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

[Aldarc]

@Aldarc funny you'd bring up mage armor given how dragon sorcerer & more than one sorcerer UA has base 13+dex ac without needing to cast mage armor.

...which requires that the Sorcerer pick the draconic bloodline subclass. Also UA Sorcerer options mean jack. Got anything better? How about the comparison between Wizard and Warlock proficiencies? It's been a page since you've posted that. I bet you're itching to post it again.

You say that you've read the overlap yet keep questioning if there is overlap and implying that wizard has massive amounts of wizard specific stuff so lets chase this rabbit hole you seem so desperate to dive into...

I don't recall implying that "the wizard has massive amounts of wizard specific stuff," as I thought that this would be self-evident, but whatever.

What are these toys you were talking about when you said "The wizard gets more toys than the sorcerer" Be specific & try to limit yourself to the few core class things that wizard has but sorcerer does not..

Spells are toys for casters. Wizards get a larger spell list, more spells known and prepared, and the largest default list of ritual spells.

if you say "ritual spells" be specific about which spells or how a wizard can build a distinct theme around them with more depth than "guy who casts tiny hut for the scorlock".

As it turns out, a Sorlock is not a Sorcerer nor is it a class in the 5e Player's Handbook.

The fact that sorcerer can choose nearly all of the skills wizards can choose plus some extra social skills and has a virtually identical spell list.

The Sorcerer and Wizard share three skills: Arcana, Insight, and Religion, which all favor the Wizard's higher Intelligence. The Wizard additionally has History, Investigation, and Medicine, which favor the Wizard's higher Intelligence. The Sorcerer additionally has Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion, which favor a Sorcerer's higher Charisma. Also, this is mostly a moot point in 5e due to Backgrounds, which allows a tremendous amount of flexibility for characters of all classes.

Also, that's not a virtually identical spell list. If it was, then people playing the various Sorcerer subclasses would not be complaining about the lack of thematically appropriate spells that Sorcerers lack that Wizards have. While you are at it, assuming you actually wanted a consistent argument, you should complain about the Warlocks and Bards stealing the spell lists of Wizards.

Yes in 3.5 the two had the same spell list, but in 3.5 sorcerer had a casting mechanic that was different from every other spellcaster and Intelligence as a stat as well as int based skills were far more valuable making them play out differently at the table.

You are right: they felt very different. Wizard was a godlike Tier 1 class and Sorcerer was a Tier 2 class that was largely considered a "2nd class wizard." And when thinking of their godlike status in 3e, Wizards hated their lot in 4e so much that they stole the Sorcerer's spontaneous casting for 5e. But clearly the problem is the Sorcerer and not the fact that WotC improving the lot of Wizards.

 

[tetrasodium]

@Aldarc don't dodge the subject you brought up now that you realized how bad it is. I've given you the differences between spell lists, don't just say larger spell list... be specific on which spells you think make such a difference to really give wizard a feel that is dramatically different from the wizard+ role of sorcerer. As to UA, yes it is relevant. If we had as many wizard UA's as sorcerer ones we'd be hearing about how wizard's are stomping on sorcerer toes but instead we have wotc declaring wizard to be "good enough" as crawford said in one of the dragon talks while continually churning out sorcerer stuff including one munchkin wet dream that tried to give sorcerer's a free built in spellbook loaded with every spell on their class list on the stipulation that they only swap one spell/long rest instead of any number of spells but only from those in the spellbook. If you can't be specific on those spells you think are so defining that wizard has but sorcerer doesn't without making a laughable argument then you are conceeding that the point was nonsense to begin with

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Doctor Strange spends years studying the arts of magic, inheriting a title and burden of protecting the entire Earth. Do you think he needs to have that defining moment of realizing he needs to be responsible for his own power? Isn't the first lesson of almost all martial arts Know when to Fight and when to not?

I think it's obvious that both Doctor Strange and Iron Man have exactly that defining moment of realization. Tony Stark's brief stay IN A CAVE WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS is particularly iconic.

 

[Undrave]

@Aldarc don't dodge the subject you brought up now that you realized how bad it is. I've given you the differences between spell lists, don't just say larger spell list... be specific on which spells you think make such a difference to really give wizard a feel that is dramatically different from the wizard+ role of sorcerer. As to UA, yes it is relevant. If we had as many wizard UA's as sorcerer ones we'd be hearing about how wizard's are stomping on sorcerer toes but instead we have wotc declaring wizard to be "good enough" as crawford said in one of the dragon talks while continually churning out sorcerer stuff including one munchkin wet dream that tried to give sorcerer's a free built in spellbook loaded with every spell on their class list on the stipulation that they only swap one spell/long rest instead of any number of spells but only from those in the spellbook. If you can't be specific on those spells you think are so defining that wizard has but sorcerer doesn't without making a laughable argument then you are conceeding that the point was nonsense to begin with

The Wizard got EIGHT subclass in the PHB 1 while the Sorcerer got 2.The Wizard got two more since the PHB1 came out, going up to 10 printed subclasses and the Sorcerer got 3 more, going up to 5 (that's half of ten BTW). Oh and, guess who gets TWO new subclass in the upcoming Critical Role book? The friggin' Wizard that's who. Pushing then to 12!

The Wizard can wait a bit on the Subclasses front.

 

[Minigiant]

The Wizard got EIGHT subclass in the PHB 1 while the Sorcerer got 2.The Wizard got two more since the PHB1 came out, going up to 10 printed subclasses and the Sorcerer got 3 more, going up to 5 (that's half of ten BTW). Oh and, guess who gets TWO new subclass in the upcoming Critical Role book? The friggin' Wizard that's who. Pushing then to 12!

The Wizard can wait a bit on the Subclasses front.

You know

Question.

If they had rolled the sorcerer and warlock back into the wizard, would there less than or greater than 50 pages of just wizard stuff?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because it would likely either be too powerful or too fiddly or too time consuming in classes with fully developed class features. Especially with feats being "officially" optional.

Seems like, since you already have up-casting, 3e-style metamagic would just be a variation on that. Shouldn't be overly-fiddly, since it's something you're already doing - could actually be more intuitive than it was in 3e. And since regular casting & up-casting take care of damage- and DC- scaling (and, in some cases adding extra targets, so you could do away with Twin), the remaining metamagicks shouldn't be too dreadfully high-impact.

You know Question.If they had rolled the sorcerer and warlock back into the wizard, would there less than or greater than 50 pages of just wizard stuff?

There'd probably be moar just-wizard stuff than there is now, and less wizard-sorcerer and wizard-warlock specific stuff than there is sorcerer & warlock stuff. Just a guess.

 

[Aldarc]

@Aldarc don't dodge the subject you brought up now that you realized how bad it is.

Projecting much?

I've given you the differences between spell lists, don't just say larger spell list... be specific on which spells you think make such a difference to really give wizard a feel that is dramatically different from the wizard+ role of sorcerer.

These things do not exist in isolation, but operate in conjunction with other design elements of the Wizard and Sorcerer. The Wizard has a larger spell list, but unlike the Sorcerer they are not asked to give up knowing their spells to learn other spells. The Sorcerer has a smaller amount of Spells Known: the least amount, in fact, for full-casters. What this means is that the Sorcerer is pushed into a far more narrow scope than the Wizard. And herein lies part of the tension of the Sorcerer: sorcery theme vs. general arcane full-caster effectiveness. The Wizard doesn't really have to make this sort of decision, at least not to the same extent, and Wizards are able to off-load much of their utility spell slots to Ritual Spells. The Sorcerer certainly has overlapping spells on their list, but effectively? Scarcely.

But if you are earnestly asking how Wizard-exclusive spells like Wall of Force, Find Familiar, Arcane Lock, Fabricate, Grease, Invulnerability, Magic Jar, Melf's Acid Arrow, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound and Private Sanctum, Rope Trick, Telepathy, Tensor's Floating Disk, Simulacrum, Phantasm Steed, Evard's Black Tentacles, or Bigby's Hand, then I'm not sure if I can help you. You have been led to water, but you have to drink it for yourself.

As to UA, yes it is relevant.

It's only relevant if you only have straws to grasp for your argument, so I can see why you are desperate to use it. /sigh

If we had as many wizard UA's as sorcerer ones we'd be hearing about how wizard's are stomping on sorcerer toes but instead we have wotc declaring wizard to be "good enough" as crawford said in one of the dragon talks while continually churning out sorcerer stuff including one munchkin wet dream that tried to give sorcerer's a free built in spellbook loaded with every spell on their class list on the stipulation that they only swap one spell/long rest instead of any number of spells but only from those in the spellbook.

This run-on sentence evinces mostly an incoherent rant. Would you like to draw out a meaningful point that may be hiding in there?

If you can't be specific on those spells you think are so defining that wizard has but sorcerer doesn't without making a laughable argument then you are conceeding that the point was nonsense to begin with

Defining to what? What are you trying to say? What are you arguing here?

 

[Minigiant]

Seems like, since you already have up-casting, 3e-style metamagic would just be a variation on that. Shouldn't be overly-fiddly, since it's something you're already doing - could actually be more intuitive than it was in 3e. And since regular casting & up-casting take care of damage- and DC- scaling (and, in some cases adding extra targets, so you could do away with Twin), the remaining metamagicks shouldn't be too dreadfully high-impact.

But the wizards players want all the metamagics. Not just the once applied to some spells.

If people were content with only one, no one would mention sorcerer's stealing it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Projecting much?

simply naming the wizard specific spells does not back up the "wizard toys" nonsense you brought up earlier, at best they are mostly niche and you know it. Describe a wizard based around those wizard specific spells rather than the almost entirely shared by sorcerer handful of "right spells", expecting you to backup your argument with enough details for it to take shape into something capable of supporting the claim you were making is not in any way projecting. It's clear that you have no interest in or ability to do so at this point though since you've repeatedly tried to change the subject away from your empty strawman

 

[Tony Vargas]

Projecting much?

Prettymuch just Astral Projection and Project Image, this ed, anyway.