D&D 5E (2014) On whether sorcerers and wizards should be merged or not, (they shouldn't)

[TheCosmicKid]

More like
WotC: We've been thinking about sorcerers a lot and we've got a bold new idea for it. Check it out. Is this direction you want to see the class go?
Community: Cool, like it, but something is odd with it.

Walk me through the reasoning by which WotC shows the community a class specifically in order to see whether or not they like it, gets the response that they like it, and decides to kill the class anyway.

Whatever WotC saw in their feedback, it clearly told them that it would not be a good decision to continue taking the sorcerer down that path.

Wizard players: Wait, spellpoints? we want spellpoints too!
WotC: Okay, noted. Let's make spellcasting modular. Here, have the cleric system for now.
Wizard players: Cool! Wait, with this we don't need sorcerers anymore!!
WotC: Let's go in that direction
Wizard players: We love it!

Who are these wizard players who exercise such inordinate power over the decision-making process, and why is WotC listening to them? And if WotC is listening to them, why doesn't the mage have spell points?

Is it possible that the positive response to the playtest sorcerer you remember was honestly a minority viewpoint, and that whatever you saw from "wizard players" on the subject of putting spell points on the wizard class was just some statistically irrelevant internet randos' opinion that did not factor into WotC's decision-making process?

 

[MoonSong]

You literally quoted me repeating my earlier posts laying out wide swaths of overlap on both classes and then ask this nonsense like you couldn't figure it out? did you not read it? You might be trying to make an argument, I'll give you that, but you forgot to actually make it & seem to be expecting me to make it for you.

@MoonSong It's all well and good to say like "wizards don't get to have themes -from spell selection-, a wizard is a broad niche invader by definition" but the fact remains that someone watching a sorcerer is not going to see any obvious difference from a wizard with the same spell selections in play. Instead of crying that sorcerer's can't get enough of the wizard's box of mechanics to be careless with it, complain that sorcerer's don't have a clear mechanical box of their own. If the sorcerer had a clear niche of it's own, it wouldn't need to hope they fit a wizard's niche well enough to be a top shelf wizard/arcanist and great social type. Look at the AT, EK, Pally, & Ranger... all of them share significant chunks of their spell list with some other full caster but are not top shelf with them & won't ever get confused as the class they draw spells from because they have significant mechanical contributions from their own class features that set them apart on a parallel shelf.

But that's the point, no sorcerer can have the exact same spell selection as a wizard. The wizard can just prepare more spells than the sorcerer knows. At points enough spells to have more prepared than two sorcerers know together. If a wizard can't make those extra spells prepared count with the extra slots they get, then it is up to that wizard. Now, why the overlap? because the wizard was born incomplete and will forever be an incomplete archetype that leaves out any character concept that can't be summarized as a "smart scholar with magic", we need the sorcerer to cover some the other half. Otherwise we have a game that purposely leaves half the concepts -and the players that like these concepts- out. They are meant to be able to stand in for each other if only partially, without that meaning they are the same or one tramples over the other, because both of them are arcane casters.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It's not just a question of spells. If Sorcerers could somehow conjure raw magical energy and go freestyle with it, they would have something distinctive that Wizards don't have.

 

[MoonSong]

Walk me through the reasoning by which WotC shows the community a class specifically in order to see whether or not they like it, gets the response that they like it, and decides to kill the class anyway.

Whatever WotC saw in their feedback, it clearly told them that it would not be a good decision to continue taking the sorcerer down that path.


Who are these wizard players who exercise such inordinate power over the decision-making process, and why is WotC listening to them? And if WotC is listening to them, why doesn't the mage have spell points?

Is it possible that the positive response to the playtest sorcerer you remember was honestly a minority viewpoint, and that whatever you saw from "wizard players" on the subject of putting spell points on the wizard class was just some statistically irrelevant internet randos' opinion that did not factor into WotC's decision-making process?

I really wish I could find the relevant L&L columns. Because it was literally something like "The response to sorcerer was good, but some surveys indicated concerns about not being able to convert characters to the new edition.
Also players wanted spell points for the wizard. Which tells us we need to make spellcasting modular.
So we'll do something more traditional, and sorcerer and warlock will return once we get wizard right" or something

Edit: Or I could be wrong and it was a few people at tweeter

 

[prabe]

It's not just a question of spells. If Sorcerers could somehow conjure raw magical energy and go freestyle with it, they would have something distinctive that Wizards don't have.

It's pretty clearly inadequate, but that's probably most of the reason metamagic ended up a sorcerer thing.

 

[MoonSong]

It's not just a question of spells. If Sorcerers could somehow conjure raw magical energy and go freestyle with it, they would have something distinctive that Wizards don't have.

The problem is how do you turn that into a balanced game construct.

 

[Todd Roybark]

The bloodline is superfluous, important but not fundamental. Wizards, they always were the bookish perpetual college student. In thirty or so years of D&D Wizards never became anything else. (For real, show me one character, one character from 2e or before that was illiterate and dumb yet had magic that was a part of the self and not taken from a book)

I can actually, it was 1e and INT was still used as the spellcasting attribute, but the character was based off a relative of mine with cerebral palsy, (so not ‘dumb’ as you put it), but not formally trained, and a ‘magical savant’.

Can you show a Sorcerer, (not a multi class dip character but a straight Sorc) that has a low Charisma score? I think we can concede that for any spell caster to be effective a ‘decent’ ability score in their spellcasting ability is required.

Also I often times as a DM, even in the hoary days of 1e and 2e have Wizards learn spells by observing magical creatures; fight a fire breathing Dragon, and you might learn Burning Hands for example. So my experience does provide a counter to your assertion that I quoted.

Moonsong, you seem, to me at least, to have a very defined aesthetic on what makes a sorcerer and what makes a wizard. Your statements, honestly have not resonated with me,
(no hostility intended in this statement), which is not unusual, aesthetics being a very subjective topic.
Your opinion seems set, however, (no worries in that), are you actually seeking opinions that differ from your own?

I’m curious at how ‘team sorcerer’ feels about the fact that in 5e, the Sorcerer class by design, is appropriating options and themes that were in the Wizard class’ bailiwick.

If the 5e Fighter had ranged weapons usage striped from them, as well as the Archery Fighting style, and bows and crossbows were only usable by Rangers, many players would, legitimately cry foul and call it out as bad design.

Moonsong, seems to be fine with this reduction of scope of theme and magical options for the Wizard. I’m not. Opinions will vary, but the existing design is a disservice to both classes.

 

[tetrasodium]

But that's the point, no sorcerer can have the exact same spell selection as a wizard. The wizard can just prepare more spells than the sorcerer knows. At points enough spells to have more prepared than two sorcerers know together. If a wizard can't make those extra spells prepared count with the extra slots they get, then it is up to that wizard. Now, why the overlap? because the wizard was born incomplete and will forever be an incomplete archetype that leaves out any character concept that can't be summarized as a "smart scholar with magic", we need the sorcerer to cover some the other half. Otherwise we have a game that purposely leaves half the concepts -and the players that like these concepts- out. They are meant to be able to stand in for each other if only partially, without that meaning they are the same or one tramples over the other, because both of them are arcane casters.

it's funny how quickly you abandon the limited number of "right spells" on the list that must be taken argument when forced to see that those spells are on both lists & very few of the spells not mirrored are anything top shelf. It's very unusual to see a sorcerer or a wizard cast every single spell they could cast you are still arguing that the sorcerer's niche is incomplete because it doesn't have everything a wizard has. You aren't arguing that sorcerers don't have the right kind of spells to compliment their raw magic conjuration ability, your're just complaining that sorcerer's don't copy enough of wizard to be a full wizard instead of something unique on their own.

You start turning that into "a balanced game construct." By taking sorcerer out of the wizard box & build a box of sorcerer specific stuff. You can't have 90%+ of wizard plus a few extra things plus social skills plus an awesome ability that is thematic & flavorful like that.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The problem is how do you turn that into a balanced game construct.

Other games have managed to do it. You simply limit the efficiency of what can be accomplished, depending on the level (a damage cap, for example), and introduce a punishing mechanism that makes the whole "toying with raw magical energy" dangerous and explosive.

 

[MoonSong]

I can actually, it was 1e and INT was still used as the spellcasting attribute, but the character was based off a relative of mine with cerebral palsy, (so not ‘dumb’ as you put it), but not formally trained, and a ‘magical savant’.

This is actually touching, it is nice.
(It is however the result of a house rule, not RAW or a reasonable interpretation of rules that lends itself to be reproduced)

Can you show a Sorcerer, (not a multi class dip character but a straight Sorc) that has a low Charisma score? I think we can concede that for any spell caster to be effective a ‘decent’ ability score in their spellcasting ability is required.

I've played low charisma sorcerers. In 3e, 4e and 5e. Ok, in 4e it was an hybrid. In 3e I just used a lot of metamagic, and in 5e I just go buffing/healing and choose noncombat spells for my theme.

Also I often times as a DM, even in the hoary days of 1e and 2e have Wizards learn spells by observing magical creatures; fight a fire breathing Dragon, and you might learn Burning Hands for example. So my experience does provide a counter to your assertion that I quoted.

Still not RAW.

I’m curious at how ‘team sorcerer’ feels about the fact that in 5e, the Sorcerer class by design, is appropriating options and themes that were in the Wizard class’ bailiwick.

What are exactly these options and themes you speak of? I'm sorry if I haven't understood you, but I haven't read any of them explicitly told.

You start turning that into "a balanced game construct." By taking sorcerer out of the wizard box & build a box of sorcerer specific stuff. You can't have 90%+ of wizard plus a few extra things plus social skills plus an awesome ability that is thematic & flavorful like that.

It is more like 60%, at best. You know, about a little less than cleric and wizard overlap once you consider domains