D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[MoonSong]

I can see why that would be a concern. But if it uses CON then it's basically being built off of everybody's secondary stat, maybe even tiertiary, and that means no more perfect synergy with the other CHA classes. You could also build the MC benefits around this universality.

My biggest objection is that Sorcerer is the original Charisma caster. It would take something away from the concept. Better to move all of the others away from Cha casting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

never played anything before 5e but i've often thought myself how it's a bit odd that that 5e sorcerer isnt innately a bit more sturdy and battle capable than the wizard if they don't have to spend all that time studying and have magic reinforcing them, a d8 hit die or something.

Yeah, it was a weird change that I've never fully agreed with.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is why I wish they would have just stuck with MU instead of trying to split it up. They tried to split up the MU into three different things, and messed it up completely. Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock use to just be level names, indicating what level you were. Warlock meant you were level 8, Sorcerer meant you were level 9, and Wizard was anything from 11 and onward. Warlock was the easiest they could have split from it, as warlocks from history have always been associated with making deals with devils or the devil himself. They had a rich history there and could have done a great class, but instead if feels like they got three different people working on it that had no clue what anyone was doing with the class. Sorcerers from history was anyone, including a person once called a Wizard, that used their magic for only bad things and harming people. Wizards in history were considered wise men that weren't clerics, but were blessed with abilities to use their magic for only good and helping people. WoTC could have easily played with the history of the two, instead they just decided to split MU and make a very small amount of changes and leave it at that. There is no real distinct different in them outside of the flavor text in how they come across their powers, and how they gain spells, that's pretty much it. Oh, and Wizards get the biggest spell list, but Sorcerer is not too far behind them in terms of having the second biggest spell list. Sure, Sorcerer gets the sorcerey points, but thats because without something like that, Wizard and Sorcerer would feel like playing the exact same class. it adds just enough to the class to make it feel like it's something different, even though it's really not. They could have had an easier time making something like Necromancer, Warlock, and leaving MU as it was. At least the three would feel very different. I mean, that's just my opinion when I read through the three classes, not saying it's right.

History would have been a TERRIBLE thing for them to base their class design on, because the further back you go the more every single magic user was truly about religion.

Warlocks made deals with "The Devil"? That means they operated in a Christian context, what were many devils in christian mythology? Other gods and spirits. So, many historical "warlocks" were just pagan priests.

Druids were pagan priests.

Many religious figures in early christianity such as Simon Magus were referred to as Magi or Magicians or Sorcerers.

About the only option you MIGHT have to avoid that connection would be Alchemists, but even many alchemists had heavy spiritual and religious views shaping their works.

This is WHY many many many fantasy depictions of magic-users become tied and indistinguishable from priests, because magic was done by the religious and spiritual the vast majority of the time, with the "bad magic" just being that done by other religious or spiritual sects.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My biggest objection is that Sorcerer is the original Charisma caster. It would take something away from the concept. Better to move all of the others away from Cha casting.

I can see it, but only because there isn't a good "willpower" stat.

If I had to have a fight to the death and Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks were in the arena and only two of them could have Charisma casting.... I'd give it to bards and warlocks. Narratively, I find it far easier to justify Wisdom (awareness) or Constitution (how much can your body handle) for Sorcerers, then justifying Intelligence for the other two.

 

[Mecheon]

This is why I wish they would have just stuck with MU instead of trying to split it up. They tried to split up the MU into three different things, and messed it up completely. Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock use to just be level names, indicating what level you were. Warlock meant you were level 8, Sorcerer meant you were level 9, and Wizard was anything from 11 and onward. Warlock was the easiest they could have split from it, as warlocks from history have always been associated with making deals with devils or the devil himself. They had a rich history there and could have done a great class, but instead if feels like they got three different people working on it that had no clue what anyone was doing with the class. Sorcerers from history was anyone, including a person once called a Wizard, that used their magic for only bad things and harming people. Wizards in history were considered wise men that weren't clerics, but were blessed with abilities to use their magic for only good and helping people. WoTC could have easily played with the history of the two, instead they just decided to split MU and make a very small amount of changes and leave it at that. There is no real distinct different in them outside of the flavor text in how they come across their powers, and how they gain spells, that's pretty much it. Oh, and Wizards get the biggest spell list, but Sorcerer is not too far behind them in terms of having the second biggest spell list. Sure, Sorcerer gets the sorcerey points, but thats because without something like that, Wizard and Sorcerer would feel like playing the exact same class. it adds just enough to the class to make it feel like it's something different, even though it's really not. They could have had an easier time making something like Necromancer, Warlock, and leaving MU as it was. At least the three would feel very different. I mean, that's just my opinion when I read through the three classes, not saying it's right.

See, I'm going to argue against this on the basis that the Magic User isn't a generic caster. It doesn't fill those other requests. Its too tied to referencing a dead and, let's be completely honest, basically irrelevant book series that's completely dropped out of pop culture.

Magic User was a terribly designed class from the get-go for trying to be generic. Its very specific the "You have a book" type of spellcaster, it should have never had sorcerer or warlock as level names because those things mean different things. Its like making Hoplite, Samurai and Fencer different levels of a Fighter class. You absolutely can see where one is coming from by doing it but also like.... Those are three really different things that could absolutely be dragged off into their own thing.

Because of how specific it is to "You use a spellbook", it can't even represent Daffy Duck as the Wizard.

 

[Minigiant]

I can see it, but only because there isn't a good "willpower" stat.

If I had to have a fight to the death and Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks were in the arena and only two of them could have Charisma casting.... I'd give it to bards and warlocks. Narratively, I find it far easier to justify Wisdom (awareness) or Constitution (how much can your body handle) for Sorcerers, then justifying Intelligence for the other two.

Okay I'll say it.

Paladin's Magic Ability score should be based on Oath. Some CHA, Some WIS, Some INT,
(Absorb Elements)
Some STR Some CON NEVER DEX
Oath of Glory Should be STRadin (It's Disney's Hercules the Subclass)
Oath of Redemption should be CONadin

Same with either Warlock OR Sorcerer but not both.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Okay I'll say it.

Paladin's Magic Ability score should be based on Oath. Some CHA, Some WIS, Some INT,
(Absorb Elements)
Some STR Some CON NEVER DEX
Oath of Glory Should be STRadin (It's Disney's Hercules the Subclass)
Oath of Redemption should be CONadin

Same with either Warlock OR Sorcerer but not both.

Minigiant’s paladin here vying to usurp the monk as the most MAD class around.

Also why can’t a champion of dedication to a cause be nimble and dexterous? Nothing says they have to be a slab of brute muscle

 

[ezo]

One thing I hate about the sorcerer is that they stole the inborn magical talent from the wizard.

I know this is rather late to ask, but where do you get this idea from? Wizard (i.e. Magic-Users) have never had any inborn magical talent that I am aware of...

 

[Minigiant]

Minigiant’s paladin here vying to usurp the monk as the most MAD class around.

Opposite.

Ideally a Paladin only cares about STR and their Oath Ability Score

So STR/CHA, STR/WIS, STR/INT, STR/CON, or STR/STR.

Also why can’t a champion of dedication to a cause be nimble and dexterous? Nothing says they have to be a slab of brute muscle

Fine. Play your Open Sea or Hunter paladin.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I know this is rather late to ask, but where do you get this idea from? Wizard (i.e. Magic-Users) have never had any inborn magical talent that I am aware of...

I believe they were referring to the wider pop cultural idea that ‘the ability to use magic is an innate gift a person may specifically have’ than any specific DnDism, where arcane magic it’s more treated as a science anyone can learn.