D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Crimson Longinus]

There is plenty of space. 4e did it.

Did it though? One of the most common complaints about 4e was that the classes were samey.

 

[Minigiant]

Did it though? One of the most common complaints about 4e was that the classes were samey.

By people who didn't play them.

The resources were samey like 5e. Everyone used the same slot.

The spells did different things. The Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard played totally different. Because they have different powers and class features.

That's the issue. If you don't give spellcasters unique spells, they feel the same.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

By people who didn't play them.

The resources were samey like 5e. Everyone used the same slot.

The spells did different things. The Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard played totally different. Because they have different powers and class features.

I played it a lot. There were a lot of samey powers. Many class features were literal copy-paste with different name, like the striker extra damage or the leader heal.

That's the issue. If you don't give spellcasters unique spells, they feel the same.

That I agree with. But I think the spells should still have a theme, both narratively and mechanically. So what is the wizard niche, sorcerer niche, warlock niche, bard niche?

 

[Minigiant]

I played it a lot. There were a lot of samey powers. Many class features were literal copy-paste with different name, like the striker extra damage or the leader heal

Sure.

Wizard was a controller.
Sorcerer was a striker.
Those are different roles.

That I agree with. But I think the spells should still have a theme, both narratively and mechanically. So what is the wizard niche, sorcerer niche, warlock niche, bard niche?

That's where the problem arises.

Wizard fans want wizards to do EVERYTHING. That's why they hated 4e and PF2.

BUT to me

• wizard
  • Core: Utility Spells
  • Subclass: Spell School Specialization
• sorcerer
  • Core: Raw Spell Damage. Cantrip Versatility
  • Subclass: Mimicking the effects of the Origin
• warlock
  • Core: Damaging Debuffs, Cantrips and Personal buffs via Invocations
  • Subclass: Focus on More Damage or More Debuffs
• bard
  • Core: Jack of All Trades
  • Subclass: Focus on a "Trade".

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure.

Wizard was a controller.
Sorcerer was a striker.
Those are different roles.



That's where the problem arises.

Wizard fans want wizards to do EVERYTHING. That's why they hated 4e and PF2.

BUT to me

• wizard
  • Core: Utility Spells
  • Subclass: Spell School Specialization
• sorcerer
  • Core: Raw Spell Damage. Cantrip Versatility
  • Subclass: Mimicking the effects of the Origin
• warlock
  • Core: Damaging Debuffs, Cantrips and Personal buffs via Invocations
  • Subclass: Focus on More Damage or More Debuffs
• bard
  • Core: Jack of All Trades
  • Subclass: Focus on a "Trade".

No we hated 4E because it was 4E. Not a fan of wizards in any edition.

Already had a tactical game back in 3.5 so 4E was obsolete on release.

Mostly it was some amount of damage plus rider and stretching level 3-20 over 3 levels.

Level 21 your cantrips get an extra dice. Big whoop.

Ultimately it was boring which was it's greatest issue. It was dry to read and a heap of powers to push minis around a battle matt/VTT.

There's only so many ways you can spin the 4 main roles as well.

 

[Horwath]

No we hated 4E because it was 4E. Not a fan of wizards in any edition.

Already had a tactical game back in 3.5 so 4E was obsolete on release.

Mostly it was some amount of damage plus rider and stretching level 3-20 over 3 levels.

Level 21 your cantrips get an extra dice. Big whoop.

Ultimately it was boring which was it's greatest issue. It was dry to read and a heap of powers to push minis around a battle matt/VTT.

There's only so many ways you can spin the 4 main roles as well.

mostly, but,

remove +1/2 bonus per level and cut all HPs by half and it's much better.

 

[Minigiant]

No we hated 4E because it was 4E. Not a fan of wizards in any edition.

Already had a tactical game back in 3.5 so 4E was obsolete on release.

Mostly it was some amount of damage plus rider and stretching level 3-20 over 3 levels.

Level 21 your cantrips get an extra dice. Big whoop.

Ultimately it was boring which was it's greatest issue. It was dry to read and a heap of powers to push minis around a battle matt/VTT.

There's only so many ways you can spin the 4 main roles as well.

I was only addressing the samey complaint.


The classes didn't play the samey. Within the classes a lot of powers were similar to lower or higher level ones.

But a Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, and Wizard provided different gameplay in 4e.

Wizard fanboys complained so WOTC reverted back to 3e. But without splatbook bloat wizards became boring. And warlocks and sorcerers were underutilized.

And now we have this thread.

Don't produce a bunch of books. Overly focus on supporting one class. SURPRISE SURPRISE 50% of the classes are undercook and under designed.

 

[Mind of tempest]

One thing that is also miss which is inherent to the main division of classes in D&D.

An intelligent being can't give another intelligent being proper spellcasting without being a god.

D&D is halfway written around the concept of evil nondeities raising armies and granting boons in a plan to kill a proper god and take their place. What do these deities have that these extremely powerful immortal beings lack?

The ability to make proper clerics.

Once you're born, if you lack a spark or don't survive an accident, no one can give to real magic except a god.

Warlock magic is not normal magic. It's always been a bastardization of true magic.

Sorcerers are still true mages. That's the main difference.

The magic school dropout gets the "fake wizard/cleric" loophole the Patron Daddy sneaked out for them.
Warlocks are fakes.

or warlocks are just in the ground flaw of the new divine start up, I have neither a good opinion of a company nor gods.

Creating complex disparate mechanics, that combo unpredictably and level unevenly, will break the game. 1e, 2e, and 3e all failed because of disparate mechanics.

Compared to 4e, 5e tries hard to diversify the mechanics. But only so much can be done before making the game unplayable.

That said.


Rituals need to be something separate from spells. Lean into fairytales and so on, where rituals can be anything, do anything, with any prereq. Rituals are more like a magic item treasure. Follow whatever instructions. Anyone can attempt to perform a ritual.

No more than what any things that can be done "will break the game". I know it wouldn't be easy, but its possible.

nature of the beast, there are not perfect implementation on the plus side it is useful for making endless more content to sell so they should just do it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I played it a lot. There were a lot of samey powers. Many class features were literal copy-paste with different name, like the striker extra damage or the leader heal.

I mean, they weren't actually copy-paste in the latter case. Each one works differently. They have a common form. This would be like saying that every damage cantrip that does d8 damage (meaning, nearly all of them) is simply copy-pasted; in that sense that they're the same overall structure, sure, but that's intentionally ignoring the very relevant differences. Bards move allies around, for example. Warlords and Clerics could grow in different ways from basic powers. Shaman split healing between the main target and another near the Shaman's spirit--better "AoE" healers, you might say, but inferior single-target healers. Etc.

That I agree with. But I think the spells should still have a theme, both narratively and mechanically. So what is the wizard niche, sorcerer niche, warlock niche, bard niche?

It seems, to me, that the Wizard niche is (a) control spells and (b) "quirky" spells--whether they're "utility" or "useless" depends on perspective and, in no small part, creativity. Basically, a whole spell list made up of the things that every Wizard guide refers to as either DM-dependent or player-creativity-dependent. Not just obvious ones like sending or floating disk, but also other niche/weird/overly-complex things like rune of warding and leomund's secret chest.

There is no sorcerer niche--only sorcerer niches. That is, the niche should be defined by each subclass. Shadow sorcerers would have spells of illusion, of mimicry (e.g. the 3e line of "shadow conjuration"-style spells, where shadow-stuff turns illusions into partially-real effects), of manipulating sense and light and perhaps even death. Draconic sorcerers would have elemental spells, but also defensive and buffing spells--speed, strength, stamina, power--and spells of presence and awe, those that cow the minds of others, whether in awe or fear. Chaos sorcerers should emphasize variability (whether that be randomness, alteration of probability, or transformation), teleportation, and the dissolution of things.

Warlocks, meanwhile, should have a core of spells related to the transfer or mimicry of powers obtained from other sources, alongside patron-specific spells. In a sense, we already have some of this; spells like hellish rebuke are pretty clearly Warlock-focused. Really, what I'd want to see here is that the common Warlock spell list would look a little bit like it's stealing from the other spellcasters (not just arcane ones either)--like it's a quixotic assemblage of a few truly unique abilities and the rest being otherwise "signature" spells from other traditions. That gives mechanical weight to the idea that it's a magical get-rich-quick scheme.

All of these, and likewise other lists, should still have a few basic, low- to no-frills spells for dealing damage, because combat is one of the particularly emphasized parts of D&D mechanics. Sorcerers (and to a lesser extent Warlocks) should be the kings of damage-dealing; others (like Evoker Wizards) should be merely edging into that territory. Meanwhile, Wizard traditions that are all about those weird and quirky spells, like Divination, Illusion, and Abjuration, should generally be where Wizards are doubling down on their inherent strengths.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wizard fanboys complained so WOTC reverted back to 3e. But without splatbook bloat wizards became boring. And warlocks and sorcerers were underutilized.

I know you like to think that it's merely the "Wizard fanboys" fault that 4E wasn't embraced by more of the community... but that is such an simplistic take with little basis in truth that I don't know why you keep clinging to it. I assume you do it just to make yourself feel better to have someone to blame-- that it's all the fault of that one small group of people that the game didn't resonate, and now you rail against that group and their cause celebre any chance you get... but at some point you're going to have to accept that there were a lot more issues and a lot more people who didn't enjoy 4E for what it was beyond "Wizard fanboys".