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

[Undrave]

Or heck, don’t have any prereqs at all. Shadow of the Demon Lord does something similar and it works really well. You just need to have higher tier features that are additive rather than improvements.

Or have them be suggested req? Features that depend on a stat or improve something in particular so you can pick them, but you won’t be as effective.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Or have them be suggested req? Features that depend on a stat or improve something in particular so you can pick them, but you won’t be as effective.

I think if we remove ASI, Archetypes and our classes have only a 1 to 10 level spread, we could make a crazy amount of minimalist 5e classes just by rearranging the existing features.

 

[tetrasodium]

I run two games a week, one AL & one not. The armchair dismissal as bad players is unwarranted. It took a great many pages for you to accept that wizards are subject to the same "must take" spell problem you so highly raked as a sorcerer problem & just as much to admit that the much vaunted "larger spell list" & "but ritual spells" are both almost entirely not those right/critical spells despite all the weight you placed on them...

That's not particularly surprising though because you seem to have decided that every single arcane spellcaster PrC from the 3.5 days was a sorcerer PrC & that shows just how much Socerer stole from the wizard's design space with Chrystal clarity. Sorcerers have interesting flavorful &thematic archtypes often drawn from those old PrCs, the much vaunted seven archtypes in the phb vrs 2* for sorcerer ignores the fact that all of those seven wizard archtypes are based on not a PrC or it's inspiration but a core wizard feature. There's no scroll scribing, no potion brewing, no magic item crafting,. scag adds bladesinger for all those wizards who really wanted to be the old redbox elf but it's limited to elf & got problems as evidenced by not getting reprinted in xge like storm sorcerer was. XgE realized that & made the war mage, which is actually a pretty decent concept that leans into wizard for once with features that actually present themselves in play from the getgo. Sorcerer gets to add storm sorcerer, Shadow magic, & divine soul pulling fromthe old prCs.

* Neither of which were a mechanical part of the phb sorcerer in 3.5, those are a PrC from complete arcane(wild mage), & a bunch of feats from Races of dragon... Sure you could argue that sorcerer was lacking in 3.5, but it's hard to ignore the fact that wotc keeps pumping out sorcerer(and warlock) archtypes based on or drawn from the same kinds of sources as the old PrCs even though sorcerer already has 5 PrC drawn archtypes published to the oneplus one dropped for wizard after starting with emptying the wizard's toolbox to pad out sorcerer & warlock then dumping so much of what remained in craftingscroll/potion/wand/etc on the cutting room floor.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

With the arrival of new class features for the sorc, such as giving them THP, magic weapons or advantage on ability check, and the new metamagics, I think the sorcerer is slowly ''getting there''. The only thing really missing is a bunch of sorc-specific spells, maybe stolen from 4e where sorcs had their own ''power list''.

EDIT: Since warlock have the almighty eldritch blast to supplement their spellcasting, maybe sorcerers could have something that is missing from 5e as of now: ranged and melee AoE cantrips.

 

[Undrave]

I think if we remove ASI, Archetypes and our classes have only a 1 to 10 level spread, we could make a crazy amount of minimalist 5e classes just by rearranging the existing features.

I'd keep ASI and Feat just to add a little wiggle room, personally.

Also, to keep it minimal, all spell casting would be based off of the Warlock (maybe not the short rest recharge aspect) where Spell 'levels' don't matter. You get new ones and your old ones just scale properly and you get X amount of 'em.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd keep ASI and Feat just to add a little wiggle room, personally.

Also, to keep it minimal, all spell casting would be based off of the Warlock (maybe not the short rest recharge aspect) where Spell 'levels' don't matter. You get new ones and your old ones just scale properly and you get X amount of 'em.

My general thought was a baked in feature at 4 and 8, but an option to be able to swap it out with something more general as an optional rule (which would be free pick ASI or feat.)

No multiclassing, of course.

I think one of the benefits of hyper-specific classes is that you can afford to get experimental; Warlock style casting makes me a good baseline, but nothing wrong with using the normal spell slot approach for other classes, or a spell point methodology in others. As long as they hit the 5e baselines (Prof Bonus 2 +level/4, about 6 to 10 HP a level on average, damage bump at level 5, etc.), keeping things symmetrical so they play nicely together isn't as much a concern.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Sorcerer Spells:

Cantrips
Blazing Starfall: 1d4 (+1 die per tier) radiant damage in a 5 ft radius. Save neg.
Sorcerous Grasp: Bonus action, 1 minute. Unarmed attacks now deal 1d8 damage. Can use spellcasting stat to damage and attack roll.
Chromatic Strike: Spell attack, 1d8 (+1 die per tier) damage of a type of your choice in acide, fire, cold or lightning.
Ensorceled blade: Make a melee attack, if the attack hits, the creatures take 1d8 damage of a type of your choice the next time it makes an attack against you. Both damage instance increases by 1d8 per tier.
Stormwalk: 1d6 thunder damage, speed increases by 10 until end of next turn and AoO have disadvantage.

 

[Undrave]

My general thought was a baked in feature at 4 and 8, but an option to be able to swap it out with something more general as an optional rule (which would be free pick ASI or feat.)

No multiclassing, of course.

I think one of the benefits of hyper-specific classes is that you can afford to get experimental; Warlock style casting makes me a good baseline, but nothing wrong with using the normal spell slot approach for other classes, or a spell point methodology in others. As long as they hit the 5e baselines (Prof Bonus 2 +level/4, about 6 to 10 HP a level on average, damage bump at level 5, etc.), keeping things symmetrical so they play nicely together isn't as much a concern.

Plus, with a little less moving parts such as only 10 level, it's easier to make sure nothing breaks your game when you get experimental.

You'd probably end up slaying SO many sacred cows though You wouldn't have a 'Wizard', you'd have "Pyriomancer", "Cryomancer", "Necromancer", "Chronomancer", "Oracle"; instead of Fighter you'd have "Soldier", "Sentinel", "Archer", and so forth...

 

[Todd Roybark]

Both the Sorcerer and Wizard suffer from a dearth of Bonus action options. I would love to see Cantrips like Bonus action to add + 1 to save DC for next Illusion etc.

I personally feel the need for ‘ Sorcerer only spells’ is unwarranted, as it leads people to lust.
How many builds are created all about trying to acquire a particular spell and then multiclassing to try to find a way to push the power output beyond the norm.

See Booming Blade, Spiritual Guardians, Shadow Blade etc.

Sorc only spells will just exacerbate this trend. While some groups don’t mind this style of play, (myself included), it is also amply evident from threads on this board, that many do.

Unique Sorcerer powers fueled off Sorcery Points is my preferred method. So, an emphatic yes to unique Sorc Powers, but do not make them spells.

People will still try to optimize, but Sorcery Point gain is at a slow rate, and I think in some ways will inhibit multiclassing as the multi-class spell casting rules will not impact Sorcery Points.

 

[FrogReaver]

One thing I've thought about off and on is just having a whole bunch (like 50-60) classes, that just take up a page or two with no mechanical choices. Fixed spell lists, fixed ASIs or feats. You can customize a bit with race and background, but otherwise you just play the class. Then you can just develop a bunch of hyper-specific classes for new settings.

this is what I believe would work best. It’s taking the idea of class as a package to the furtherest extent.

class in this system becomes nearly your whole identity with only a few minor customization choices.