D&D 5E (2014) It's the Sorcerer!

Morrus · Jul 25, 2014

TerraDave · Jul 25, 2014

a draconic bloodline (more then one?) or wild magic. Spell slots look the same as the wizard (which we knew?), spells known about the same as warlock. Spells suggested also classic wizard spells, which again we knew?

Like the very open and flavorful approach to their origins.

ZombieRoboNinja · Jul 25, 2014

So they took a class whose whole raison d'être in 3e was different caster mechanics, and made it mechanically identical to the 5e wizard. Biggest disappointment in 5e. Those of us who don't like vancian casting (which I believe was a majority in their playtest polls) can wait until the DMG comes out in November to see if they give us a paragraph blurb about spell points as an optional rule many DMs won't kinks about or want to hassle with.

Well, at least the art is cool.

TerraDave · Jul 25, 2014

Don't think its identical. Closer. Not identical.

Remathilis · Jul 25, 2014

TerraDave said:
a draconic bloodline (more then one?) or wild magic. Spell slots look the same as the wizard (which we knew?), spells known about the same as warlock. Spells suggested also classic wizard spells, which again we knew?

Like the very open and flavorful approach to their origins.

I suspect a few more bloodlines will come later (shadow magic seems to fit, as would storm).

I think a sorcerer can use his sorcery points to gain more spells slots (and vice versa) and they have similar spell lists to wizards/warlocks.

BryonD · Jul 25, 2014

Con and Chr saves are interesting.

For CON, not WIS so there is a distinction.
Second, I still have not seen a CHR save need

n00bdragon · Jul 25, 2014

I liked the playtest sorcerer better. That one at least had a theme to it "Cool dragon guy". This is just a poor wizard with some extra bits stapled to it. If you can envision a new player asking you "What's the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard" and you have to think about that for more than three seconds then it isn't distinct enough to be its own class.

This just looks as dull and tacked on as the 3e sorcerer.

Remathilis · Jul 25, 2014

ZombieRoboNinja said:
So they took a class whose whole raison d'être in 3e was different caster mechanics, and made it mechanically identical to the 5e wizard. Biggest disappointment in 5e. Those of us who don't like vancian casting (which I believe was a majority in their playtest polls) can wait until the DMG comes out in November to see if they give us a paragraph blurb about spell points as an optional rule many DMs won't kinks about or want to hassle with.

Well, at least the art is cool.

Ever since the playtest sorcerer, they said they were going to use spell slots as the default and give different systems in the DMG. Its not like 3e or 4e sorcerers used spell points either.

TwoSix · Jul 25, 2014

Simple, fairly boring chassis, like the wizard. Not a big surprise. The complexity is going to be tied to the sorcerous origin, so I can't judge this one too much without seeing those.

Bloodlines need to be an area where the design team gets creative, stat, if the PHB offerings are fairly vanilla. A lot of people are very attached to the sorcerer concept, and if it's Cha-wizard with no spell book like in 3e, there's going to be some unhappiness. I, personally, will be very disappointed if the hulk-out sorcerer from the playtest isn't an option that's presented within the first year of release.