D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Yaarel]

The solution is to differientiate the spell lists (at the very least) and preferrably to have classes use magic in ways other than just casting spells.

Warlock Invocations is a perfect example. How about NO spells for warlocks, just a huge list of magic-like powers? Best if none of these simply mirror an actual spell.

I'm not saying I know right now how to do this, but frankly there are too many spellcasters.

How you get spells, what ability score is used, etc. is really just fluff IMO. I haven't kept up on new spells added since Xanathar's, but in the stuff I have, there are over 430 spells usable by the full-casters: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.

Only 30% are unique to a single class, and over 40% are available to at least three full-casting classes!

I mean, really, how special can different classes feel if it comes down to:
I cast spells through music and song.
I cast spells given by the powers of my god(dess).
I cast spells provided by the force of nature.
I cast spells harnessed by the strength of my bloodline.
I cast spells bargained for with a mysterious entity.
I cast spells learned by toil and study of arcane secrets.

There is a disturbing trend IMO.

I know it isn't easy, and just calling different "powers" by different names isn't really what I mean.

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.

 

[ezo]

Creating complex disparate mechanics, that combo unpredictably and level unevenly, will break the game.

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

 

[Yaarel]

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

Consider psionics. It always sucked in earlier editions. Because people forced it to be incompatible mechanics.

Heh. In the case of 3e, the Psion actually worked so well and the rest of 3e was such a mechanically entangled and unfixable mess, the Psion served as a herald for the death of 3e.

 

[ezo]

Consider psionics. It always sucked in earlier editions. Because people forced it to be incompatible mechanics.

Well, no wonder we disagree. Psionics in 1E and 2E worked well IMO. I have no idea what "incompatible mechanics" you're referring to.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, no wonder we disagree. Psionics in 1E and 2E worked well IMO. I have no idea what "incompatible mechanics" you're referring to.

I have played a 1e game. I like the psionic flavor. My character rolled psionics.

No, 1e didnt work well. Not at all.

To roll randomly to see if ones character is so overpowered it destroys the game? That is idiotic mechanics! 1e psionics is clearly incompatible with functioning, sustainable, game engine. Heh, to be fair, everything in 1e is dysfunctional and unsustainable. It was a formative era. They didnt yet understand how an ecosystem of mechanics could work. It was all adhoc guesses and kluges.

 

[ezo]

I have played a 1e game. I like the psionic flavor. My character rolled psionics.

No, 1e didnt work well. Not at all.

To roll randomly to see if ones character is so overpowered it destroys the game? That is idiotic mechanics! 1e psionics is clearly incompatible with functioning, sustainable, game engine. Heh, to be fair, everything in 1e is dysfunctional and unsustainable. It was a formative era. They didnt yet understand how an ecosystem of mechanics could work. It was all adhoc guesses and kluges.

Well, it doesn't destroy the game. If you played more than "a 1E game", psionics in 1E was a double-edged sword. Unless you have great mental scores, and roll very lucky, getting psionics can put you in a world of pain quickly.

I've had only a few PCs with psionics after playing in 1E for several years, and only one of those PCs had the good scores and rolled well enough to get anything great. It was a boon to be certain! But it really didn't destroy the game or make that PC incompatible with other PCs or the rest of the game. Now, the other PCs barely got anything out of it, and when we encountered things like Intellect Devourers and Mind Flayers, those PCs were screwed.

Now, in 2E it became more of any issue with the Complete Psionicists Handbook. I had a multiclass Psionicist in 2E who was really powerful. He didn't destroy the game, either, but man it was crazy sometimes.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, it doesn't destroy the game. If you played more than "a 1E game", psionics in 1E was a double-edged sword. Unless you have great mental scores, and roll very lucky, getting psionics can put you in a world of pain quickly.

I've had only a few PCs with psionics after playing in 1E for several years, and only one of those PCs had the good scores and rolled well enough to get anything great. It was a boon to be certain! But it really didn't destroy the game or make that PC incompatible with other PCs or the rest of the game. Now, the other PCs barely got anything out of it, and when we encountered things like Intellect Devourers and Mind Flayers, those PCs were screwed.

Now, in 2E it became more of any issue with the Complete Psionicists Handbook. I had a multiclass Psionicist in 2E who was really powerful. He didn't destroy the game, either, but man it was crazy sometimes.

Heh, I prefer 4e and 5e whose designers understand what theyre doing.

 

[Yaarel]

@ezo

I am a fan of the 3e Psion. But I actually like the 5e Wizard mechanics more than the 3e spell points (psi points).

Now, a Short Rest spell point Warlock chassis is my favorite mechanics of all.

I appreciate 5e normalizing psionic mechanics. I still sorely miss a Psion class.

 

[Clint_L]

I could not disagree more about psionics in 1e. They were completely unbalanced and gave a huge advantage to whatever player was lucky enough to roll them (or cheated). Most folks I knew hated the rules for psionics, and they were barred from most campaigns and tournaments.

To this day I can't stand psionics in D&D, and 1e is a significant reason for that. I feel about psionics how Snarf feels about bards.

 

[ezo]

@ezo

I am a fan of the 3e Psion. But I actually like the 5e Wizard mechanics more than the 3e spell points (psi points).

Now, a Short Rest spell point Warlock chassis is my favorite mechanics of all.

I appreciate 5e normalizing psionic mechanics. I still sorely miss a Psion class.

I never played enough 3e to even know there was a Psion LOL!

I like the invocations of the Warlock. I've gone back and forth on short rest spell slot recovery.

Nothing I've see about psionics in 5E that appealed to me. I like the 1E idea where it was rare and random! It made it feel more special or unique.

I could not disagree more about psionics in 1e. They were completely unbalanced and gave a huge advantage to whatever player was lucky enough to roll them (or cheated). Most folks I knew hated the rules for psionics, and they were barred from most campaigns and tournaments.

My experience was completely 180 from yours, probably because we didn't "cheat" to get them. If you review the rules for it, you'll see that odds were if you were "lucky" enough to roll them you rarely got much. As I said upthread, a doubel-edged sword IME. Because of that, we had players who often didn't even want to try for them, knowing if they got them it would be more a curse than a blessing.

The few players I met who had issues with 1E psionics were often because they only experiences PCs with "super powerful psionics", (probably the result of fudging rolls I would guess), and the DM probably didn't understand all the rules so the players got away with more than was actually possible.