player in my group when she tried to grok it. After explaining that, to hand her close to a hundred pages of spell lists, and just say 'pick stuff from here'..? Yeah, no. The spells aren't even categorized by class or school, it's all a mess!

 

[Shemeska]

I'm sort of meh on this one.

But I'm probably spoiled by the flavor and customization in Pathfinder sorcerers with their myriad bloodline options and powers.